What claims have you established and have lab tests to back up?

​

The main claim is that we have a system that allows for the long term remediation of dangerous micro organisms. The system uses an EPA registered GREEN disinfectant as its first step to sanitize and then a long lasting "permanent" photocatalytic coating is applied to those sanitized surfaces to inhibit growth thereafter as long as the surface is some kind of light.   The other benefits that can be achieved with the system in addition to microorganism control are air purification  (ie removing toxic gasses and molds from the air), Deodorization (as the coatings remove organic odors) and creating self cleaning surfaces  (by oxidizing the pollutants that fall on treated surfaces).

Including – effectiveness – length of proven effectiveness?

​

We have several ways of proving efficacy in field tests and in the laboratory.  OGW grows its own strains of safe bacteria to enable these tests.  OGW uses odor sensors and like many Health inspectors, ATP testers to show real world effectiveness.  The length of effectiveness has to do with the abrasion a treated surface receives, so for example a painted drywall would last until the next time it is painted or as much as a decade but a seat of a chair may wear off in a year.  We will recommend a maintenance program that allows random testing and touchup reapplication as necessary.  Because the products have no odor or toxicity they can be applied while others are present.

​

Has it been EPA approved in all 50 states? – documented?    The first step cleaner-Yes Or do you just claim EPA registered products?  

​

The first cleaner/disinfectant step is registered and that registration took months/years of approvals and independent testing that showed the efficacy against specific microorganisms and the safety, this was how it was approved for use on food prep surfaces and children's toys and furniture and how the specific micro organisms are listed on the labeling of the cleaner. 

The coating is exempt from EPA regulation in that it is covered by the "treated article exemption".  First, the main ingredient is already approved for human consumption and has been for decades as a whitener in non-fat milk, the hard candy coating of chewing gum and in toothpastes.  We do not make claims of remediation with the long lasting coating.  Secondly, it is an air purification/ deodorization coating that inhibits the growth of organisms on treated surfaces. We do not sell it as a pesticide so we don't make claims to that effect or have requirements of EPA approval.  We use either no or very low vVOC binders so we know we are environmentally friendly.

 

Lab test results – proven pathogens killed, time of – documented results?

​

The labeling of our cleaner states kill times from 30 seconds to no more than two minutes but these are definitely longer than any lab test would show it takes to kill. However, our in house tests using ATP testers shows almost instantaneous killing.  To answer the questions as it relates to our PureLife™ coatings is a little more difficult. This is because the kill rate will depend on several factors.  First factor is the strength of the product; we formulate the coatings to specific needs and uses and we do this by increasing or decreasing the quantity active nanoparticles in the coating solution.  This higher the particle count the more and quicker the oxidation will occur, so our PureLife™ Plus is more than twice as powerful as our standard PureLife™.    

The second variable is the strength of the light source; the higher the energy the faster the reaction and oxidation.    Many of the tests that have been run relate to the reduction in airborne gasses in a room that has been treated and those tests are available to you.  We know that under sunlight the oxidation is less than one second.  We have many means of proving efficacy but the variables have to be set to give specific results of kill times on microorganisms.

​

Application process-

Why is this product better than a germicidal bomb that lasts for days , weeks? – MSS has been presented a germicidal

bomb that works for days or weeks to kill viral, bacteria, pathogens and is human safe – green- and can be used in operating rooms to public areas, etc.

​

We have done some research into those “bombs” and here is what we have found.  Almost all of them are mainly ethyl alcohol which is a high VOC product and thus not only bad for the environment but also extremely flammable.  Ours are not either.  They also almost all contain chemicals that are known to cause cancer.    The cleaning step of our system has residual killing effect for at least 24 hours and is safe enough to be used on children’s toys/furniture and food contact surfaces.

 

What kills the germs?

 

There is a photo catalytic reaction that causes an oxidation of the outer membrane of cell walls of microorganisms that are organic  (most of them are of course). The puncturing of the cell wall causes it to leak and die.  The conversion of the micro organism is to a very small amount of water and carbon dioxide.     This method of killing, unlike the typical pesticide/germicidals including the “bombs” can’t be stopped by mutation of the organism.  We have been called into places where approved and recommended germicidals were no longer effective against certain problems; in that one case it was Lysteria. The H1N1 and other mutations to come won’t be able to get around the oxidative effects under proper conditions.
> > Photo oxidizing agent? – life span proven

Being a photocatalyst the coating never deactivates or is used up.  It will only become inactive from firm abrasion removing it from a surface or the absence of light.  This means that on the average treated wall/ceiling/light fixture the life will be until being painted over or replaced in most cases. with lab tests? Over what time span?

 

What testing and labs have done the testing and results to prove claims?

 

While we and our partners have used independent labs to verify some of the properties, Tio2 coatings have been proven effective for decades in other countries and there are countless university and independent studies that confirm the effectiveness.  China got SARS under control a few years ago using Ti02 coatings for example.  We have a very different proprietary form of the proven product that has major advantages of safety and effectiveness.  While we have lab tests that show specific data under specific conditions we would be happy to design tests specific to uses that are of interest to you.  There is plenty of scientific equipment available to do this.  However, if you want a specific lab test, we will be happy to coordinate, but you will need to cover the expense.

 

Seems to be potentially cost prohibitive when claims don’t address length of ‘re-application” to high traffic areas. 

 

I would need to know what you consider “high traffic” in terms of the type of abrasion that occurs to them to answer this better.  The majority of surfaces that are used in construction can be bonded to quite well but there are a few that are more challenging due to their extreme gloss or hydrophobicity.  For some of our products, like our PureLife Self Cleaning Comfort Grabs™ we have tests that show thousands of grabs and no lowering of effectiveness and this was the case even after washing.  So for some high traffic areas the grabs may be a better fit.  But the majority of surfaces will last for many years and as explained above really theoretically as long as they are not painted over or replaced.  It is impossible to give one blanket expectation with the use of the products when there are so many applications with different abrasive conditions.    The PL System cleaner may also be used in conjunction with those high traffic areas and as mentioned above is much safer for the facility and the staff/patients.

 

Do you need a NDA to disclose the actual science specifics?

​

Yes and No, for the specifics of our advantages, yes; to research the idea of Tio2 coatings in general and how they are and have been used worldwide for almost 2 decades, no.