AD (Atmospheric Disinfection) The Verdict

Published on Friday, 10 September 2010 16:24

By Mark Stephens

Thank you for reading and providing intriguing comments and inquiries to the recent AD interview between F10’s Mark Stephens and Inov8’s Adrian Turner. While you may continue to post comments or questions, this writing is intended to summarise the interview and address your input, with the added benefit of additional research. Please know that the perspectives reflected here is the personal opinion only of an individual that has worked in the technology and Life Science sector since the late ‘80s. The review’s perspective is from the AD as a lifestyle product not a medical device.

Mark Stephens, of the F10 Group, recently met up with Mike Gross, MBA, Marketing and Product Management, who specialises in the Biomedical arena, to review the AD devise article and subsequent discussion that followed: http://tiny.cc/customurlinov8

Mike has kindly reviewed the article and provided us with his personal thoughts on the technology and its future, as part of our “Verdict”:

Underlying Technology

Inov8 advises the key to the AD machine is the controlled, intermittent disbursement of their hydroxyl radical formula that destroys bacteria, viruses, and fungi in the air. External research reports sometimes refer to this area of science as ozone or sunshine cleansing. Most are concepts only or experimental and none apply the technology of the AD. When the AD’s hydroxyl radicals interact with the airborne enemies a reactive chain results – molecules in the surface of the bacteria or virus coming in contact with the hydroxyl radicals replicate, releasing more hydroxyl radicals – resulting in the killing of the harmful elements and cleansing the air. The AD is indicated to reproduce the same disinfection process that occurs naturally in open air that cannot occur, naturally, within indoor spaces.

As your responses indicated, not everyone is convinced the technology is effective or more accurately safe, viable concerns. One contributor inquired if long-term animal studies had been commissioned and another voiced concerns regarding the damaging effects of hydroxyl radials on the life maintaining macromolecules within all humans. While no specific evidence of animal studies was found, beginning in 2000 numerous studies have been conducted by reputable entities such as Porton Down’s UK government and military science park’s aerobiology/biosafety unit, Durham University’s Wolfson Institute and at Leeds University’s biosafety chamber. Each organisation testing in a slightly different way. Each entity proved the technology’s efficacy with 99.999% of all pathogens destroyed within less than one hour.

Despite a quote such as “We have to let the science do the talking because when you look at it as a layperson, it sounds like snake oil,” Glenn Cooper, a City financier in THE INDEPENDENT, Sunday June 14, 2009 business interview, the consensus of the labs above can leave little doubt of the AD’s effectiveness in killing harmful pathogens. Moreover, each of the studies also reported the AD was safe. Still further support for safety and efficacy may be interpreted by the trial currently in process of only three selected products, one being the AD, initiated by the Smart Solutions for HCAI, a national programme run on behalf of the Department of Health and NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency (NHS PASA) and supported by the National Innovation Center (NHS). The programme aims to identify new technologies generated by businesses in healthcare or other commercial sectors that are not widely adopted within the NHS.

Further investigation into the AD technology’s safety, as reported by independent testing, indicate the unique bowl and shield release combined with the cartridge’s natural olefins, consisting primarily of limonene – commonly used in household air-fresheners – results in no increase in ozone in any area used. Reports indicate that if the device did increase ozone levels in enclosed (indoor) spaces, this could result in potentially negative health issues as noted previously by the contributor.

Market Opportunity/Size

The potential market opportunity for the AD may be one of its greatest appeals. Three contributors essentially addressed this in your posts. One inquired if the technology had been tested for effectiveness on the current international Swine Flu virus. Another noted the great need for a solution in high use and human concentration areas such as airplanes, trains, buses, and buildings. The third sizing it up from an ROI perspective relating to the device’s potential to reduce sick days in work environments. Combine the three differing views and it appears demand encompasses every indoor space, literally. The only obvious limitation in to it is the practicality of the devices current design. We will delve into the design more in a subsequent section.

Still referring to the opportunity and in response to your questions, according to Inov8, the answer is yes to the AD’s effectiveness in killing the H1N1 Swine Flu through its air disinfection process. In response to and annual sick days companies suffer, according to the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), in the U.S. along one billion people suffer from colds each year. Further, according to two research studies, RA Garibaldi (1985) and Blandino Simasek (2007), again for the U.S. alone 150 million workdays are missed annually as a result of employees suffering from a cold. Add another 126 million workdays missed by parents staying home with sick children and the economic impact attributed solely cold-related work loss exceeds $20 billion (₤12.8 billion) annually. How’s that for market demand?

ROI is difficult to calculate but here is some information that may allow you to make your own determination. The advertised area of effective coverage of the AD is 300 cubic meters, although in speaking with a business owner who has been using the AD for nearly six months, his single unit is effectively covering a somewhat larger area, approximately 150 square feet. The retail price of a single AD is $784 (₤500), volume discounts as reflected in deal with a large, upscale Dubai hotel were indicated to be less than half that amount. The refillable replacement cartridge is $63 (₤40) and Inov8’s website indicates they last approximately one month. Yet, the user indicated they received a newer cartridge reported by Inov8 to last three months and actually lasted nearly six.

While not in anyway a formal study, the user of the AD identified above, indicated stellar results. The office reported that during the nearly nine months of using the AD they experience no office illnesses until the recent period. Within the last two weeks they reported three people with a stomach bug and six people with cold symptoms. These results would be disappointing save for the manager being informed the AD’s canister had provided repeated warning of expiration and then shut down approximately three weeks prior. Could this be a placebo effect or was the AD that effective?

Strengths

From this author’s perspective, one of the AD’s advantages is that it does not require the room/space’s air to be drawn into a processed or filtered (e.g. ultraviolet light, ozone, HEPA, etc.) device. Many of the competitive devices and technologies, discussed next, utilise these filtering processes. The AD device’s small form factor (405 mm or less than 2 ft. tall) is a strength. Conversely, while the form factor may be advantageous in most business office environments, in this author’s opinion, it may be a weakness in high traffic areas. This view was supported in a picture on Inov8’s website relating to one of the successful hospitals studied. The AD device had been mounted (strapped) to a wall, obviously an effort to get it off the floor where, in that type of an environment, it would be considered a trip hazard. In the U.S. the primary healthcare governing body, The Joint Commission, would issue a citation for any device of this form factor sitting on the floor in traffic area. Yet, as initially indicated, this is not an issue in standard business work areas.

The key strength of the AD in this author’s opinion is the device’s harmful bacteria killing efficacy. Given it is safe, killing the pathogens in indoor air seems the best possible solution. The device’s technology kills airborne pathogens before they are transferred from one individual to another during simple breathing and exacerbated when coughing or sneezing. Killing the airborne pathogens also keeps the live pathogens from landing on surfaces in work areas and being transferred by touch, the second common method of virus transmission.

Weaknesses/Threats

One contributor inquired about competitive offerings, citing BioQuell’s Clarus. Naturally, given the huge market opportunity and need for air purifying or cleaning devices, there are many competitors vying for the market space. BioQuell’s solution is based on depositing a layer of Hydrogen Peroxide Vapor (HPV), a bio-decontaminate over all surfaces in a room. Thus, it targets disinfection of surfaces without requiring wiping. The device requires the space to be treated be closed to beings during treatment. Thus, putting the space out of commission for a period and has no continuous airborne benefit during everyday use.

Other potential competitors include inorganic anti-microbial-coated steel being used in the building of air handlers to deter the growth of microbes within building HVAC systems. The AirManager solution strives to clean the air using Close Couple Field Technology (CCFT), which is reported to be a contained and safe electrical field that kills, destroys and breaks down airborne pathogens, contaminants and toxins. The device requires that the room’s air be drawn through the device’s controlled chamber to provide the required safety. Another solution is the Medixair UV light air sterilizer. It is based on the fundamental principles of Ultraviolet Germicidal Irradiation. While the technology appears sound and safe, given their units design that protects against harmful UV propagation, for air to be cleaned it also requires the air be drawn through the machine. This technology is similar to the AD in the sense that the technology is also striving to mimic the natural cleansing capability of the outdoors through solar photocatalytic reaction – another way of saying cleaning the air with sunshine. UV-based devices are also identified to have odor control benefits and are being introduced for testing at waste treatment plants. Still another is the Eco Air System. It applies a cold plasma solution designed to promote clean and safe indoor environments through the delivery of activated oxygen. Installed directly into HVAC systems, it uses radio waves to convert O2 to O3 or activated oxygen. However, while reported to kill bacteria the product is specifically marketed as ‘killing mold and fungus, and other pollutants,’ not airborne pathogens and viruses such as H1N1.

Last, according to Robert Dunn, head of DVI Security Systems a New York-based facility security consulting firm, HEPA filters are capable of removing up to 99.999% of microbial particles down to 0.3 microns in size as well as chemical gas and vapors. This equates to microbial particles including bacteria, pollen, and mold spores. Yet, a HEPA filter by itself has zero percent efficiency in stopping or preventing the spread of viruses or gaseous chemical compounds. Plus, any filter-based solution requires filter handling, replacement, and environmentally safe treatment prior to discard. This creates ongoing opportunity for human error through the filter becoming clogged, replacement, and treatment.

Conclusion

This author believes the AD’s technology provides a viable solution to an overwhelming international market need, cleaning indoor air spaces in work areas where we humans concentrate and spend the majority of our waking time. The author believes the current AD device’s form factor is ideal for common business office and similar environments. Yet, it is not conducive to large business, building, or other spaces that would be better suited by incorporation into building air handlers.

The difficulty the company will continue to face in marketing the device rests on the inability of customers to see the device’s effectiveness, the snake oil fear. Despite this, given the repeated effectiveness of the device and its underlying technology, as reported by numerous, highly regarded organizations, combined with the worldwide demand for protection against airborne and surface pathogens, this author believes the AD will do quite well.

In closing, as noted by two contributors rightly concerned about the safety of the AD’s technology, the author believes the company should either contract long-term safety studies or publish those that many already exist. While this author did not find any, given the underlying technology has been studied for well over 40 years, there is a fair probability they may exist. Published results in the area of safety supported by ongoing reports of what appears to be undisputed efficacy will help to alleviate the fears of potential prospects.


View all articles in this section