Medizone Intl. (fka MZEIQ)

[Tane61]

Asepticsure "... a true 6 log kill decontamination system"?

No one on the planet has ever developed a true 6 log kill decontamination system.

--------------------

2012

One of the problems we have with Xenex is that they have not published in a peer reviewed journal and it is difficult to find any hard microbiology data to support their claim that their system is "20 times better than normal cleaning". So based on available literature, I have three points to make:

1. If the best "normal cleaning" can achieve in a hospital under supervised conditions is a 2 log kill (latest published literature) and Xenex is "20 times better", then Xenex can achieve about a 3 - 3.5 log kill. For the record, and already published in the American Journal of Infection Control, AsepticSure can achieve a sustainable level of disinfection of at least 6 logs which is 1000 times greater than Xenex and 10,000 times greater than "normal cleaning" methods.

2. If Xenex's efficacy is achieved through ultra violet light, understand that the intensity of that light drops off as the square root of the distance between the light source and the surface being disinfected. Therefore, unless the unit is moved to many different locations in the room, the efficacy of the system is of questionable significance in the periphery.

3. Once again, if the primary effect of Xenex is achieved through UV light, then I would be very concerned about a "shadow effect". In other words, what about contaminants on the far side of a toilet or bed or curtains or TV's or around the corner in an L shaped room?

In conclusion, Xenex may be of some use in high traffic areas for partially disinfecting high touch surfaces, but AsepticSure cleans an entire room and everything in it including carpets, curtains, walls and ceilings. It can actually clean any room to a level equal to or higher than the surgical equipment used in operations, 6 -7 logs.

The bottom line? There is no comparison. Xenex is an inferior product that commands a cheaper price. You get what you pay for these days.

https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=74268808

----------

2012

Importantly, the AsepticSure™ system is proving equally effective in disinfecting carpets and drapes as well as hard surfaces to greater than 6 log kill (6-log is generally recognized within the scientific community as the standard for sterilization).

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/753772/000118518512000352/medizone-posam030812.htm

--------------------

2017

United States Patent

Example 10

Experiments conducted to simulate the problems commonly faced in most modern hospitals related to decontaminating textiles such as carpets and drapes have clearly demonstrated the superior efficacy of direct pressurized air flow over a more static gaseous environment. An apparatus as diagrammatically illustrated in the accompanying FIG. 5 was used. A chamber 100, closed while the experiments were in progress, contained near one end a frame 102 holding a layer (disc) 104 of fibrous drape material (sterile cotton gauze), impregnated with MRSA and dried so that a biofilm formed. Ozone rich atmosphere is fed into the chamber. An electrical fan 106 with rotary blades 108 was disposed 3 cm from the gauze, so as to blow gases within the chamber through the gauze at high velocity, to cause physical agitation of the gauze. A dish 110 containing an exposed, similarly impregnated gauze 112 was disposed near the other end of the chamber 100, so that it was exposed to essentially static atmosphere in the chamber. A control gauze, which was similarly impregnated but received no treatment, was also evaluated.

The results are reported in Table 1 below. In Table 1, columns A, B, C and D are the results at 10 fold serial dilutions, obtained by standard procedure. Results measured on gauzes subjected to physical agitation are recorded as "direct". Those on the gauzes in essentially static atmosphere are recorded as "indirect".

In all instances, the combination of 80 ppm ozone and 1% H.sub.2O.sub.2 at a relative humidity of 80% with an exposure time of 30 minutes proved superior to all other combinations including 1% H.sub.2O.sub.2 with no ozone and 80 ppm ozone with no H.sub.2O.sub.2. In these experiments the methodology utilized with respect to microbiological procedures was the same as that described above for other experiments. Accordingly it has been concluded that in order to achieve a 6-7 log bacterial kill in hospital environments wherein carpets and other textiles are commonly found, an ozone/H.sub.2O.sub.2 pressure applicator or physical agitator is essential. Based on the experiments provided and other research, the incremental improvement in bacterial kill achievable through a pressure applicator is in the order of 2-3 logs (100-1000.times. greater).

TABLE-US-00001 TABLE 1 C D E A B Ozone H202 EXP F G H I J K Run # Organism (PPM) (%) (min) Humidity Disc A B C D L Control MRSA 0 0 0 0 Control TNTC 180 2 0 1 MRSA 80 1 30 80 1 0 0 0 0 Direct 2 MRSA 80 1 30 80 2 77 11 2 1 Indirect 3 MRSA 0 0 60 80 3 TNTC TNTC 181 12 Direct 4 MRSA 0 0 60 80 4 TNTC 233 21 3 Indirect 5 MRSA 0 1 60 80 5 220 34 0 0 Direct 6 MRSA 0 1 60 80 6 245 112 0 0 Indirect 7 MRSA 0 1 90 80 7 134 10 2 0 Direct 8 MRSA 0 1 90 80 8 112 17 3 0 Indirect 9 MRSA 80 0 30 80 9 43 14 0 0 Direct 10 MRSA 80 0 30 80 10 112 15 3 0 Indirect 11 MRSA 0 1 90 80 11 86 12 0 0 Direct 12 MRSA 0 1 90 80 12 136 54 0 0 Indirect

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=9616145.PN.&OS=PN/9616145&RS=PN/9616145