Essential Oil Extraction through Steam Distillation May 04, 2022
Sodium Metabisulphite vs. Campden Tablets April 01, 2022
Distillery Waste Management Plan January 18, 2022
Air Sanitising and Purification Technologies
“Ozone gas has been proven to kill the SARS coronavirus and since the structure of the new 2019-nCoV coronavirus is almost identical to that of the SARS coronavirus, it is relatively safe to say that it will also work on the new coronavirus, though it must be noted that there is only one current ongoing study in China at the Institute of Virology in Hubei with regards to this. Progress of that study has shown that it works. Additionally, there are more than 17 scientific studies that show Ozone gas is able to destroy the SARS coronavirus.”
Some of the key concerns about the new 2019-nCoV coronavirus is that the rate and types of transmission paths for this virus are extremely dangerous. According to a new study from the National Institutes of Health, CDC, UCLA and Princeton University scientists, published on March 17, 2020 NIH/National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases scientists found that severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was detectable in aerosols for up to three hours, up to 24 hours on cardboard and up to two to three days on plastic and stainless steel. The results provide key information about the stability of SARS-CoV-2, which causes COVID-19 disease, and suggests that people may acquire the virus through the air and after touching contaminated objects.
The use of ozone:
Although ozone gas should not be breathed in on a continuous basis, the gas is extremely effective at purifying air and surfaces including corona viruses. Preventing swine flu, controlling tuberculosis, stopping sick building syndrome and deodorizing and sanitising.
Corona virus and swine flu, like the common seasonal flu, spreads from person to person primarily through tiny airborne droplets released when an infected person coughs or sneezes. If you inhale these droplets when you are in close proximity to someone with the virus, there is a high risk that you can contract it as well.
Commonly Chlorine Dioxide is used for its oxidation effect where the wall of simple cellular microorganisms (e.g. bacteria) and the protein coating around non-cellular microorganisms (e.g. viruses) is ruptured. The three-dimensional structure of bonds in amino acid chains, is also “denatured”. Simple microorganisms cannot repair this damage and they die. (Note those complex large cells, such as human cells and animal cells are not affected in this manner).
Ozone gas has the same oxidising effect but is quicker and stronger than chlorine dioxide
Ozone has a very short half-life. In a typical ambient environment it is approximately 1 hour – in which case its concentration in air will halve every hour. Therefore, in a relatively short time, residual Ozone will completely disappear, as all “unused Ozone” (0 3) reverts back to diatomic oxygen (0 2). Therefore after the treatment and storage of the product there will be no chemical residue whatsoever. Chlorine Dioxide however leaves a definite chemical residue.
Ozone’s short half-life is unique amongst commercial oxidants, disinfectants and sterilants. One practical implication of this, is that it needs to be generated on-site, and cannot be purchased in bottles. Generating on site avoids Occupational Health and Safety issues associated with the transport, handling and storage of hazardous chemicals.
The normal oxidation potential of Ozone is approximately 1.5 times that of Chlorine or Chlorine Dioxide. Therefore, lower ppm concentrations are possible by using Ozone compared to Chlorine based oxidants. If Chlorine Dioxide is used at 150 ppm, then as a guideline 100-ppm of Ozone is equivalent (everything else held constant).
Ozone reacts up to 3000 times faster than chlorine based oxidants with organic matter such as bacteria. Chlorine Dioxide reacts very slowly by comparison and typically requires a long residence time whilst the product is “agitated” and gas/particulate mixing takes place. In the case of Ozone, good mixing and agitation is still required. Ozone, like most gaseous oxidants, acts on the surface of large particles, and mixing ensures it contacts these surfaces. However, the residence time itself is not required. Often, a long residence time is not practical in a processing line, as it is difficult or expensive to keep the product agitated for a long period of time. Therefore to counteract this, the concentration of Chlorine Dioxide is increased to very high levels such as 150 ppm, because the higher the concentration, the shorter the residence time required for the same oxidation effect. Ozone concentrations can thus be lower than Chlorine due to this residence time effect. A rule of thumb might be 1:2 to 1:6, although this depends very much on conditions.
The combination of Ozone’s greater oxidation strength and faster reaction time means that significantly lower concentrations can be used compared to Chlorine Dioxide.
Virtually all oxidants include trace elements of other substances (during their generation and their reaction). The presence of trace elements such as NO X’s in the case of Ozone is generally considered to be irrelevant in most commercial applications. It is for this reason and others that the USA FDA recently recognised ozone as having a “safe status” specifically for use in the food industry’, following exhaustive analysis by the relevant sponsoring bodies.
SOURCES and REFERENCES:
Gérard V. Sunnen, SARS and Ozone Therapy: Theoretical Considerations, http://www.triroc.com/sunnen/topics/sars.html (2003)
Ozone therapy: A clinical review
A. M. Elvis and J. S. Ekta
J Nat Sci Biol Med. 2011 Jan-Jun; 2(1): 66–70.
SARS: CLEARING THE AIR
Jerome J. Schentag, Pharm. D., Charles Akers, Ph.D., Pamela Campagna, and Paul Chirayath.
Thailand Medical news Feb 05, 2020 3 months ago
Development of a Practical Method for Using Ozone Gas as a Virus Decontaminating Agent
James B. Hudson ,Manju Sharma & Selvarani Vimalanathan
Pages 216-223 | Received 30 Jun 2008, Accepted 26 Nov 2008, Published online: 27 May 2009, https://doi.org/10.1080/01919510902747969