VirtuClean CPAP Ozone Cleaner

[moondoggy]

I recently asked my DME about the SClean CPAP cleaner as I was skeptical over whether it really works or not.  He said that it does but he recommends the VirtuClean device instead.  If you have a VirtuClean can you provide any feedback on your experience with using this device to clean both the Mask, tubing and water/heating chamber of your CPAP machine?  I read somewhere that Ozone can be dangerous to your health and breathing and would like feedback on using this device in a safe manner.  I've also heard that using any OZone cleaner will cause the mask to have an odor.  Is this true?  If yes, do you have any advice on how to get rid of the smell?  Since I'm coming at this from a zero knowledge basis any information or insight will be greatly appreciated.

[SuperSleeper]

Moving this thread into the Main Forum, since it's not a product review post.

[Melman]

Ozone will kill microorganisms if it can contact them but it does not penetrate residues such as skin oils and dried saliva so it will not kill microorganisms in and under such residues.
Ozone is not a cleaner. It will not remove oils such as skin oils and dried saliva.
Ozone is harmful to breath. Unlike SoClean virtuclean does not appear to remove ozone using an activated charcoal filter so I suspect the ozone is released into the room air. Google the hazards of breathing ozone.
CPAP equipment is generally free of pathogenic microorganisms so a sanitizer is not generally necessary. The organisms in your CPAP are those found in your room air.
Mild detergent and warm water will remove microorganisms and any residues that may accumulate on your CPAP equipment.
Your DME would like to separate more of your money from you. Don't fall for it.

[moondoggy]

Ozone will kill microorganisms if it can contact them but it does not penetrate residues such as skin oils and dried saliva so it will not kill microorganisms in and under such residues.
Ozone is not a cleaner. It will not remove oils such as skin oils and dried saliva.
Ozone is harmful to breath. Unlike SoClean virtuclean does not appear to remove ozone using an activated charcoal filter so I suspect the ozone is released into the room air. Google the hazards of breathing ozone.
CPAP equipment is generally free of pathogenic microorganisms so a sanitizer is not generally necessary. The organisms in your CPAP are those found in your room air.
Mild detergent and warm water will remove microorganisms and any residues that may accumulate on your CPAP equipment.
Your DME would like to separate more of your money from you. Don't fall for it.

Thanks for the reply.  I see the SoClean commercials on TV all the time and the VirtuClean that my DME showed me looked so much simpler, easier to use on trips and less expensive as you don't have to replace filters very 6 month but the down side from what I'm reading is the residual ozone.  I've read a bunch of articles where people complain about the ozone smell many hours after the 2 hour dissipation timeframe and of the headaches and other breathing problems they have.

[moondoggy]

OK, I received an answer concerning the merits of the VirtuClean Ozone CPAP cleaner and the issue of residual ozone freaks me out but I read another article yesterday about another cleaner called LUMIN.  This cleaner uses a ultra-violet light to clean your equipment.  Does anyone have any experience with this kind of cleaner?

[Marillion]

Melman's advice above would apply in this "Lumin" cleaner case also. Do not waste your money...

This would not replace cleaning with soap and water, adding an extra needless step that would only be good at lightening your bank account. Caveat emptor.

[Melman]

I read the scientific studies at the 3B website. This product appears to be more effective than SoClean. The lab data are certainly more convincing. They demonstrated a 5 log reduction of resistant bacterial spores in well controlled studies. That is more overkill than would be required to sanitize CPAP equipment. UV light is only effective, however, if a surface is not shadowed from the source. To minimize shadowing the interior of the chamber is highly polished aluminum which reflects UV light.  The machine is designed to accommodate a single mask or water chamber. It does not appear suitable for hoses. There are, however, some issues that, in my opinion, will compromise it's effectiveness.

In spite of the polished aluminum chamber I still see a problem with shadowing. The mask with headgear attached, for example, is placed in the chamber face up and rests on the bottom of the chamber. The UV light is at the top of the chamber and shines down. The portions of the mask setting on the bottom of the chamber would block UV light and prevent it from being reflected back up against those surfaces. Also, they show the mask placed in the chamber with the headgear attached. It seems unlikely that the headgear would not result in significant shadowing. Additionally, the interior of opaque tubular components such as hose connectors would not be fully exposed to the UV light.   Parts of the frames of some masks such as the AmaraView are not clear plastic and would also interfere with light transmission.

I can't see how all surfaces of a water chamber with an opaque metal bottom would be exposed to UV light.

Although a 5 log kill of resistant spores was demonstrated the study report does not indicate that any worst case conditions were employed, which is generally a requirement for validation of sterilization and sanitization. The challenge spores were on stainless steel strips placed in the chamber with the masks and water chambers. The report does not say where they were placed. Placement on top of the items directly under the UV light would be much less of a challenge than under the mask or inside of the opaque hose connector, which would be worst case. Failure to place the challenge spores at worst case locations constitutes a serious flaw to the study. (If worst case site were used, I suspect it would have been mentioned in the report.)

Effectiveness of the system depends on the mirror finish of the aluminum chamber which they concede is easily scratched and requires special care. I would have concerns with how well it will hold up to routine use.

As with SoCean, the items to be sanitized must be cleaned before sanitization. I do credit 3B medical for being up front about this in their instructions and not implying their system cleans.

The bottom line is, for those that feel the need for a high level of sanitization, the 3B system appears to be more effective and safer than SoClean but probably does not sanitize all surfaces. It does not appear suitable for hoses which will require an additional method for sanitization. The cost of the machine is similar to SoClean, about $300, but is probably less expensive to use since no disposables are required.

In my opinion as a microbiologist and CPAP user, this is another solution for which there is no need. Regular cleaning with mild detergent supplemented occasionally with a mild and inexpensive sanitizing agent is adequate to keep our equipment free of significant numbers of microorganisms. I clean my equipment less frequently then most on the forum and see no indication of significant microbial colonization.
 

[archangle]

Ozone is harmful to breath. Unlike SoClean virtuclean does not appear to remove ozone using an activated charcoal filter so I suspect the ozone is released into the room air. Google the hazards of breathing ozone.

-- Grumpy old man mode on ---

I've very skeptical about ozone cleaners. However, I'm not that worried about it making the room air hazardous.

The VirtuCLEAN is probably only trying to ozonify a very small volume of air, namely the inside of the bag, or the inside of your CPAP machine. It's probably not blowing a high rate of air because it needs to be able to generate enough ozone to sanitize. This small volume of air will then become diluted by the air in the room.

I wouldn't sit in a closed up closet while using it, but I doubt there's a problem. I might go so far as to only use it in a room I'm not occupying.

[archangle]

[align=left]UV light is only effective, however, if a surface is not shadowed from the source.

My first thought is that are that the mask is probably safe even before you put it into the UV device. Even if it misses a few spots, it's probably doing what it does over many parts of the device.

I would not feel safe, however, using only a UV device to "sterilize" a mask that had been used by someone else or otherwise severely contaminated.

If you really want to sanitize it, boil it, if the mask can take it. Don't boil a mask or other equipment that you can't do without. So far, no problems with masks, but I don't boil the foam parts, including headgear.

What I do is take a big pot of water, boil it on the stove, turn off the heat, then drop mask parts into the water. Cover, and leave till it cools. Not that boiling water won't kill ALL germs, but will probably kill the important ones for CPAP. I haven't ruined a mask yet, but I did sort of half cook a hose.

I like heat kill because I know it gets into all the cracks and crevices. Even deep inside the solid materials.

I had a ResMed S9 "non-dishwashable" tanks that was ruined. S9 dishwashable tanks were OK. Philips Respironics legacy, M series, and PRS1 tanks all survived.

Probably better than boiling is a good soak in Control III cleaner. Note: The full strength fluid is nasty. Use caution. It's pretty benign once diluted, but don't get in your eyes or drink it. !!!!RTFM!!!! Read The Flapping Instructions. Clean and disassemble your gear first. Rinse the parts after.

Control III is not something I'd do very often, but I've used it on used gear.

[Marillion]

I read the scientific studies at the 3B website. This product appears to be more effective than SoClean. The lab data are certainly more convincing. They demonstrated a 5 log reduction of resistant bacterial spores in well controlled studies. That is more overkill than would be required to sanitize CPAP equipment. UV light is only effective, however, if a surface is not shadowed from the source. To minimize shadowing the interior of the chamber is highly polished aluminum which reflects UV light.  The machine is designed to accommodate a single mask or water chamber. It does not appear suitable for hoses. There are, however, some issues that, in my opinion, will compromise it's effectiveness.

In spite of the polished aluminum chamber I still see a problem with shadowing. The mask with headgear attached, for example, is placed in the chamber face up and rests on the bottom of the chamber. The UV light is at the top of the chamber and shines down. The portions of the mask setting on the bottom of the chamber would block UV light and prevent it from being reflected back up against those surfaces. Also, they show the mask placed in the chamber with the headgear attached. It seems unlikely that the headgear would not result in significant shadowing. Additionally, the interior of opaque tubular components such as hose connectors would not be fully exposed to the UV light.   Parts of the frames of some masks such as the AmaraView are not clear plastic and would also interfere with light transmission.

I can't see how all surfaces of a water chamber with an opaque metal bottom would be exposed to UV light.

Although a 5 log kill of resistant spores was demonstrated the study report does not indicate that any worst case conditions were employed, which is generally a requirement for validation of sterilization and sanitization. The challenge spores were on stainless steel strips placed in the chamber with the masks and water chambers. The report does not say where they were placed. Placement on top of the items directly under the UV light would be much less of a challenge than under the mask or inside of the opaque hose connector, which would be worst case. Failure to place the challenge spores at worst case locations constitutes a serious flaw to the study. (If worst case site were used, I suspect it would have been mentioned in the report.)

Effectiveness of the system depends on the mirror finish of the aluminum chamber which they concede is easily scratched and requires special care. I would have concerns with how well it will hold up to routine use.

As with SoCean, the items to be sanitized must be cleaned before sanitization. I do credit 3B medical for being up front about this in their instructions and not implying their system cleans.

The bottom line is, for those that feel the need for a high level of sanitization, the 3B system appears to be more effective and safer than SoClean but probably does not sanitize all surfaces. It does not appear suitable for hoses which will require an additional method for sanitization. The cost of the machine is similar to SoClean, about $300, but is probably less expensive to use since no disposables are required.

In my opinion as a microbiologist and CPAP user, this is another solution for which there is no need. Regular cleaning with mild detergent supplemented occasionally with a mild and inexpensive sanitizing agent is adequate to keep our equipment free of significant numbers of microorganisms. I clean my equipment less frequently then most on the forum and see no indication of significant microbial colonization.
 

Thank you for taking the time to do this definitive explanation Melman.  Your professional opinion is, as always, very much appreciated.