nVIRO Shield™ Comparison to Other Commonly-Used Disinfectants | St. Louis

Factors of comparison between disinfectants:

  • Time between disinfectant being applied and organism to be killed
  • Residual effectiveness and the time required to repeat the process of disinfection
  • Selectivity of the chemical disinfectant on vegetative bacteria, spores, viruses, and fungi
  • Labor and time required to apply
  • Effects of chemical disinfectants on staff and others in the treated environment 

Disadvantages of commonly-used disinfectants:

Chlorine: Chlorine has broad antimicrobial activity, but is less effective against spore-forming organisms. It can also cause ocular irritation and burns to the gastrointestinal tract, and is corrosive to metal at high concentrations. Further, it has a very short shelf life, is typically mixer-dependent, and is often misused. Lastly, chlorine performs no residual protection.

Bleach: While bleach can be an effective sanitizer, it is not an effective disinfectant. This means that bleach reduces, but doesn’t necessarily eliminate, microbes from hard surfaces to levels considered safe by public health codes or regulations.

Alcohol: Alcohol provides the highest bactericidal effect when a 70% - 80% aqueous solution is used; the bactericidal action of 100% ethanol becomes lower. It is ineffective on spores, evaporates quickly, and has no residual effectiveness. Alcohol’s bactericidal effect decreases when used in low temperatures and its effects are generally short-lived. Finally, alcohol tends to be ineffective against many viruses.

Hydrogen Peroxide: Hydrogen peroxide is often preferred because it causes far fewer allergic reactions than alternative disinfectants. This product is no longer recommended for antiseptic use, as recent studies have shown it to be toxic to growing cells as well as bacteria. Also, hydrogen peroxide has a short shelf life with no residual protection.

Phenol: This disinfectant is corrosive to the skin, can be toxic to sensitive people, and has no residual effectiveness.

UV Light and HPV: All of the above disadvantages created the need to use Ultraviolet Light for disinfection; however, not only is UV Light carcinogenic, it is not effective for shadowed areas and has no residual effectiveness. Therefore, UV Light disinfection should not be used alone, but with the addition of chemical disinfection. UV is expensive, time-consuming, dangerous to occupants in the facilities being treated, and can be difficult to use. Continuous intermittent exposure to the materials used in UV Light treatment can become a serious health concern, and many pigments and dyes are affected by UV “photo tendering” causing yellowed and cracked materials and sealants.

 

NOTE: The nVIRO Shield™ system will provide long-lasting protection from the effects of UV damage. Both UV and HPV require patient protection and workers are removed during the application process, along with requiring long periods of use to be effective. These systems are costly and provide no residual efficacy, nor do they replace standard disinfection processes.

 

The nVIRO Shield™ System

Bacterial adhesion to surfaces, especially stainless steel and fabrics, is one of the major reasons for cross-contamination in many instances. This is why nVIRO Shield™ focuses its efforts on the creation of a pathogen control system that provides residual protection. The nVIRO Shield™ strategy focuses to inhibit biofilm formation by either killing the pathogen or preventing its adhesion. nVIRO Shield™ utilizes four different modes of action:

  • Biocidal broad spectrum fast kill, which consists of disrupting cell membranes that come into contact with the surface
  • Biofilm inhibition
  • Preventing surface adhesion
  • Residual efficacy

If you're interested in learning more about the Woodard nVIRO Shield™ system or would like to schedule a treatment for your home or business, complete our inquiry form or call 314-300-9567!

 


Add New Comment
Your Name
Email Address
Homepage
Comment
Human Verification 9 4 =