Dutrion Microbial Safety in Swimming Pools

The primary aim of the Microbial Safety in swimming wateris theprotection of public health. The use of swimming pools and similar recreational waterenvironments – and the resulting social interaction, relaxation and exercise – is associatedwith benefits to health and well-being.The hazards that are encountered in swimming pools and similar environments vary from site to site, as does exposure to the hazards. In general, most available information relates to health outcomes arising from exposure through swimming and ingestion of water.

Swimming pools may be supplied with fresh (surface or ground), marine or thermalwater (i.e. from natural hot springs). They may be domestic (private), semi-public (e.g.hotel, school, health club, housing complex, cruise ship) or public (e.g. municipal),and they may be supervised or unsupervised. Swimming pools may be located indoors,outdoors (i.e. open air) or both; they may be heated or unheated. In terms of structure,the conventional pool is often referred to as the main, public or municipal pool.

Where there are high public load and rapid agitation of water, it may become difficult to maintain satisfactory pH,microbial quality and disinfectant concentrations. As users may include:

• the general public;

• children/babies;

• hotel guests;

• tourists;/health club members;

• exercise class members (e.g. aqua-aerobics);

• competitive swimmers;

• non-swimmers;

• clients of outdoor camping parks;

• leisure bathers, including clients of theme parks; and

• specialist sporting users, including scuba divers, canoeists and water polo participants.

Certain groups of users may be more predisposed to hazards than others. For example:

• Children may spend long periods in recreational waters and are more likely than

adults to intentionally or accidentally swallow water.

• The elderly and handicapped may have strength, agility and stamina limitations.

• Immunocompromised individuals may be at higher risk from microbial or

chemical hazards.

A very high rate of water exchange is necessary (even if not completely effective) if there is no other way of preventing microbial contamination, where complete drain-down between users is not possible

Hazard and risk

Popularly, the terms hazard and risk are used interchangeably. Correctly, a hazard is a setof circumstances that could lead to harm – harm being injury, illness or loss of life. Therisk of such an event is defined as the probability that it will occur as a result of exposure to a defined quantum of hazard. In simpler terms, hazard is the potential for harm,while risk is the chance that harm will actually occur.Ingestion of, inhalation of or contact with pathogenic bacteria, viruses,fungi and protozoa, which may be present in water and pool surroundingsas a result of faecal contamination, carried by participants or animalsusing the water or naturally present

Microbial Hazards

A variety of microorganisms can be found in swimming pools and similar recreationalwater environments, which may be introduced in a number of ways.In many cases, the risk of illness or infection has been linked to faecal contaminationof the water. Many of the outbreaks related to swimmingpools would have been prevented or reduced if the pool had been well managed.

Non-faecal human shedding (e.g. from vomit, mucus, saliva or skin) in the swimmingpool or similar recreational water environments is a potential source of pathogenicorganisms. Some bacteria, most notably non-faecally-derived bacteria, may accumulate in biofilms and present an infection hazard.

In addition, certain freelivingaquatic bacteria and amoebae can grow in pool, natural spa or hot tub waters,in pool or hot tub components or facilities (including heating, ventilation and air-conditioningsystems) or on other wet surfaces within the facility to a pointat which some of them may cause a variety of respiratory, dermal or central nervoussystem infections or diseases. Outdoor pools may also be subject to microorganismsderived directly from pets and wildlife.

Microbes in Swimming Pools

1.      Faecally-Derived Microbes

a.      Viruses

I.                    Adenoviruses

II.                 Hepatitis A

III.               Noroviruses

IV.              Eneteroviruses

b.      Bacteria

I.                    Shigella spp.

II.                 E.coli 0157

c.       Protozoa

I.                    Giardia

II.                 Crytosporidium

2.      Non-faecally-Derived Microbes

a.      Viruses

I.                    Molluscipoxvirus

II.                 Papillomavirus

III.               Adenoviruses

b.      Bacteria

I.                    Legionella spp.

II.                 Pseudomonas spp.

III.               Mycobacterium spp.

IV.               Staphylococcus aureus

V.                  Leptospira spp.

c.       Protozoa

I.                    NaegleriaFowleri

II.                 Acanthamoeba spp.

III.               Plasmodium spp.

d.      Fungi

I.                    Trichophyton spp.

II.                 Epidermophytonfloccosum

Chemicals use in Swimming Pools

Chemicals found in pool water can be derived from a number of sources: the sourcewater, deliberate additions such as disinfectants and the pool users themselves. While there is clearly a need to ensure proper consideration of health and safetyissues for operators and pool users in relation to the use and storage of swimming poolchemicals

There are three main routes of exposure to chemicals in swimming pools and similarenvironments:

• direct ingestion of water;

• inhalation of volatile or aerosolized solutes; and

• dermal contact and absorption through the skin.

A number of management-derived chemicals are added to pool water in order toachieve the required water quality. A proportion of pool water is constantly undergoingtreatment, which generally includes filtration (often in conjunction with coagulation),pH correction and disinfection

Disinfection

A range of disinfectants are used in swimming pools and similar environments. Themost common are outlined in Table below. They are added in order to inactivate pathogens and other nuisance microorganisms.Chlorine, in one of its various forms, is the most widely used disinfectant.Some disinfectants, such as ozone and UV, kill or inactivate microorganisms asthe water undergoes treatment, but there is no lasting disinfectant effect or ‘residual’that reaches the pool and continues to act upon chemicals and microorganisms in thewater. Therefore, there is a need of disinfectant which can be employed to provide continued disinfection. Chlorine Dioxide can be chosen for its higher residual level in the water.

The type and form of disinfectant need to be chosen with respect to the specific requirementsof the pool. In the case of small and domestic pools, important requirements areeasy handling and ease of use as well as effectiveness. In all cases, the choice of disinfectantmust be made after consideration of the efficacy of a disinfectant under the circumstancesof use and the ability to monitor disinfectant levels.

Disinfectants used most frequently in large, heavily used pools	Disinfectants used in smaller pools and hot tubs	Disinfectants used for small-scale and domestic pools
Chlorine • Gas • Calcium/sodium hypochlorite • Electrolytic generation of sodium hypochlorite • Chlorinated isocyanurates (generally outdoor pools) Bromochlorodimethylhydantoin (BCDMH) Chlorine Dioxide Ozonea UVa	Bromine • Liquid bromine • Sodium bromide + hypochlorite Lithium hypochlorite	Bromide/hypochlorite UVa UV–ozonea Iodine Hydrogen peroxide/ silver/copper Biguanide

Table: Disinfectants and disinfecting systems used in swimming pools and similar environments

 

Chlorine-based disinfectants

Chlorination is the most widely used pool water disinfection method, usually in theform of chlorine gas, sodium, calcium or lithium hypochlorite but also with chlorinatedisocyanurates. These are all loosely referred to as ‘chlorine’.It is recommended that acceptable levelsof free chlorine continue to be set at the local level, but in public and semi-publicpools these should not exceed 3 mg/l (3.0ppm) and in public/semi-public hot tubs these shouldnot exceed 5 mg/l. Lower free chlorine concentrations may be health protective whencombined with other good management practices (e.g. pre-swim showering, effective coagulation and filtration, etc.) or when ozone or UV is also used. But there has been issues regarding with its effectiveness:

·         Its efficacy is controversial at higher pH values.

·         Chlorine is very temperature sensitive, therefore less effectiveness in temperature un-control  pools

·         Has colour taste and smell, which is very irritating for the users. Many of reports suggest chlorine sensitivity for certain people, which may result in irritation, skin rashes and many eye problems

·         Use at higher dose to achieve the require results

·         No standardized chlorine is available in the local market. Therefore efficacy results are dramatically variable

·         CT value is much higher, means almost 60-90 min are required to disinfect the pool

·         Greater concerns are for its by-products, which include chloramines, Trihalomethanes THMs. These by-products are considered as carcinogenic for the human use, and has been condemned by international agencies for human use  

Chlorine dioxide

Chlorine dioxide is not classed as a chlorine-based disinfectant, as it acts in a differentway and does not produce free chlorine. Chlorine dioxide breaks down to chlorite andchlorate, which will remain in solution; the WHO health-based drinking-water provisionalguideline value for chlorite is 0.7 mg/l (0.7ppm) (based on a TDI of 0.03 mg/kg of bodyweight) (WHO, 2004), and this is also the provisional guideline for chlorate.

Chlorine dioxide makes it an ideal choice to meet the microbial and oxidative challenges of today’s environmentally concerned world.  It is an ideal replacement for chlorine, providing all of the benefits of chlorine and more, but without any of its weaknesses and detriments.  Chlorine dioxide is a broad spectrum biocide with 2.6 times the oxidizing capacity of chlorine.  It is a selective oxidizer that is effective across a broad pH range. 

Chlorine dioxide is an effective tool for the treatment of pool and recreational water. It is a powerful disinfectant that nicely balances purification performance against disinfection by product formation. It is one of four EPA approved disinfectants for drinking water with CT values second only to ozone in biocidal efficacy but without the ozonation by-products or high capital expense.

Dutrion (Chlorine Dioxide) is manufactured by Dutrion North America Ltd located in Western Canada. Dutrion products comply with the highest regulatory purity standards for drinking and pool water, such as NSF.60 standards. Dutrion are transportable, non-explosive one component tablet, once added to specific volume of water, reacts quickly and safe into long lasting chlorine dioxide solution with a concentration of 0.2%.

Chlorine Dioxide has several advantages over chlorine, bromides and ozone.

•           It is more effective as a disinfectant than chlorine in most circumstances against water borne pathogenic microbes such as viruses, bacteria and protozoa – including the cysts of Giardia and the oocytes of Cryptosporidium

•           Recommended by WHO as safest disinfectant

•           Fully operational on pH levels between 4-10

•           Temperature independent

•           No taste, smell and odour

•           Long term residual disinfection effectiveness

•           No reaction with ammonia, thus no release of THM recommended for human

•           No corrosive effects

•           Very flexible in dosing rates and combined disinfection

•           No release of free chlorine

•           Only limited investment cost

•           Does not change the smell, taste and colour of drinking water

•           Easy to transport

•           NSF certified product

•           First time ever in Pakistani market

•           Ready to use in powder/tablet (20gm) form

•           North American manufactured with all quality and standard certificates, which comply all federal and international regulations

•           Very much cost effective.

•           Most diseases related with water contamination can be controlled

Dutrion Chlorine Dioxide; # 1 Water Treatment concept for POULTRY

POULTRY PRODUCTION CYCLE

Reduced contamination level and improved production performance and profitability

The only way to address and eliminate biofilm risks is to strip the biofilm, prevent its
re-growth and kill the microbial contamination

Benefits DUTRION “golden” Chlorine Dioxide:
Improves performance of birds!
Very fast and long active in waterlines compare to other sanitizers
Does not have pH limitation and is not corrosive for equipment
Final elimination of (waterborne) pathogens in poultry barns
Effective & fast sanitation program with spraying & fogging
High efficacy against E.coli, Salmonella, Listeria, Aspergillus, Penicillium, Staphylococcus
Easy to apply, easy to monitor and very safe
Very cost effective compare to all other disinfectants
NO INVESTMENT COSTS TO START; use regular dosing pump

 

Microbial Contamination at Poultry/Meat Processing Plant and use of Chlorine Dioxide

Food Safety has become one of the most visible issues of recent times. Outbreaks of foodborne illness persist worldwide and in the U.S. food supply even though it is considered one of the safest in the world. Moreover, consumer fears over the safety of animal-derived foods in particular, have led to some erosion of public confidence in the beef, poultry, dairy and seafood industries. Of greatest concern to consumers is contamination of foods with microbial pathogens.

Microbial Routes

It becomes necessary to maintain absolute hygiene and strict control at different stages of processing to produce a safe and wholesome chicken/meat product. Healthy animals ready for processing harbour a tremendous amount and variety of bacteria. These bacteria are present on the surfaces of feet, skin and also in the intestines. During processing, a high proportion of these organisms will be removed, but further contamination can occur at any stage of the processing operation. The procedure for converting a live, healthy animal into a safe and wholesome product provides many opportunities for micro-organisms to colonise on the surface of the carcase. During the various processing operations, opportunities exist for the contamination of the carcases from the environment, the process in the plant itself, contamination via knives, equipment, the hands of workers and also by cross-contamination from carcase to carcase. Some processing operations encourage an increase of contamination or even multiplication of contaminating organisms. As a result, the microbial population changes from mainly Gram-positive rods and micrococci on the outside of the live chicken to Gram-negative micro-organisms on the finished product (Bryan, 1980; Thomas et al., 1980; Eustace, 1981; Roberts, 1982; Grau, 1986; Bailey et al., 1987; Connor et al., 1987; Banwart, 1989; Mead, 1989). Poultry processing has a number of unique features which make control of microbial contamination more difficult than the processing of any other conventional meat animal. Among them is the rapid rate of processing in some processing plants, a condition which favours the spread of micro-organisms. The carcase must be kept whole throughout the process and the viscera have to be removed rapidly through a small opening in the abdomen without breakage, to minimise contamination of the carcase with intestinal organisms. After defeathering, the skin provides a complex surface with many holes which are capable of trapping bacteria (Mead, 1982; Grau, 1986; Mead, 1989). The micro-organisms are widely distributed over the carcases under normal circumstances and are spread over the skin during scalding and defeathering and on the inner and outer surfaces during evisceration and further processing (Bailey et al., 1987). Efforts should be made to prevent the build-up of contamination peaks during processing. Rinsing of the carcases, especially during defeathering and evisceration is therefore of great importance (McMeekin et al., 1979a; Brown et al., 1982; Mead, 1982; Anand et al., 1989; Mead, 1989). Spoilage bacteria grow mainly on the skin surfaces, in the feather follicles and on cut muscle surfaces under the skin. The nature and rate of attachment of the micro-organisms depends upon several factors including the bacteria involved and their concentration and also the conditions under which attachment occurs, namely, pH, temperature and contact-time. It was also found that Pseudomonas strains attach to meat surfaces more rapidly than any other bacteria (Firstenberg-Eden, 1981). The structure of the skin also has a crucial influence on attachment of bacteria. The organisms adhere by way of flagella and fimbrae and cannot easily be removed by rinsing, especially after a delay. Research also shows that mesophilic bacteria are more heat-resistant when attached to skin than are the same bacteria not attached. (Barnes et al., 1973; Green, 1974; Notermans et al., 1974; Notermans et al., 1975; Harrigan, 1976; Firstenberg-Eden, 1981; Thomas et al., 1981; Faber et al., 1984; Lillard, 1985). The skin serves as a barrier to micro-organisms that might otherwise contaminate the underlying muscle and therefore the deep muscles are normally free of bacteria (Bryan, 1980; Mead, 1982). The few bacteria found in the deep muscle are of types that can only multiply slowly or not at all at low temperatures. The important microbiological changes take place on the surfaces of the carcases. It appears that some parts of the carcase are more favourable than others for bacterial growth, depending on the type of muscle and pH.

Food Borne Pathogens

The U.S. FoodNet Surveillance system currently monitors sites in seven U.S. regions containing 25.8 million people (7.7% of the U.S. population). In 1999 within the surveillance area, a total of 10,717 confirmed cases of foodborne illnesses were identified in 5 states and of these, 10,248 cases were of bacterial origin. These included 3,884 cases caused by Campylobacter, 4,488 Salmonella cases, 510 E. coli 0157:H7 cases, and 114 Listeria cases (CDC, 1999). There are approximately 2 million cases of foodborne salmonellosis annually in the U.S., resulting in an estimated annual cost of one billion dollars (Roberts, 1988; Budnick, 1990). Outbreaks of foodborne disease are most often attributed to inadequate cooking, temperature abuse, use of contaminated raw ingredients, and cross-contamination (Doyle and Cliver, 1990). Although many of the factors that contribute to foodborne disease outbreaks are directly related to the activities of the consumer or food service worker, the mere presence of these pathogens on raw foods coming from the processing plant contributes significantly to the potential occurrence of foodborne disease outbreaks. Listeria monocytogenes was the number one reason for recalls of contaminated meat and poultry products between 1994-1998. Annually the meat and poultry products as well as other food industries are confronted with recalling their products from the retail and wholesale market due to L. monocytogenes or other bacterial contamination. In 2001, there were 11 food product recalls due to L. monocytogenes contamination. The expense for a recall alone without taking into account liability can run into the millions of rupee..

The development of multiple safety hurdles to control foodborne pathogens and spoilage microorganisms along the food chain (from farm to table) remains a top research priority of several U.S. regulatory agencies (i.e., USDA and FDA) and the Executive Branch of Government (i.e., "Food Safety from Farm to Table" presidential initiative). In particular, their priorities are focused on developing and implementing HACCP programs (Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point). One aspect of the farm to table HACCP program that needs greater attention is the control of bacterial pathogen proliferation and prevention of product cross-contamination as products move through the processing plant. Moreover, the prevention or elimination of biofilms on food contact surfaces remains a high priority research area since little is known on how these micro colonies of microorganisms contribute to product contamination and ultimately the risk associated with food borne illness.

Pathogens	Spoilage Bacteria
Salmonella	Acinetobacter
Clostridium perfringens	Shewanella
Staphylococcus aureus	Pseudomonas spp.
Yersinia	Flavobacterium
Campylobacter	Moraxella
Escherichia coli	Aeromonas
Listeria monocytogenes	Enterobacter spp.
	Corynebacteria
	Micrococcus

Role of Biofilm

The importance of biofilms to food safety and spoilage warrants a better understanding of their biology, structure, function, and ultimately prevention or elimination. Biofilms consist of bacteria, fungi, and/or protozoa growing alone or in combination that are bound together by an extracellular matrix that is generally attached to a solid or firm surface. They form on surfaces in large part because nutrients are found in higher concentrations than in open liquid (Blackman and Frank, 1996).

From the standpoint of food safety and spoilage, biofilms are important because of their accumulation on foods, food utensils, and food contact surfaces in processing plants; and because they are difficult to remove. While under natural conditions biofilms tend to be composed of mixed cultures, pure biofilm systems are often used in laboratory studies. Some of the solid surfaces employed to study foodborne bacteria biofilms include floor sealant, rubber, stainless, steel, and Teflon. Conveyor belt materials used in food processing plants would be another excellent surface to study since most foods are generally conveyed throughout processing plants on conveyor belts.

From the numerous published studies that have examined biofilm formation in food processing environments, the following statements can be made:

•       Microorganisms in biofilms are considerably more resistant to remove by commonly used cleaning and sanitizing agents.

•       In general, microorganisms in biofilms are more difficult to destroy by lethal agents (Chumkhunthod, 1998; Frank and Koffi, 1990).

•       The attachment of a given pathogen to surfaces may be aided by the formation of a mixed-culture biofilm (Bruswell et al., 1998; Leriche and Carpertier, 1995; Sasahara and Zottola, 1993).

•       Microorganisms in biofilms may exhibit different physiologic reactions than planktonic forms, and the biofilm may contain cells in the viable but nonculturable state (Carpertier and Cerf, 1993; Chumkhunthod, 1998)

•       The use of cleaners and sanitizers in combination rather then singly appears to be more effective in removing biofilm growth (Arizcum et al., 1998; Oh and Marshall, 1966).

•       Not all strains of the same species are equally capable of initiating biofilm formation; surface attachment and biofilm development are distinctly two different processes (Michiels et al., 1997; Kim and Frank, 1995).

Disinfectants at Processing Plant

Disinfectants are substances that are applied to non-living objects to destroy microorganisms that are living on the objects. Disinfection does not necessarily kill all microorganisms, especially non-resistant bacterial spores; it is less effective than sterilisation, which is an extreme physical and/or chemical process that kills all types of life. Disinfectants are different from other antimicrobial agents such as antibiotics, which destroy microorganisms within the body, and antiseptics, which destroy microorganisms on living tissue. Disinfectants are also different from biocides — the latter are intended to destroy all forms of life, not just microorganisms.

The primary constituent of all food processing plant cleaners is water. Basic water requirements commonto all food processing operations are that it must be free from disease producing organisms, toxic metal ions,and objectionable odours and tastes. Pure water presents no problems, but no food processingestablishment has an ideal water supply. Therefore, the cleaning compounds must be tailored to theindividual water supply and type of operation.Water impurities effecting cleaning.

A.      Suspended matter must be kept to a minimum to avoid deposits on clean equipment surfaces.Suspended matter can be removed only by treatment

B.      Soluble iron and manganese salts - concentrations above 0.3 ppm will cause coloured deposits onequipment surfaces. Soluble iron and manganese can be removed only by treatment.

C.      Water Hardness: Water hardness due to salts of calcium and magnesium present a major problem in the use ofcleaners by reducing effectiveness and by forming surface deposits. Water hardness can bereduced or eliminated by passing the water through a softener.

A perfect disinfectant would also offer complete and full sterilisation, without harming other forms of life, be inexpensive, and non-corrosive. However, ideal disinfectants do not exist. Most disinfectants are also, by nature, potentially harmful (even toxic) to humans or animals. The choice of disinfectant to be used depends on the particular situation. Some disinfectants have a wide spectrum (kill many different types of microorganisms), while others kill a smaller range of disease-causing organisms but are preferred for other properties (they may be non-corrosive, non-toxic, or inexpensive).

The primary reason for the application of effective disinfection procedures is to reduce those disease

organisms which may be present on equipment or utensils after cleaning to a safe level as may be judgedby public health requirements, and thus prevent the transfer of such organisms to the ultimate consumer.In addition, disinfection procedures may prevent spoilage of foods. The existence of any microbe in a foodenvironment must be strictly controlled. The so-called harmless microbe under the proper conditions canbecome a nuisance. Food can become contaminated, reproduce to sufficient numbers to cause off-colours,off-odours and off-flavours. Unsightly growth often results in waste and loss of precious dollars. Many kindsof bacteria can cause slime formation on meats, poultry, fish and similar edibles.

Factors effecting antimicrobial effectiveness of chemical germicides

·         Concentration - minimum concentration required for effective disinfecting.

·         pH - actual pH of germicidal solution depends on the type of germicide

·         Temperature - in general warm 38 - 45 degrees C. (100-115 degrees F.) or hot 50 - 75 degrees C.(120-170 degrees F.) Water is preferred

·         Time of exposure - a minimum time is needed for complete disinfection

·         Cleanliness of equipment - some germicides are more affected by soils than others

·         Water hardness - in hard water a different germicide is sometimes needed than in soft water

·         Incompatible agents - most germicide are incompatible with each other or are in compatible withsoaps or other additives

Types of Disinfectants used in Poultry/Meat processing Plants

·         Chlorine releasing compounds - 100 ppm available chlorine

·         Chlorine Dioxide – limited up to 3.0 ppm

·         Iodine complexes - known as iodophors - 30 ppm titratable iodine

·         Quaternary ammonium compounds (Quats) - 450 ppm available quat

·         Acid-anionic combination - 200 ppm available anionic

·         Synthetic phenols - 700 ppm synthetic phenols

1.       Chlorine Releasing Compounds

Chlorination is the most widely used water disinfection method in poultry/meat processing plant, usually in the form of chlorine gas, sodium, calcium or lithium hypochlorite but also with chlorinated isocyanurates. Chlorine is a toxic gas that irritates the respiratory system. Because it is heavier than air, it tends to accumulate at the bottom of poorly ventilated spaces. Chlorine gas is a strong oxidizer, which may react with flammable materials. When used at specified levels for water disinfection, the reaction of chlorine with water is not a major concern for human health. However, other materials present in the water may generate disinfection by-products that can damage human health.

But there has been issues regarding with its effectiveness:

•          Its efficacy is controversial at higher pH values.

•          Chlorine is very temperature sensitive, therefore less effectiveness at low temperature 

•          Use at higher dose to achieve the require results

•          No standardized chlorine is available in the local market. Therefore efficacy results are dramatically variable

•          CT value is much higher, means almost 60-90 min.

·                Greater concerns are for its by-products, which include chloramines, Trihalomethanes THMs. These by-products are considered as carcinogenic for the human use, and has been condemned by international agencies

·                Corrosive to many metals - hypochlorites more corrosive than organic chlorines.

·                Irritating to the skin and mucous membranes.

·                Dissipates rapidly from solutions.

·                Effectiveness decreases with increasing pH of most chlorine solutions.

·                Activity decreases rapidly in the presence of organic matter.

·                Odour can be offensive.

·                Efficacy against many bacteria and protozoans is controversial 

Chlorine dioxide

Chlorine dioxide is not classed as a chlorine-based disinfectant, as it acts in a different way and does not produce free chlorine. Chlorine dioxide breaks down to chlorite and chlorate, which will remain in solution; the WHO health-based drinking-water provisional guideline value for chlorite is 0.7 mg/l (0.7ppm) (based on a TDI of 0.03 mg/kg of body weight) (WHO, 2004), and this is also the provisional guideline for chlorate.

Chlorine dioxide makes it an ideal choice to meet the microbial and oxidative challenges of today’s environmentally concerned world.  It is an ideal replacement for chlorine, providing all of the benefits of chlorine and more, but without any of its weaknesses and detriments.  Chlorine dioxide is a broad spectrum biocide with 2.6 times the oxidizing capacity of chlorine.  It is a selective oxidizer that is effective across a broad pH range. 

Chlorine dioxide is an effective tool for the treatment of pool and recreational water. It is a powerful disinfectant that nicely balances purification performance against disinfection by product formation. It is one of four EPA approved disinfectants for drinking water with CT values second only to ozone in biocidal efficacy but without the ozonation by-products or high capital expense.

Dutrion (Chlorine Dioxide) is manufactured by Dutrion North America Ltd located in Western Canada. Dutrion products comply with the highest regulatory purity standards for drinking and pool water, such as NSF.60 standards. Dutrion are transportable, non-explosive one component tablet, once added to specific volume of water, reacts quickly and safe into long lasting chlorine dioxide solution with a concentration of 0.2%.

Chlorine Dioxide has several advantages over chlorine, bromides and ozone.

•             It is more effective as a disinfectant than chlorine in most circumstances against water borne                pathogenic microbes such as viruses, bacteria and protozoa – including the cysts of Giardia and the oocytes of Cryptosporidium

•             Recommended by WHO as safest disinfectant

•             Fully operational on pH levels between 4-10

•             Temperature independent

•             No taste, smell and odour

•             Long term residual disinfection effectiveness

•             No reaction with ammonia, thus no release of THM recommended for human

•             No corrosive effects

•             Very flexible in dosing rates and combined disinfection

•             No release of free chlorine

•             Only limited investment cost

•             Does not change the smell, taste and colour of drinking water

•             Easy to transport

•             NSF certified product

•             First time ever in Pakistani market

•             Ready to use in powder/tablet (20gm) form

•             North American manufactured with all quality and standard certificates, which comply all federal and international regulations

•             Very much cost effective.

•             Most diseases related with water contamination can be controlled

Legal Criteria for disinfectants used in Poultry/Meat Processing Plants

All compounds bearing labels describing or directing their use as food grade disinfectants or making other antimicrobialclaims, must meet all requirements from FDA, EPA, and EU.

21 CFR 173.300 - Chlorine dioxide:

The additive may be used as anantimicrobial agent in water used in poultryprocessing in an amount not to exceed 3 partsper million (ppm) residual chlorine dioxide asdetermined by Method 500ClO2 E,referenced in paragraph (a)(2) of this section,or an equivalent method.Direct food additive permitted infood for human consumption; usedas an antimicrobial agent in waterused in poultry processing and towash fruits and vegetables

IARC

Carcinogenicity classification Group 3a: not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans

EPA

Exemption from the requirement ofa tolerance—Chlorine dioxide

 

Over the years we have been dependant on chlorine in different forms to disinfect the water, and ultimately achieving the goal of providing safe food. But we have experienced that beside many drawbacks of chlorine, this has been our top priority chemical due to its cheaper price. But when we become determined to go for quality and effectiveness with all regulatory requirements, and when we are flexible enough to adopt and absorb innovative technology and products with all aspects of cost effectiveness, we must consider Chlorine Dioxide as the alternative to chlorine.