New Virus in town Growers!! HpLVd: Hop Latent Viroid

[beta]

Maybe those doing research but for most of us growers, we can't do anything to cure it using any means at our disposal whether we call it a virus or a pathogen lol. There is no cure for plants infected with HpLVd. Tissue culture isn't something most have access to. The best treatment is to trash all the plants and start over with seeds. Stop buying untested clones to re infect your stock. People would rather argue about trivial nonsense lol. It isn't something I worry about in my garden.

Nothing wrong with any of that but we should still be accurate in how we talk about the pathogen that is the topic of the tread you're commenting on.

Case in point: Alcohol kills viruses. Because they are not like viruses, alcohol does not kill viroids. If you talk about HLVd as if it's a virus people will be under the mistaken impression that alcohol will be effective against it.

For the record I killed a decade+ library of collected clones and started over from seeds a few years ago and haven't taken in any clones since. Thanks, HLVd!

 

[ledo]

Hopefully you are showing anyone who consumes your product the warning label on that physan 20. And giving them a fair opportunity to choose for themselves if they want anything to do with it.

I dip cuts, ornamentals, house plants that come in suspect, dipping cuts is extremely rare here - I make my seeds I grow my seeds, many species plants - check out my sun on my back thread, learn something about me first BF commenting like that please, assumptions do you know what…

'Sun on my back; Dirt on my hands - Ledo’s Land'
https://www.icmag.com/threads/sun-on-my-back-dirt-on-my-hands-ledos-land.18124119/


After dipping a tiny cut, later once a huge plant I take cuts off newest growth that never touched physan in its distant past, later on that is flowered out…. 0 PPB left, it’s likely your tent offgases a much larger threat than any of my methods here…. I don’t sell anything, relax with your paranoia (or virtue signaling) of my processes you haven’t a clue about…perhaps we can each learn something from one other if the time is taken to do so

Peace

 

[Frosty Nuggets]

 

[DaEarl73]

we had once a strain started to show dudding. so we gave every plant a number, cut clones, cleaned or changed siccors inbetween plants and eliminated every plant that show snikkelfritz tendencies. like this we eliminated the hplvd in our space. never saw a snikelfritz again since that, it was 3 years ago

 

[ledo]

we had once a strain started to show dudding. so we gave every plant a number, cut clones, cleaned or changed siccors inbetween plants and eliminated every plant that show snikkelfritz tendencies. like this we eliminated the hplvd in our space. never saw a snikelfritz again since that, it was 3 years ago

Correct; you can get out ahead of it via cuttings (N & Ca important there to facilitate healthy & faster new growth tips as previously mentioned viroid or virus free) - this holds true in many species of plants battling virus or viroid etc

 

[Loc Dog]

FYI - Tumi Genomics now has inexpensive tests for HLVD, Pythium, and Fuasrium. Will be releasing another test for 5 types of mold soon including Botrytis. $25 each but sold in batches of 10. I worried about HLVD and bought 2 batches of clones in last month from seed canary and strainly and both had late stage stem canker from infected mothers, and on verge of death. They treat mothers for mold, sell clones which will be dead within 2 months, looking like root rot but roots are fine. They know this and are infecting buyers gardens. Wonder if they work for corporate cannabis growers. Found a discord channel where most sellers are using the Tumi test for HLVD.

 

[gmanwho]

I thought about this about a year ago. It makes sense to me the the HLVD could have been possibly introduced from Beer an not just a random outdoor garden growing hops. plants near by, some sort of vector carried over etc etc. Some point someone, or multiple points of entry into our community.

Drinking a beer, beer on your hands, cutting back plants or pulling lowers an leafs etc etc.

I then thought, would the viroid survive the boiling or brewing process? I am unsure, I kinda feel it would not. since the long term heat cycle.

My past blue collar work i have taken multiple infectious disease courses and or BSL training / schooling for autoclave manufacturers and alike.

but.... heres the kicker!!

Throw in a beer with a dry hopped scenario, double triple dry hopped etc. When the beer is filtered through fresh or dried hops again, post brewing process. and bammm. there it is.

Possibly, again Possibly, the smoking gun...

 

[SuperFarang]

am i the only one not convinced about about the use of PCR to detect virus/viroid infection ?
If I remember the inventor of PCR warned that it wasnt destined to detect viruses
a lot of non sense during the cow vid pandemy with PCR's

from my experience dudded plants produce a very distinctive pattern during veg. stage
but it is at the same time impossible to spot for an untrained eye or someone that do not know its existence

a picture found on the net illustrating pretty well the subject

 

[Desert Dan]

am i the only one not convinced about about the use of PCR to detect virus/viroid infection ?
If I remember the inventor of PCR warned that it wasnt destined to detect viruses
a lot of non sense during the cow vid pandemy with PCR's

from my experience dudded plants produce a very distinctive pattern during veg. stage
but it is at the same time impossible to spot for an untrained eye or someone that do not know its existence

a picture found on the net illustrating pretty well the subject
View attachment 18948535

If anything, PCR testing is likely to produce false positives… It can only amplify what is present.

However, any viroid present is not good as far as our purposes are concerned.

-DD

 

[Loc Dog]

If anything, PCR testing is likely to produce false positives… It can only amplify what is present.

However, any viroid present is not good as far as our purposes are concerned.

-DD

Saw a post from Tumi yesterday about the accuracy and how many units detected, during test. Found it -

https://21668670.fs1.hubspotusercontent-na1.net/hubfs/21668670/Marketing/Resources/Product%20Resources/Hop%20Latent%20Viroid/HLVd%20Validation-Final.pdf

 

[Loc Dog]

am i the only one not convinced about about the use of PCR to detect virus/viroid infection ?
If I remember the inventor of PCR warned that it wasnt destined to detect viruses
a lot of non sense during the cow vid pandemy with PCR's

from my experience dudded plants produce a very distinctive pattern during veg. stage
but it is at the same time impossible to spot for an untrained eye or someone that do not know its existence

a picture found on the net illustrating pretty well the subject
View attachment 18948535

Far more common is mold infections that ruin or kill plants before flowering, passed by sleazy clone growers like mg1brands who knows he is selling sick plants, but must be crackhead, and doing nothing about it. Bought 25 clones since august from 6 vendors and all had fusarium and/or stem canker, some dying right away, and others after weeks of trying to salvage genetics. Can easily google HLVD symptoms and pictures. In veg it causes lateral growth and brittle stems. Have not got one of these to live long enough to see if HLVD, except one from mg1brands snapped at stem canker which I have not seen before. Tried to transfer upper most parts to tissue culture and full blown fusarium spreading from explant, which was obviously infected. If outside source of contamination would have been spots around explant.

 

[OleReynard]

Don't procure new seeds from anywhere, everybody uses the same "elite" cuts.
Time to start making your own seeds out of old stock

 

[Desert Dan]

Far more common is mold infections that ruin or kill plants before flowering, passed by sleazy clone growers like mg1brands who knows he is selling sick plants, but must be crackhead, and doing nothing about it. Bought 25 clones since august from 6 vendors and all had fusarium and/or stem canker, some dying right away, and others after weeks of trying to salvage genetics. Can easily google HLVD symptoms and pictures. In veg it causes lateral growth and brittle stems. Have not got one of these to live long enough to see if HLVD, except one from mg1brands snapped at stem canker which I have not seen before. Tried to transfer upper most parts to tissue culture and full blown fusarium spreading from explant, which was obviously infected. If outside source of contamination would have been spots around explant.

The there are other things to worry about as well, but most are not latent… with hlvd you can have an infected plant, with a low viral load, not yet displaying symptoms.

I’ve had plants look banging in veg then go full dud in flower. Tested the mom and boom, bam, pow positive for hlvd.

-DD

 

[ledo]

Far more common is mold infections that ruin or kill plants before flowering, passed by sleazy clone growers like mg1brands who knows he is selling sick plants, but must be crackhead, and doing nothing about it. Bought 25 clones since august from 6 vendors and all had fusarium and/or stem canker, some dying right away, and others after weeks of trying to salvage genetics.

HOCL for your woes ^ - make your own, you’d be amazed what strength plants can handle


EVERYONE should learn about HOCL imho

*************
In 1834, the French chemist Antoine Jerome Balard discovered hypochlorous acid (HOCl) when he added a dilute mix of mercury (II) oxide in water to chlorine gas. Additionally, he discovered that HOCl was an effective and safe disinfectant solution.
Later in the 19th century, Michael Faraday was the first scientist to develop a successful technique that generated HOCl from saltwater. The process was called and continues to be known as electrochemical activation.

Although HOCl was a safe, nontoxic and effective solution to many problems, it was complicated and expensive to maintain a stable version of HOCl with a long shelf life. It was not until recently that scientists were able to produce and maintain stable and cost-effective HOCl and it became suitable for commercial use.

Powerful oxidant​

HOCl is the most powerful oxidant in the chlorine family — more so than sodium hypochlorite (bleach). It has a weak, slightly acidic, neutral pH of 5-7 and naturally occurs in all mammals’ white blood cells. HOCl has been around since the dawn of animals and humans. It is soluble in water and forms an effective disinfectant; it benefits from being a nontoxic solution.
HOCl has a neutral charge; therefore, it does not repel bacteria but attracts them. HOCl easily penetrates bacteria walls, resulting in it quickly killing the cells.

RESOURCES​

• E-book Practice Guidance for Health Care Environmental Cleaning, third edition

Medical professionals know that HOCl is naturally present in all protecting and healing mammals; that includes close to 8 billion humans. HOCl defends against all manner of pathogens and potential pathogens that attack the body from both outside and inside.
HOCl is used in wound care, skin disinfection, food safety, water treatment, purification of oil and natural gas wells, deodorization and skin products, and as a food-safe sanitizer on both food products and food preparation surfaces.
It is a strong disinfectant in health care and is an excellent cleaning solution.
The World Health Organization includes HOCl in its list of essential medicines, based on the following approvals:

• The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for uses on food products like meat, fruits and vegetables as well as on food-contact surfaces, utensils and other food-processing equipment.
• The FDA’s approval of more than 10 medical-grade HOCl solutions for wound care.
• The Department of Agriculture’s approval for use in the National Organic Program.
• The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) approval as a no-rinse food sanitizer and for use in drinking water as well as 17 product approvals for COVID-19 disinfection purposes.
• Health Canada, the Australian government and the Japanese National Institute of Technology and Evaluation’s use against coronavirus.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, many countries introduced continuous HOCl misting and fogging tunnels for entry and exit corridors at mass transit facilities. Buildings, including hospitals, used them to disinfect anyone entering their facilities.
Easily generated on-site, HOCl is so effective and inexpensive that even developing nations use misting and fogging tunnels at entrances to health care and business occupanies. Many developing nations also use HOCl misting tunnels as a prerequisite to ambulance stretchers entering hospitals. Some of the most populous cities, such as Mumbai, found HOCl use in hospitals and train terminals reduced the number of citizens potentially exposed to the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

Hospital usage​

Given the wide acceptance of HOCl, the following questions must be asked:

• Why are hospitals in the U.S. and Canada not using HOCl generators to reduce the numbers of disinfectants used?
• Why do chemical companies have such control on the disinfectant markets in North American hospitals and medical facilities?
• Do hospitals realize that they can generate HOCl on-site for pennies per quart that is 100 times more effective than bleach and is infinitely safer for people and environments?
• Do hospitals know that HOCl meets the safety, efficacy and cost decision pillars of the Association of Healthcare Value Analysis Professionals and the Association for the Health Care Environment’s Value-based Product Evaluation and Implementation certification course?
• Do hospitals know that HOCl does not leave floors sticky like quaternary ammonium compounds and is virtually odorless, emitting only a mild swimming pool smell?

HOCl is safe for staff who use it as well as for the patients and family members who are the beneficiaries of the cleaning and disinfecting process. It is safe for the health care environment and the waste stream. Finally, it is cost-effective. Indeed, a disinfectant, cleaner or cleaner/disinfectant need not be expensive to be safe and effective.
For a disinfectant to be effective, it must contact the bacteria or suspected pathogens. That means removing biofilm, dirt and dust from a surface first. Then, a disinfectant is applied using a health care grade ultra-microfiber (HGUM) wiper/cloth or mop designed to transfer sufficient disinfectant solution to the intended surface and trap and remove the organic matter (dirt, biofilm, virus and bacteria) on the surface.
Some may ask, “What about using bleach everywhere?” Even the world’s largest bleach manufacturer states that bleach is not a cleaner; it is an oxidizer and disinfectant. Bleach has its benefits, but it also has its burdens. There are risks and rewards associated with every disinfectant, and this needs to be understood by all decision-makers involved in selecting disinfectants.
Cost seems too often to be the motivating factor in environmental services (EVS) purchases, so why not use a high-quality, safe and cost-effective disinfectant? Advantages of on-site generation include:

• Improved efficiency, reducing the number of disinfectants on hand.
• Reduced training costs, with fewer chemicals to study and no solutions to mix.
• Reduced material costs, inventory challenges, chemical waste, and water use and waste disposal.
• Noncorrosive, eliminating damage to health care surfaces.
• Reduced time and labor, workman’s compensation liability due to inhalation and splash injuries, and absenteeism due to sickness.
• No supply chain issues, less reliance on disposable plastic and cardboard, and reduced machine maintenance.
• Environmentally responsible and contributes to improved indoor air quality.
• Prolongs the life of reusable HGUM mops and wipers/cloths.
• Will not damage carpets, cloth surfaces, uniforms and scrubs.

Will the on-site generation of HOCl replace every germicidal, pseudomonacidal, tuberculocidal, fungicidal and virucidal currently used in hospitals? No, and it is not intended to.
Not all disinfecting situations require a pseudomonacidal, tuberculocidal, fungicidal or virucidal, and these pathogens are not found throughout a hospital, so their use is unnecessary.

Disinfectant solutions​

Multiple pathogens have developed into “superbugs,” which have developed antimicrobial resistance to antibiotic medications. Health care is experiencing the advent of many of those bugs on environmental surfaces. They have developed the capacity of existing outside of the human body for hours, days, weeks and months; the longevity on surfaces depends on the bacteria and environmental conditions.

A hypochlorous acid disinfectant and sodium hydroxide generator with a 55-gallon storage tank for each solution in a hospital EVS clean storage room.
Image courtesy of the author
With the advent of superbugs in the health care environment, professionals must be more knowledgeable about the disinfectants used to destroy them. Professionals must broaden their knowledge and education regarding efficacy. Efficacy does not equate to cost. Just as in treating maladies, expensive does not always relate to desired results.
What disinfectant solutions should be available to the EVS staff? Only those that are effective and measured.
Should a one-step cleaner/disinfectant be used, or is a two-step process more effective? What about using bleach everywhere as a germicidal, pseudomonacidal, tuberculocidal, fungicidal and virucidal? It destroys everything, doesn’t it? However, it is not needful.
Is the “shotgun” approach (use a broad-spectrum disinfectant and hope for the best) or the “rifle” approach (go after only the most pathogenic bacteria and hope for the best) most appropriate? What about dwell and kill times? What about solution percentage efficacy? Which bacteria are present in health care environments? What bacteria will visitors and staff carry and potentially transfer to a patient? Which disinfectant is the safest and most effective?
While this is not a science or chemistry class, the information perhaps will expand existing knowledge that the disinfectants accessible in health care settings are not the safest for patients, staff and the environment.
According to the EPA, disinfectants are pesticides. If a chemical or solution kills a living organism — even a solution as safe as HOCl — it is classified as a pesticide by the EPA. Many people think that because a chemical is listed as hospital grade, it is safe. However, very few disinfectants are genuinely safe for personal contact, surfaces and finishes, and the environment.
HOCl is genuinely safe. Under its Safety Data Sheet (SDS) first aid measures, it says “none required” for inhalation, skin contact, eye contact and ingestion. By contrast, the SDS and container labels for the chemicals currently used in most hospitals, including chlorines, chlorine compounds and sodium dichloroisocyanurate (NaDCC) tablets, are fraught with warnings. Many facilities prefer to use the tablets, as they are stable, but NaDCC tablet solutions are acidic, not alkaline like bleach solutions.
What should EVS or infection prevention (IP) professionals do? Budgets often dictate which disinfectants to use and, sadly, the emergence of more multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) require newer and, understandably, more costly and effective disinfectants. EVS and IP departments are facing a conundrum. Does IP recommend new products that they recognize will be more expensive yet more productive for EVS in eliminating MDROs from the environment, and how will EVS adjust their budgets to allow for the newer disinfectants?
Before focusing attention on multiple bacteria appearing in hospitals, the paradigm had been to use whatever disinfectant was both the cheapest and effective. This resulted in EVS departments stocking various disinfectants that were EPA-registered and hospital grade, yet pathogen-specific, such as one targeted to tuberculosis. The big question remained: What pathogens were in the environment, and how was an EVS technician to choose the appropriate disinfectant?
Some disinfectants are effective against gram-positive pathogens but not gram-negative. Many were effective against vegetative Clostridioides difficile (C. difficile) yet ineffective against its spores. Unfortunately, C. difficile spores usually appear after a patient exhibits signs of C. difficile infection, thus causing a host of other complications.
All disinfectants come with SDSs, containing everything needed to know about the chemical and resulting solution. Many disinfectants are disruptive to the skin and mucous membranes in their non-diluted form. When it comes to contact with organic matter such as blood, urine, fecal matter, vomitus, sputum, phlegm or any number of biofilms present in a health care environment, many disinfectants lose their efficacy. Couple these shortcomings with not knowing which pathogens are present, and the EVS and IP disciplines faced with the proverbial menu from which to choose each may have their own preferences.
Many disinfectants lose efficacy in solution with hard water. Wipers and mops made of cotton or other organic material have a binding effect primarily on organic fibers. Some chemicals are positively charged ions, and cotton and other natural textiles are negatively charged.
Finally, many disinfectants are not suitable for use on food-contact surfaces, so a food-safe sanitizer is required. This requirement increases the inventory cost of adding a sanitizer and increases the chances of a staff member involved in a cleaning process choosing the most convenient but not appropriate solution despite their training, to name a few concerns.

A game-changer​

In May 2012, the European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseasespublished “Electrochemically activated solutions: evidence for antimicrobial efficacy and applications in health care environments,” in which it stated: “Electrochemically activated solutions (ECAS) have been shown to have broad-spectrum antimicrobial activity and have the potential to be widely adopted within the health care environment due to low-cost raw material requirements and ease of production (either remotely or in situ). Numerous studies have found ECAS to be highly efficacious, as both a novel environmental decontaminant and a topical treatment agent (with low accompanying toxicity). However, they are still not in widespread use, particularly within the health care environment.”
EVS managers can log on to hypochlorousacid.com to search over 300 published research scientific and peer-reviewed articles on HOCl. HOCl by many manufacturers appears on EPA List N. HOCl is not the silver bullet needed to rid the world of pathogens, but it is a game-changer that is practical and worthy of investigation and use by health care professionals.

---

Disinfection as an EVS process​

Part of the health care disinfection process must allow sufficient disinfectant time to dwell and kill potential pathogens on surfaces. This step in the process is the most overlooked and skimped due to the environmental services (EVS) technician’s requirements to turn the room over quickly.
The questions must be asked: Can nurses shorten the time and technique involved in putting a peripherally inserted central catheter? Can a pulmonologist take shortcuts when intubating a patient? Can a surgeon rush the transplantation of a heart, lung or cornea? The answer to these questions is a decided “no,” unless there is no consequence for safety and positive patient outcomes.
Patients present to hospitals with more complex underlying health care issues than ever before, including exotic and “superbug” pathogens. Health care-associated infections cost hospitals and health care systems millions of dollars in lost revenue due to reimbursement issues.
The chemicals EVS departments use, or need, to address this onslaught are limited. Budgets are strained to the point that operational compromises and staff reductions occur to absorb the ever-increasing costs of supplies. Few infection preventionists receive training to understand the chemistry involved in disinfectant decisions.
By using hypochlorous acid (HOCl), a health care organization can incorporate a different and some might say “novel” approach of an incredibly safe, effective and low-cost disinfectant into its infection prevention armory.
HOCl has been protecting the human body since its creation; EVS departments now can harness that protection to collaborate with the body in protecting it from harmful elements found in the health care environment.

**************

 

[ledo]

The there are other things to worry about as well, but most are not latent… with hlvd you can have an infected plant, with a low viral load, not yet displaying symptoms.

I’ve had plants look banging in veg then go full dud in flower. Tested the mom and boom, bam, pow positive for hlvd.

-DD

Plant HIV / AIDS

 

[Loc Dog]

HOCL for your woes ^ - make your own, you’d be amazed what strength plants can handle


EVERYONE should learn about HOCL imho

*************
In 1834, the French chemist Antoine Jerome Balard discovered hypochlorous acid (HOCl) when he added a dilute mix of mercury (II) oxide in water to chlorine gas. Additionally, he discovered that HOCl was an effective and safe disinfectant solution.
Later in the 19th century, Michael Faraday was the first scientist to develop a successful technique that generated HOCl from saltwater. The process was called and continues to be known as electrochemical activation.

Although HOCl was a safe, nontoxic and effective solution to many problems, it was complicated and expensive to maintain a stable version of HOCl with a long shelf life. It was not until recently that scientists were able to produce and maintain stable and cost-effective HOCl and it became suitable for commercial use.

Powerful oxidant​

HOCl is the most powerful oxidant in the chlorine family — more so than sodium hypochlorite (bleach). It has a weak, slightly acidic, neutral pH of 5-7 and naturally occurs in all mammals’ white blood cells. HOCl has been around since the dawn of animals and humans. It is soluble in water and forms an effective disinfectant; it benefits from being a nontoxic solution.
HOCl has a neutral charge; therefore, it does not repel bacteria but attracts them. HOCl easily penetrates bacteria walls, resulting in it quickly killing the cells.

RESOURCES​

• E-book Practice Guidance for Health Care Environmental Cleaning, third edition

Medical professionals know that HOCl is naturally present in all protecting and healing mammals; that includes close to 8 billion humans. HOCl defends against all manner of pathogens and potential pathogens that attack the body from both outside and inside.
HOCl is used in wound care, skin disinfection, food safety, water treatment, purification of oil and natural gas wells, deodorization and skin products, and as a food-safe sanitizer on both food products and food preparation surfaces.
It is a strong disinfectant in health care and is an excellent cleaning solution.
The World Health Organization includes HOCl in its list of essential medicines, based on the following approvals:

• The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for uses on food products like meat, fruits and vegetables as well as on food-contact surfaces, utensils and other food-processing equipment.
• The FDA’s approval of more than 10 medical-grade HOCl solutions for wound care.
• The Department of Agriculture’s approval for use in the National Organic Program.
• The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) approval as a no-rinse food sanitizer and for use in drinking water as well as 17 product approvals for COVID-19 disinfection purposes.
• Health Canada, the Australian government and the Japanese National Institute of Technology and Evaluation’s use against coronavirus.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, many countries introduced continuous HOCl misting and fogging tunnels for entry and exit corridors at mass transit facilities. Buildings, including hospitals, used them to disinfect anyone entering their facilities.
Easily generated on-site, HOCl is so effective and inexpensive that even developing nations use misting and fogging tunnels at entrances to health care and business occupanies. Many developing nations also use HOCl misting tunnels as a prerequisite to ambulance stretchers entering hospitals. Some of the most populous cities, such as Mumbai, found HOCl use in hospitals and train terminals reduced the number of citizens potentially exposed to the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

Hospital usage​

Given the wide acceptance of HOCl, the following questions must be asked:

• Why are hospitals in the U.S. and Canada not using HOCl generators to reduce the numbers of disinfectants used?
• Why do chemical companies have such control on the disinfectant markets in North American hospitals and medical facilities?
• Do hospitals realize that they can generate HOCl on-site for pennies per quart that is 100 times more effective than bleach and is infinitely safer for people and environments?
• Do hospitals know that HOCl meets the safety, efficacy and cost decision pillars of the Association of Healthcare Value Analysis Professionals and the Association for the Health Care Environment’s Value-based Product Evaluation and Implementation certification course?
• Do hospitals know that HOCl does not leave floors sticky like quaternary ammonium compounds and is virtually odorless, emitting only a mild swimming pool smell?

HOCl is safe for staff who use it as well as for the patients and family members who are the beneficiaries of the cleaning and disinfecting process. It is safe for the health care environment and the waste stream. Finally, it is cost-effective. Indeed, a disinfectant, cleaner or cleaner/disinfectant need not be expensive to be safe and effective.
For a disinfectant to be effective, it must contact the bacteria or suspected pathogens. That means removing biofilm, dirt and dust from a surface first. Then, a disinfectant is applied using a health care grade ultra-microfiber (HGUM) wiper/cloth or mop designed to transfer sufficient disinfectant solution to the intended surface and trap and remove the organic matter (dirt, biofilm, virus and bacteria) on the surface.
Some may ask, “What about using bleach everywhere?” Even the world’s largest bleach manufacturer states that bleach is not a cleaner; it is an oxidizer and disinfectant. Bleach has its benefits, but it also has its burdens. There are risks and rewards associated with every disinfectant, and this needs to be understood by all decision-makers involved in selecting disinfectants.
Cost seems too often to be the motivating factor in environmental services (EVS) purchases, so why not use a high-quality, safe and cost-effective disinfectant? Advantages of on-site generation include:

• Improved efficiency, reducing the number of disinfectants on hand.
• Reduced training costs, with fewer chemicals to study and no solutions to mix.
• Reduced material costs, inventory challenges, chemical waste, and water use and waste disposal.
• Noncorrosive, eliminating damage to health care surfaces.
• Reduced time and labor, workman’s compensation liability due to inhalation and splash injuries, and absenteeism due to sickness.
• No supply chain issues, less reliance on disposable plastic and cardboard, and reduced machine maintenance.
• Environmentally responsible and contributes to improved indoor air quality.
• Prolongs the life of reusable HGUM mops and wipers/cloths.
• Will not damage carpets, cloth surfaces, uniforms and scrubs.

Will the on-site generation of HOCl replace every germicidal, pseudomonacidal, tuberculocidal, fungicidal and virucidal currently used in hospitals? No, and it is not intended to.
Not all disinfecting situations require a pseudomonacidal, tuberculocidal, fungicidal or virucidal, and these pathogens are not found throughout a hospital, so their use is unnecessary.

Disinfectant solutions​

Multiple pathogens have developed into “superbugs,” which have developed antimicrobial resistance to antibiotic medications. Health care is experiencing the advent of many of those bugs on environmental surfaces. They have developed the capacity of existing outside of the human body for hours, days, weeks and months; the longevity on surfaces depends on the bacteria and environmental conditions.

A hypochlorous acid disinfectant and sodium hydroxide generator with a 55-gallon storage tank for each solution in a hospital EVS clean storage room.
Image courtesy of the author
With the advent of superbugs in the health care environment, professionals must be more knowledgeable about the disinfectants used to destroy them. Professionals must broaden their knowledge and education regarding efficacy. Efficacy does not equate to cost. Just as in treating maladies, expensive does not always relate to desired results.
What disinfectant solutions should be available to the EVS staff? Only those that are effective and measured.
Should a one-step cleaner/disinfectant be used, or is a two-step process more effective? What about using bleach everywhere as a germicidal, pseudomonacidal, tuberculocidal, fungicidal and virucidal? It destroys everything, doesn’t it? However, it is not needful.
Is the “shotgun” approach (use a broad-spectrum disinfectant and hope for the best) or the “rifle” approach (go after only the most pathogenic bacteria and hope for the best) most appropriate? What about dwell and kill times? What about solution percentage efficacy? Which bacteria are present in health care environments? What bacteria will visitors and staff carry and potentially transfer to a patient? Which disinfectant is the safest and most effective?
While this is not a science or chemistry class, the information perhaps will expand existing knowledge that the disinfectants accessible in health care settings are not the safest for patients, staff and the environment.
According to the EPA, disinfectants are pesticides. If a chemical or solution kills a living organism — even a solution as safe as HOCl — it is classified as a pesticide by the EPA. Many people think that because a chemical is listed as hospital grade, it is safe. However, very few disinfectants are genuinely safe for personal contact, surfaces and finishes, and the environment.
HOCl is genuinely safe. Under its Safety Data Sheet (SDS) first aid measures, it says “none required” for inhalation, skin contact, eye contact and ingestion. By contrast, the SDS and container labels for the chemicals currently used in most hospitals, including chlorines, chlorine compounds and sodium dichloroisocyanurate (NaDCC) tablets, are fraught with warnings. Many facilities prefer to use the tablets, as they are stable, but NaDCC tablet solutions are acidic, not alkaline like bleach solutions.
What should EVS or infection prevention (IP) professionals do? Budgets often dictate which disinfectants to use and, sadly, the emergence of more multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) require newer and, understandably, more costly and effective disinfectants. EVS and IP departments are facing a conundrum. Does IP recommend new products that they recognize will be more expensive yet more productive for EVS in eliminating MDROs from the environment, and how will EVS adjust their budgets to allow for the newer disinfectants?
Before focusing attention on multiple bacteria appearing in hospitals, the paradigm had been to use whatever disinfectant was both the cheapest and effective. This resulted in EVS departments stocking various disinfectants that were EPA-registered and hospital grade, yet pathogen-specific, such as one targeted to tuberculosis. The big question remained: What pathogens were in the environment, and how was an EVS technician to choose the appropriate disinfectant?
Some disinfectants are effective against gram-positive pathogens but not gram-negative. Many were effective against vegetative Clostridioides difficile (C. difficile) yet ineffective against its spores. Unfortunately, C. difficile spores usually appear after a patient exhibits signs of C. difficile infection, thus causing a host of other complications.
All disinfectants come with SDSs, containing everything needed to know about the chemical and resulting solution. Many disinfectants are disruptive to the skin and mucous membranes in their non-diluted form. When it comes to contact with organic matter such as blood, urine, fecal matter, vomitus, sputum, phlegm or any number of biofilms present in a health care environment, many disinfectants lose their efficacy. Couple these shortcomings with not knowing which pathogens are present, and the EVS and IP disciplines faced with the proverbial menu from which to choose each may have their own preferences.
Many disinfectants lose efficacy in solution with hard water. Wipers and mops made of cotton or other organic material have a binding effect primarily on organic fibers. Some chemicals are positively charged ions, and cotton and other natural textiles are negatively charged.
Finally, many disinfectants are not suitable for use on food-contact surfaces, so a food-safe sanitizer is required. This requirement increases the inventory cost of adding a sanitizer and increases the chances of a staff member involved in a cleaning process choosing the most convenient but not appropriate solution despite their training, to name a few concerns.

A game-changer​

In May 2012, the European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseasespublished “Electrochemically activated solutions: evidence for antimicrobial efficacy and applications in health care environments,” in which it stated: “Electrochemically activated solutions (ECAS) have been shown to have broad-spectrum antimicrobial activity and have the potential to be widely adopted within the health care environment due to low-cost raw material requirements and ease of production (either remotely or in situ). Numerous studies have found ECAS to be highly efficacious, as both a novel environmental decontaminant and a topical treatment agent (with low accompanying toxicity). However, they are still not in widespread use, particularly within the health care environment.”
EVS managers can log on to hypochlorousacid.com to search over 300 published research scientific and peer-reviewed articles on HOCl. HOCl by many manufacturers appears on EPA List N. HOCl is not the silver bullet needed to rid the world of pathogens, but it is a game-changer that is practical and worthy of investigation and use by health care professionals.

---

Disinfection as an EVS process​

Part of the health care disinfection process must allow sufficient disinfectant time to dwell and kill potential pathogens on surfaces. This step in the process is the most overlooked and skimped due to the environmental services (EVS) technician’s requirements to turn the room over quickly.
The questions must be asked: Can nurses shorten the time and technique involved in putting a peripherally inserted central catheter? Can a pulmonologist take shortcuts when intubating a patient? Can a surgeon rush the transplantation of a heart, lung or cornea? The answer to these questions is a decided “no,” unless there is no consequence for safety and positive patient outcomes.
Patients present to hospitals with more complex underlying health care issues than ever before, including exotic and “superbug” pathogens. Health care-associated infections cost hospitals and health care systems millions of dollars in lost revenue due to reimbursement issues.
The chemicals EVS departments use, or need, to address this onslaught are limited. Budgets are strained to the point that operational compromises and staff reductions occur to absorb the ever-increasing costs of supplies. Few infection preventionists receive training to understand the chemistry involved in disinfectant decisions.
By using hypochlorous acid (HOCl), a health care organization can incorporate a different and some might say “novel” approach of an incredibly safe, effective and low-cost disinfectant into its infection prevention armory.
HOCl has been protecting the human body since its creation; EVS departments now can harness that protection to collaborate with the body in protecting it from harmful elements found in the health care environment.

**************

Someone mentioned it and I have it, but can not find any information on using it. What concentration, for how long, how applied? When I tried salvaging the infected TC explants, one of the soaks I used some, bit if not right concentration and time, will either do little to nothing or kill explant. Will read that article later, just got up.

 

[Loc Dog]

Chat GPT claims bleach at 1% in water is hypochlorous acid.

 

[Loc Dog]

The there are other things to worry about as well, but most are not latent… with hlvd you can have an infected plant, with a low viral load, not yet displaying symptoms.

I’ve had plants look banging in veg then go full dud in flower. Tested the mom and boom, bam, pow positive for hlvd.

-DD

Yes, these things can be dormant, just waiting for the right circumstances to go full blown, like right temperatures, humidity, or bug infestation to weaken plants.

These are the other viruses -

Hop Latent Viroid

Beet Curly Top Virus

Lettuce Chlorosis Virus

Tobacco Streak Virus

Hop Stunt Viroid (not identified in cannabis, but a likely emerging pathogen).

Their mother test also test for several forms of fusarium.

 

[Loc Dog]

I thought about this about a year ago. It makes sense to me the the HLVD could have been possibly introduced from Beer an not just a random outdoor garden growing hops. plants near by, some sort of vector carried over etc etc. Some point someone, or multiple points of entry into our community.

Drinking a beer, beer on your hands, cutting back plants or pulling lowers an leafs etc etc.

I then thought, would the viroid survive the boiling or brewing process? I am unsure, I kinda feel it would not. since the long term heat cycle.

My past blue collar work i have taken multiple infectious disease courses and or BSL training / schooling for autoclave manufacturers and alike.

but.... heres the kicker!!

Throw in a beer with a dry hopped scenario, double triple dry hopped etc. When the beer is filtered through fresh or dried hops again, post brewing process. and bammm. there it is.

Possibly, again Possibly, the smoking gun...

Alcohol would kill it once in beer, and heat would also.

 

[Chevy cHaze]

Great information mate,
How do you envision to get the HOCL into ALL plant cells though?
Viroids, like viruses don't have a metabolism which seems to be necessary to get the stuff to kill a pathogen like a bacterium? Just dunking cuts will be useless... the viroid will prevail inside the tissue I assume as it's not going into all cells? I imagine it would have to be fed into the phloem or xylem in order to be distributed throughout the plant?
Other than that I've read on another thread here that hop latent virus is also in seeds from infected plants and only chance to save a mom would be to take a cut from the fastest growing shoots as the plant can technically outrun the virus in fresh shoots, where the viroid takes a bit of time to catch up and spread to those fast growing tips. But not an expert whatsoever, all anecdotal.
Best
CC