http://www.midwestbioshield.com/united-access/ Keeps Almost Any Surface Germ-Free For At Least 90 Days Mon, 01 Feb 2010 18:29:33 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 http://www.midwestbioshield.com/united-access/comment-page-1/#comment-3 Skip Bryan Mon, 01 Feb 2010 18:29:33 +0000 http://www.midwestbioshield.com/?p=95#comment-3 Hey Julie, You're right on. The test picked up what is called "biofilm", a layer of dirt, dust particles, flaked off skin cells and lots of other microscopic items that build up between cleanings. What is not mentioned and that I found to be very positive, is that a paper towel wetted only with water, wiped this film away and re-testing resulted in a number back under 100, showing the surface itself to be quite clean. It was also a good example of why normal cleaning in between applications is so important. Hey Julie,
You’re right on. The test picked up what is called “biofilm”, a layer of dirt, dust particles, flaked off skin cells and lots of other microscopic items that build up between cleanings. What is not mentioned and that I found to be very positive, is that a paper towel wetted only with water, wiped this film away and re-testing resulted in a number back under 100, showing the surface itself to be quite clean. It was also a good example of why normal cleaning in between applications is so important.

]]> http://www.midwestbioshield.com/united-access/comment-page-1/#comment-2 Julie Mon, 01 Feb 2010 16:35:19 +0000 http://www.midwestbioshield.com/?p=95#comment-2 What I don't seem to understand is the spike in "germs" on the test results, and then the decline during the course of 45 days? Seems confusing, if its supposed to be so effective. Were the areas not being disinfected or cleaned properly? What I don’t seem to understand is the spike in “germs” on the test results, and then the decline during the course of 45 days? Seems confusing, if its supposed to be so effective. Were the areas not being disinfected or cleaned properly?

]]>