(087) 278 2155 / (01) 885 3392 info@dwdecontamination.ie
Select Page

Our Technology

Vehicle & Premises Decontamination 

About Vector Fog

POWERFUL AND DURABLE ULV COLD FOGGER C100+ WITH ADJUSTABLE DROPLET SIZE. WHAT CAN THIS FOGGER DO?

As with the new C150, the new 2015 C100+ ULV cold fogger has been redesigned to offer the ultimate in fogging performance. It is one of the most powerful and durable ULV machines of its size in the market. This fogger can produce a powerful flow rate between 30-60 LPH and can easily cover an area of 100 m2 in less than a minute. With an adjustable droplet size between 5-50 microns and spray distance of up to 8 metres at an angle of up to 80°, this fogger performs the most demanding of jobs with ease.

Read more

What are the benefits of Fogging?

  • Large areas can be decontaminated quickly.
  • Ensures all areas are decontaminated including hard to reach areas and nooks and crannies or areas missed during manual cleaning.
  • Ensures the vehicle or premises is free from corona virus.
  • Ensures airborne droplets are eliminated.
  • Provides public confidence.
  • Protects staff and customers and others.

 

Draeger Hydrogen Peroxide Gas Detection Meter

Read more

Product Description

This device monitors the levels of hydrogen peroxide gas within a room or vehicle.

Features

The Draeger X-am 5100 portable single-gas detector guarantees that you use the safest methods possible for handling HF, HCl, H2O2 or hydrazine – thanks to proven Draeger sensor technology and a device design which is perfectly customised to reactive gases.

  • Continuous, precise, and reliable measurement.
  • A special device design with direct gas entry guarantees fast sensor response and precise measurement data by preventing gas adsorption on the device housing.
  • Triple alarm: visual (360°), audible (multi-tone), vibration.

Easy to use: two-button operation and user-friendly menus.

We use the Draeger Hydrogen Peroxide Gas Detection Meter to test the levels of Hydrogen Peroxide in the air following completion of the process.

When the levels of Hydrogen Peroxide are below 1ppm the area is safe to be operational.

 

Our Technology

Read more
  • Our product has demonstrated its viricidal efficacy in accordance with the requirements of the UNE-EN 14476 test, making it suitable for eliminating the human Coronavirus COVID-19. It eliminates the pathogen in just 30 minutes after application to any surface or object.
  • Our Technology is EPA approved and it is widely used in hospitals and in the food industry. It is non-hazardous to humans or animals. It has been used throughout the HSE for over eight years for the elimination of hospital superbugs and has proven efficacy and results verified by extensive tests and research. It is safe for use on sensitive electrical equipment. Extensive material compatibility tests have been undertaken stating that no visual or functional changes were noted.
  • Our product is especially appealing as it decomposes into water and oxygen. It is a globally recognised and accepted sterilant.
  • Normal operations can continue in the building whilst the decontamination is taking place.
  • Our technicians are fully trained and skilled. We adhere to all HSE and HSA guidelines and can supply our safety statement, risk assessments and safety data sheets.

A Multi-Faceted Killing Mechanism Sanosil combines hydrogen peroxide and silver synergistically, releasing highly reactive free radicals that immediately begin to attack the cell membrane of the targeted micro-organism. This weakens the cell and allows the silver ions to enter. Together, the silver and hydrogen peroxide destroy the micro-organism by:

  1. Attacking and disrupting the cell membrane.
  2. Binding to the enzymes causing denaturation. This incapacitates the energy source of the cell causing rapid death.
  3. Binding to the DNA to stop replication.

4. During the process, hydrogen peroxide decomposes into water and oxygen gas, which creates a highly toxic environment for anaerobes. This completes the active disinfection process. When used on surfaces, Sanosil Disinfectant requires no rinsing. Sanosil itself decomposes into water and oxygen. Sanosil contains no chlorinated or brominated ingredients.

Sanosil is More Than Hydrogen Peroxide

Hydrogen peroxide has long been used as an anti-microbial agent. The Sanosil formula contains hydrogen peroxide, which, in conjunction with other proprietary raw materials, is converted into an entirely new material. So, while basic hydrogen peroxide had limited killing mechanisms, efficacy, and stability; Sanosil is a multi-mechanistic, extremely stable, broad-spectrum product.

Sanosil Simply Outperforms Commodity Disinfectants

When considering the usability of a disinfectant, Sanosil is the only product available today that delivers the effectiveness you demand.

Microbiological Efficacy

Spaulding Classification Hydrogen Peroxide is now globally accepted as an efficient bio-decontamination agent due to its broad-spectrum efficacy and its ability to rapidly inactivate the most resilient micro-organisms. The Spaulding Classification is a useful guide that categorises groups of organisms by their resistance to deactivation. The Classification states that the most resistant organisms are bacterial endospores (e.g. C-Diff) for which there is published data of a 6-log kill using ionised hydrogen peroxide technology. So, in simple terms, if the process can kill C-Diff then it will have no problem killing all the “lesser” organisms in the classification.    

The Science

Read more

Download Material-Compatibility-White-paper

Download Sanosil Safety Data Sheet 

ICS010 Hydrogen Peroxide (5%)

Suitability: Combating mould, surface disinfection, spray disinfection, aerosol disinfection
Ready to use Effectiveness: Bacteria, viruses, yeasts and fungi, broad protozoa spectrum
Contact Time: 1 – 30 min
Product Code: ICSS010

iHP, VHP or HPV??

Why so many acronyms? Isn’t it confusing? They all claim a 6-log reduction, so aren’t they all the same? These are just some of the common questions that we get asked.

As a starting point, it is important to identify the different hydrogen peroxide systems that are in use today, the different abbreviations associated with each and to highlight the differences between them.

VHP refers to vaporised hydrogen peroxide and is a trademark of Steris who were one of the original pioneers in hydrogen peroxide technology. This decontamination process is reliant on a high vapour phase concentration which is achieved by initial dehumidification of the air. The process uses 30-35% hydrogen peroxide liquid which is flash evaporated to achieve the required vapour phase concentration. The process is always stopped before the dew point is reached and for this reason is often referred to as a “Dry” process.

HPV refers to hydrogen peroxide vapour and is a term that is used by Bioquell. Similar to Steris, the process flash evaporates 30-35% hydrogen peroxide to create a vapour. However, there is no initial dehumidification, and the process is brought beyond the dew point to saturated vapour conditions. The process relies on the formation of micro-condensation on surfaces and for this reason is often referred to as a “Wet” process. The physical chemistry and partial pressures of a saturated hydrogen peroxide vapour means that when condensation is formed, it is at a concentration significantly greater than the original 30-35% of the liquid solution. Depending on ambient temperature and humidity, the actual concentration of the condensate will be in the region of 50-60%. This is an important point when it comes to material compatibility and discussed below.

iHP refers to ionised hydrogen peroxide and this process uses a 6-10% concentration of hydrogen peroxide. An ultrasonic nozzle creates a dry mist of ionised hydrogen peroxide and it is these negatively charged hydroxyl ions that act as the mechanism for destruction of micro-organisms.

For each process, typical VHP vapour phase concentrations would be in the region of:

VHP 600-800ppm HPV 200-300ppm      iHP 80-100ppm

The opinion of some in industry is that the “wet” process can cause material damage, but the “dry” process has much better material compatibility characteristics. This article does not set out to debate this but the reason for this is likely to be due to the higher concentration of the condensate (50-60%) as mentioned above.

When we consider iHP and the discussion of material compatibility, the important point to note is that the concentrations are significantly lower, both in the liquid and vapour form. On this basis it is a reasonable statement that the iHP process is significantly “gentler” on materials than both VHP and HPV.

While globally there have been a small number of reported cases of 30-35% hydrogen peroxide systems causing damage to surfaces, there has not been a single case of iHP causing any damage whatsoever.

Benefits of iHP Fogging

Ionised hydrogen peroxide (iHP) technology provides many advantages over older hydrogen peroxide systems. The chemistry of the ionised molecules provides enhanced distribution and better material compatibility – two of the major issues traditionally associated with hydrogen peroxide.

Advantages of Using the IHP Decontamination System:

  • Eliminate risk and minimise downtime
  • Room fogging is proven to be the most thorough and cost-effective method for treating all the exposed surfaces within a room
  • The iHP process will decontaminate surfaces not possible through manual cleaning; not just the primary or “high-touch” surfaces but every exposed surface within a room. This reduces the risk of cross-contamination associated with using a rag, wipe, or sponge.
  • iHP technology has been proven safe to decontaminate sensitive electronic equipment.

The effectiveness of the ICSS010 Disinfectants against numerous pathogens has been tested and confirmed in more than 250 assays carried out by well-known international institutions.

ICSS010 Disinfectants are effective against:

Bacteria (gram-positive/gram-negative)

Virus (with and without protective coat)

Yeasts and fungi

A broad protozoa spectrum

List of tested Pathogens to date using Sanosil SO10

  • Acinetobacter Iwoffil
  • Acinetobacter spec
  • Adenovirus human type
  • Adenovirus type 5
  • aerobic/anaerobic germs, fungi
  • Alternaria (Post Harvest Loss)
  • Ameobae (Dauerform/Cyste)
  • Amoebae species
  • Aspergillus niger
  • Aujestzky
  • Aujestzkyvirus
  • Avian Influenza Virus
  • Bacillus (Aerob Sporoform)
  • Bacillus anthracis
  • Bacillus cereus (Spores)
  • Bacillus circulans (inc. Spores)
  • Bacillus Koch/MycoBacterium Tbc
  • Bacillus licheniformis (spores)
  • Poliovirus type 1
  • Proteus mirabillis
  • Pseudomonas aeruginosa
  • Pseudomonas aeruginosa (Biofilm)
  • Pseudomonas aeruginosa (with exposure)
  • Pseudomonas fluorescens
  • Pseudomonas spec
  • Rhizopus
  • Saccharomyces carlsbergensis
  • Staphylococcus marcescens
  • Streptococcus
  • Streptococcus faecalis
  • Swine Fever Virus
  • Trichophyton mentagrophytes
  • Vacciniavirus
  • Vibrio cholerae
  • Yersinia pestis
  • Bacillus subtilis
  • Bacillus Subtilis (Spores)
  • Bacteria in Culture Medium (hor sol)
  • Bortrytis (Post Harvest Loss)
  • Bovines Enterovirus
  • Candida albicans
  • Candida stell.
  • Citrobacter freundii
  • Clostridium sporogenes
  • Coliformal germs
  • Corneybacteria
  • Cryptosporidium parvum Oozysten
  • ECBO Bovines Enterovirus
  • Enterobacter aerogenes
  • Enterococcus Faecium (VRE, resistant)
  • Enterococcus hirae
  • Enterococcus hirae (with exposure)
  • Enterococcus polio
  • Saccharomyces cervisiae
  • Saccharomyces uvarum
  • Salmonella enterica
  • Escherichia coli
  • Felines Calicivirus/Norovirus (Spray)
  • Flavobacteria
  • FMD/MKS Virus (with exposure)
  • Fungus (Aspergillus niger?)
  • Fusarium (Post Harvest Loss)
  • Geotrichum (Post Harvest Loss)
  • Geotrichum candidum
  • Gumborovirus
  • H5N1 Influenza A/ Bird Flu
  • Hansenia spor.
  • Hepatitis B HBV (with exposure)
  • Hepatitis C
  • Zygosaccharomyces ferm
  • Lactobacillus brevis
  • Lactobacillus lindneri
  • Lactobacillus sp
  • Legionella pneumophillia
  • Listeria monocytogenes
  • Listeria monocytogenes/inoqua
  • Micrococci marine sp
  • Micrococcus luteus
  • Moraxella spp
  • MRSA (Staphylococcus aureus)
  • Mucor (Post Harvest Loss)
  • Mycobacterium phlei
  • MycoBacterium tuberculosis
  • Neisseria meningitidis
  • Newcastle Disease
  • Norovirus (feline Calicivirus) (Spray)
  • Orthopoxvirus vaccinia
  • Parvovirus Gans
  • Pedicoccus
  • Pedicoccus damnosus
  • Penicillium
  • Penicillium (Post Harvest Loss)
  • Penicillium roqueforti
  • Pichia membranaefaciens
  • HIV
  • Influenza A
  • Influenza A (H5N1, H5, H7, H9) Bird Flu
  • Klebsiella oxytoca
  • Klebsiella pneumoniae
  • Salmonella spec
  • Salmonella typhi
  • Salmonella typhimurium
  • Staphylococcus
  • Staphylococcus agalactiae
  • Staphylococcus aureus
  • Staphylococcus aureus MRSA
  • Staphylococcus faecium
  • Vibrio parahaemolyticus

 

 

Hydrogen Peroxide Technology Study

Read more
  1. A Fast Track to Zero Environmental Pathogens Using Novel Ionized Hydrogen Peroxide Technology

    Relevant Topics

    Room disinfection using hydrogen peroxide (HP) “fogging” methods has been shown to eradicate or significantly reduce methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), Clostridium difficile (C. diff), vancomycin-resistant Enterococci (VRE) and Acinetobacter baumanni in healthcare settings.

    By Rod Webb, JD 

    These fogging methods include “dry gas,”2 “dry mist,”4 “microcondensation,”1, 3, 5 and “activated,”6 also known as ionized hydrogen peroxide (iHP).

    Hydrogen peroxide (HP) fogging decontamination has recently gained notice in healthcare institutions due to its many benefits such as superior efficacy, safety, and materials compatibility.

    HP fogging can be an essential intervention to rapidly reduce transmission of healthcare-associated pathogens.10 

    One hospital study reports a 53 percent reduction of hospital-wide incidence of C. diff using HP fogging.3

    Despite the benefits of HP fogging, its use has been limited to isolated outbreaks and not widely adopted for routine disinfection of patient care areas.

    One reason is that CDC guidelines recommend against using disinfectant fogging methods.7-8 

    However, these guidelines contemplated fogging using quaternary ammonia, phenolics, formaldehyde, hypochlorite solutions or other disinfectants that are harmful, not effective, and/or impractical for healthcare environments.9 

    Additionally, long process times, cost of equipment and inconvenient operation have been barriers.15

    The prevailing approach for reducing environmental surface pathogens is programmatic manual cleaning focused on high-touch surfaces, but this approach has practical challenges as well:

    – Not all environmental surfaces are targeted, and even cleaning of high-touch surfaces is susceptible to human error.

    Interventions not effectively targeting all environmental surfaces leave reservoirs of pathogens.17

    – Training and oversight in an increasingly overburdened, under-resourced work environment may prove daunting and difficult to sustain.

    Low hand hygiene compliance is a current example of just how difficult.

    One study reports only a 50 percent compliance rate in the U.S. even after years of publicity, education, training, product innovations and other efforts.18

    – There is no data showing the impact of cleaner surfaces to environmental pathogen levels or their transmission.11-12

    – There is no cost-benefit analysis showing the financial value of programmatic manual cleaning.

    As HP fogging leaves virtually no reservoir of pathogens on treated surfaces, and as equipment and processes are optimized for faster process times, reduced disruption and lower-cost, broad adoption as a valued intervention will follow.

    The 2003 Guidelines for Environmental Infection Control in Health-Care Facilities from the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) states, “. cleaning and disinfecting environmental surfaces as appropriate is fundamental in reducing their potential contribution to the incidence of healthcare-associated infections.”7 

    This statement is made in the context of applying to all environmental surfaces to minimize transmission of infections by hand.

    However, high-touch housekeeping surfaces (e.g., doorknobs, bedrails, light switches, wall areas around the toilet in the patients room, and the edges of privacy curtains) should be cleaned and/or disinfected more frequently than [other] surfaces.”7 

    At the time of drafting these guidelines, it was believed contaminated surfaces did not contribute significantly to healthcare-associated infections.7 

    Recent studies indicate otherwise, and the industry struggles with what type of cleaning is “appropriate,” particularly for high-touch surfaces, and how is cleanliness assessed.

    So far, manual wipe cleaning is the prevailing practice and quality is assessed by visual observation.

    More recently, programmatic regimens with covert, qualitative marking methods have been developed.

    The limitation of either method is a visually clean surface does not necessarily equate to a pathogen clean surface or reduction in infection rates.11, 13

    Programmatic regimens produce cleaner surfaces with less variation in controlled studies, but questions remain if they can be implemented for broad, measurable, and sustained impact in an increasingly regulated and understaffed industry.11 

    Process control is a serious practical consideration.

    Further, there most certainly is an associated cost that is not documented and, perhaps more importantly, because these programs only focus on high-touch surfaces and are not 100 percent effective even then, a reservoir of pathogens will remain and can survive on surfaces for months.17, 19 

    So while surfaces are cleaner, there may be little correlation to reduced infection rates.

    In contrast, HP fogging is highly effective against known healthcare-related pathogens and is used to safely disinfect all environmental surfaces.

    Equipment today is easily programmed and reliably operated with minimal training and supervision.

    Surface coverage is complete and uniform and is immediately confirmed using chemical indicator strips that turn colour upon exposure to HP.

    These characteristics make HP fogging a low-risk alternative to programmatic cleaning regimens.

    Costs are being reduced as more competitors enter the market, equipment is optimized, and process times are shorter.

    Rod Webb is corporate development manager for Astro Pak Corp. He has 15 years of experience in contamination control practices and testing technologies in aerospace, hydraulics, automotive, semiconductor and laser industries and has authored numerous articles on contamination control. He has a law degree from Oklahoma City University School of Law and an economics degree from Southwestern Oklahoma State University. Astro Pak Corporation is the parent company of Six Log Corp.

    References:

    1. French GL, Otter JA, Shannon KP, Adams NMT, Watling D, Parks MJ. Tackling Contamination of the Hospital Environment by Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA): A Comparison between Conventional Terminal Cleaning and Hydrogen Peroxide Vapour Decontamination. J Hosp Infect. 2004; 57:31-37.
    2. Hartly J, McQueen S, Hollis M, Philps A, and McDonnell G. A New Method of Environmental Disinfection and Use in the Control of MRSA Outbreaks. Presented at 54th Annual APIC Education Conference and Annual Meeting. June 24, 2007; San Jose, CA. (Abstract No. 10-132)
    3. Boyce JM, Havill NL, Otter JA, et al. Impact of Hydrogen Peroxide Vapor Room Decontamination on Clostridium difficile Environmental Contamination and Transmission in a Healthcare Setting. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2008; 29:723-729.
    4. Barbut F, Menuet D, Verachten M, Girou E. Comparison of the Efficacy of a Hydrogen Peroxide Dry-Mist Disinfection System and Sodium Hypochlorite Solution for Eradication of Clostridium difficile Spores. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2009; 30:507-514.
    5. Passaretti CL, Otter JA, Lipsett P, et al. Adherence to Hydrogen Peroxide Vapor (HPV) Decontamination Reduces VRE Acquisition in High-risk Units. Presented at the 48th Annual Meeting of the Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy and the Infectious Diseases Society of America. October 2008; Washington, DC (abstract K4124b)
    6. Streed SA, Andrews J, Medvecky ML, and Cioffi F. Assessment of Two hydrogen Peroxide Technologies for Hospital Room Decontamination Following Patient Discharge. AJIC. 2010;38(5): E44-E45 (Article Outline)
    7. Centers for Disease Control. Guidelines for Environmental Infection Control in Health-Care Facilities. 2003. MMWR 2003; 52 (No. RR-10):1-44. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/hicpac/pdf/guidelines/eic_in_HCF_03.pdf
    8. Rutala W A, Weber D J and Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC). Guideline for Disinfection and Sterilization in Healthcare Facilities. 2008. USA: Centers for Disease Control. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dhqp/pdf/guidelines/Disinfection_Nov_2008.pdf
    9. Boyce JM. New Approaches to Decontamination of Rooms After Patients Are Discharged. Infec. Control Ho. Epidemiol. 2009;30(6):515517.
    10. Boyce JM. Strategies to Improve Environmental Hygiene. Presented at: Current Issues in the Prevention of Healthcare-Associated Infections Symposium. Atlanta, GA; March 2010.
    11. Carling PC, Parry MM, Rupp ME, Po JL, Dick B, Von Beheren S; for Healthcare Environmental Hygiene Study Group. Identifying Opportunities to Enhance Environmental Cleaning in 36 Acute Care Hospitals. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2008; 29(11);1035-41.
    12. Dumigan DG, Boyce JM, Havill NL, Golebiewski M, Balogun O, and Rizvani R. Who is Really Caring for Your Environment of Care? Developing Standardized Cleaning Procedures and Effective Monitoring Techniques. Am J Infect Control. 2010;38(6):387-92.
    13. Dancer SJ. The Role of Environmental Cleaning in the Control of Hospital-Acquired Infection. J Hosp Infect. 2009; 73:378-385.
    14. Klapes N, and Vesley D. Vapor-Phase Hydrogen Peroxide as a Surface Decontaminant and Sterilant. App Envro Micro. 1990;56(2):503-506.
    15. Otter JA, Puchowicz M, Ryan D, Salkeld JA, Cooper TA, Havill NL, et al. Feasibility of Routinely Using Hydrogen Peroxide Vapor to Decontaminate Rooms in a Busy United States Hospital. Infect. Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2009;30(6): 574577.
    16. Shapey S, Machin K, Levi K and Boswell TC. Activity of a Dry Mist Hydrogen Peroxide System Against Environmental Clostridium Difficile Contamination in Elderly Care Wards. J Hosp Infec. 2008; 70:136-141.
    17. Shenold C. The Newest Superbug Beats Out MRSA. Infec Control Today. 2010;14(7)50-52
    18. McGuckin M, Waterman R, and Govednik J. Hand Hygiene Compliance Rates in the United States A One-Year Multicenter Collaboration Using Product/Volume Usage Measurement and Feedback. Am J Med Qual. 2009; 24:205-213.
    19. Kramer A, Schwebke I, and Kampf G. How Long do Nosocomial Pathogens Persist on Inanimate Surfaces? A Systematic Review. BMC Infect Dis. 2006; 6:130.

     

Hydrogen Peroxide vs Traditional Cleaning

Read more

The iHP fogging process provides a number of advantages over traditional manual cleaning methods

  • the hydrogen peroxide vapour will ensure all difficult-to-reach areas are thoroughly decontaminated
  • eliminates the human error associated with manual cleaning practices
  • it is an automated “no-touch” process so removes risk of cross-contamination
  • ionised hydrogen peroxide provides a greater level of biological kill
  • than other manually applied disinfectants

A number of studies have been completed to compare the efficacy of hydrogen peroxide with traditional cleaning methods. The results are conclusive that hydrogen peroxide is superior on all counts.  

Reference: Comparison of the Efficacy of a Hydrogen Peroxide Dry-Mist Disinfection System and Sodium Hypochlorite Solution.  Barbut F, Menuet D, Verachten M, Girou E

Summary: Only 50% of samples showed a decrease in contamination after a manual clean. This compares with 91% of samples from rooms that were fogged with hydrogen peroxide.

Reference: An Evaluation of Environmental Decontamination With Hydrogen Peroxide Vapour for Reducing the Risk of Patient Acquisition of Multidrug-Resistant Organisms

Summary: Based on a study lasting 30 months it was shown that for infected rooms treated with hydrogen peroxide, incoming patients were 64% less likely to acquire MDRO’s and 80% less likely to acquire VRE.

Pathogen List

Read more

ICS010 Hydrogen Peroxide (5%)

Suitability: Combating mould, surface disinfection, spray disinfection, aerosol disinfection
Ready to use Effectiveness: Bacteria, viruses, yeasts and fungi, broad protozoa spectrum
Contact Time: 1 – 30 min

The effectiveness of the ICSS010 Disinfectants against numerous pathogens has been tested and confirmed in more than 250 assays carried out by well-known international institutions.

ICSS010 Disinfectants are effective against:

Bacteria (gram-positive/gram-negative)

 Virus (with and without protective coat)                                                             

 Yeasts and fungi

 A broad protozoa spectrum

List of tested pathogens up to now:

  • Acinetobacter Iwoffil
  • Acinetobacter spec
  • Adenovirus human type
  • Adenovirus type 5
  • aerobic/anaerobic germs, fungi
  • Alternaria (Post Harvest Loss)
  • Ameobae (Dauerform/Cyste)
  • Amoebae species
  • Aspergillus niger
  • Aujestzky
  • Aujestzkyvirus
  • Avain Influenza Virus
  • Bacillus (Aerob Sporoform)
  • Bacillus anthracis
  • Bacillus cereus (Spores)
  • Bacillus circulans (inc. Spores)
  • Bacillus Koch/MycoBacterium Tbc
  • Bacillus licheniformis (spores)
  • Poliovirus type 1
  • Proteus mirabillis
  • Pseudomonas aeruginosa
  • Pseudomonas aeruginosa (Biofilm)
  • Pseudomonas aeruginosa (with exposure)
  • Pseudomonas fluorescens
  • Pseudomonas spec
  • Rhizopus
  • Saccharomyces carlsbergensis
  • Staphylococcus marcescens
  • Streptococcus
  • Streptococcus faecalis
  • Swine Fever Virus
  • Trichophyton mentagrophytes
  • Vacciniavirus
  • Vibrio cholerae
  • Yersinia pestis
  • Bacillus subtilis
  • Bacillus Subtilis (Spores)
  • Bacteria in Culture Medium (hor sol)
  • Bortrytis (Post Harvest Loss)
  • Bovines Enterovirus
  • Candida albicans
  • Candida stell.
  • Citrobacter freundii
  • Clostridium sporogenes
  • Coliformal germs
  • Corneybacteria
  • Cryptosporidium parvum Oozysten
  • ECBO Bovines Enterovirus
  • Enterobacter aerogenes
  • Enterococcus Faecium (VRE, resistant)
  • Enterococcus hirae
  • Enterococcus hirae (with exposure)
  • Enterococcus polio
  • Saccharomyces cervisiae
  • Saccharomyces uvarum
  • Salmonella enterica
  • Escherichia coli
  • Felines Calicivirus/Norovirus (Spray)
  • Flavobacteria
  • FMD/MKS Virus (with exposure)
  • Fungus (Aspergillus niger?)
  • Fusarium (Post Harvest Loss)
  • Geotrichum (Post Harvest Loss)
  • Geotrichum candidum
  • Gumborovirus
  • H5N1 Influenza A/ Bird Flu
  • Hansenia spor.
  • Hepatitis B HBV (with exposure)
  • Hepatitis C
  • Zygosaccharomyces ferm
  • Lactobacillus brevis
  • Lactobacillus lindneri
  • Lactobacillus sp
  • Legionella pneumophillia
  • Listeria monocytogenes
  • Listeria monocytogenes/inoqua
  • Micrococci marine sp
  • Micrococcus luteus
  • Moraxella spp
  • MRSA (Staphylococcus aureus)
  • Mucor (Post Harvest Loss)
  • Mycobacterium phlei
  • MycoBacterium tuberculosis
  • Neisseria meningitidis
  • Newcastle Disease
  • Norovirus (feline Calicivirus) (Spray)
  • Orthopoxvirus vaccinia
  • Parvovirus Gans
  • Pedicoccus
  • Pedicoccus damnosus
  • Penicillium
  • Penicillium (Post Harvest Loss)
  • Penicillium roqueforti
  • Pichia membranaefaciens
  • HIV
  • Influenza A
  • Influenza A (H5N1, H5, H7, H9) Bird Flu
  • Klebsiella oxytoca
  • Klebsiella pneumoniae
  • Salmonella spec
  • Salmonella typhi
  • Salmonella typhimurium
  • Staphylococcus
  • Staphylococcus agalactiae
  • Staphylococcus aureus
  • Staphylococcus aureus MRSA
  • Staphylococcus faecium
  • Vibrio parahaemolyticus

Product Code: ICSS010

Contact Us

Get in touch with Declan Waters Decontamination Services for Coronavirus decontamination services.  

Call: (087) 278 2155 or (01) 885 3392

info@dwdecontamination.ie

Unit 5, Birch House Rosemount Business Park, Blanchardstown, Dublin D11 DR13

M-F: 8.30 am - 5.30pm After office hours call 087 278 2155