Adding another resistance to your phone - CAT brand phone with antibacterial protection coating coming soon next year

[williamcll]

CAT has released many rugged phones the past few years. Most of their phones are priced mid-range but have entry grade performance in exchange for protection against extreme environments. As the epidemic continues to roll across the nation, they have announced that their S42 phone will be upgraded to become the first antibacterial phone. For reference, the S24 uses a quad A53 Mediatek processor, 32GB storage and 3GB RAM with a 4200mAH battery.

Quote

The company has worked with additive firm Addmaster to incorporate the addition of its Biomaster antimicrobial technology into the production of its smartphones. This technology has been tested to ISO 22196, an internationally recognised standard of antibacterial protection. According to Bullitt, this solution is an additive integrated into the exterior components of the phone, and inhibits the growth of microbes on its surface. In testing, Biomaster has been proven to reduce bacteria cell replication by more than 80 per cent within 15 minutes, and 99.9 per cent within 24 hours. Bullitt’s first device to ship with the treatment will be the Cat S42 from “early 2021”. Bullitt says other devices in the Cat range will ship with the treatment later in the year, but not its Land Rover Explore R smartphone.

 

Bullitt’s use of the Biomaster technology marks a continuation of its emphasis on the need to consider smartphone hygiene in the age of Covid-19.

Source: https://www.mobilenewscwp.co.uk/News/article/bullitt-roll-permanently-anti-bacterial-cat-phones-early-2021
Thoughts: This is certainly useful considering most of us probably still take our phones out when we go out on the streets with people coughing, but how long will the coat last before it wears out?  Can this coating be applied to regular phones as well?

[Bombastinator]

“Anti-bacterial” often does more harm than good.  Also it often doesn’t work or doesn’t work very well.

[StDragon]

5 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

“Anti-bacterial” often does more harm than good.  Also it often doesn’t work or doesn’t work very well.

Candida auris (C. auris) seems to be a real nasty fungal infection. Would probably be better to focus on anti-fungal materials instead.

[BiotechBen]

the important thing to know here is if it is bactericidal or bacteriostatic. If it is using a bacteriostatic "coating" then it really isn't doing much. Now if they accomplish this through a copper coating or another heavy metal, you might see diminishing returns in regards to safety. If they do this through chemical means, it is entirely possible that the bacteria can become resistant through a variety of means such as increased transport of the cytotoxins out of the cell or through resistance through mutation of the cellular membrane to not allow entrance to the cytoplasm. (I have a degree in Biotechnology and this is my area of study. Recently did a presentation on antibiotic resistance).

[bcredeur97]

they just want ppl who don't know otherwise to think it'll protect them from covid I bet.

[BiotechBen]

Just now, bcredeur97 said:

they just want ppl who don't know otherwise to think it'll protect them from covid I bet.

that's a somewhat bold assumption, but it would be a good sales tactic in the current environment. Predatory sales tactics are never a good thing, and if they are preying on fear and attempting to boost sales by giving a false sense of security, they should be called on it.

[BlueChinchillaEatingDorito]

When the product page hasn't been updated since... I guess before September.

 

[Bombastinator]

4 minutes ago, bcredeur97 said:

they just want ppl who don't know otherwise to think it'll protect them from covid I bet.

The new perfumed sachet to protect against plague.  We’re in the Middle Ages again.

[bcredeur97]

13 minutes ago, BiotechBen said:

that's a somewhat bold assumption, but it would be a good sales tactic in the current environment. Predatory sales tactics are never a good thing, and if they are preying on fear and attempting to boost sales by giving a false sense of security, they should be called on it.

well they aren't directly saying it protects from covid. But I could see someone buying this misunderstanding and thinking that.

Like your average joe is just gonna lump viruses and bacteria under one category of "stuff that makes me sick" in their head, you know? 

So you couldn't claim they are being predatory. Even though we all know people think this way. It's clever.

[BiotechBen]

6 minutes ago, bcredeur97 said:

well they aren't directly saying it protects from covid. But I could see someone buying this misunderstanding and thinking that.

Like your average joe is just gonna lump viruses and bacteria under one category of "stuff that makes me sick" in their head, you know? 

So you couldn't claim they are being predatory. Even though we all know people think this way. It's clever.

Yeah, that's the point I'm making. If people are lumping it all together, and don't understand the difference between viruses and bacteria, and they are using it as a market tactic to sell more, expensive, rugged phones, then you could see some marketing person telling the sales dept. that this is going to skyrocket sales. If they genuinely want to make a better phone that is safe for environments like a sewage treatment facility then this is a really cool idea. But if this is a cheap move to sell more phones, then that's kinda scummy. 

[RejZoR]

JerryRigEverything burn tests all of a sudden make sense. Disinfection of phones using fire!

[TetraSky]

Could be somewhat good, since e.coli (from poop particulate) is omnipresent on phones due to people bringing their phone with them while they sit on the toilet. Certainly will do nothing against viruses like Covid, though.

 

That said, how will they achieve this "permanent" protection that, as far as I can understand it from the word "permanent", cannot be washed away?
You often see these kind of coatings on glasses, but it's just that, a coating that goes away if you wash them with anything.
Is this different or is it the same crap where if I use a 70% alcohol wipe on that phone, it will just remove the coating? 
Or is the surface of the phone itself something that makes it impossible for bacteria to live on? The article is not exactly clear on this, not enough info, too lazy to dig deeper.

[poochyena]

but why? Its usually just you who touch your own phone, so I don't really see how this could be helpful. Maybe useful for phones and tablets used as a POS system, especially at trade shows/conventions.

[BiotechBen]

2 hours ago, TetraSky said:

Could be somewhat good, since e.coli (from poop particulate) is omnipresent on phones due to people bringing their phone with them while they sit on the toilet. Certainly will do nothing against viruses like Covid, though.

 

That said, how will they achieve this "permanent" protection that, as far as I can understand it from the word "permanent", cannot be washed away?
You often see these kind of coatings on glasses, but it's just that, a coating that goes away if you wash them with anything.
Is this different or is it the same crap where if I use a 70% alcohol wipe on that phone, it will just remove the coating? 
Or is the surface of the phone itself something that makes it impossible for bacteria to live on? The article is not exactly clear on this, not enough info, too lazy to dig deeper.

If they used something like copper or silver in the "coating" it would work rather well.

[Doobeedoo]

Hmm. I do clean my phone often, maybe general UV light holder that kills bacteria to be common or something.