Home / Compare / HOCl vs. Quats

HOCl vs. Quaternary ammonium (quats)

disinfectant.org is funded and produced by HOCL LLC, which sells equipment that makes HOCl. Our ratings follow a published method, and every rated cell links to its sources. How we rate · Who funds this site

Quats are widely used surface disinfectants, and CDC calls them “good cleaning agents.” They are “not sporicidal,” are generally not virucidal against non-enveloped viruses, and “high water hardness” can make them less microbicidal (CDC 2008, p. 53). Like most disinfectants, including hypochlorite, they can irritate or sensitize skin with heavy use (Lauriola 2025).

Key differences

Where HOCl rates higher

  • Non-enveloped viruses
  • Spores
  • On-site generation

Where quats rate higher

  • None in this table

Based on the qualitative ratings below; unrated rows are excluded.

Side-by-side

AttributeHOClQuats
BacteriaIn suspension tests: about 7-log in 5 min (Venkitanarayanan 1999); complete inactivation within 1 min at 20 ppm (Kim 2019).CDC: generally bactericidal (CDC 2008, p. 53)
Enveloped virusesIn lab tests: 28–59 ppm in suspension within 10 s, and 125–250 ppm on carriers in 5–10 min (Hatanaka 2022); results on carriers, wipes and short sprays varied (Miyaoka 2021; Hamilton 2023).CDC: “virucidal against lipophilic (enveloped) viruses” (CDC 2008, p. 53)
Non-enveloped virusesIn one lab study, 20–200 ppm for 10 min gave ≥3-log reductions of norovirus and surrogates on tile and steel (Park 2007); some enteroviruses resisted (Mokudai 2026).CDC: “generally not … virucidal against hydrophilic (nonenveloped) viruses” (CDC 2008, p. 53)
FungiIn vitro, ~100 ppm gave ≥4-log in 60 s against yeasts and molds (Odorcic 2015); Aspergillus niger needed longer (Mokudai 2026).CDC: “generally fungicidal” (label-dependent) (CDC 2008, p. 53)
Spores40–120 mg/L for 1–6 min in lab tests (Zhang 2016); limited activity against some spore-formers (Mokudai 2026) and reduced efficacy in dirty conditions (Brown 2024).CDC: “not sporicidal” (CDC 2008, p. 53)
BiofilmLab studies of specific formulations reduced bacterial biofilms (Palau 2022; Aherne 2022); Candida biofilms resisted (Harriott 2019).Not assessed in our sources.
Typical contact timeIn lab carrier tests, minutes: 10 min at 20–200 ppm on tile and steel (Park 2007); 5–10 min at 125–250 ppm (Hatanaka 2022). Seconds only in suspension tests. Soil and short sprays reduced the effect (Hamilton 2023).Label-dependent.
Irritation hazard (per label / SDS)Not established for surface-use solutions; we found no standard skin- or eye-irritation test of an HOCl surface solution. Results from specific lower-strength products don’t carry over to other solutions or to 200–500 ppm. An acidic HOCl product caused brief stinging or burning on broken skin in half of volunteers (Burian 2022), and in cell studies toxicity rose with concentration and contact time (Severing 2019; Reis 2021). Follow the label or SDS and avoid eye and skin contact.Irritant at high concentrations or with prolonged use (Lauriola 2025)
PPE (per label / SDS)Follow the product label or SDS. Wear eye protection and chemical-resistant gloves when handling concentrates or salt or acid additives, ventilate, and never mix with strong acids, ammonia or other cleaners.Follow the label or SDS. CDC advises precautions such as “gloves and proper ventilation” when using disinfectants (CDC 2008, p. 39), and notes case reports of occupational asthma from benzalkonium chloride, a common quat (CDC 2008, p. 53).
Food-contact surfaces (regulatory basis)40 CFR 180.940(a) exempts residues of hypochlorous acid and its sodium salt from a tolerance when used in an antimicrobial pesticide formulation on food-contact surfaces, at no more than 200 ppm total available chlorine, with adequate draining. Rinse and drain directions come from the registered product's label. (40 CFR 180.940(a))Listed in 40 CFR 180.940 for use in antimicrobial formulations on food-contact surfaces, with end-use limits and adequate draining. Follow the registered product's label. (40 CFR 180.940(a))
Odor / fumesCan smell of chlorine; no study has compared its odor with bleach or other disinfectants. HOCl evaporates from solution, more so when agitated, sprayed or misted, or at lower pH (Len 2002; Fukuzaki 2023), and airborne levels rose with solution strength in one misting test (Oikawa 2026). Never acidify below pH 4, which can release chlorine gas (NIOSH chlorine). Odor is not a measure of strength.Formulation-dependent; not assessed in our sources.
CorrosivenessCDC: corrosive “to metals in high concentrations (>500 ppm)”; check with the device manufacturer for compatibility (CDC 2008, p. 41). CDC’s Table 1 also notes that chlorine generated on-site by electrolyzing saline (>650–675 ppm active free chlorine) “will corrode metal instruments” (CDC 2008, p. 106–107). In one study (one knife per condition), steel boning knives repeatedly dipped in a 0.02% (about 200 ppm) HOCl product and rinsed showed the most rust, more than knives dipped in bleach at 7,500 or 30,000 ppm (Bryant 2026).In one test CDC cites, computer keyboards showed no functional or cosmetic damage after 300 applications of a quat (the same held for alcohol, phenolic and 80 ppm chlorine wipes). Check the device maker’s compatibility guidance (CDC 2008, p. 53).
ResidueMade from salt and water (Rahman 2016). Surface residue not measured in our sources; follow the label’s rinse directions.In a 2026 study of homes in South China, quats were detected in dust and hand wipes, and ingestion of surface residues was the main exposure route (Hu 2026). Ongoing (“residual”) antimicrobial activity applies only to products whose EPA-registered label claims it (EPA residual-efficacy guidance).
Breakdown productsLoses strength over time, faster with heat and light (Reis 2021; Takeda 2021). CDC lists by-product hazards for hypochlorite (trihalomethane when hot water is hyperchlorinated; bis(chloromethyl) ether on contact with formaldehyde); HOCl is also free chlorine (CDC 2008, p. 41). Electrolyzed water used to treat irrigation water left chlorate in baby lettuce above the EU maximum residue limit for leafy greens (López-Gálvez 2018). For washing cabbage brined with bromide-rich salt, one study recommended bleach rather than slightly acidic electrolyzed water to limit brominated by-products (Kim 2023).Not assessed in our sources.
On-site generationYes, from salt, water and electricity. CDC: activity is “strongly affected by the concentration of the active ingredient (available free chlorine),” and pH, current and redox “must be closely monitored” (CDC 2008, p. 41).Sold as formulated disinfectant products (CDC: “quaternaries sold as … disinfectants”) (CDC 2008, p. 53); not generated on-site.
Cost & storageLow input cost (salt, water, electricity), but CDC notes “the equipment required to produce the product can be expensive” because pH, current and redox must be closely monitored, and that superoxidized water “is intended to be generated fresh at the point of use” (CDC 2008, p. 41). Loses strength over days to weeks, faster with heat, light, open containers or pH ≤3; in one test, products at pH 5.0–6.4 kept their chlorine for the 21 days tested (Takeda 2021; Reis 2021; Len 2002). Store closed, cool and dark.Not assessed in our sources.

Contact times are set by each registered product’s label. PPE and food-contact directions also come only from a registered product’s label; those rows are not rated.

✓ Favorable◐ Mixed / depends✕ Less favorable— Not ratedEditorial ratings, qualitative only, based on the cited studies and guidance. “Not assessed” means our sources don’t cover it.

Where quats may be the better fit

Uses that call for a registered product with a residual-efficacy label claim (EPA residual-efficacy guidance), and where non-enveloped viruses and spores are not the main concern.

The bottom line

HOCl and quats each have strengths, summarized in the table above. Which one fits depends on the organisms of concern, the surface, how much soil is present, and what a registered product’s label allows. This page summarizes published lab studies and guidance; it is not a product recommendation.

Sources

  1. Rutala WA, Weber DJ, Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC). Guideline for Disinfection and Sterilization in Healthcare Facilities, 2008 (last update June 2024). CDC. www.cdc.gov/infection-control/media/pdfs/Guideline-Disinfection-H.pdf. guidance
  2. Lauriola MM, Corazza M. Irritant and sensitizing potential of antiseptics and disinfectants: an overview. Ital J Dermatol Venerol. 2025;160(6):535-545. doi.org/10.23736/S2784-8671.25.08213-1. PMID 41091520. review
  3. US EPA. Guidance for Products Adding Residual Efficacy Claims. www.epa.gov/pesticide-registration/guidance-products-adding-residual-efficacy-claims. guidance
  4. Venkitanarayanan KS, Ezeike GO, Hung YC, Doyle MP. Efficacy of electrolyzed oxidizing water for inactivating Escherichia coli O157:H7, Salmonella Enteritidis, and Listeria monocytogenes. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1999;65(9):4276-4279. doi.org/10.1128/AEM.65.9.4276-4279.1999. PMID 10473453. in vitro (suspension)
  5. Kim HJ, Tango CN, Chelliah R, Oh DH. Sanitization efficacy of slightly acidic electrolyzed water against pure cultures of E. coli, Salmonella Typhimurium, S. aureus and B. cereus spores, in comparison with different water hardness. Sci Rep. 2019;9:4348. doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-40846-6. PMID 30867518. in vitro (suspension)
  6. Hatanaka N, Yasugi M, Sato T, Mukamoto M, Yamasaki S. Hypochlorous acid solution is a potent antiviral agent against SARS-CoV-2. J Appl Microbiol. 2022;132(2):1496-1502. doi.org/10.1111/jam.15284. PMID 34480823. (industry-funded) suspension + carrier
  7. Miyaoka Y, Kabir MH, Hasan MA, et al. Virucidal activity of slightly acidic hypochlorous acid water toward influenza virus and coronavirus with tests simulating practical usage. Virus Res. 2021;297:198383. doi.org/10.1016/j.virusres.2021.198383. PMID 33705798. suspension + carrier
  8. Hamilton AN, Chandran S, Baker CA, Gibson KE. Surface inactivation of a SARS-CoV-2 surrogate with hypochlorous acid is impacted by surface type, contact time, inoculum matrix, and concentration. Food Environ Virol. 2023;15(2):116-122. doi.org/10.1007/s12560-023-09549-0. PMID 36680664. carrier (surface)
  9. Park GW, Boston DM, Kase JA, Sampson MN, Sobsey MD. Evaluation of liquid- and fog-based application of Sterilox hypochlorous acid solution for surface inactivation of human norovirus. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2007;73(14):4463-4468. doi.org/10.1128/AEM.02839-06. PMID 17483283. carrier (surface)
  10. Mokudai T, Iwasawa A, Kikuchi K, Niwano Y. Bactericidal, fungicidal, and antiviral activity of highly purified hypochlorous acid water. J Microorg Control. 2026;31(2):67-72. doi.org/10.4265/jmc.31.2_67. PMID 42270376. in vitro
  11. Odorcic S, Haas W, Gilmore MS, Dohlman CH. Fungal infections after Boston type 1 keratoprosthesis implantation: literature review and in vitro antifungal activity of hypochlorous acid. Cornea. 2015;34(12):1599-1605. doi.org/10.1097/ICO.0000000000000639. PMID 26488624. (author affiliated with the device maker) in vitro
  12. Zhang C, Li B, Jadeja R, Hung YC. Effects of electrolyzed oxidizing water on inactivation of Bacillus subtilis and Bacillus cereus spores in suspension and on carriers. J Food Sci. 2016;81(1):M144-M149. doi.org/10.1111/1750-3841.13169. PMID 26642381. suspension + carrier
  13. Brown L, Marshall A, Conway L, et al. Assessing the stability and sporicidal efficacy of oxidizing disinfectants. J Hosp Infect. 2024;149:22-25. doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2024.04.010. PMID 38705474. (authors affiliated with a disinfectant company) in vitro (EN 17126)
  14. Palau M, Muñoz E, Lujan E, et al. In vitro and in vivo antimicrobial activity of hypochlorous acid against drug-resistant and biofilm-producing strains. Microbiol Spectr. 2022;10(5):e0236522. doi.org/10.1128/spectrum.02365-22. PMID 36190404. in vitro + animal
  15. Aherne O, Ortiz R, Fazli MM, Davies JR. Effects of stabilized hypochlorous acid on oral biofilm bacteria. BMC Oral Health. 2022;22:415. doi.org/10.1186/s12903-022-02453-2. PMID 36127658. (industry-funded) in vitro
  16. Harriott MM, Bhindi N, Kassis S, et al. Comparative antimicrobial activity of commercial wound care solutions on bacterial and fungal biofilms. Ann Plast Surg. 2019;83(4):404-410. doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0000000000001996. PMID 31524733. in vitro
  17. Burian EA, Sabah L, Kirketerp-Møller K, Gundersen G, Ågren MS. Effect of stabilized hypochlorous acid on re-epithelialization and bacterial bioburden in acute wounds: a randomized controlled trial in healthy volunteers. Acta Derm Venereol. 2022;102:adv00727. doi.org/10.2340/actadv.v102.1624. PMID 35578822. randomized trial (wounds, product-specific)
  18. Severing AL, Rembe JD, Koester V, Stuermer EK. Safety and efficacy profiles of different commercial NaClO/HClO solutions. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2019;74(2):365-372. doi.org/10.1093/jac/dky432. PMID 30388236. cell culture
  19. Reis R, Sipahi H, Dinc O, et al. Toxicity, mutagenicity and stability assessment of simply produced electrolyzed water as a wound healing agent in vitro. Hum Exp Toxicol. 2021;40(3):452-463. doi.org/10.1177/0960327120952151. PMID 32909829. cell culture
  20. 40 CFR 180.940(a): Tolerance exemptions for active and inert ingredients for use in antimicrobial formulations (food-contact surface sanitizing solutions). www.ecfr.gov/current/title-40/chapter-I/subchapter-E/part-180/subpart-D/section-180.940. regulation
  21. Len SV, Hung YC, Chung D, Anderson JL, Erickson MC, Morita K. Effects of storage conditions and pH on chlorine loss in electrolyzed oxidizing (EO) water. J Agric Food Chem. 2002;50(1):209-212. doi.org/10.1021/jf010822v. PMID 11754569. lab (storage chemistry)
  22. Fukuzaki S. Uses of gaseous hypochlorous acid for controlling microorganisms in indoor spaces. J Microorg Control. 2023;28(4):165-175. doi.org/10.4265/jmc.28.4_165. PMID 38233168. review
  23. Oikawa T, et al. Rat study of long-term aerosol exposure to slightly acidic electrolyzed water (title shortened). PLoS One. 2026;21(1):e0341050. doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0341050. PMID 41615984. (funded by the maker, which supplied the solution; some authors are its employees) animal (inhalation)
  24. NIOSH Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards: Chlorine (CAS 7782-50-5). www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/npgd0115.html. guidance
  25. Bryant DN, Lurndahl NA, Ellis-Cramer M, et al. Impact of chemical aging on venison processing knife topography and recoverable chronic wasting disease prion seeding activity. Pathogens. 2026;15(6):645. doi.org/10.3390/pathogens15060645. PMID 42347257. (two authors co-founded a prion-diagnostics company) lab (materials)
  26. Rahman S, Khan I, Oh DH. Electrolyzed water as a novel sanitizer in the food industry: current trends and future perspectives. Compr Rev Food Sci Food Saf. 2016;15(3):471-490. doi.org/10.1111/1541-4337.12200. PMID 33401818. review
  27. Takeda Y, Matsuda S, Jamsransuren D, Ogawa H. Comparison of the SARS-CoV-2-inactivating activities of the differently manufactured hypochlorous acid water products with various pH. J Water Health. 2021;19(3):448-456. doi.org/10.2166/wh.2021.260. PMID 34152297. in vitro
  28. López-Gálvez F, Andújar S, Marín A, et al. Disinfection by-products in baby lettuce irrigated with electrolysed water. J Sci Food Agric. 2018;98(8):2981-2988. doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.8796. PMID 29171869. field (greenhouse)
  29. Kim SY, Ha JH. Formation and speciation of hazardous trihalomethanes and haloacetic acids during chlorinated washing of brined kimchi cabbage in the presence of bromide. J Hazard Mater. 2023;455:131557. doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2023.131557. PMID 37182460. lab (food processing)
  30. Hu M, Li L, Zhang X, et al. Ingestion of surface residues dominates quaternary ammonium compounds (QACs) exposure in Chinese urban homes: evidence from silicone wristband passive sampling and urinary biomonitoring. Environ Sci Technol. 2026;60(5):3947-3960. doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5c16557. PMID 41601271. observational (homes)

More comparisons

HOCl vs. BleachHOCl vs. AlcoholHOCl vs. Hydrogen peroxideHOCl vs. Peracetic acidHOCl vs. Chlorine dioxideHOCl vs. PhenolicsFull comparison table