VIRUS BUSTER PORTABLE™ / AIRDOCTOR EFFECTIVENESS

 
 

Introduction

Air Doctor is a new Japanese technology utilizes the triple power of chlorine dioxide gas (CD) at low concentration (0.03 PPM) for prevention of airborne Infections, either bacterial, viral nor fungal infections. Air Doctor has A Worldwide patency certifcate for the new precise technology.

Chlorine Dioxide gas (CD)

Is a powerful anti-microbial agent was discovered in 1815 by sir Humphrey Davy, in England and it used since a long time till nowadays for water purifcation, food preservation and has a trust medical history in sterilization and sanitization process. In 1910 Lewis succeeded to discover the structure of Chlorine dioxide is a neutral chlorine compound. It is very different from elemental chlorine, both in its chemical structure and in its behavior. One of the most important qualities of chlorine dioxide is its high-water solubility, especially in cold water. Chlorine dioxide does not hydrolyze when it enters water; it remains a dissolved gas in solution. Chlorine dioxide is approximately 10 times more soluble in water than chlorine. it has density 2.4 times as Air, and it undergoes all the chemical reaction through oxidation which ensures its safety on human health by avoiding yielding of byproducts.

Mechanism of action

1- Chlorine dioxide (CD) reacts with cell wall of the microbial organism resulting in a high oxidation which can break up the cell wall and allowing (CD) to penetrate the microbial cell.

2-Chlorine dioxide (CD) breaks the Sulphide bond linking amino acids of proteins that causes denaturation of bacterial cell proteins and thus stops reproduction and microbial growth.

3-Chlorine dioxide (CD) causes denaturation of (RNA) genetic code of microbes to prevent microbial resistance The preparation method Traditionally, chlorine dioxide for disinfection applications has been made from sodium chlorite or the sodium chlorite–hypochlorite method:

2 NaClO2 + 2 HCl + NaOCl → 2 ClO2 + 3 NaCl + H2O

In 1999 a team of scientists has discovered a new way to get ClO2 gas by impregnation of Zeolite by using sodium chloride and it was a gate for a new technology foe using of chlorine dioxide in different felds particularly, the medical feld. In 2009, Ogata did several tries for generating chlorine dioxide by mixing sodium chlorite with natural zeolite, in 2013, Ogata succeeded in generating chlorine dioxide by this method with concentration of 0.03 PMM which is the safe concentration approved by WHO, FDA and EPA. And this is the new Japanese technology used known as AIR DOCTOR. \ Air Doctor is good for 30 Days once opened and can be used for Kids, pregnant women, elderly people, Immunocompromised patients, Doctors, Nurses, travelers and during Hajj and Ummra.

Contents

I. Biological effcacy of chlorine dioxide II. Impregnation of zeolite. III. US Patent of Air Doctor technology. IIII-Japan Anti-viral effect. V-Chlorine dioxide generation formulation evaluation test of bacterioplankton suppressing performance. VI- Inactivating performance evaluation of the virus VII- Inactivating performance evaluation of the cedar pollen allergen. IIX- Field-Test Air-Doctor-Portable IX chlorine dioxide deodorization effect post kidney transplantation. X. Japan viral test.

Deodorant Sanitization with Chlorine Dioxide power for prevention of respiratory infection post living Kidney ransplant. Issa kawalit, Abbas El-Katib, Wala’a Mdereis, Ali Habib

Abstract

Respiratory infections cause signifcant morbidity and mortality in patients post living kidney transplant. These pathogens are easily spread from asymptomatic and/or symptomatic personal to immunocompromised patients, and literature review of deodorant sanitization with chlorine dioxide power for prevention of infection post kidney transplant is not suffcient. The Arab Renal Care Group Quality Assurance Committee began a deodorant sanitization with chlorine dioxide power initiative for kidney transplant patients. The purpose of our initiative was to assess the impact of deodorant sanitization with chlorine dioxide power implementation on respiratory infection in all kidney transplant patients. We hypothesized that implementing it would reduce the number of respiratory infection post kidney transplant. We performed a retrospective study involving all patients underwent successful living kidney transplant in the last 4 years. In the last year, all patients were advised to use the deodorant sanitization with chlorine dioxide power in the frst 6 months post living kidney transplant. Primary endpoint was incidence of respiratory infection after implementation. The 1-year incidence of respiratory infection in the pre- implementation period was 7 out of a total of 43 patients vs. 2 out of 36 patients after implementation. The difference in incidence of respiratory infection within the two-time intervals was noted to be statistically signifcant. Our quality initiative demonstrated that deodorant sanitization with chlorine dioxide power is an infection control modality that may provide beneft to kidney transplant patient in the high-risk period post-transplant. Further studies are required to support the effectiveness of our implementation.

Introduction

Outcome and survival after solid-organ transplantation improved signifcantly in the last 10 years, leading to a need for new and effective preventive measures to maintain general health (1). Immunosuppressive regimens put these patients at higher risk of lifethreatening infections. Protective measures including face mask, prophylactic antiviral and anti-bacterial drugs can prevent disease and decrease the replication and dissemination of infectious microorganisms especially in the frst 3 to 6 months post kidney transplant Vaccine preventable diseases account for a signifcant proportion of morbidity and mortality in transplant recipients and cause adverse outcomes to the patient and allograft. Dead-vaccines can be administered post-transplant, however, the effcacy, safety, and protocols of several vaccines in this patient population are poorly understood. Due to immunosuppression regimens, several questions arise. First, are vaccinations effective when administered after transplantation, in both the early and late periods? Second, what are the side effects of vaccines in immunosuppressed patients and what is their impact on graft function? The main theoretical co wed signifcantly

lower antibody titers in kidney transplant recipients vaccinated within 6 months of transplantation when compared to healthy control suggesting the limited beneft of infuenza vaccine in the frst 6months(8). A Recent device that uses deodorant sanitization with Chlorine Dioxide power is being recommended as airborne protective device to prevent against respiratory infection without side effects. In the year 2018 we started recommending the uses of this device to our patients immediately post living kidney transplant up to 6 months and then we did a retrospective review study comparing the results to the previous 3 years.

Purpose of the study

Evaluating the use of deodorant sanitization with Chlorine Dioxide power as extra protective measure in preventing airborne respiratory infection in the frst 6 months post living kidney transplant during which the immune-response to vaccine is expected to be low.

Materials and methods

We reviewed medical records of Living Related Kidney Transplant patients treated by our Arab Renal Care Group in Jordan for at least 6 months post-transplant since 2015 and recorded the number of respiratory infections developed in the frst 6 months post kidney transplant. We then compared the results to year 2018 when we started recommending the use of the deodorant sanitization with chlorine dioxide power as protective measure to lower rate of respiratory infection post kidney transplant.

The deodorant sanitization device with Chlorine Dioxide power

Gas-generating devices of chlorine dioxide (ClO2) are used as deodorant of rooms. It happened to use a commercial tabletop deodorant canister that releases extremely lowconcentration ClO2 gas in a school classroom as deodorant. It was found retrospectively and unexpectedly that during a period of 38 consecutive school days the rate of school children absent from the school was markedly lower (1.5%) in a classroom where the ClO2 device was placed than that (4.0%) in a classroom where it was not placed. The percentages of absenteeism between these classrooms (1.5% vs. 4.0%) were signifcantly (p < 0.00001) different. The predominant causes of absenteeism during the period were common cold and infuenza. Judging from the known viricidal activity of ClO2, our unexpected fnding in the school classrooms strongly suggest the usefulness of extremely low-concentration ClO2 gas to prevent respiratory viral diseases in semi-closed areas, such as theaters, hospitals and aircraft, without necessitating evacuation.

Patient’s Data

For this retrospective analysis, data of 184 adult living kidney transplant recipients were collected during January 2015 to December 2018 from our patients transplant medical records in Amman Jordan (Figure1). All patients diagnosed with Respiratory Infection had a Chest x ray and few patients had undergone chest CT scans.

Figure 1 Patients Demographics

Air doctor- Virus buster portable - air purifier

Clinical Data

The clinical diagnosis of pulmonary infection based on clinical respiratory symptoms and signs, imaging fndings (chest radiography and/or CT) with or without positive microbiological tests or pathologic fndings. Clinical symptoms and signs included fever, productive cough, chest suffocation and dyspnea. Pathogenic examination included specimens (blood, sputum, throat swabs) culture for bacteria and fungus, serum concentrations measure for cytomegalovirus (CMV) antibodies (both IgM and IgG), and quantitative plasma polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for CMV DNA.

Results

The 1-year incidence of respiratory infection in the pre- implementation period in 2017 was 7 out of a total of 43 patients vs. 2 out of 36 patients after implementation in 2018. So, the person year incidence was 11.11 cases per 100 people –year after implementing the use of the device compared to 12.37 cases per 11 people ear before the implementation. (Figure 2) The difference in incidence of respiratory infection within the two-time intervals was noted to be statistically signifcant

Figure 2. Comparing the Respiratory Infection in Kidney Transplant patient

Air doctor- virus buster portable - air purifier

Conclusion

The study demonstrated that deodorant sanitization with chlorine dioxide power is an infection control modality that may provide beneft to kidney transplant patient in the high-risk period post-transplant without reported side effects. It decreases the incidence of respiratory infection especially in the frst 6 months when the immune-response is expected to be low and risk of respiratory infection is high. Further studies are required to support the effectiveness of our implementation.

References

1) Zeldin, G. A., J. Maygers, A. Klein, and P. J. Thuluvath. 2001. Vaccination, screening for malignancy and health maintenance of the liver transplant recipient. J. Clin. Gastroenterol. 32:148-150.
2) Wagner, C. R., and J. D. Hosenpud. 1993. Enhanced lymphocyte proliferative responses to donor-specifc aortic endothelial cells following infuenza vaccination. Transpl. Immunol. 1:83- 85.
3) Grabenstein, J. D. 2001. Immunization and organ transplant donors and recipients. Pharm. Pract. Manage. Q.20:11-22
4) Blumberg, E. A., J. Fitzpatrick, P. C. Stutman, F. G. Hayden, and S. C. Brozena. 1998.
Safety of infuenza vaccine in heart transplant recipients. J. Heart Lung Transplant. 17:1075- 1080.
5) Kobashigawa, J. A., Warner- L. Stevenson, B. L. Johnson, J. D. Moriguchi, N. Kawata, D. C. Drinkwater, and H. Laks. 1993. Infuenza vaccine does not cause rejection after cardiac transplantation. Transplant. Proc.25:2738-2739
6) Acott, P. D., S. H. Lee, H. Bitter-Suermann, J. G. Lawen, and J. F. Crocker. 1996. Infection concomitant with pediatric renal allograft rejection. Transplantation 62:689-691.
7) Burbach, G., U. Bienzle, K. Stark, N. Rayes, R. Neuhaus, S. Serke, H. Engelmann, W. Kunzel, G. Turk, and P. Neuhaus. 1999. Infuenza vaccination in liver transplant recipients. Transplantation 67:753-755.
8) Birdwell, KA, Ikizler, MR, Sannella, EC, et al. Decreased antibody response to infuenza vaccination in kidney transplant recipients: A prospective cohort study. Am J Kidney Dis 2009; 54:112– 121
9) Berg JD, Matin A, Roberts PV (1982). Effect of antecedent growth.
10) conditions on sensitivity of Escherichia coli to chlorine dioxide. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 44: 814-819.
11) Betancourt WQ, Rose JB (2004). Drinking water treatment processes for removal of Cryptosporidium and Giardia. Vet. Parasitol. 126:219-234
12) Ginsberg J, Mohebbi MH, Patel RS, Brammer L, Smolinski MS, Brilliant L (2009). Detecting infuenza epidemics using search engine query data. Nature 457: 1012-1014.
13) Gordon G, Kieffer RG, Rosenblatt DH (1972). The chemistry of chlorine dioxide. In: Progress in Organic Chemistry. vol. 15. Lippaer SJ (eds), Wiley Interscience, New York.
14) Loesche WJ, Kazor C (2002). Microbiology and treatment of halitosis. Periodontol. 2000l. 28: 256-279.
15) Moran T, Pace J, McDermott EE (1953). Interaction of chlorine dioxide with four: certain aspects. Nature 171:103-106.
16) Morino H, Matsubara A, Fukuda T, Shibata T (2007). Inhibition of hyphal growth of the fungus Alternaria alternata by chlorine dioxide gas at very low concentrations. Yakugaku Zasshi 127: 773-777.
17) Roller SD, Olivieri VP, Kawata K (1980). Mode of bacterial inactivation by chlorine dioxide. Water Res. 14:635-641.
18) Simonet J, Gantzer C (2006). Degradation of the Poliovirus 1 genome by chlorine dioxide. J. Appl. Microbiol. 100: 862-870.
19) Zoni R, Zanelli R, Riboldi E, Bigliardi L, Sansebastiano G (2007).
20) Investigation of virucidal activity of chlorine dioxide, experimental data on feline calicivirus, HAV and Coxsackie B5. J. Prev. Med. Hyg. 48:91-95

Monitoring Test on Air Doctor Portable

11th September 2019
KIYOU JOCHUGIKU CO.,Ltd.
Japan Quality Control Division

Infuenza virus infection spreads via an aerosol from the human respiratory system. We have conducted a feld test to verify if the infection can be effectively prevented by using Air Doctor Portable.

  • Specimen: Air Doctor Portable
  • Period: January 2019 thru February 2019
  • Target Age: 6 thru 12 years old (Elementary School Children from the Ono Elementary School, Kainan, Wakayama)
  • Number of Subjects (Children):
  • Children with Air Doctor Portable: 178 from 7 classes
  • Children without Air Doctor Portable: 83 from 4 classes
  • Method: 261 Children from 11 classes were frst divided into 2 groups; 178 children from 7 classes and 83 children from 4 classes. Then only the frst group of 178 children were instructed to wear Air Doctor Portable all the time while they are at school and asked to try to wear the product as much as possible even after school. 2 months later, the rate of infection between those two groups was compared.
  • Results: It was confrmed that the rate of infection was less than 9% for the group with Air Doctor Portable and a range of 19% - 80% for the other group with no Air Doctor. This leads to the conclusion that wearing an Air Doctor Portable at school is effective in the prevention of infection, while wearing time of the product outside school is unknown.

Group of Children who have worn Air Doctor Portable

You can use the following document for more study and proof :

Air doctor Virus Buster Portable™.PDF

 

Copyright ©All rights reserved | Developed By Storm Park