What makes FreeBact different from traditional disinfection?
Not all disinfectants work in the same way. Their effectiveness varies depending on the microorganism being targeted, the environment being treated, and how the product is used.
FreeBact® is based on chlorine dioxide (ClO₂), a well-documented active substance effective against a broad spectrum of microorganisms.
Here we compare the technology behind FreeBact® Water and FreeBact® Surface with two common alternatives, chlorine and alcohol.
The comparisons are based on documented properties and tests. The results are influenced by factors including concentration, contact time, and conditions of use.
FreeBact® Water compared to chlorine
Effective disinfection with chlorine dioxide
Chlorine is an established method for water treatment, but chlorine dioxide has several properties that make it particularly interesting for the disinfection of drinking water and water systems.
Up to 5 times more effective
Xinix has tests showing that FreeBact® Water can be up to five times more effective than traditional chlorine under the conditions studied.
Effective against biofilm as well
Chlorine dioxide can affect biofilm, the protective coatings where microorganisms can establish themselves in water pipes and tanks.
Without a pronounced chlorine taste and smell
FreeBact® Water has been developed for effective drinking water disinfection without the typical taste and smell that can be associated with traditional chlorination.
Different chemical reaction profile
Chlorine dioxide reacts differently than traditional chlorine and generally forms smaller amounts of chlorinated organic byproducts, such as trihalomethanes. However, chlorite and chlorate, among others, need to be considered in water treatment.
FreeBact® Surface compared to alcohol
Documented effectiveness, even against hard-to-combat viruses
Alcohol-based disinfection is common and effective against many microorganisms. However, some viruses are more resistant and require specially adapted disinfection methods.
Up to 3 times more effective
Xinix has comparative tests showing that FreeBact® Surface can be up to three times more effective than alcohol under the conditions tested.
Effectiveness against non-enveloped viruses
Unlike many common alcohol-based products, FreeBact® has documentation against hard-to-combat, non-enveloped viruses.
In laboratory tests according to EN 14476, a previous product formulation achieved over a 5-log reduction of murine norovirus within one minute.
Water-based and alcohol-free
FreeBact® Surface is based on a water-based solution and does not contain alcohol. This means, among other things, that the product does not have the flammable properties of alcohol.
For different types of surfaces
FreeBact® Surface is developed for surface disinfection in both private and professional environments. Always follow the product instructions and check material compatibility.
Disinfection methods, strengths and limitations
Here we have compiled an overview of FreeBact® and other methods for the disinfection of water and surfaces. Each method has its strengths, limitations, and areas of application. The effectiveness depends on several factors, including the microorganism to be targeted, concentration, contact time, and the environment in which it is used.
Below we summarize the main characteristics of each method.
FreeBact® Chlorine Dioxide, ClO₂ (Chlorine Dioxide)
✅ Documented effectiveness against ALL bacteria, viruses and fungi
✅ Documented powerful effect against biofilm
✅ 5 times more effective than chlorine-based solutions
✅ 3 times more effective than alcohol-based solutions
✅ Water-based solutions
✅ For water and surfaces, in product-specific formulations
✅ Laboratory tests and real-world references
✅ Natural color indicator, the yellow color of chlorine dioxide fades as the concentration decreases.
Good to know: Chlorine dioxide is not yet as well known as traditional alternatives.
Traditional chlorine, hypochlorite and free chlorine (Chlorine)
✅ Established and effective method for disinfecting water and surfaces.
❌ Leaves a noticeable taste and odor in drinking water.
❌ Turbid water should be filtered or allowed to settle before chlorination to ensure effective disinfection.
❌ Typically requires at least 30 minutes of contact time for household drinking water disinfection.
❌ Disinfection effectiveness is affected by the water's pH.
❌ Can form chlorinated disinfection byproducts, such as trihalomethanes (THMs).
❌ Limited effectiveness against Cryptosporidium at normal dosages and contact times.
Alcohol (Alcohol, ethanol, isopropanol)
✅ Effective against many bacteria, fungi, and enveloped viruses.
❌ Flammable.
❌ May dry out the skin with repeated use, especially without moisturizing additives.
❌ Limited or variable effectiveness against certain non-enveloped viruses, such as norovirus.
❌ Ineffective against bacterial spores under normal use.
❌ Evaporates quickly, which can make it difficult to achieve sufficient contact time.
Clover extract, Trifolium sp. (Clover extract)
✅ Certain clover extracts have shown antibacterial activity in laboratory studies.
❌ The results are affected by the extraction method and concentration.
❌ Laboratory results do not automatically indicate effectiveness in the practical disinfection of water and surfaces.
❌ The cited study examined bacteria, not viruses or fungi.
❌ The study does not provide sufficient support for use in drinking water disinfection.
Colloidal silver (Colloidal silver)
✅ Silver has documented antimicrobial properties, particularly against certain bacteria.
❌ WHO does not recommend silver as a method for disinfecting drinking water.
❌ The effect may require a long contact time compared to established disinfectants.
❌ Insufficient documentation for reliable inactivation of viruses and parasites in drinking water.
❌ Prolonged intake of colloidal silver can cause argyria, a permanent purple skin discoloration.
Hydrogen peroxide, H₂O₂ (Hydrogen peroxide)
✅ Documented effectiveness against many bacteria, viruses, and fungi at the correct concentration.
❌ Effectiveness is highly dependent on concentration, formulation, and contact time.
❌ Bacterial spores may require higher concentrations or longer treatment times.
❌ Concentrated solutions require special safety handling and checks for material compatibility.
❌ Insufficient evidence to recommend low-dose hydrogen peroxide treatment as a general method for drinking water disinfection in the field.
Ozone, O₃ (Ozone)
✅ Powerful oxidation method with documented effectiveness against bacteria, viruses, and parasites in controlled water treatment.
❌ Provides no residual disinfection effect in the distribution network.
❌ Requires special equipment for production and controlled dosing on site.
❌ Can form bromate in water containing bromide.
❌ Ozone in the air can irritate and damage the respiratory tract, requiring strict safety measures.
Quaternary ammonium compounds (Quats)
✅ Effective against many bacteria, fungi, and enveloped viruses.
❌ Generally limited effectiveness against non-enveloped viruses.
❌ Lacks sufficient effectiveness against bacterial spores.
❌ Effectiveness may be reduced upon contact with certain cleaning materials and hard water.
❌ Used primarily for surface disinfection, not for disinfecting drinking water.
What determines which disinfection method is best?
There is no single method that is optimal for all environments and applications. The choice is influenced by factors such as the microorganisms to be controlled, available contact time, materials, water quality, and applicable safety requirements.
FreeBact® is based on chlorine dioxide and has a documented effect in a wide range of applications. Through our laboratory tests and practical references, we demonstrate how the technology can be used for the disinfection of both water and surfaces.
Please contact us if you would like to discuss this further.
info@xinix.se
Sources
Sources and Scientific References
- Ma, J.-W. et al. (2017). Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of a chlorine dioxide solution. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14(3), 329. Read the study
- Lubbers, J.R., Chauan, S. and Bianchine, J.R. (1982). Controlled clinical studies of chlorine dioxide, chlorite and chlorate in humans. Environmental Health Perspectives, 46, 57–62. Read the study
- Yee, S. et al. (2020). Efficacy of chlorine dioxide as a disinfectant. Progress in Microbes & Molecular Biology, 3(1). Read the article
- Malka, S.K. and Park, M.-H. (2022). Safety and quality of fresh fruits and vegetables, the role of chlorine dioxide. Frontiers in Plant Science, 12, 775629. Read the study
- CDC, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2024). Disinfection of drinking water with chlorine and chloramine, efficacy, use and limitations. Read the agency information
- EFSA, European Food Safety Authority (2023). Water treatment with chlorine, how pH affects the distribution between hypochlorous acid and hypochlorite. EFSA Journal, Part B.2, Chlorination. Read the documentation
- Adeyemo, F.E. et al. (2019). Efficacy of chlorine and UV light for inactivation of Cryptosporidium and Giardia in wastewater. PLOS ONE, 14(5), e0216040. Read the study
- Kampf, G. (2018). Ethanol's effect against viruses in hand disinfection. Journal of Hospital Infection, 98(4), 331–338. Read the study
- Thomas, P. (2012). Long-term survival of Bacillus spores in alcohol and evaluation of the sporicidal and bactericidal effect of 90% ethanol. Current Microbiology, 64, 130–139. Read the study
- Murdoch, L.E. et al. (2016). Evaluation of different concentrations of hydrogen peroxide in an automated room disinfection system. Letters in Applied Microbiology, 63, 178–182. Read the study
- Baureder, M., Reimann, R. and Hederstedt, L. (2012). The importance of the catalase enzyme for resistance to hydrogen peroxide in Enterococcus faecalis. FEMS Microbiology Letters, 331, 160–164. Read the study
- ECHA, European Chemicals Agency. Hydrogen peroxide, substance information, chemical properties and safety classification. Read the substance information
- Peters, B.M. et al. (2013). Ethanol's effect against mixed biofilms of Candida albicans and Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, 57(1), 74–82. Read the study
- CDC, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Chemical disinfectants, hydrogen peroxide and its microbiological effect, uses and limitations. Read the agency information
- Khan, A.V. et al. (2012). Antibacterial activity of leaf extracts from the clover species Trifolium alexandrinum against pathogenic bacteria. Asian Pacific Journal of Tropical Biomedicine, 2(3), 189–194. Read the study
- ECHA, European Chemicals Agency. Ozone, harmonized classification and hazard properties. Read the substance information
- EPA, United States Environmental Protection Agency. Ozone generators for air purification, documented efficacy, limitations and health risks. Read the agency information
- NHMRC, National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. Ozone in drinking water treatment, disinfection efficacy, chemical byproducts and limitations. Australian Drinking Water Guidelines. Read the guidelines
- CDC, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Quaternary ammonium compounds (Quats), microbiological effect against bacteria, fungi and viruses as well as limitations in disinfection. Read the agency information
- Hrubec, T.C. et al. (2017). Exposure to disinfectants containing quaternary ammonium compounds and the occurrence of neural tube defects in rodents. Birth Defects Research, 109(14), 1166–1178. Read the animal study
- Kim, J.J., Konkel, K., McCulley, L. and Diak, I.-L. (2019). Cases of argyria associated with the use of colloidal silver. Annals of Pharmacotherapy, 53(8), 867–870. Read the article
- WHO, World Health Organization (2022). Silver in drinking water, health risks, disinfection efficacy and recommendations for use. Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality, fourth edition with addenda. Read the WHO documentation