PEER REVIEWED PUBLISHED STUDIES OF GOLDSHIELD
Study was conducted at Oakwood Hospital and Medical Center in Dearborn, Michigan, on high frequency contact surfaces within 18 hospital patient rooms. This study was the first evaluation of a distinctive antimicrobial agent (Goldshield 5/75) for hospital surface treatment. 9-month trial; Infection risks were reduced by 4 and 3 logs for gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria respectively. These risk reductions, along with HAI survey studies, suggest that application of Goldshield could prevent as many as 5%-10% of HAIs.
5-month randomized, double-blind controlled study, performed at Genesys Regional Medical Center, a 410-bed community teaching hospital in Grand Blanc, Michigan, in 18 medical intensive care unit rooms. Hard surfaces in all rooms cleaned using same protocol and then treated with Goldshield 75. This is the first randomized, double-blind controlled study of an innovative water stable organosilane (WSO) on high-touch hard surfaces at risk for high bioburdens. Sustained reductions of bioburden with the monthly application of this unique WSO may be associated with significant reductions in risk of health care associated infections.
Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, Michigan: Test of Goldshield 5 product for inhibitory activity against patient isolates of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA); Pseudomonas aeruginosa; and Escherichia coli on fabric and on Formica and stainless-steel surfaces. Found that Goldshield 5, on fabric, viability of bacterial isolates was inhibited for 14 days; and also reduced recovery of viable MRSA, PA and EC from Formica and stainless-steel carriers treated with Goldshield. Has inhibitory activity and potential utility as part of an infection control process.
Study of Goldshield 5 by three researchers at Tzu Chi University Hualien, Taiwan and published in Aerosol Science and Technology. Evaluation of ability and durability of a covalently bound antimicrobial surfactant coated onto mask surfaces before use, to reduce bacterial burden upon exposure to aerosols. Goldshield provided 99.3% efficiency for all three tested bacterial species (A. baumannii (ATCC 17978), E. faecalis (ATCC 29212); and S. aureus (ATCC 29213). The antimicrobial ability of the coated mask maintained efficacy at least one week after coating. For bio-aerosols that came into contact with the mask, the antimicrobial agent reduced the average colony rates by 91.8%. This antimicrobial product (Goldshield) has a durable inhibitory activity for the reduction of bacterial burdens on masks.
II: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA STUDIES ON GOLDSHIELD
{The purpose of this study was to demonstrate the efficacy and residual effects of Goldshield in inactivating Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and Vancomycin resistant Enterococcus (VRE) on stainless steel, plastic, vinyl and ceramic tiles. On all of these surfaces, except vinyl, (86.7%) the study showed over 98% residual protection. For example, the test showed that the residual effect 14 days after treatment against MRSA on stainless steel, plastics and tiles, was 99% or more.}
Dr. Shiyou Li, Research Professor, Director Center for Medicinal Plant Research, Stephen F. Austin University “White Paper on the Science and Efficacy of GOLDSHIELD 24 Comprised of Benzalkonium Chloride and an Efficacy Analysis of it Combined with Other Ingredients in Goldshield 24.” March 12, 2010.
{{In vitro study of Goldshield 24 against Influenza A H1N1 virus. Test showed a 2.83 log reduction against this deadly virus.}
{Utilizing ASTM E1053 protocol; ASTM E1482-04 Standard Test Method for Neutralization of Virucidal Agents in Virucidal efficacy evaluations; and U.S. E.PA. Pesticide Assessment Guidelines, Subdivision G: Product Performance, Section 91-2(f) and Section 91-30(d), €, November, 1982, tested Goldshield 5 against Influenza A H1N1 virus. Test Results: Goldshield 5 is effective against the H1N1 virus. After virus film was exposed to Goldshield 5, the reduction of the Influenza A H1N1 virus was a 2.5 log reduction. After applying the virus on the Goldshield 5 protected surface for one hour, the virus did not show infectivity.}
(8) Susan S. Blevins, B.S., SM (ASCP) et al. “Goldshield Hand Sanitizer Project” Aerobiology Laboratory Associates, Inc. Consulting Laboratory. March 12, 2010.
{Test by independent laboratory (Aerobiology Laboratory Associates, Inc.) of Goldshield 24 against MRSA, in vitro. Test showed significant log reduction in MRSA over 24-hour period, including 5.5 and 4.0 log reduction on two of the five samples tested.}
(9) Nathan L. Alt, B.S. Study Director, “ISO Closed Patch Sensitization Study: Goldshield treated face mask” NAMSA January 18, 2008.
{Study conducted by an independent laboratory (NAMSA) in Norwood, Ohio, to evaluate the potential for delayed dermal contact sensitization of Goldshield 5 treated face mask. Study conducted based on requirements of the International Organization for Standardization 10993: Biological evaluation of Medical Devices, Part 10: Tests for Irritation and delayed Type Hypersensitivity. The test showed no evidence of causing delayed dermal contact sensitization over 48 hours.}
(10) Samantha E. Wildeboer,B.S., M.S., MT. Study Director “Cytotoxicity Study Using the ISO Agarose Overlay Method (Solid): Goldshield treated face mask” NAMSA, November 29, 2007.
{Study at independent laboratory (NAMSA) in Norwood, Ohio, based on requirements of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 10993-5), was conducted on Goldshield 5 treated face mask. To determine the potential for cytotoxicity. The test article met the requirements of the ISO since the grade was less than a grade 2 (mild reactivity). The negative control and positive control performed as anticipated.}
(11) Samantha E. Wildeboer, B.S., M.S., MT, Study Director “ISO Skin Irritation Study: Goldshield treated face mask” NAMSA December 6, 2007.
{Study at independent laboratory (NAMSA) in Norwood, Ohio, of Goldshield 5 treated face mask, evaluated for primary skin irritation in accordance with the guidelines of the International Organization for Standardization 10993. Result: Very slight erythema and no edema were observed on the skin of rabbits. The Primary Irritation Index for the mask was calculated to be 0.0. The response of the mask was categorized as negligible.}
(12) Daniel R. Cerven, M.S. “Acute Inhalation Toxicity/LC 50 in Rats: Goldshield Procedural Mask” MB Research Laboratories, Spinnerstown, Pennsylvania, 2008.
{Study by independent GLP-certified laboratory, MB Research Laboratories in Spinnerstown, Pennsylvania, to provide information on health effects which may arise from short term exposure by the inhalation, of an aerosol atmosphere of the extract of Goldshield Procedural Mask at a concentration of 2.1 mg/ for a period of four hours. All of the animals tested appeared to be normal one hour after dosing, to ‘day 14’ of the test. Study was designed to comply with the standards set forth by EPA Health Effects Test Guidelines, OPPTS 870.1300, final guideline, August, 1998.}
(13) Alan Levine PhD, BS, MS Physics, BS, PS “Laboratory Tests of Goldshield Products on Wallboards”. RJ Lee Group, Inc. December 14, 2005.
{Study of Goldshield 5 and Goldshield 55, conducted by an independent laboratory, RJ Lee Group, Inc., Monroeville, Pennsylvania. Study designed to provide an initial evaluation of Goldshield 5 on wallboards. Visual observations showed that within four days a black fungus was the only organism observed and that only the UNTREATED sample was contaminated. Showed 99.9% (4-log reduction) reduction in bacteria and fungi on wallboards treated with Goldshield 5; 5-log reduction in Goldshield 55; compared to 2.5 log reduction for Comet treated boards.}
(14) Li Lieun PhD “Determining the Antimicrobial Activity of Bound or Incorporated Antimicrobial Agent(s) in Polymeric or Hydrophobic Materials” IBCI Laboratories, Norcross, Georgia, November, 2005.
(Test at independent laboratory (IBCI) in Norcross, Georgia, on polymeric and/or hydrophobic foam materials, treated with Goldshield 5 against Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). Test showed 94.5-96% reduction with 99.67%-99.72% inhibition of MRSA.}
(15) Elsa Rozas, B.S., Galina Tuninskaya, M.S. et al. “Log Reduction of Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) on Ceramic Tiles Residual Antimicrobial Effectiveness Tests on Products”. Applied Consumer Services, Inc., Hialeah Gardens, Florida, July 26, 2005.
{Study by independent laboratory (Applied Consumer Services, Inc.) Hialeah Gardens, Florida, of Goldshield 5 for log reduction of Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) on ceramic tiles, and residual antimicrobial effectiveness tests on products. Study showed 99.99% reduction for 60 minutes.}
(16) IBCI Laboratories “An evaluation of A.P. Goldshield’s Goldshield 5 antimicrobial on treated socks brand (GTB)” Garment Technology, Inc. Gaffney, South Carolina protocol application. November, 2006.
{Study by independent laboratory (IBCI) Norcross, Georgia; an evaluation of Goldshield 5 antimicrobial on treated socks brand GTB. Evaluation to include fifty washes, using nonionic detergent supplied by company (Goldshield 101). Tested against Staphylococcus aureus (ATCC#6538); Trichophyton mentagrophytes (ATCC#9533); and Aspergillus niger (ATCC#16404). Results showed 99.95% reduction in these organisms in unwashed socks treated with Goldshield 5 at concentration of 5%; and 96.85% reduction in these organisms when socks treated with Goldshield 5 were subjected to 50 washes at concentration of 5%.}
(17) Douglas Kassab, Director, Clinical Support Services, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center “Goldshield 5 Antimicrobial Test” March 10-April 24, 2008.
{Goldshield 5 Antimicrobial Test by University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. Sample of wheelchairs, MPU stretchers and tray tables were cleaned and treated with Goldshield 5. Objective was to review and evaluate a new cleaning protocol which includes the application of a new long-lasting antimicrobial, Goldshield 5. Used ATP Detection Program—system used to detect and record biological contamination on porous and non-porous surfaces. Average of 634 total tests, showed that doing regular cleaning regimen PLUS Goldshield had a dramatic reduction of bioburden and sustained reductions over a six-week period!! – significantly more impact than just a regular cleaning regimen without Goldshield.}
(18) Thomas Pease et al. Gentex Corporation “AATCC 100-2004 Assessment of antibacterial activity finishes on textile materials” Nelson Laboratory, July, 2005.
{Study done for Department of Defense by independent laboratory (Gentex Corp.) to evaluate Goldshield against Bacillus atrophaeus spores (ATCC#9372); Staphylococcus aureus (ATCC#6538) and Bacteriophage (ATCC#13706-B1). Log reductions of 5.83, 5.84, 5.89, and 5.88 recorded; (99.998% reduction) in bioburdens, using Goldshield 5 in DoD-supplied textile materials.}
(19) Dr. Nigel Yarlet, Chair of Chemistry and Physical Sciences, Director of Haskins Laboratories, NY, Pace University; Ms. Mary Morrada “Goldshield 5 Technology Tested Against MRSA (Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus aureus) to Determine the Ability to Prevent the Formation of the Bacteria on Artificial Grass”. December 10, 2006.
{Study carried out at Haskins Laboratories, Pace University, New York, New York. Goldshield 5 technology tested against MRSA (Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus aureus) to determine ability to prevent formation of the bacteria on Artificial Grass. Results: 100% reduction in bioburden on treated artificial grass vs. untreated artificial grass samples.}
(20) Thomas Gentle, PhD. Minntech Corporation “An Evaluation of Safety and Efficacy of the Procedural Face Mask Treated with Goldshield Anti-Microbial Agent”. April 3, 2008.
{An evaluation of safety and efficacy of Goldshield-treated procedural and surgical face masks. Using AATCC method for Antibacterial Finishes on Textile materials: Assessment (Test Method 100-2004) by an independent laboratory. Test organisms were Staphylococcus aureus, Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), Vancomycin-resistant enterococcus (VRE) and Candida albicans. Goldshield-treated masks proven effective against all four organisms. Passed all of the safety tests. Reduction over 10 minutes of 99.99% for each of the four organisms. Biocompatibility and cytotoxicity studies indicated Goldshield treated masks are safe to use and kill at least 99% of harmful bacteria tested.}
(21) Nigel Yarlet, PhD. And Mary Morada, Haskins Laboratory, Pace University “Evaluation of Goldshield Antimicrobial Treated Masks of Polypropylene Against Methicillin Resistant strain of Staphylococcus aureus”. November, 13, 2006.
{Evaluation of Goldshield 5 Antimicrobial Treated Masks of Polypropylene against Methicillin Resistant Strain of Staphylococcus aureus by Haskins Laboratory, Pace University, New York, New York. After two hours of evaluation, showed that the Goldshield 5 concentrated product resulted in a reduction in bacterial load of 99.05%; and masks treated with 5% solution plus a wetting agent resulted in a 100% reduction. At the 24-hour evaluation, the 5% concentrated product reduced bacterial load by 99.99% and mask treated with 5% solution plus wetting agent, results in 100% reduction.}
(22) Laura Rafa RN, Infection Control West Virginia Hospital “Goldshield treatment of surfaces in context of regular cleaning protocols” December 29, 2009.
{Independent confidential test of Goldshield 5 in combination with cleaning protocol at a West Virginia hospital. Luminometer readings were taken of patient rooms and medical equipment, to determine contamination of such surfaces. Just doing baseline cleaning showed a 50% reduction in week 1; 14% in week 2; and only 4% in week 3. Just applying Goldshield once with no routine cleaning: 92% reduction in week 1; 83% in week 2; and 70% in week three. One-time electro static steam application of Goldshield then routine cleaning—96% reduction in week 1; 94% in week 2; and 93% in week 3. Goldshield wiped on surfaces once then routine cleaning: 97% reduction in week 1; 95% reduction in week 2; and 91% in week 3. And with Goldshield wiped on after each test, 98% reduction in week 1; 97% in week 2 and 97% in week 3.}
(23) Arthur Russell et al. and NY Board of Education Staff “Use of ATP Detection Process to Evaluate Residual Efficacy of Goldshield on Treated Surfaces in New York City Schools. December 1, 2006.
{Independent valuation of Goldshield 5 conducted by the New York City Board of Education, using ATP Detection System, at South Shore High School; Public School 253 and Far Rock High School in gymnasiums; weight rooms; classroom desks and sinks; and lockers. Initial testing of 19 of those spaces prior to treatment with Goldshield: 32% failure rate due to bacteria. After treatment with Goldshield, 100% PASS RATE with ZERO failures. Protection persisted for FOUR WEEKS!!!}
(24) Chris Wilkerson, EquipSystems “Environmental Testing Analysis of Goldshield Antimicrobial on Surfaces and Equipment”, New York Athletic Club. September 12, 2007.
{Independent evaluation of Goldshield 5 at New York Athletic Club, by EquipSystems. Performed an environmental test using ATP Detection System. 15 samples taken from the gym hotel, wrestling and judo rooms. Surfaces scrubbed, dried and treated with Goldshield 5, diluted to 1:4 ration; surfaces left for 10 minutes, wiped clean and re-tested. Goldshield eliminated 95% of all detected organisms.}
(25) Infection Control Department, Oakwood Hospital, HealthCure Inc. “Reduction of Bacteria Burden at Oakwood Hospital: An Improved System for Reducing Environmental Bacteria Threats and HAIs”. June 27, 2010.
{Study conducted by HealthCure at Oakwood Hospital in Michigan. Objective was to demonstrate the efficacy of a unique antimicrobial product and improve patient safety; develop an improved system for reducing environmental bacteria threats and Hospital Acquired Infections or HAIs. Selected 4 CVCU rooms for 30-day study; applied Goldshield 5 after traditional deep cleaning; and reapplied product after patient discharge and deep cleaning. 10 locations in rooms, including key board, door knobs, TV remote, bedside table, visitor chair, nurse and patient faucet handles, curtains, bed rails and phone. Data showed significant sustained benefit after application of Goldshield resulted in ‘up to 94% reduction in bacterial burden’ in the rooms on such high touch areas during 30-day period.}
Studies Conducted by Independent Corporations, Unnamed Lab Technicians
(26) “Antimicrobial Efficacy of Goldshield 5 CLEAR COATING on Metal Surfaces. ASTM Standards E1054, G21, G22, E1428. Bacteria: Pseudomona aeruginosa. Surface metal: Aluminum. January 22, 2007.
{Study of antimicrobial efficacy of Goldshield 5 on metal surfaces. Methods: ASTM E1054, G21, G22, E1428. Organism tested: Pseudomona aeruginosa. Treatment of aluminum with Goldshield 5 at 7% concentration was effective in reducing the number of viable microorganisms over a period of 72 hours. 96.15% inhibition and 85.71% reduction. Test showed that treated samples had residual protection against bacteria for 3 months.)
(27) “Reduction/Inhibition Percentage Results for Application of Goldshield 5 in Exhaust on 100% Cotton Samples Against Staphylococcus aureus.” Garment Technology Inc. T-Shirts January 22, 2007.
{Independent laboratory test for reduction/inhibition for application of Goldshield 5 in exhaust on 100% cotton samples against Staphylococcus aureus. AATCC Method 100-1993. Test of Cotton Control Jersey T-shirts provided by Garment technology, Inc. 99.99% inhibition and 99.99% reduction of bacteria on treated T shirts.}
(28) “Goldshield 5 Clear Coating Antimicrobial Efficacy when Incorporated HVAC and Air Systems Metallic Materials”. June 4, 2007.
{Independent test of Goldshield 5 antimicrobial efficacy when incorporated HVAC and Air Systems Metallic Materials. Test showed 90% reduction of bioburden on aluminum, stainless steel and galvanized metals.}
(29) “Antimicrobial Efficacy when Exhausted on Cotton and Poly-Cotton Materials against Candida albicans” August 26, 2007.
{GTT Test Report on KN95 3D respirator mask treated with Goldshield 5. Tested against Staphylococcus aureus; Colon bacillus; and Candida albicans. Requirement for inhibition for each was 70%; 70%; and 60% respectively. Each test showed 99% inhibition for KN95 Goldshield-treated respirator mask.}
III: INTERNATIONAL STUDIES ON GOLDSHIELD
(30) Ms. Kim Morwood BSc, Cbiol MiBiol.; Ms. Claire Crawshaw MbiomedSci “Microbiological Analysis Based on EN1656 (2009) Quantitative suspension test for the evaluation of bactericidal activity of chemical disinfectants and antiseptics used in the veterinary field”. MGS Laboratories, UK: May 23, 2012.
{Microbiological analysis based on EN 1656 (2009) by independent laboratory: MGS Laboratories. Goldshield 5 tested against proteus vulgaris; enterococcus hirae; staphylococcus aureus; and pseudomonas aeruginosa. Test results: 5.34 log reduction for vulgaris; 5.03 log reduction for aureus; 5.18 log reduction for aeruginosa; and 5.24 log reduction for hirae.}
(31) Ms. Claire Crawshaw MbiomedSci, Ms. Kim Morwood BSc, Cbiol MiBiol “Microbiological Analysis Based on EN1657 (2005) Quantitative suspension test for the evaluation of fungicidal or yeasticidal activity of chemical disinfectants and antiseptics used in the veterinary area” MGS Laboratories, UK: May 23, 2012.
{Microbiological analysis based on EN 1657 (2005) by independent laboratory: MGS Laboratories: Goldshield 5 tested against candida albicans and Aspergillus niger. Test results: 4.42 log reduction against niger; and 4.28 log reduction against albicans}.
(32) Ms. Kim Morwood BSc, Cbiol MiBiol; Ms. Claire Crawshaw MbiomedSci. “Microbiological Analysis Based on EN1656 (2009) Quantitative suspension test for the evaluation of bactericidal activity of chemical disinfectants and antiseptics used in the veterinary field”. MGS Laboratories, UK: May 30, 2012.
{Microbiological analysis based on EN 1656 (2009) by independent laboratory: MGS Laboratories: Goldshield 24 tested against proteus vulgaris, Enterococcus hirae, Staphylococcus aureus; and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Results: 5.34 log reduction for vulgaris; 5.03 log reduction against aureus; 5.18 log reduction against aeruginosa; and 5.24 log reduction against hirae.}
(33) Ms. Claire Crawshaw MbiomedSci, Ms. Kim Morwood BSc, Cbiol MiBiol “Microbiological Analysis Based on EN 1657 (2005) Quantitative suspension test for the evaluation of fungicidal or yeasticidal activity of chemical disinfectants and antiseptics used in the veterinary areas” MGS Laboratories: July 13, 2012.
{Microbiological Analysis based on EN 1657 (2005) by an independent laboratory: MGS Laboratories: Test of Goldshield 24 against Candida albicans and Aspergillus niger. Test results: 3.35 log reduction against niger; and 4.28 log reduction against albicans.}
(34) Ms. Kim Morwood BSc, Cbio MiBiol, Ms. Claire Crawshaw MbiomedSci “Microbiological Analysis Based on EN 1650 (2008) Quantitative suspension test for the evaluation of fungicidal activity of chemical disinfectants and antiseptics”. MGS Laboratories, UK: May 23, 2012.
{Microbiological analysis based on EN 1650 (2008) by independent laboratory: MGS Laboratories. Test of Goldshield 5 against Candida albicans; and Aspergillus niger. Test results: 3.35 log reduction against niger, and 5.18 log reduction against albicans.}
(35) Ms. Helen Duxbury BSc (Hons); Ms. Kim Morwood BSc (Hons) Cbiol MiBiol “Microbiological Analysis based on EN1276 (2009) Quantitative suspension test for the evaluation of bactericidal activity of chemical disinfectants and antiseptics”. MGS Laboratories, UK: November 22, 2011.
{Microbiological analysis based on EN 1276 (2009) by independent laboratory: MGS Laboratories: Test of Goldshield 24 against Escherichia coli; Enterococcus hirae; Staphylococcus aureus; and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Test results: 5.03 log reduction against aeruginosa; 5.03 log reduction against E. coli; 5.11 log reduction against aureus; and 5.25 log reduction against hirae.}
(36) Ms. Claire Crawshaw MbiomedSci, Laboratory Manager; Ms. Emma Newton BSc (Hons) “Microbiological Analysis Based on EN1276 (2009) Quantitative suspension test for the evaluation of bactericidal activity of chemical disinfectants and antiseptics”. MSG Laboratories, UK: June 21, 2012.
{Microbiological analysis based on EN 1276 (2009) by independent laboratory: MGS Laboratories: Goldshield 5 tested against Escherichia coli; Enterococcus hirae; Staphylococcus aureus; and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Test results: 4.90 log reduction against aeruginosa; 5.09 against aeruginosa; 5.16 against aeruginosa; and 5.18 against E. Coli; 5.23 log reduction against aureus; and 5.27 against hirae.}
(37) Dr. Chris Woodall, Director, BluTest Laboratories Ltd. Glasgow, UK “EN14476 2013 Chemical disinfectants and antiseptics- Virucidal quantitative suspension test for chemical disinfectants and antiseptics used in human medicine- Test method and requirements” BluTest Laboratories Ltd. August 18, 2015. (Ebola test)
{Study of Goldshield 24 by independent laboratory, BluTest Laboratories Ltd. In UK, against respiratory syncytial virus ATCC VR 26 Long strain/Hep 2 cells- Ebola Virus. Test results: at least a 4-log reduction against the Ebola virus strain. Shows residual log reduction against Ebola virus strain for at least 60 minutes.}
(38) Ms. Emma Newton BSc (Hons); and Ms. Kim Morwood BSc (Hons) Cbiol MiBiol “Microbiological Analysis Based on EN1500 (1997) Chemical disinfectants and antiseptics—Hygienic handrub” MGS Laboratories, UK: June 8, 2012.
{Microbiological analysis based on EN1500 (1997) by an independent laboratory MGS Laboratories: Test of Goldshield 24 against Escherichia coli K12 using hand rub for 30 and 60 seconds. Test results: Mean log reduction of 2.59 among five participants rubbing Goldshield 24 on their hands vs. E. Coli.}
(39) Grant Crawshaw, Lead Infection Prevention Nurse, Ipswich Hospital, UK “Assessment of microbiological reduction and residual performance of a Goldshield antimicrobial in clinical training areas”. October, 2015.
{Microbiological study carried out in a clinical training area at Ipswich Hospital in United Kingdom. Normal cleaning in the area was carried out and then Goldshield 75 was applied to a number of high-touch areas, including table tops; computer key board; computer mouse; door handle; exit button; light switches; window ledge; a conduit; and telephone. Test results: Study shows that Goldshield technology is capable of reducing environmental contamination even after 2-3 days after application and normal hospital cleaning taken place. Normal hospital cleaning is a daily activity and 24-hour protection would be advantageous, but Goldshield exceeds this. The 2 to 3-day residual activity could also provide microbiological defense over weekend periods where cleaning activity is reduced.}
(40) Mark Phelps, Company Microbiologist “Microbiological results from a test on a LU train after applying Goldshield technology”.
{Microbiological results from a test on a LU train after applying Goldshield 5 technology: Surfaces were first tested microbiologically before application of Goldshield; surfaces were then cleaned using Goldshield cleaner disinfectant using microfiber; Goldshield was then applied using a combination of spraying application and microfiber then allowed to dry; and treated train was brought back for re-testing after 3 weeks in service.
High touch areas on trains were tested for bacterial contamination. Test results: Dramatic reduction in bacteria sustained over 3 weeks in whole train, including on grab rails and seats.}
IV: AGRICULTURE STUDIES
(41) Parker et al U.S Department of Agriculture “Goldshield Report effect on citrus canker bacteria in vitro and in vivo” June, 2016.
{Utilization of standard microbiological and plant pathological procedures including inoculation of susceptible citrus with Xanthomonas citri subsp. Citri (Xcc), and subsequent assessment of symptoms of citrus canker that developed to establish whether there was a significant effect of Goldshield 5 in reducing the incidence or severity of citrus canker on seedlings of grapefruit, and on survival of bacteria of the pathogen in vitro. Test results: Goldshield is toxic to bacteria of Xcc. All concentrations tested, except the control, resulted in complete death of the bacterium and time period was not significant, suggesting death of the bacterium was rapid.
In vivo tests: The plant inoculations show that there was a significant difference in the incidence and severity of infection when plants were sprayed with Goldshield, either immediately before or after applying inoculum. Less disease developed on the treated plants compared to the inoculated, positive control after 30 days of growth in a greenhouse.}
(42) Steven Williams, Pesticide Laboratory Manager, Scientific Analysis Laboratories Ltd. “Certificate of Analysis: Impact of Quaternary Ammonium Compounds on citrus canker.” May 1, 2015.
{Independent laboratory (Scientific Analysis Laboratories Ltd. UK, tested Goldshield 24 against citrus canker in orange grove in UK. Benzalkonium chloride, key component of Goldshield 24 is effective against citrus canker.}
(43) Andrew Payne and D. Cawdron, Packaging Group Manager, Campden BRI Group UK “Overall migration from food contact materials”. May 16, 2014.
{Test of Goldshield 5 overall migration from food contact materials, using four test specimens in each overall migration test performed with food stimulants to ensure that a minimum of three valid test results are obtained. Results: On sunflower oil; Acetic Acid in an aqueous solution and 50% ethanol in an aqueous solution, there was minimal migration of Goldshield.)
V: OTHER INDEPENDENT STUDIES OF GOLDSHIELD
(44) Dr. Kasthuri Venkateswaran, Senior Research Scientist, California Institute of Technology, Jet Propulsion Laboratory Biotechnology and Planetary Protection Group, M/S 89-2. “Assessment of water stable organosilane (Goldshield) antimicrobial to prevent bio-film on space and International Space Station substrates”.
2019 (Confidential) {Goldshield 5 was tested on several different metals utilized in the International Space Station. Testing was done by the California Institute of Technology, Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Although the final detailed results of this test are confidential, the results showed 100% reduction of bioburden over protracted period of time—bioburden that was problematic in ISS. Other testing is ongoing with NASA for other purposes.)
(45) Microchem Laboratory, Round Rock, Texas. “Antimicrobial Efficacy of Treated Medical Masks Modified for Viruses” (NG6983) April 28, 2016.
{An independent laboratory, Microchem Laboratory in Round Rock, Texas, using AATCC 100 test methodology, tested surgical masks treated with Goldshield 5 against Influenza A (H1N1) virus; human coronavirus 229E(HcoV) ATCC VR-740; and Poliovirus 1 (PV1) ATCC VR-1562.
Test results: For H1N1, 99.68% reduction at first application and 99% at 10 minutes; for poliovirus 1, 82.22% at first application and 82.22% at 10 minutes; and for human coronavirus 229E HcoV, 94.38% at first application and 90.0% at 10 minutes}
(46) UK Laboratory Assessment of the Residual Properties of Goldshield Antimicrobial Technology July 2-August 8, 2015. Testing against Staphylococcus aureus bacteria on surfaces over 7-day period under in vitro conditions.
{UK laboratory assessment of the residual properties of Goldshield 85 antimicrobial technology. Test against Staphylococcus aureus bacteria on surfaces over a 7-day period under in-vitro laboratory condition. Test findings: Goldshield 85 demonstrated that at low in-use concentrations provided a 99.9% reduction in the number of bacteria applied even after 7 days. This residual activity will provide antimicrobial defense when applied to surfaces or equipment in any environment over extended periods.}
(47) Andrew Payne, Microbiological Solutions Limited, UK “Quantitative suspension test for evaluation of virucidal activity in the medical area” Testing of Goldshield 86 against viruses, including Vaccinia Ankara. May 3, 2018.
{Testing of Goldshield 86 by independent laboratory, Microbiological Solutions Limited, UK, against Vaccinia Ankara (MVA), ATCC VR-1508. Applying rigorous European Standard for tests against viruses and applied to areas and situations where disinfection is medically indicated, for example, in hospitals, in community medical facilities and in dental institutions; in clinics of schools, of kindergartens and of nursing homes, and elsewhere in the workplace, and in the home. Goldshield 86 was tested for virucidal activity against enveloped viruses only. Must show at least a 4-log reduction in the infectivity titre.}
Results: Goldshield 86 passed the test, showing a 4-log reduction.
(48) Andrew Payne, Microbiological Solutions Limited, UK “Chemical disinfectants and antiseptics- Quantitative test method for the evaluation of bactericidal and yeasticidal activity on non-porous surfaces with mechanical action employing wipes in the medical area (4-field test)” Tested Goldshield 86 against staphylococcus aureus NCTC 10788. November 7, 2017.
{Test of Goldshield 86 against Staphylococcus aureus NCTC 10788 (ATCC 6538) on non-porous surfaces with mechanical action employing wipes in the medical field. The European Standard applies to products that are used in the medical area for disinfecting non-porous surfaces including surfaces of medical device by wiping. Test Results: Goldshield 86 passed the test against Staphylococcus aureus.
(49) Jiangsu Guojian Testing Technology Com. Ltd. Test Report 2020: KN95 3D Mask, Ho Dun Goldshiele (Shanghai) Ltd. March 30, 2020
{Test Report/Evaluation of KN95 3D respirator mask treated with Goldshield 5. Passed test for filter efficiency and respiratory resistance.}
(50) Reduction/Inhibition Percentage Results for Application of Goldshield 5 in Exhaust on 100% Polyester Samples Against Trichophyton Mentagrophytes.
{Test of Goldshield 5 against Trichophyton Mentagrophytes on polyester materials. Test results: 99.99% reduction and inhibition.}
(51) Ms. Elsa Rozas, B.S., Ms. Galina Tuninskaya, M.S. et al. “Antimicrobial Properties of Fabric Materials”. Applied Consumer Services, Inc. April 20, 2015.
(Test of Goldshield 75 to determine the antimicrobial properties of fabric materials as per American Association of Textile Chemists and Colorists protocol 30 Part 3. Testing against Aspergillus niger (ATCC 6275) on agar plate over 7 days. Test Results: Goldshield 75 shows ability to prevent growth of Aspergillus niger after 7 days, as per protocol AATCC 30 Part 3.
(52) Dr. Nitan Chavan, Coordinator Pathology, Lilavati Hospital and Research Centre, Microbiology Department, Bandra, Mumbai, India “Goldshield Disinfectant Efficacy”. June 29, 2020.
Tested Goldshield 5 and 86 at 1st Floor Nursing Station; Microbiology testing area; 10th Floor Pediatric wards; swab collection and screening area. Goldshield 5 used in 1:5 dilution and Goldshield 86 without dilution. Tested on high touch areas including door handles, lift buttons, lift walls, ICU curtains. Tested against Staphylococcus aureus; Candida albicans; Enterococcus Species; and Bacillus species. Test Results: Ongoing test to continue to test residual protection: No growth of any of these bacteria over 4-5 days after initial pre-disinfection. Plans to continue colony suspension method testing until July 6th to observe continued residual efficacy.
(53) Wuhan Virus Research Institute, Chinese Academy of Sciences “Effectiveness test report of antiviral-treated medical rubber glove against new coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2)”. May-June 2020.
Tested Goldshield 5 against COVID 19 virus on medical rubber gloves. Test Results: The virus inactivation rate of antiviral gloves was 94.87% compared to the non-treated glove control group.
(54) Wuhan Virus Research Institute, Chinese Academy of Sciences “Effectiveness test report of antiviral-treated medical mask against new coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2)”. May-June 2020.
Tested Goldshield 5 against COVID 19 virus on medical masks. Test Results: the virus inactivation rate of antiviral masks is 99.88% compared to the non-treated medical mask control group.
(55) Haffkine Institute for Training, Research and Testing “In vitro Antibacterial and Antifungal Stability Testing of Disinfectant Sample Labeled as “Goldshield 5” Surface Disinfectant” by Percentage Killing Method on 1st, 7th, and 14th Day of Activation.” August 13, 2020.
RESULTS: Sample solution labelled as "Goldshield 5 Surface disinfectant' on 1st day of activation in diluted form showed 99.999% killing/inactivation of the test Bacterial species Escherichia coli (ATCC-10148), Salmonella typhi (NCTC- 786), MRSA [Methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (ATCC-25923)], Bacillus cereus (ATCC 11778) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (Fisher's Immunotype IV) as well as Fungal species Candida albicans (ATCC-10231) and Aspergillus niger (ATCC-16404) in 5 min.
RESULTS: Sample solution labelled as "Goldshieild 5 Surface disinfectant" on 7TH day of activation in diluted form showed 99.999% killing/inactivation of the test Bacterial species Escherichia coli (ATCC-10148), Salmonella typhi (NCTC- 786), MRSA [Methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (ATCC-25923)], Bacillus cereus (ATCC 11778) and Pseudomonas aeruglnosa (Fisher's Immunotype IV) as well as Fungal species Candida albicans (ATCC-10231) and Aspergillus niger(ATCC-16404) in 5 min.
RESULTS: Sample solution labelled as "Goldshieild 5 Surface disinfectant" on 14th day of activation in diluted form showed 99.999% killing/inactivation of the test Bacterial species Escherichia coli (ATCC-10148), Salmonella typhi (NCTC- 786), MRSA [Methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (ATCC-25923)], Bacillus cereus (ATCC 11778) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (Fisher's Immunotype IV) as well as Fungal species Candida albicans (ATCC-10231) and Aspergillus niger(ATCC-16404) in 5 min.
(56) Haffkine Institute for Training, Research and Testing “In vitro Antibacterial and Antifungal Efficacy Testing of Disinfectant Sample Labeled as “Goldshield 86” Surface Disinfectant by Percentage Killing Method”. August 13, 2020.
RESULTS: Sample solution labelled as "Goldshield 86 Surface disinfectant' in Undiluted form showed 99.999% killing/inactivation of the test Bacterial species Escherichia coli (ATCC-10148), Salmonella typhi (NCTC-786), MRSA [Methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (ATCC-25923)], Bacillus cereus (ATCC 11778) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (Fisher's Immunotype IV) as well as Fungal species Candida albicans (ATCC-10231) and Aspergillus niger (ATCC-16404) in 5min.
(57) Haffkine Institute for Training, Research and Testing “In vitro Antibacterial and Antifungal Efficacy Testing of Disinfectant Sample Labeled as “Goldshield 24 Hand Sanitizer” by Percentage Killing Method”. August 13, 2020.
RESULTS: Sample solution labelled as "Goldshield 24 Hand Sanitizer" In Undiluted form showed 99.999% killing/inactivation of the test Bacterial species Escherichia coli (ATCC-10148), Salmonella typhi (NCTC-786), MRSA [Methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (ATCC-25923)],Bacillus cereus (ATCC 11778) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (Fisher's Immunotype IV) as well as Fungal species Candida albicans (ATCC-10231) and 99.998 % of the test fungal species Aspergillus niger (ATCC-16404) in 5 min.
(60) Dubai Central Laboratory Department, Government of Dubai. “Detergents and Disinfectants: Test of Goldshield 24 Hand Sanitizer”. September 28, 2020. RESULTS: Quantitative Suspension Test for Evaluation of Bactericidal Activity of Chemical Disinfectants and antiseptics (BS EN 1276): 99.99% kill rate in 1 minute at 20-degree C under clean condition. Identical results against Enterococcus hirae ATCC 10541; Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 6538; Escherichia coli K12 NCTC 10538; and Pseudomonas aeruginosa ATCC 15442.
(61) Microbac Laboratory, Sterling, Virginia: Preliminary Results: Virucidal Hard-Surface Efficacy Test – Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome-related Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV2) (COVID-19 Virus): GS 86. November, 2020. RESULTS: Tested Goldshield 86 against the SARS CoV 2 virus isolate. Log reduction of virus: 3.50.