Aprenda como utilizar o Dióxido de Cloro

2021-10-07 03:49:52 Research Questions and Current Funding
As I have noted, this problem is a complex and multifaceted one. There are some important research questions that remain unaddressed (at least in the open literature). These include the following:

· What are the disinfectant concentration-time relationships yielding specific levels of inactivation and how are these affected by temperature, humidity and other environmental variables?

· What simulants can be used to determine inactivation of target pathogens? The particular simulant(s) may be functions of the disinfection technology used. Can these simulants be used as reliable ways to verify the efficiency of a decontamination process after execution?

· What is the dose-response relationship for human infection/illness with various target organisms and given a desired residual risk level what residual organism level(s) would be acceptable?

· What are the decomposition rates of chlorine dioxide and other disinfecting agents in a building environment, and what (if any) byproducts might be produced from these reactions? Are there undesirable effects on materials?

· What time lags exist to penetration of a gaseous disinfectant into all interior spaces that need to be disinfected? Can these be estimated by empirical rules or tests? Can sensors be developed to assess gaseous concentrations on a real time basis?

· What is the appropriate way in which to deploy verification samples prior to decontamination (both location and number), and what are the practical levels of inactivation that can be verifiably achieved?



As with the execution of a decontamination program, the conduct of research to answer the questions posed above will require investigators (both government and extramural) from a diversity of disciplines, and from a diversity of agencies. The problem posed is one that involves elements of engineering, basic sciences (microbiology, chemistry) and applied sciences and practice (medicine, public health, toxicology, risk assessment). There is no single federal agency with a clear and unambiguous portfolio in all of these areas, and therefore multi-agency coordination in developing the required research effort will also be necessary.

Concluding Remarks
Mr. Chairman, and Members; I thank you for the opportunity to present my remarks, and hope that they will be useful in understanding and responding to the present situation. I look forward to answering your questions.

References
1.Aieta, E., and J. Berg. 1986. A Review of Chlorine Dioxide in Drinking Water Treatment. Journal of the American Water Works Association. 78(6):62-72.

2.Aston, R., and J. Synan. 1948. Chlorine Dioxide as a Bactericide in Waterworks Operation. Journal of the New England Water Works Association. 62:80.

3.Barbeau, B., L. Boulos, R. Desjardins, J. Coallier, and M. Prevost. 1999. Examining the Use of Aerobic Spore Forming Bacteria to Assess the Efficiency of Chlorination. Water Research. 33(13):2941-8.

4.Benarde, M. A., et al. 1967. Kinetics and Mechanism of Bacterial Disinfection by Chlorine Dioxide. Applied Microbiology. 15(2):257.

5.Brachman, P. S., A. F. Kaufmann, and F. G. Dalldorf. 1966. Industrial Inhalation Anthrax. Bacteriological Reviews. 30(3):646-656.

6.Chauret, C. P., C. Z. Radziminski, M. Lepuil, R. Creason, and R. C. Andrews. 2001. Chlorine Dioxide Inactivation of Cryptosporidium parvum Oocysts and Bacterial Spore Indicators. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 67(7):2993-3001.

7.Chick, H. 1908. An Investigation of the Laws of Disinfection. Journal of Hygiene. 8:92-157.

8.Chung, K. C. 1999. Three-Dimensional Analysis of Airflow and Contaminant Particle Transport in a Partitioned Enclosure. Building and Environment. 34:7-17.

9.Dietrich, A. M., M. P. Orr, D. L. Gallagher, and R. C. Hoehn. 1992. Tastes and Odors Associated with Chlorine Dioxide. Journal of the American Water Works Association. 84(6):82-88. Aberto / Como

2021-10-07 03:49:51 If it is desired, for example, to decontaminate materials contained within desks or file cabinets then test organisms should be placed within such areas for post-treatment sampling.

The particular experimental method used to assess microbial viability after inactivation is a particularly important detail. These methods must be sensitive enough to measure the low levels of surviving cells that may be present, and they must be specific to differentiate between live and dead organisms. In general, methods that culture the organisms, for example on petri plates (for bacteria) or in cell culture (for viruses) are preferable, although these are slow (days to weeks). Molecular methods (relying on sensing DNA or biochemical components of organisms) frequently do not have the specificity to differentiate between live and dead organisms, however these are much more rapid.

There are additional issues that should be considered in the implementation of decontamination strategies using chlorine dioxide. During the period of treatment, concentrations of chlorine dioxide will likely exceed short term exposure limits for human toxicity(14), and therefore should personnel be required to enter the facility, appropriate personal protective measures would be required. The method of removal of chlorine dioxide after the required period of contact needs to be estimated, and the time required may be substantial. Monitoring of air quality (for residual gas levels) should be conducted to verify return to safe levels prior to re-occupancy. The removed gas needs to be destructed[†] to prevent external air pollution problems.

Although less reactive than ozone and chlorine, chlorine dioxide has the potential to react with organic material. In drinking water applications, organic products from the reaction with chlorine dioxide have been identified (41). There have been reports of reaction of chlorine dioxide evolved into the gas phase from drinking water with compounds released from new carpeting(9). It should be emphasized that the benefits from building decontamination likely would far outweigh any potential impacts from these resulting byproducts, however if widespread use of chlorine dioxide decontamination technology is foreseen, a program to assess potential reactivity and byproduct formation with indoor materials is justified.

There do not appear to been any systematic studies of the potential for gas phase chlorine dioxide to damage materials found in buildings. It is known, however, that in the construction of disinfection systems certain materials, including natural rubber, polycarbonate plastic and carbon steel should be avoided (14). Whether chlorine dioxide gas at concentrations that would be efficacious for building decontamination would react with various building materials and furnishings is in need of further study.

Preparedness of Government to Address Challenges of Decontamination
As outlined above, the use of an agent such as chlorine dioxide to decontaminate a building is a complex problem requiring a diverse knowledge base. Consequently, the potential expertise within the government lies in a number of different organizations[‡]. From an implementation point of view, the following table outlines some particular areas of knowledge and the locations within government agencies where such expertise is believed to exist.

Knowledge Base

Agencies

Analytical microbiology

Centers for Disease Control, USAMRIID, EPA

Chemical analysis (disinfectants; disinfectant byproducts)

EPA (Office of Water, Office of Research & Development)

Indoor environmental modeling and analysis

EPA (Indoor air programs)

National Laboratories (Lawrence Livermore; Lawrence Berkeley)

NIST

Health effects from inhaled chemical byproducts

EPA, OSHA



From the table, it is clear that the expertise to address the problem at hand is not located in a particular agency. Hence, if the problem of decontamination will remain a significant ongoing issue, there is a necessity for some degree of interagency coordination to be developed. Aberto / Como

2021-10-07 03:49:51 This requires an understanding of the extents and rates at which the agent will transport through the entire space required to be treated, and the extent and rate of any decomposition reactions that will result in loss of chemical (and will thereby require additional material to be added).

Chlorine dioxide gas has a rate of spontaneous decay. This is influenced by temperature, and likely relative humidity and light intensity. Superimposed upon these processes would be reactions with building materials. There do not appear to have been any direct studies of the reaction rates of chlorine dioxide with building materials or contents. However, it has been found that ozone gas (which as noted above is generally more reactive than chlorine dioxide) can react with interior latex paint or with indoor carpet (33, 39).

To assure that adequate levels of chlorine dioxide reach all locations in a space to be decontaminated, it is necessary to provide sufficient time and doses to achieve penetration of the chemical and to compensate for demand. No real time direct sensors are available to allow this penetration to be directly monitored, therefore some level of prediction of behavior would be necessary. The prediction of distribution of chemical or physical components within a building is currently a forefront issue of research(8, 12, 24). Improving computer resources are allowing investigators to simulate the transport processes within buildings. However little investigation on transport of reactive materials within the indoor environment has occurred. Furthermore, the analysis of such transport characteristics requires site specific model development. Ultimately it may be possible to develop empirical safety factors for the level of dosing based on building size and configuration, however a substantial experimental and modeling effort would be required to develop these relationships.

A particular area of concern is the decontamination of sub-spaces within a facility that are relatively enclosed. Consider the potential to decontaminate a piece of mail in a desk drawer within an office by pumping chlorine dioxide (or any other gas) into the building or office. For decontamination to occur, the gas would need to diffuse into the desk (possibly through very narrow openings) and into the letter (through creases or cracks in the paper. The latter processes could in fact be quite slow and limit the efficiency of any gas decontamination process. Therefore, it is necessary to carefully specify the goals and limitations of decontamination with respect to such enclosed areas.

In implementing decontamination with chlorine dioxide, there are a number of aspects that need close attention. Perhaps the most important is devising a strategy to verify that the desired degree of reduction has been achieved in all locations where it is desired to achieve these reductions. The use of non-pathogenic indicator organisms, such as Bacillus subtilis (in the case where B. anthracis is the target organism of concern) is a reasonable approach. However experimental comparison of the relative sensitivity of the indicator and target organisms is required, and can be conducted in controlled and secure laboratory facilities.

Of key importance is that the monitoring for performance be made at a large enough number of locations throughout the facility to be decontaminated, and with enough samples collected, to provide strong assurance that the target level of performance has been achieved or exceeded. If only a small number of test organisms are examined for viability, it is easy to demonstrate inactivation, however the meaningfulness of the result is substantially less than if a larger number of organisms placed at a larger number of locations were assayed. The locations for placement of the test organisms should be representative of the sites within a facility at which decontamination is sought. Aberto / Como

2021-10-07 03:49:51 As noted above, chlorine is less efficacious (at least in solution) compared to chlorine dioxide. Comparative studies have shown that chlorine forms more byproducts from reaction with various organic compounds than do either ozone or chlorine dioxide (41). Ozone is substantially less stable (in both air and water) than chlorine or chlorine dioxide, hence it would be more difficult to maintain a concentration over a prolonged period of time than chlorine or chlorine dioxide.

There is limited information with all of these agents with respect to the target organisms under consideration, including bacterial spores.

Factors and Challenges to be Considered in Determining a Decontamination Strategy
A basic task in developing a decontamination strategy is the setting of a target cleanup level. This task – defining “how clean is clean” – is conceptually no different than faced in other aspects of environmental remediation. For the particular aspects of biological warfare agents (as well as chemical agents), a framework for this decision can be set up using risk based principles. Like other applications, the residual acceptable risk level must be set after incorporation of the views of stakeholders (37). This task requires the inevitable recognition that absolute certainty of absolute building cleanup is impracticable.

From an acceptable risk level, a value for the amount of residual biological agent (e.g., anthrax spores) that would be tolerable can be developed providing that information on the agent dose-response as well as exposure factors (e.g., breathing rates) are available. For most of the agents considered it might be necessary to rely upon animal data to assess target levels. Principles of quantitative microbial risk assessment have been developed, including by myself and colleagues (19). For some organisms it has already been shown that animal data provide good estimates of human risk (20, 21). There is animal dose response data for Bacillus anthracis that could be used to form the basis for development of target levels (5, 11, 15).

Once a target level of microorganisms is stipulated, then given an estimate of the initial level of contamination, the ratio of these two numbers defines the degree of removal or inactivation that a decontamination system must achieve. As an example, if a particular room is estimated to have been contaminated by 100,000 spores, and if a final target level of 10 spores is deemed allowable (i.e., produces a sufficiently low risk), the a reduction of 99.99%, or 4 logs, must be achieved.

Given the degree of reduction that must be achieved, the required chemical concentrations and times need to be estimated from information on the rates of inactivation. This requires experimentation (likely using small-scale facilities) with the target organism(s) or suitable simulant(s). The objective of these studies would be to determine combinations of concentrations and times that result in the required degree of inactivation. This needs to be assessed as a function of temperature, humidity, and other factors that might influence the performance of the process. There is a large knowledge base on estimating kinetic parameters of disinfection processes (primarily in water and food applications) that is readily transferable to the problem of building decontamination(17, 18, 36). The results of these studies would have general significance, and once basic inactivation information was obtained, would not need to be repeated for each particular required decontamination event.

The results of these experiments would allow determination of the concentration of decontaminant that must be attained at every point at which microbial inactivation is needed. This concentration must be maintained for the required time to give the desired degree of inactivation. One of the important questions in implementation would be how much of a particular chemical (e.g., chlorine dioxide) needs to be fed into a building to achieve kill. Aberto / Como

2021-10-07 03:49:51 Once the chlorine dioxide is generated as a gas, it is dissolved into the water to be treated. The gas flow rate is controlled to maintain a desired dose of chemical agent. It has generally been found that chlorine dioxide provides superior inactivation with respect to a diverse number of microorganisms as compared to the more commonly used chlorine(1, 28, 29).

The efficacy of chlorine dioxide as a water disinfectant is sufficiently well characterized that EPA has developed a set of tables predicting the degree of inactivation of microorganisms as a function of the concentration of disinfectant, the time of contact, temperature, and acidity of the water to be treated (30).

In the disinfection of drinking water, the target organisms of concern are disease causing viruses, vegetative bacteria (those that are actively metabolizing), and more recently pathogenic protozoa, such as Giardia and Cryptosporidium. In particular, bacterial spores (such as Bacillus) have not been the target organisms, because they have not generally been regarded as important waterborne pathogens. Very recently, investigators have started to assess the removal of spores through water treatment processes, including via disinfection, since their resistance more closely approximates the most resistant protozoa of concern (3, 6, 10, 13, 40).

State of Knowledge of Chlorine Dioxide Gas
The use of chlorine dioxide as a disinfectant/sanitizer applied directly as a gas is a development that has occurred over the past 20 years. Its use as a disinfectant for surfaces and implements (such as medical devices) was envisioned in a series of patents granted in the 1980’s and 1990 (26, 42, 43).

In the medical sterilization field, the efficacy of a gaseous chlorine dioxide process was examined using as a test organism spores of Bacillus subtilis var niger (27). Performance was a function of temperature and humidity. At a relative humidity of 80% and a temperature of 30oC, the time required for one log inactivation[*] was 4.4 minutes at a gas phase concentration of 30 mg/L.

There has been recent work on the use of gaseous chlorine dioxide for applications in food processing. A group at Purdue University (22, 23) has reported on the application to disinfection of tanks used in the processing of fruit juices, and for microbial removal on produce. Their work also shows that inactivation is a function of temperature and humidity (as well as concentration of gas and exposure time). Although they studied a diversity of pathogens, none of the agents that they studied were spore-forming bacteria (or identified biological threat agents).

There does not appear to be any information published in the refereed scientific literature concerning either the use of gaseous chlorine dioxide as a decontaminating agent for large buildings or spaces, or on the sensitivity of biological threat agents (including Bacillus anthracis) to either gas phase or liquid phase chlorine dioxide. While it is plausible to believe that the sensitivity of B. anthracis spores towards disinfection is similar to the sensitivity of spores of other species of Bacillus (based on biological similarity), the lack of direct published evidence on this point represents a data gap.

Pros and Cons of Using Chlorine Dioxide Gas
Based on experience in the water industry, and those of other users of chlorine dioxide, the technology for the production of gas is a mature one and is available through several vendors. The analytical methods for measurement of chlorine dioxide, although requiring careful consideration, are well developed and understood. The mode of action on viruses and (vegetative) bacteria are well known.

Several other gaseous materials are in common use that could be considered in the present context. These include chlorine and ozone. While chlorine and ozone both share the characteristics of wide experience of use, known and understood analysis methods, and modes of action, they have several important disadvantages with respect to chlorine dioxide. Aberto / Como

2021-10-07 03:49:50 Decontamination Using Chlorine Dioxide



TESTIMONY OF CHARLES N.HAAS

L.D. Betz Professor of Environmental Engineering

School of Environmental Science, Engineering & Policy

Drexel University

Philadelphia, PA 19104



FOR THE

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE

UNITES STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES



HEARINGS ON

“The Decontamination of Anthrax and Other Biological Agents”



Thursday, November 8, 2001, 10am


Mr. Chairman, Honorable Members of the Committee. I am Charles N. Haas, L.D. Betz Professor of Environmental Engineering at Drexel University. I have over 25 years of experience in the field of disinfection processes, and have also worked in the area of microbial risk assessment. I have chaired the disinfection committees of both the American Water Works Association, and the Water Environment Federation. I am a Fellow of the American Academy of Microbiology, and a Councilor of the Society of Risk Analysis. The opinions I offer will be those of my own and not necessarily those of any of the organizations with which I am associated.

I would like to preface my remarks with a quote from a consensus paper on “Anthrax as a Biological Weapon”, published in May of 1999(25):

“…decontamination of large urban areas or even a building following an exposure to an anthrax aerosol would be extremely difficult and is not indicated. Although the risk of disease caused by secondary aerosolization would be extremely low, it would be difficult to offer absolute assurance that there was not risk whatsoever. Postexposure vaccination, if vaccine were available, might be a possible intervention that could further lower the risk of anthrax infection in this setting.”

The task of decontamination under the setting motivating this hearing is thus a very hard problem, that even recently was one not given high consideration.

Introduction
Chlorine dioxide was first produced from the reaction of potassium chlorate and hydrochloric acid by Davy in 1811(31). However, not until the industrial scale preparation of sodium chlorite, from which chlorine dioxide may more readily be generated, did its widespread use occur(38).

Chlorine dioxide has been used widely as a bleaching agent in pulp and paper manufacture(38). Despite early investigations on the use of chlorine dioxide as an oxidant and disinfectant(2), its ascendancy in both water and wastewater treatment has been slow. As recently as 1971(32), it was stated that " . . . ClO2 has never been used extensively for water disinfection."

By 1977, 84 potable water treatment plants in the United States were identified as using chlorine dioxide treatment, although only one of these relied upon it as a primary disinfectant(31). In Europe, chlorine dioxide was being used as either an oxidant or disinfectant in almost 500 potable water treatment plants(31). By the early 1990’s in the US, between 500 and 900 water utilities were estimated as using chlorine dioxide either on a continuous or occasional basis(14).

The physiological mode of inactivation of bacteria by chlorine dioxide has been attributed to a disruption of protein synthesis (4). In the case of viruses, chlorine dioxide preferentially inactivates the outer protein layers, rather than nucleic acids (34, 35).

In applications in drinking water, chlorine dioxide is generated on an as needed basis by a controlled chemical reaction. Routes to generation of the chemical are generally either the reaction of acid with sodium chlorite or the reaction of chlorine with sodium chlorite. The generated gas has varying degrees of purity depending upon the generating system and its operation (16). In understanding the efficacy and potential side effects of treatment with chlorine dioxide, it is important to know how the gas is generated, and at what purity. Aberto / Como

2021-10-05 01:30:26 “Toda mudança começa dentro de nós. Quando assumimos total responsabilidade pela nossa vida e pela nossa realidade, somos capazes de despertar para o aqui e o agora e usar o nosso precioso tempo com sabedoria. Para isso, é necessário fazer uma revolução interna para se conhecer profundamente, descobrir quem você é na sua essência, encontrar o seu eu mais profundo. Durante esta descoberta contínua, precisamos agir de forma coerente com quem somos: seres incríveis, capazes de tudo, com uma força interna gigante e um potencial infinito.” Aberto / Como

2021-09-27 01:52:13 Veja a diferença do kit mms x kit mms utilizado no tratamento de câncer(es)!

OS PRINCIPAIS PROTOCOLOS (protagonistas):

- PROTOCOLO BÁSICO É O 1000, será 8x ao dia (Clorito de sódio+ ativador);

KIT BÁSICO ou INICIANTE:
compre aqui: https://www.clo2.com.br/purificador-de-agua-100ml-cada-frasco
embalagem: plástica

https://www.clo2.com.br/f811bh3k0-kit-purificador-de-agua-100ml-100ml-vol-200ml
embalagem: vidro âmbar

- PROTOCOLO OTIMIZADO é 1000plus, será 8x ao dia combinado com dmso.
Kit com Dmso:
Embalagem: plástico + vidro https://www.clo2.com.br/cmf031fqj-purificador-de-agua-100ml-cada-frasco

https://www.clo2.com.br/v1xumobk4-kit-purificador-de-agua-dmso-99-100ml-100ml-100ml-vol-300ml
embalagem: vidro âmbar

- PROTOCOLO NO CÂNCER É 2000, será 10x ao dia combinado com dmso + as cápsulas de azul de metileno (01x ao dia no almoço), e coadjuvantes quando necessário.

https://www.clo2.com.br/kit-purificador-de-agua-dmso-99-100ml-cada-frasco-az-150

Protocolo coadjuvantes que poderão ser combinados:

Banhos, Enemas, Duchas, Spray, Colírio, na pele e Etc.

siga as orientações com CDS para obter os mesmos resultados:
Cds 3.000ppm
https://www.clo2.com.br/sdc-eletrolitico

Equivalência:
A equivalência de ingestão entre o CD/MMS e o CDS foi estabelecida como 1 ml de CDS = 1 gota de CD/MMS ativada. Ainda que cientificamente não seja de todo correto, utilizaremos esta analogia, tendo em conta a reação secundária no estômago.
Fonte: Item 11 das Regras Gerais, Livro Saúde Proibida – Andreas Kalcker, página 116

MMS é em gotas, e o CDS em ML. Aberto / Como

2021-09-27 01:45:14 https://t.me/cursobrasilmms/79 Aberto / Como

2021-09-24 23:57:19 ACERVO PARA CONSULTA
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B-2vDwkMeBg3Ul80TTIzNTRvek0&resourcekey=0-i__oqmt-IsOW-P1x1-ZQ9A Aberto / Como