Published on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/when-ok-cheat-win-business-oliver-canty
Published on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/when-ok-cheat-win-business-oliver-canty
In a letter published today in the Journal of Hospital Infection, Professor Peter Wilson and colleagues report on their retesting of the Deprox (Hygiene Solutions Ltd) HPV decontamination system. The retesting was in response to concerns widely raised that the earlier tests of the system, which purported to give a log 6 efficacy, were the result of the manufacturer misrepresenting the concentration and/or constituents of the Deproxin solution.
In brief, the retest reveals the following:
It is very much to the credit of Professor Wilson and colleagues that they have thoroughly retested the system in response to widespread concerns. It is sad that commercial interests would abuse the trust and confidence of highly qualified academics in this way by misrepresenting the basic test parameters.
For those without access to the Journal of Hospital Infection, I have reproduced the letter below, and a PDF is downloadable here.
In response to the letter from Dr Singh commenting on our paper., 
The objective of our study was to evaluate the reductions in environmental contamination during in-use operation of two commercially-available hydrogen peroxide whole-room disinfection systems.2 Both manufacturers agreed test parameters prior to the trial to ensure methodology followed manufacturer instructions. Our findings suggested similar efficacy of the two systems against both surface contamination and biological indicators of common pathogens. Inocula used on the indicators far exceeded the likely levels seen in the environment.
Additional studies were performed as part of the original work using the same methodology with four strains each of MRSA, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Clostridium difficile spores and Acinetobacter baumannii. Three HPV decontamination cycles were evaluated for each system. Of 305/320 samples, >4-log10 reduction was achieved.
Aerial concentrations of hydrogen peroxide and relative humidity were monitored continuously during a further 6 cycles of both systems using a sensor (C-16 Portasens II Gas Detector; Analytical Technology Inc., Collegeville, PA, USA). In addition, horizontal surfaces in the near-patient vicinity were swabbed and analysed to detect fallout of silver and nitrate at the end of HPV decontamination cycles (n=3). Surfaces were swabbed and analysed for silver by titration (Silver Test Kit, DTK Water, Wellingborough, UK) and nitrate using Quantofix semi-quantitative test strips (Macherey-Nagel, Düren, Germany).
For the Deprox (Hygiene Solutions, King’s Lynn, UK) system, peak aerial values of 29-46 ppm hydrogen peroxide were achieved with similar bacteriological efficacy as other cycles. The mean level at the end of the cycles was 3.3ppm for 41.8% (30.8-58.1%) mean relative humidity at start of cycles. Silver and nitrate were detected on surfaces at 1.5-2.5mg/m2 following cycles with the Deprox system.
For the Bioquell Q10 system with the R10 aeration unit (Bioquell, Andover, UK), the peak aerial levels of hydrogen peroxide were 450-640ppm. The mean level at the end of the cycles was 0.0ppm with starting mean relative humidity 42.5% (34.5-49.7%). No silver or nitrate was detected on surfaces following cycles with the Bioquell Q10 system.
The aqueous concentration of hydrogen peroxide in a Hygiene Solutions cartridge (Deprox) tested on one occasion at the point of insertion into the machine was 5%. Nitrate was detected in the aqueous solution at 10-25mg/L. The aqueous hydrogen peroxide concentration in the Bioquell Q10 cartridge (Bioquell HPV-AQ) was 35% and no silver or nitrate was detected.
Dr Singh suggests C. difficile spores (but not the other organisms) persisted underneath the bed and on the window frame after decontamination using the Deprox system. The persistence of spores may have been minimised during the Bioquell Q10 cycles by the inclusion of an oscillating fan to facilitate aerial distribution and aid breakdown of hydrogen peroxide vapour.
As Dr Singh suggests, settling of active silver onto biological indicator coupons during a cycle of aerial HPV decontamination may have contributed to the bactericidal/sporicidal activity of the Deprox system. However further studies would be required to elucidate its role.
Incredibly, so-called “Hygiene Solutions Ltd” whose Deprox and Ultra-V machines are wheeled in to intensive care units and operating theatres on a daily basis, operates from the back of a dirty farming and livestock supplies warehouse, belonging to D&H Animal Husbandry. Here the Deprox units of their “On-call decontamination service” are stored between call-outs alongside pails of cattle feed and assorted agricultural and veterinary detritus.
Here is another view of the real Hygiene Solutions. I have added some notes for the non-technical reader.
The covert camera video below gives a good idea of the grubby reality behind Hygiene Solutions polished sales presentations:
These less than ideal surroundings are fertilised by a regular stream of D&H customers, arriving “fresh” from their chicken sheds, stables, pig barns and cow pastures, who trek malodorously through “Hygiene Solutions Ltd” to the trade counter at the back of the barn.
A change of editor presents opportunity for a fresh approach. The extraordinary extent of Hygiene Solutions’ unscrupulous activities, ranging from misleading puffery to complex and ingenious corruption of “independent” scientific testing, generates a challenging volume and variety of data to present.
To simplify this task, I have launched a new website, www.ultra-vfraud.info, to expose Hygiene Solutions’ egregious lies as to their new Ultra-V product, while www.deproxfraud.info will concentrate on the Deprox scandal, now entering its final phase as the HSE investigation nears completion.
A recent “Freedom of Information” request has yielded some extraordinary data on Deprox efficacy. This independently verifiable dataset demonstrates a 25% increase in C. dificile incidence in a major UK NHS trust, correlated exactly to a 28 month period of intensive Deprox use. This will be published here shortly.
The more the truth is tested and examined, the more firmly it stands. Lies, however credible at first glance, become shaky on close examination, and a determined investigation will reduce them to shreds and tatters. The mission of these websites is to present the facts, however unpalatable, about Hygiene Solutions Ltd, its criminally negligent directors and its dangerous and dishonestly promoted Deprox and Ultra-V products.
Judgement was pronounced on a £26,000 NHS fraud last week. The perpetrators only escaped jail as they had pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity and had repaid the money in full.
But Judge Adele Williams described it as a
She said further: –
What would the Judge have to say to the perpetrators of an £8,000,000 fraud against the NHS? Even if the directors of Hygiene Solutions were to refund the NHS for the tens of thousands of fraudulent Deprox processes they have done over the years, (see https://deproxfraud.info/2017/03/13/leaked-emails-prove-test-cheating-bodily-harm-and-massive-fraud/ ) would they escape jail?
Hygiene Solutions claim a single Deprox unit has the capacity to decontaminate rooms with a volume of 380m3, e.g. a 12 bed ward bay. A typical hospital side ward (single room with ensuite) has a volume of 60m3.
However, the chamber used by Hygiene Solutions Ltd to test the Deprox is 1.5m x 1.5m x 2.8m. Total volume 6.3m3 , just 10% of the volume of a hospital single bedroom, and 1.7% of the maximum volume that Deprox is guaranteed to disinfect. It is barely larger than a telephone box.
Hygiene Solutions internal testing, published here for the first time reveals that the Deprox, in spite of being boosted with 50% more concentrated hydrogen peroxide solution than the standard “Deproxin” was incapable of a log 6 decontamination of even this tiny test chamber.
The Deprox was thoroughly tested over a period of months by David Sempere Aracil, a well qualified chemist. David placed Log 6 biological indicator discs (Apex Biological Indicator #HMV-091) in 8 different locations around the inside walls of the test chamber. The Deprox unit (“Trusted by leading hospitals around the world”) was sealed in the chamber, and the process was run. The log6 BIs were incubated – they were all alive.
David tried substituting Sanosil SO15 which at 7.5% H2O2 is 50% more concentrated than Deproxin. Now some of the BIs would be sterilised, sometimes. Over several weeks in late 2014, David did a series of 12 tests in the test chamber, all with 7.5% H2O2 rather than the 5% Deproxin. He tried turning the ΔRH up and down, but to no avail. In 5 of these tests, all 8 BIs remained viable. None of the tests sterilised more than 6 out of 8.
In summary then:
Deprox, running on a 5% H2O2 solution, is claimed to give a log6 decontamination of an entire 380m3 ward, including inside small crevices and complex equipment. In Hygiene Solutions’ own tests, the Deprox running on a 7.5% solution, and thus generating a 50% higher aerial H2O2 concentration than the standard process, completely failed to give a log6 decontamination of a 6.3m3 box in multiple tests.
Hygiene Solutions continued to promote and sell the Deprox with exactly the same claims, but in 2015, they turned the whole Deprox fleet down from ΔRH20 to ΔRH5. See https://deproxfraud.info/2017/03/13/leaked-emails-prove-test-cheating-bodily-harm-and-massive-fraud/
Fortunately, (or unfortunately for Hygiene Solutions) David’s notes of these tests survived.
This table is a summary of 15 tests done by David Sempere Aracil, assisted by Tautvydas Karitonas, over a period of months. Both are university graduates with extensive research experience, and David has a PhD in Chemistry. The tests were done with a standard production model Deprox machine, the purpose of the tests was to determine if the extremely low efficacy of the Deprox process could be rectified by increasing the concentration of the hydrogen peroxide solution from the standard 5% to 7.5%.
The results were recorded in 3 A4 hardcover notebooks. Each of the 15 tests was recorded in more detail on preceding pages of the notebook. In addition to the efficacy tests, the notebooks contain extensive details of tests on prototype catalyst systems, and constitute proof that HS was well aware of both the low efficacy and residual gas issues with Deprox.
Heading: “Sanosil 015 forte” refers to Sanosil S015, which is a disinfectant intended for water systems. It is 7.5% Hydrogen peroxide solution. Note that this is more concentrated than the 5% Deproxin solution that is used in production Deprox machines.
Col.1. The test number. These are not sequential, as some tests did not use Biological indicators (BIs) and were not recorded in this resume.
Col. 2 Duration of test measured from when the machine starts vapourising. (It takes several minutes for the machine to fill the piezo tank at the beginning of each test)
Col. 3 Delta HR setting of machine. This is adjusted by using unmarked pressure sensitive switches below the LCD display. – see How to test your Deprox.
Col. 4 HRO This is the original relative humidity in the test chamber before the machine starts.
Col. 5 TO Temperature in the chamber before the machine starts
Col. 6 CMAX Hydrogen peroxide concentration in PPM, maximum level reached during process.
Results columns. The first 12 tests were done in the test chamber (wardrobe). Each number represents a specific marked location on the test chamber wall where an exposed stainless steel Bacillus subtilis log6 biological indicator was placed. The chamber is a crude wood and plasterboard structure in an essentially unheated warehouse. It is approximately 5’ x 5’ x 9’ and the indicators were placed at various heights on the interior walls of the chamber. The last 3 tests were done in the company board room which is approximately 12’ x 25’.
A” +” indicates that the BI still contained viable bacteria, a “–“ indicates that all bacteria on this indicator were killed.
Final column. This is the percentage of BIs that were killed.
Or should the question be, is ANYTHING inside your Spectrome? Following recent posts urging Ultra-V users to do some simple tests on their equipment, I have received several very remarkable reports. It appears that the Ultra-V will run a full cycle and “validate” that a hospital room has been successfully decontaminated even with two of the Spectromes placed outside of the door!
Either the special brand of UV light that the Ultra-V produces can pass through 50mm of wood, (in which case it is a grave danger to anyone in the building) or else the Spectromes are not really monitoring the UV output at all. Here is what Hygiene Solutions Ltd. claim for their “Patented Spectrome Technology”.
Sorry – the quote above is verbatim. We know what they meant to say…
How exactly does the Spectrome “evaluate” the “extent of bacteria”? This is truly remarkable technology! And all this without even being in the room!
As the crocodile says, “Becuss it printed right dere in words, dat make it true.”
What is Spectrome indeed? I have a suspicion it might just be an empty box…