Isolator Biodecontamination

No — and we won't present it as one. This is a proposed development pathway with a clearly stated hypothesis: that an approximately 10 µm ultrasonically generated H₂O₂ aerosol can provide effective isolator biodecontamination when the chamber environment is engineered to control the transition among airborne droplets, partially evaporated droplets, vapor, and subvisible surface liquid. The supporting literature is peer-reviewed and cited above, but biological D-values for a MicroSpray-based cycle would have to be established experimentally in your enclosure. We are looking for development partners, not making efficacy claims.

At 120 kHz the Vortex Nozzle produces a 10–25 µm distribution. That is deliberately chosen: it is light enough to be carried by recirculation airflow rather than settling out near the nozzle, and still coarse enough that a fraction of the aerosol arrives at surfaces as liquid — which is what Controlled Micro-Wetting depends on. At 60 kHz the same nozzle gives 15–40 µm, which settles too quickly for whole-enclosure distribution. Because ultrasonic droplet size follows frequency rather than gas pressure, the size band stays put when you change flow rate, which is what makes it a usable process variable.

Physical transport first, biology second. Stage I characterizes the actual droplet distribution of your peroxide formulation — D10, D50, D90, and D99, not just a nominal mean, since the large-droplet tail disproportionately drives localized deposition. Stage II measures droplet distributions at increasing distances from the nozzle (for example 50, 150, 300, 600, and 1,000 mm) while varying concentration, liquid and air temperature, humidity, airflow, and injection rate, to build an empirical evaporation relationship instead of assuming complete evaporation. Stage III places representative materials — 316L stainless, glass, glove materials, elastomeric seals, polymer tubing — throughout the chamber and measures deposited H₂O₂ per unit area, uniformity, film persistence, and whether visible condensation appears. Only then do biological indicators go into the worst-case locations.

Not droplet diameter on its own. A meaningful comparison covers H₂O₂ consumed per cycle, BI log reduction and D-value, the full droplet distribution, surface H₂O₂ deposition, spatial coefficient of variation across the chamber, presence or absence of visible condensation, injection and dwell duration, aeration time to a specified ppm, total cycle time, polymer and material uptake, and atomizing air and electrical consumption. The question that matters is which approach reaches the required biological result with the lowest peroxide dose, shortest validated cycle, most uniform surface exposure, and least material stress.

Probably not, and we'd suggest not starting there. There is an important distinction between heating the H₂O₂ liquid and supplying thermal energy through the surrounding air. For initial development, moderate conditioning of the circulating gas is likely preferable to aggressively heating the peroxide reservoir — the air then supplies evaporation energy and transport simultaneously, and you avoid the peroxide-stability and materials-compatibility questions that come with a hot reservoir. Specific operating temperatures should be established experimentally for your chemistry and equipment.

Ultrasonic nozzles run at very low liquid flow rates, which makes them a natural fit for smaller enclosures — sterility-test isolators, material transfer chambers, pass-throughs, cell and gene therapy workcells, and compact RABS. For larger enclosures the more interesting option is distributing several small atomization points rather than scaling one, since each nozzle needs only a liquid feed and a low-pressure sheath connection. Tell us your enclosure volume and airflow pattern and we can talk through placement.