Clinical Study on Anti Microbial effect of Charme Acidic Water on Bacteria
| Bacteria | Count prior to testing | 5 sec | 10 sec | 30 sec |
| E-Coli | 3.94 mil | <100 | <100 | <100 |
| Straphylococcus aureaus | 12.5 mil | <100 | <100 | <100 |
| Streptococcus pyogenes | 8.95 mi | <100 | <100 | <100 |
| Pseudomonas aeruginosa | 17.82 mil | <100 | <100 | <100 |
| MRSA | 11.24 mi | <100 | <100 | <100 |
| Salmonella | 13.80 mil | <100 | <100 | <100 |
| Sporular bacteria | 11.40 mi | 7,500 | 3,100 | <100 |
Testing agency: Food & Drug Safety Center, Japan
Bacterial broth: Low pH acidic water = 1 : 100
Sterilization comparison of conventional disinfectant products
| Disinfectant |
General bacteria
|
Pseudomonas aeruginosa
|
MSRA
|
Tubercule bacillus
|
Eumycetes
|
Spore
|
| Low pH Acidic water |
E
|
E
|
E
|
E
|
E
|
E
|
| Glutaraldehyde |
E
|
E
|
E
|
E
|
E
|
E
|
| Formaldehyde |
E
|
E
|
E
|
E
|
E
|
L
|
| Sodium hyochlorite |
E
|
E
|
E
|
L
|
E
|
L
|
| Ethanol for disinfection |
E
|
E
|
E
|
E
|
E
|
N
|
| Iodoform |
E
|
E
|
E
|
E
|
E
|
L
|
| Saponated cresol solution |
E
|
E
|
E
|
E
|
L
|
N
|
| Alkyldimethylbenzyl ammonium chloride |
E
|
E
|
E
|
N
|
L
|
N
|
| Chlorhexidine gluconate |
E
|
E
|
E
|
N
|
L
|
N
|
| Ampholytic surface active agent |
E
|
E
|
E
|
L
|
L
|
N
|
E: Effective
L: Less Effective
N: Not Effective
|
|
Low pH Acidic Water
|
Tap Water
|
Conventional Disinfectant |
Chlorinated Bleaching agent
|
|
pH
|
0-2.8
|
6.2-8.6
|
2.4-5.5
|
9-11
|
|
Residual Chlorine Concentrate
|
1-10 ppm
|
0-2 ppm
|
10-50 ppm
|
500-600 ppm
|
|
Inpurity (metal)
|
None
|
Some
|
Some
|
Large
|
|
Skin Irratation
|
Few
|
Few
|
Some
|
Large
|
|
Chlorine Odor
|
Few
|
Few
|
Some
|
Large
|
Safety Test
|
Test material
|
Test animal
|
Evaluation
|
|
|
Acute oral toxicity test
|
Low pH acidic water
|
Mouse
|
No issue
|
|
Eye irritation test
|
Low pH acidic water
|
Rabbit
|
No issue
|
|
Primary skin irritation test
|
Low pH acidic water
|
Rabbit
|
No issue
|
In one Japanese study, more than 22,000 patients with eczema were treated with low pH water. Researchers found that 85% of the patients improved with NO SIDE EFFECTS.
The Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology, Feb 2004 Issue Volume 17 - #2 (The efficacy intolerability of electrolyzed oxidized water in treating mild to moderate acne), tested Charme on people with acne. After just a few weeks, there was a 41% reduction in acne on the side of the face treated with Charme. There was a 76% reduction in blackheads and 42% reduction in whiteheads. 80% of the participants rated Charme as good or excellent and 75% preferred it to topical medications.
In January 2002, the California Skin Research Institute did a study that showed that showed how effective Revenir was on facials lines and wrinkles. 80% of the people showed signficant improvement in the the smoothing of facial lines, 77% showed less fine lines and wrinkles and a 326% improvement in the distance between facial lines. All within 3 months!
The California Skin Research Institute also studied hyperpigementation and reported an 89% improvement.