The CleanMyBed Two-Part Mattress Hygiene Process: Method and Evidence

1. Overview

CleanMyBed treats a mattress in two sequenced steps that address different contaminants. The first is high-suction, HEPA-filtered extraction, which physically removes and contains the dust-mite allergen reservoir, faecal pellets, shed skin and dust. The second is a high-dose ultraviolet-C (UV-C) pass, applied to the cleaned surface, which inactivates bacteria, the majority of viruses and any surface-exposed mite eggs in direct line of sight. The steps are run in the established clean-then-disinfect order, and the service is delivered on a recurring schedule because the reservoir re-accumulates over time.

The two steps cover what the other cannot: extraction removes allergen but does not inactivate micro-organisms; UV-C inactivates surface micro-organisms but does not remove allergen or reach beneath the surface. Together they deliver a substantial reduction of surface and accessible contamination. The process is not, and is not presented as, a sterilisation of the mattress interior.

The claims made below are supported by two companion technical papers, Ultraviolet-C (254 nm) Surface Sanitation: A Technical Review and HEPA-Filtered Suction Extraction for Mattress Allergen Reduction: A Technical Review, and by the primary literature cited in the references.

2. Step one — HEPA-filtered extraction

Equipment. A Pullman Commander 900 commercial extraction unit, delivering 23.6 kPa of suction, 355 air watts and 51 L/s airflow. Filtration is multi-stage: paper bag, cloth bag, a patented Vortex HEPA filter chamber, a motor inlet mesh filter, and a HEPA 13 exhaust filter rated to 99.95% retention.

What it achieves. Around 95% of the major mite allergen Der p 1 is carried on mite faecal particles of 10 to 40 µm (De Lucca / Tovey et al., 1999). These particles are far larger than the most penetrating particle size of a HEPA 13 filter (~0.1 to 0.3 µm), so the filter retains effectively all of the allergen the suction lifts, rather than returning it to the room air. Extraction is therefore a process of removal and containment. Controlled studies using intensive or repeated vacuuming report reductions in the mattress allergen reservoir of approximately 78 to 85% (Wickman et al., 1997; Siebers et al., 2012).

Scope. Extraction acts on the surface and accessible reservoir. It does not remove every living mite, mites grip textile fibres and a proportion remain, and it does not reach material embedded in the deeper fill. This matters less than it first appears: the inhaled allergen is carried in the removable faecal and skin debris, not in the live mite itself, so reducing that debris reduces the exposure that drives symptoms.

Full method science and citations: companion paper, HEPA extraction.

3. Step two — UV-C surface sanitation

Equipment. Two Philips TUV PL-L 55W germicidal lamps, each emitting 17.0 W of UV-C at 254 nm (34 W combined), mounted with a polished-aluminium reflector. Polished aluminium reflects approximately 92% of UV-C near 254 nm, recapturing and redirecting light that would otherwise be lost and improving dose uniformity across the treated area. The array is held at a fixed 5 cm working distance and applied in an overlapping pattern, with a dwell of 10 to 15 seconds per position.

Delivered dose. The measured surface irradiance at the 5 cm working distance is 21.4 mW/cm². Over a 10 to 15 second dwell this delivers 214 to 321 mJ/cm²; allowing for the lamp’s rated 15% output depreciation at end of life, the minimum delivered dose remains approximately 182 mJ/cm².

What it achieves. A 99.9% (Log 3) reduction of the common vegetative bacteria associated with bedding, including Staphylococcus aureus, E. coli, Klebsiella, Pseudomonas, enterococci and streptococci, requires only around 6 to 14 mJ/cm² at 254 nm (Malayeri et al., 2016). The delivered dose of 182 to 321 mJ/cm² is therefore more than ten times the dose required for a Log 3 reduction of these organisms, providing a substantial margin for real-world conditions including lamp ageing and imperfect geometry. At this dose the process also inactivates enveloped viruses (such as influenza and coronaviruses) and the majority of non-enveloped viruses, including the UV-resistant adenovirus, on directly illuminated surfaces. Mite eggs exposed at the surface are highly susceptible to UV-C and are prevented from hatching (Lah et al., 2012).

Scope. UV-C is a surface, line-of-sight process. It does not penetrate the fabric or fill, so anything shielded below the surface is not treated. It does not reliably inactivate bacterial or fungal spores at this dose (no sporicidal or C. difficile claim is made), achieves only partial reduction of resistant mould spores, does not kill adult dust mites within the treatment window, and does not degrade allergen protein.

Operational controls. The lamps are a high-hazard UV source (Risk Group 3) and are used only within the enclosed, shielded device. Lamp output is monitored against the 9,000-hour rated life so that the delivered dose is maintained, and the polished-aluminium reflector is kept clean, since a dulled reflector reflects less and quietly reduces delivered dose.

Full method science and citations: companion paper, UV-C surface sanitation.

4. Why the steps are run in this order

Removing the bulk dust and organic layer before applying UV-C is established infection-control practice. The CDC Guideline for Disinfection and Sterilization in Healthcare Facilities states that thorough cleaning must precede disinfection because residual organic and inorganic material interferes with the process. Extracting the dust layer first therefore allows the UV-C to reach the cleaned surface and act on residual surface organisms far more effectively than it would through a layer of soil.

5. What the combined process achieves

Contaminant	Extraction (Step 1)	UV-C (Step 2)
Dust-mite allergen reservoir (faecal pellets, skin)	Removes and contains	No effect on allergen protein
Dust, debris, dead mites	Removes and contains	No effect
Surface bacteria	Partial physical removal	Inactivates (>10× the Log-3 dose)
Surface viruses (incl. adenovirus)	Partial physical removal	Inactivates on direct surfaces
Surface-exposed mite eggs	Removes loose material	Prevents hatching (line of sight)
Mites, eggs and allergen embedded deep in the fabric	Limited — live mites cling	Not reached — surface only

The division of labour is clear: extraction owns the allergen-removal and containment role; UV-C owns the surface-microbial role; and the same depth barrier limits both at the deepest layer.

6. Scope and limitations

Both steps act on the surface and the accessible reservoir. Extraction cannot remove the living mites that cling within the fibres, and UV-C cannot reach what is not in its line of sight, so mites, eggs and allergen embedded deep in the fabric persist, and UV-C does not degrade allergen protein already present. The combined process delivers a substantial reduction of surface and accessible contamination; it does not sterilise the mattress interior. Stating this plainly defines the service accurately and is the basis for its delivery as scheduled maintenance.

7. Maintenance schedule

The reservoir re-accumulates after treatment. House dust mites complete a generation in roughly a month under typical bedroom conditions, about 35 days at 23°C, falling to around 17 to 18 days at 30°C (Arlian & Dippold, 1996), and, in warm, humid conditions, populations rebuild with doubling times measured in weeks. Because the deep-fabric reservoir is never fully removed and the allergen protein does not decay, the load climbs back toward its previous level over the following weeks and months. The rate is governed strongly by humidity: mites cannot maintain water balance below about 50% relative humidity, so rebuild is rapid in warm, humid environments and slow in cool, dry, well-ventilated ones.

Service frequency therefore behaves as a dose-response, with no interval below which treatment ceases to be worthwhile:

• Most frequent treatment is most effective, the strongest published reductions come from daily or intensive regimes, but such frequencies are clinical study conditions, not a practical service.
• A 3 to 4 month interval is the recommended default, keeping the reservoir suppressed between visits under typical conditions. Warm or humid environments, including many coastal and hospitality settings, warrant more frequent servicing; cool, dry, well-ventilated rooms may require less.
• An annual treatment is still meaningfully better than none. Because the allergen otherwise accumulates unchecked over years, each service removes the built-up reservoir and resets that accumulation. An annual reset caps the long-term build-up rather than sustaining the larger reductions seen with frequent treatment.

More frequent treatment yields a lower time-averaged allergen exposure; any regular interval is preferable to none; and the appropriate frequency depends on the temperature and humidity of the environment.

8. Summary

CleanMyBed’s two-part process combines commercial high-suction extraction with multi-stage HEPA 13 filtration (99.95%) and a high-dose UV-C surface-sanitation pass (a 34 W germicidal array with a polished-aluminium reflector delivering 182 to 321 mJ/cm²). The extraction step removes and contains the dust-mite allergen reservoir, carried on 10 to 40 µm particles that the HEPA 13 filter reliably retains, while the UV-C step, applied to the cleaned surface in the correct clean-then-disinfect sequence, inactivates surface bacteria, the majority of viruses, and surface-exposed mite eggs. Independent literature supports reservoir reductions of approximately 78 to 85% from intensive vacuuming, and a delivered UV-C dose more than ten times that required for a 99.9% reduction of common vegetative bacteria. The process substantially reduces surface and accessible contamination and is delivered as a scheduled, repeated service; it does not sterilise the mattress interior.

References

Companion technical papers

• Ultraviolet-C (254 nm) Surface Sanitation: A Technical Review (CleanMyBed companion paper, UV-C).
• HEPA-Filtered Suction Extraction for Mattress Allergen Reduction: A Technical Review (CleanMyBed companion paper, HEPA extraction).

Primary and standards sources

1. Arlian, L.G. & Dippold, J.S. (1996). Development and fecundity of Dermatophagoides farinae. Journal of Medical Entomology, 33(2), 257–260.
2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2008, updated). Guideline for Disinfection and Sterilization in Healthcare Facilities.
3. De Lucca, S. / Tovey, E.R. et al. (1999). Mite allergen (Der p 1) is not only carried on mite faeces. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology.
4. Lah, E.F.C., Musa, R.N.A.R. & Ho, Y.C. (2012). Effect of germicidal UV-C light (254 nm) on eggs and adult of house dust mites, Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus and Dermatophagoides farinae. Asian Pacific Journal of Tropical Biomedicine, 2(9), 679–683.
5. Malayeri, A.H., Mohseni, M., Cairns, B. & Bolton, J.R. (2016). Fluence (UV dose) required to achieve incremental log inactivation of bacteria, protozoa, viruses and algae. IUVA News, 18(3).
6. Siebers, R. et al. (2012). Daily vacuuming of mattresses significantly reduces house dust mite allergens, bacterial endotoxin, and fungal β-glucan. Journal of Asthma, 49(2), 139–143.
7. Wickman, M., Paues, S. & Emenius, G. (1997). Reduction of the mite-allergen reservoir within mattresses by vacuum-cleaning: a comparison of three vacuum-cleaning systems. Allergy, 52(11), 1123–1127.
8. EN 1822:2019 — High efficiency air filters (EPA, HEPA and ULPA).