You are on page 1of 13

• Measure water purity in terms of TDS – Total

Dissolved Solids, which measures the particles


which are suspended between water clusters

• Some minerals and contaminants are also


bound in the middle of the water clusters.
These are not easily removed through normal
water filtration and purification techniques.

Bound Suspended
Contaminants Contaminants

• Water filtration systems have varying


degrees of effectiveness in removing
TDS.
• Distillation, Deionization, and Ultra-
Purification are necessary to remove
bound contaminants.
The Science of Small
What is a nano-sized nutrient cluster?
True nano-sized particles or nano volumes of liquids
embedded in the middle of micro-sized water clusters
Stable micro-cluster small enough for passive absorption.
Advantages over macro (large) nutrients
• Bioavailability – Due to the size of the water cluster (6-100nm) it is bioavailable to
every cell of an organism, including the blood/brain barrier. The nutrient is passively
absorbed into the cell without the need of carrier molecules (no energy required)
• Speed to Delivery – Water is absorbed rapidly, and is bioavailable within 1-2
minutes. 99.9% absorption within 30 minutes (clinical validation)
• Hydration - Water itself is beneficial for cellular hydration, efficient waste removal,
energy production, etc.
• Amount of nutrient required is tremendously less. (1/1500th of the macro amount)

Features of our tech


• Consistent manufacturing, very high level of quality control, zero contaminants
• Stable, bound condition, shelf life stable, no fallout, requires no refrigeration
• Mixes with macro and other compounds, doesn’t break down
Our Production Process
Characterized by:
• Inefficiently bound water molecules
wrapped around a macro particle

• Macro particles can be minerals,


chemicals, etc.

1000 nanometers
(1 micron) in
diameter

Standard Water Cluster

Water
Sub-Clusters

Our Nutrient Particles


• Uniform Nano-sized Particles
Nutrient Particle • Embedded in micro-clusters of water
100 nanometers (1/10th the size)
in diameter • Efficiently bound in stable water sub-
clusters
Our Nano Nutrient Particle Size

Macro
Particle
Standard Particle Size in Liquid Fertilizer
Wide range with Average of 5 Microns (5000 nanometers)

Nano Particles

Our nutrient cluster particle size – nearly uniform 6 nanometers!


Fat vs. Water Nano Vehicles
• Liposomes are nano particles
embedded in spheres of fat

• Particle size and spheres are


irregular, and difficult to
manufacture

• Bioavailability is slow due to


absorption in the small
intestine

Azantis: 95% within 50nm to 420 nm


Regular spherical Distribution Azantis Liposome Vit C absorption times

Competitor 95% within 50nm to 690nm


Irregular, misshapen distribution
Location of Nutrient
Absorption
• Water is listed first, being easily absorbed by
the stomach.

• Our water-based nano clusters are easily


absorbed, with any nutrients embedded
within them.

• Requires little to ZERO energy to absorb, the


nano clusters are small enough to passively
cross cell membranes in humans and cell
walls in plants.

• High absorption and near immediate


bioavailability.
Controlled Chicken Study
45 Days Harvest

Pen # Treatment Per bird Avg Daily Feed efficiency Death loss Condemns Notes
weight Gain
1 No Hydrozome 5.94 .1320 1.814 15% 2
Medicated feed

2 1% Hydrozome 6.71 .1491 1.769 10% 0


Medicated feed

3 2% Hydrozome 6.4 .1427 1.857 5% 0 Feathered out much


Medicated feed better and more
mature than pens 1
and 2

4 2% Hydrozome 6.52 .1447 1.748 5% 0 Same as Pen 3


Non-medicated feed

Notes:
• Pens 3 & 4 grew much quicker, while pen 2 started slower and came on faster at the end.
• Pens 3 & 4 could harvest at least 1 week earlier, giving the grower an extra cycle per year
• Strength of the birds with Hydrozome much greater even with the rapid weight gain
Control Group Pen 1
Chicken Analysis
We did independent analysis of the organs
from the birds, from each pen to look for any
abnormalities or nutrient accumulation in
the organs that would indicate health
problems.

All four pens showed similar results with no


significant differences in assay levels of items
tested.
Hydrozome Pen 4
Sod Farm Study
www.onsitelabs.net

• Significantly Higher Germination Rate


• More Rapid Growth
• Harvested 25% sooner
• Higher Nutrition values in Sod
• Higher soil moisture content

• 40 Gallons of Fertilizer = 151 liters


• 100 ml of fertilizer used in 20 gallons
Hydrozome.
• 1/1500th the amount of fertilizer
Field 1: 40 Gallons Standard 9-24-3 Fertilizer
Field Size: 33 Acres
Date Planted: August 27, 2012
Grass Seed Type: 60% Kentucky Bluegrass, 40% Perennial Ryegrass
Fertilizer Applications: 15 applications – each using 40 gallons per 65,000 gallons of water (Sept/Oct)
Distribution Method: Circle Pivot

Field 2: 20 Gallons Optimized 9-24-3 Fertilizer


Field Size: 33 Acres
Date Planted: Sept 5, 2012
Grass Seed Type: 60% Kentucky Bluegrass, 40% Perennial Ryegrass
Fertilizer Applications: 15 applications – each using 20 gallons per 65,000 gallons of water (Sept/Oct)
Distribution Method: Circle Pivot
Tissue Moisture Content Test Results
Sample of Grass Tissue 40 gal 20 gal % Difference
3/7/2013 Standard Fertilizer Nano Fertilizer
Tissue Moisture % 49.25% 59.15% 20.1%

Sodium Content in ppm 769.966 1505.804 95.56%

Millimohs per centimeter 1.20 2.35

Soil Moisture Content Test Results


Soil Core Sample 40 gal 20 gal % Difference
3/29/2013 Standard Fertilizer Nano Fertilizer
Soil Moisture % 9.0% 19.1% 112.22%

Macro Nutrient Test Results


Sample of Grass Tissue 40 gal 20 gal % Difference
4/23/2013 Standard Fertilizer Nano Fertilizer
Nitrogen, %N 3.84% 3.96% 3.12%

Phosphorous, %P 0.28% 0.32% 14.28%

Potassium, %K 2.55% 2.74% 7.45%

Protein Content 24 24.75 3.12%

Samples taken post-winter before any Spring fertilizer applied. Last fertilization Oct 2012
Forage Test Results
Sample of Grass Tissue 40 gal 20 gal % Difference
4/19/2013 Standard Fertilizer Nano Fertilizer
Dry Matter % as Received (Oven) 88.35% 89.31% 1.08%

Acid Detergent Fiber % Dry Basis 16.3% 15.8% -3.06%

Total Digestible Nutrients % 84.6% 85.2% 0.07%


Dry Basis (ADF)
Net Energy Maint, Mcal/cwt 94.36 95.18 0.08%
Dry Basis (ADF)
Net Energy Gain, Mcal/cwt 64.18 64.89 1.10%
Dry Basis (ADF)
Net Energy Lact, Mcal/cwt 88.78 89.46 0.07%
Dry Basis (ADF)
Samples taken post-winter before any Spring fertilizer applied. Last fertilization Oct 2012

Establishment Test Results


Non-Established Area Survey 40 gal 20 gal % Difference
5/2/2013 Standard Fertilizer Nano Fertilizer
Circle Pivot Ring 8 3,918 sqft 1,936 sqft -50.58%

Circle Pivot Ring 5 2,699 sqft 1,620 sqft -39.97%

This study estimated the non-established area of each field. The type of establishment was visibly different between the two fields. The less
established areas on the Standard Field contained multiple large bare patches. The less-established areas on the Nano Field, which was
planted 7 days later, contained almost no bare patches. This suggests more complete germination occurred using the Nano Fertilzer.
Macro and Micro Nutrient – Final Test Results
Sample of Grass Tissue 40 gal 20 gal % Difference
6/10/2013 Standard Fertilizer Nano Fertilizer
Nitrogen, %N 3.14% 3.64% 15.92%

Phosphorus, %P 0.34% 0.44% 29.41%

Potassium, % K 2.76% 2.97% 7.61%

Calcium, %C 0.538% 0.480% -10.78%

Magnesium, %Mg 0.357% 0.339% -5.04%

Sulfur, %S 0.31% 0.39% 25.81%

Zinc, ppm Zn 24.00 29.00 20.83%

Iron, ppm Fe 229.00 241.00 5.24%

Magnanese, ppm Mn 115.00 104.00 -9.57%

Copper, ppm Cu 6.9 8.1 17.39%

Nitrate-N, ppm N 147.00 153.00 4.08%

Phosphate-P, ppm P 1272,00 2006.00 57.07%

Protein Content 19.62 22.75 15.95%


Based on Total Nitrogen
NPK were the only components of the Nano Fertilizer and Standard Fertilizer