The Potok 300 bio-inactivation device is a high quality medical air treatment device, specially build for applications in the hospital and for dentists.
The device is based on Potok technology used in the Mir orbital station and the International Space Station, using special nano materials and bio-inactivation technology to kill 99,8% of all virusses, bacteria and fungus. The devices operate in obstetric departments, neonatal units and operating rooms to serve as a highly efficient supplementary infection control device.
SMF Potok Inter
“We appreciate the design of the 300 unit, visitors of the Arab Health fair in Dubai and the Medica were very pleased with the product.”
Our client SMF Potok Inter does have many tests and certifications on the technology (http://en.potok-inter.ru/about-potok1.html#). The technology is used in space applications, like the orbital stations MIR and ISS. The system is widely used in operating rooms both in France and Russia. We worked closely with their engineering team to translate the space solutions into solutions and design that works in medical applications.
I don’t dispute that. But you didn’t answer my question.
Does Potok have any data that shows the use of their product in a hospital reduces the number of patient infections? You made the claim of infection control. I want to see evidence that supports your claim.
“Based on confirmed studies, we can make the following conclusion about the Potok technology as used in Potok 150-M-01 system:”
The technology provides inactivation of airborne microorganisms with an effectiveness of up to 100% (above 99%)
No living microorganism accumulation occurs inside active/contact element of the device
Microorganism inactivation (sterilization) process is localized within the inactivation zone of the functional subunit
A single Potok 150-M-01 device is capable of disinfecting rooms as large as 100 m3, to provide decrease in airborne bacterial contamination level from 1011 CFU/m3 down to 0 CFU/m3 within 90 minutes
V.V. Petrosov, Senior Research Fellow, Candidate of Medical Sciences,
Head of Immunoprophylaxis Team Legionellosis Laboratory
''The use of the Potok 150-M-01 device in a single-pass of highly concentrated aerosol on containing the bird flu (HPAI) virus and the Vaccinia virus resulted in highly effective aerosol filtration (by weight) as well as the desired effectiveness of airborne virus inactivation, in particular:
Aerosol filtration effectiveness (by weight) is 98.33%
Airborne virus inactivation effectiveness is 99.63%
Based on the testing, we conclude the high level of effectiveness of aerosol filtration and a desired effectiveness of airborne virus inactivation resulted from use og the Potok 150-M-01 ADU
Prof. Doctor of Medicine A.N. Sergeyev
But what you wrote says absolutely nothing about patient infections. Pathogen inactivation is not a reduction in patient infections. If you do not understand that difference, your venture in medical devices will be short and costly.
Good luck. I do look forward to reviewing data with regards to a reduction in infections, if it is ever published.
What I wonder is the probability of transmitting an infection through aerosol versus the probability of transmitting an infection through direct touch?
If were to guess, I’d go with 1 aerosol infection for every 1000 direct touch infections. And for the record, I have presented the exact same amount of evidence to my claim as the OP has made about their infection prevention claim.
As written, the device is an efficient supplementary infection control system, by inactivation of airborne pathogen. The technology is trusted for many years in the International Space Station and operating rooms in leading hospitals in the world.
A few scientific publications, some of them going into the question of successfully reducing infections of patients during operations and during rehabilitation after severe operations using the technology of inactivation of airborne pathogen:
In the couple of abstracts there are in English, there is no mention of infection reduction. If you intend to sell in North America, western Europe and Japan, you will be required to support your claim.
Your design is curious. Since all operating rooms are positively pressured, why not apply your technology at the air inlet instead of the exhaust? Why not use your technology at the point of care? Currently, the cauterizing lasers with built-in smoke evacuation use hepa filters to prevent the movement of pathogens. Why not use your technology there? Also, what is your pathogen inactivation efficacy rate as compared to just a hepa?
Sorry to hear you don’t read Russian. Just to be clear: the technology is not from us, but from out client SMF Potok Inter. The technology is great and sold world wide, they have much more information available, but not online.
HEPA is only a filter, the pathogen is not inactivated or killed, but keeps living in the filters. The Potok technology first kills / inactivates the pathogen by imploding them. A HEPA filter is only installed to filter the dead material of the imploded pathogen.
We support out clients with design and product development, clients being leading in their sectors, like Philips Health Systems, Edward Lifesciences, Swisscom and others.
If a pathogen is in the filter, living for that matter, how does it infect a patient? How is a living pathogen trapped in a filter any different than a dead pathogen trapped in filter with regards to infection control?
Again, claims must be proven to get FDA or CE approval, which in turn is needed to sell any device. You don’t support your clients with the ability to sell their product?
And why are you sorry I don’t speak Russian? I don’t speak most languages. I suspect neither do you.