Microbiological testing

  • Independent testing
    Envirolyte systems and generated solutions (anolyte and catolyte) have been put through extensive series of independent tests and on-site trials including hospitals, breweries, water systems and agricultural environments.

  • Safer world
    Being environmentally friendly, completely safe, non-toxic and non-irritant Anolyte is welcome where traditional chemicals fail to produce the desired results or can't be applied at all.

  • Better alternative
    The conclusions prove that Anolyte being a low-cost and powerful disinfectant is set to become the preferred solution for many sterilisation, disinfecting and water purification procedures.

 

I. Antibacterial activity

Testing of Anolyte against 2 bacterial isolates from the utarus of a mare undertaken by Capital Diagnostics, Scotland, UK.

S zooepidemicus

Bacterial counts

 

Exposure time

Dilution30 s1 min5 min10min20 min
102
103
104
105

Total viable count of inoculum > 5000 cfu/ml

 

E coli

Bacterial counts

 

Exposure time

Dilution30 s1 min5 min10min20 min
102
103
104
105

Total viable count of inoculum > 5000 cfu/ml

 

II. Antibacterial activity

Undertaken by Department of Laboratory Medicine and second department of Internal Medicine, Nagasaki University School of Medicine, Nagasaki, Japan

Anolyte microbial activity was tested against methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus, Staphylococcus epermidis, Serratia marcencens, Escheria coli, Pseudomonas auruginosa and Burkholderia cepacia which are important pathagenes.

The bactericidal properties of Anolyte were evaluated with three conventional disinfectants, including 0.1% chlorhexidine (Herbitane solution, ICI-pharma, Osaka, Japan), 0.02% povidine iodine (Isodine solution, Meiji Seika, Tokyo) and 80% ethanol (ethanol for disinfection, Maruisha Pharmaseutical Co. Ltd, Osaka). The selected concentrations represent those commonly used in solutions prepared for handwashing. All disinfectant solutions were mixed with sterile distilled water at the time of their use. Sterile distilled water was used as a control. The results are summarised in Table 1 and Table 2.

 

Table 1. Bactericidal effect of Anolyte inocolum 1.7 x 104 cfu/mL

BacteriaDisinfectant10 s60 s180 s
MSSA methicillin sensitive Staphylococcus aureusAnolyte
0.02% Povidine iodine
80% Ethanol
0.1% chlorhexidine
Control: distilled water
0
0
0
>500
>500
0
0
0
>500
>500
0
0
0
>500
>500
MRSA methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureusAnolyte
0.02% Povidine iodine
80% Ethanol
0.1% chlorhexidine
Control: distilled water
0
0
0
>500
>500
0
0
0
>500
>500
0
0
0
>500
>500
Staphylococcus epedermisAnolyte
0.02% Povidine iodine
80% Ethanol
0.1% chlorhexidine
Control: distilled water
0
0
0
>500
>500
0
0
0
>500
>500
0
0
0
0
>500
Pseudomonas aeruginosaAnolyte
0.02% Povidine iodine
80% Ethanol
0.1% chlorhexidine
Control: distilled water
0
0
0
41
>500
0
0
0
0
>500
0
0
0
0
>500
Escheria coliAnolyte
0.02% Povidine iodine
80% Ethanol
0.1% chlorhexidine
Control: distilled water
0
0
0
0
>500
0
0
0
0
>500
0
0
0
0
>500
Serratia marcencensAnolyte
0.02% Povidine iodine
80% Ethanol
0.1% chlorhexidine
Control: distilled water
0
0
0
>500
>500
0
0
0
27
>500
0
0
0
0
>500
Burkholderia cepaciaAnolyte
0.02% Povidine iodine
80% Ethanol
0.1% chlorhexidine
Control: distilled water
0
0
0
>500
>500
0
0
0
>500
>500
0
0
0
>500
>500

 

 

Table 2. Bactericidal effect of Anolyte inocolum 1.7 x 106 cfu/mL

BacteriaDisinfectant10 s60 s180 s
MSSA methicillin sensitive Staphylococcus aureusAnolyte
0.02% Povidine iodine
80% Ethanol
0.1% chlorhexidine
Control: distilled water
0
8
0
>500
>500
0
0
0
>500
>500
0
0
0
>500
>500
MRSA methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureusAnolyte
0.02% Povidine iodine
80% Ethanol
0.1% chlorhexidine
Control: distilled water
0
15
0
>500
>500
0
0
0
>500
>500
0
0
0
>500
>500
Staphylococcus epedermisAnolyte
0.02% Povidine iodine
80% Ethanol
0.1% chlorhexidine
Control: distilled water
0
0
0
>500
>500
0
0
0
>500
>500
0
0
0
>500
>500
Pseudomonas aeruginosaAnolyte
0.02% Povidine iodine
80% Ethanol
0.1% chlorhexidine
Control: distilled water
0
0
0
>500
>500
0
0
0
>500
>500
0
0
0
>500
>500
Escheria coliAnolyte
0.02% Povidine iodine
80% Ethanol
0.1% chlorhexidine
Control: distilled water
0
71
0
>500
>500
0
0
0
1
>500
0
0
0
0
>500
Serratia marcencensAnolyte
0.02% Povidine iodine
80% Ethanol
0.1% chlorhexidine
Control: distilled water
0
0
0
>500
>500
0
0
0
27
>500
0
0
0
0
>500
Burkholderia cepaciaAnolyte
0.02% Povidine iodine
80% Ethanol
0.1% chlorhexidine
Control: distilled water
3
>500
0
>500
>500
0
237
0
>500
>500
0
0
0
>500
>500

 

Conclusion: The number of bacteria was reduced below detection limit following incubation in Anolyte for 10s. The bactericidal activity of Anolyte was similar to that of 80% ethanol, but superior to that of 0.1 chlorhexidine and 0.02% povidine iodine. We conclude that Anolyte is a low cost but powerful disinfectant.

 

Sporicidal activity

Undertaken by Hospital Infection Research Laboratory, City Hospital NHSTrust, Birmmingham, UK.

Log10 spores remaining after exposure to Anolyte or 2% glutaraldehyde

Contact timeAnolyte2% glutaraldehyde
Pre disinfection challenge7.767.76
1 min4.847.63
2 min2.347.60
5min1.307.46
10 min7.19
20 min6.87
30 min6.34
1 hour2.75
2 hours

 

Conclusion: This study shows that Anolyte (ORP > 1100mV and pH 2.0-3.5) generated using equipment produced by the Envirolyte Industries International Ltd. was highly effective as a sporicidal agent. A 6 log10 reduction in test spores was achieved with freshly generated solution in 5 minutes. This is far more rapid than the widely used 2% glutaraldehyde.