1.  READER FEEDBACK TO METALWORKING FLUID MAGAZINE
Dear MWF Mag
Your magazine is well presented and very helpful to those of us who must rely on the coolant salesman's explanation of his product's effectiveness.  I've been told recently that a coolant, manufactured by Blazer, contains "good bacteria."  The facility, which uses this water soluble oil coolant, has a distinct odor, associated with spent coolant and microbial growth. The coolant is a heavy emulsion, reminding me of a light syrup and is drug out in cast iron chips to the point where concentrate additions amount to a complete facility change out every 3 or 4 weeks.  Even with the rapid turn over of coolant, in turbulent central systems, bacteria is obviously a problem.  The coolant supplier has promoted the presence of "good bacteria" to control "bad bacteria."  The supplier has also indicated the good bacteria is pseudamonis... can this be good?  Please enlighten me as best you can.

2.  Dear Mr. Jordi; (BLASER SWISSLUBE)
I am the editor of  METALWORKING FLUID MAGAZINE (metalworkingfluid.com).  I have recently received correspondence from a subscriber regarding representations made about your products.  I have heard of these representations before, here in Texas.  Others in the industry I know say they have heard the same thing said in other states, enough to indicate that the claim is commonly made in the United States by representatives of Blaser.  Below is a copy of the Subscriber's question.  Please give us your response to the question.  Specifically, does Blaser claim their product contains a bacteria, and if so, what is it, and how is it "good?" 

Thanks in advance for your response.
Editor, METALWORKING FLUID MAGAZINE

Comments:
...I've been told recently that a coolant, manufactured by Blaser, contains "good bacteria."  The facility, which uses this water soluble oil coolant, has a distinct odor, associated with spent coolant and microbial growth. ...The coolant supplier has promoted the presence of "good bacteria" to control "bad bacteria."  The supplier has also indicated the good bacteria is pseudamonis... can this be good?  Please enlighten me as best you can.

3.  Dear Mr. Giza; (BLASER SWISSLUBE)
I recently emailed Mr. Jordi requesting clarification to the Reader's question listed below.  He has not responded to my email.  Could you please respond to the question from our Reader?

Thank you,
Editor, Metalworking Fluid Magazine

4.  Giza:  Hello,
Blasocut mineral oil based, water-miscible emulsions can indeed tolerate high counts of bacteria (commonly 10^6 –10^7 per ml.) without degradation.  These are harmless water bacteria which pose no health and safety concerns to the machine operators.  In fact, pathogenic (disease causing) bacteria do not proliferate or survive in Blasocut emulsions.  Many types of bacteria consume the same food sources.  By encouraging the growth of certain strains of species, the "undesirable" creatures (ie: fungus) essentially become starved out of the coolant.  The most common strain of bacteria found in Blasocut are Pseudomonas.  We have found this to be the most effective way of dealing with bacteria. Using this biological concept, resistance to bactericides does not become a problem, so customers experience long sump life of the coolant.  Since many bactericides can irritate the skin, using this biological concept, we have very few reported cases of operator dermatitis.  I really can't comment on the statement, "the facility, which uses this water soluble oil coolant, has a distinct odor, associated with spent coolant and microbial growth", since I do not know all the facts.  Smell from water-miscible coolants can be caused by a number of factors, not just bacteria.  High tramp oil contamination, hydrogen sulfide gas, concentrations too low to name a few of the causes.  I suggest the customer contact our local distributor and/or our Area Product Manager and let them see first hand what's going on or call our Inside Technical Support Department at (845) 294-3200. I hope this answers the questions.

Regards, Joe Giza

Thank you so much for your immediate response.  The proposition of a coolant designed to operate full of harmless bacteria starving out deadly bacteria sounds fascinating, but it yields additional questions on the subject.

1.  You state that "By encouraging the growth of certain strains of species, the "undesirable" creatures (i.e.: fungus) essentially become starved out of the coolant." How does Blaser "encourage" the growth of selected strains of species in Blasocut?

2.  You state that "The most common strain of bacteria found in Blasocut are Pseudomonas." The word "found" is a little confusing here.  Is this meant to indicate it was 'found' by observation, or that the presence is by design (i.e. inoculation, or other means, or just by the absence of biocides)?

3.  Is it Blaser's position that the combination and concentrations of bacteria found in Blasocut are unique among metalworking fluids?  Also, is it Blaser's position, that the combination and concentrations of bacteria are unique by design?

4.  How is it that "pathogenic (disease causing) bacteria do not proliferate or survive in Blasocut" but that other harmless water bacteria thrive sufficiently to consume the food source of the disease causing) bacteria?  How is this selective life support system managed with a line drawn between harmful and harmless?

5.Is there a patent issued or pending on this product on the basis described?

Mr. Giza, again, I appreciate your time in providing responses for our Readers.  I will include your name and number for Readers to contact for additional information.  Your responses will be published in the September Issue on the feedback page.

6.  GIZA:  Hello,
I am not the right person to answer some of your questions, others may be of a proprietary nature.  I will forward them to someone else in our organization to review.  We will get back to you as soon as we can.  One thing that is worth mentioning, for some reason when I sent my e-mail the bacteria counts did not come out as I had typed them.  It should have read 10 to the 6th power - 10 to the 7th power per ml. (NOT 106 - 107 per ml.). (corrected above as stated here).

Regards,
Joe Giza

7.  V.P. and Production Manager

GIZA:  Our V.P. and Production Manager reviewed your questions and offers the following answers.  We hope they are sufficient.
Regards, Joe Giza

1.  You state that "By encouraging the growth of certain strains of species, the "undesirable" creatures (i.e.: fungus) essentially become starved out of the coolant." How does Blaser "encourage" the growth of selected strains of species in Blasocut? 

The word "encourage" is not exactly the right expression to explain the biological philosophy employed in Blasocut.  The Blasocut formulation tolerates the growth of harmless water bacteria (mostly Pseudomonas) in end-use emulsions.  Blasocut is designed to be able to withstand a high number (10^6 to 10^8) of this type of bacteria without significant degradation.  

2.  You state that "The most common strain of bacteria found in Blasocut are Pseudomonas." The word "found" is a little confusing here.  Is this meant to indicate it was 'found' by observation, or that the presence is by design (i.e.  inoculation, or other means, or just by the absence of biocides)? 

Bacteria are found by observation of in-use emulsions.  No inoculation is needed as these types of bacteria are present everywhere already.  Their presence is encouraged by design of the formulation.  

3.  Is it Blaser's position that the combination and concentrations of bacteria found in Blasocut are unique among metalworking fluids? Also, is it Blaser's position, that the combination and concentrations of bacteria are unique by design?

The formulation is unique by design.  Not so much as by influencing the biological balance in sumps but by the fact that the emulsion can withstand a high number of bacteria without degradation.  This tolerance, without degradation, is unique to Blasocut.  

4.  How is it that "pathogenic (disease causing) bacteria do not proliferate or survive in Blasocut" but that other harmless water bacteria thrive sufficiently to consume the food source of the disease causing) bacteria? How is this selective life support system managed with a line drawn between harmful and harmless? 

I hope you understand if we do not provide detailed information on this in public, as it represents our core know-how.  The raw materials and ingredients selected in the formulation are carefully monitored and matched in respect to their influence on the predominate bacteria present in a normal Blasocut emulsion.  In other words Blasocut is a "controlled" biotope.  Of course there are outside influences (like tramp oil, water quality, etc.) which can upset this biotope.  This is one of the reasons why Blaser puts a big emphasis on education and training of the users.  

5.  Is there a patent issued or pending on this product on the basis described? 

Again we rather do not discuss this in public.

[AFTER NOTE: We don't understand the reluctance to answer this question, since it was directed to information that is already in the public domain.  We found that Blaser & Co. AG is the assignee of one issued US Patent.  That patent is U.S. Patent 5,167,815 for an "Apparatus for removing substances from the surface of a liquid"  That would be a patent for a skimmer, issued in 1992.  Since 35 U.S.C. 102(b) prohibits patenting of inventions that have been on sale for more than one year, a patent for this product would have been issued by now if it had been timely filed and allowed by the U.S.P.T.O.  Even assuming the patent application was suffering a several years long tortured prosecution by a demented Examiner, Blaser would at least be marking the product "Patent Pending."  There are serious consequences for the use of this marking when no patent is actually pending.  We don't have a drum of it lying around but even without looking we'll bet a dollar to a donut there is no patent pending.  That means anyone can make, use or sell the product - if you know how to.]

The response of your VP and Production Manager have helped to clarify the intended functionality of the Blaser product.  This is important information that we are pleased to be able to bring to our readers.  I would like to continue the exchange with a follow-up, since we have received numerous emails and inquires regarding your product in the past four years.  If you can please forward this communication to your VP for consideration.

1.  Correct me if I am wrong here, but pseudomonas is a gram negative bacteria, and it might not be entirely correct to refer to it as "harmless" in all regards, (i.e., any exposure, anybody, any concentration).

2.  Pseudomonas is generally considered a primary spoiler of metalworkingfluids.  You refer to the Blasocut products ability to "withstand a high number of bacteria without degradation" and to "tolerate" the high concentrations.  Most people consider the stench itself unacceptable at these levels (10^6 to 10^8).  Does Blasocut have a component chemical designed to mask the smell associated with the concentrations of this and other bacteria?

3.  Does Blasocut "tolerate" and resist degradation, by a specific means other than by masking the smell associated with the concentrations of this and other bacteria?  If so, how would you further describe the resistance to degradation?  Stated another way, what other means (other than odor) of degradation is resisted?

Thanks again for your time and assistance.  We will provide all of your answers to the readers, exactly as you have offered them.