EBO2 (EBOO) vs 10-Pass Ozone and MAH: What Is Actually Different

EBO2 (also called EBOO) is one of several ways clinics expose a patient’s blood to ozone gas outside the body; the pillar guide on what EBO2 is covers the procedure itself in more depth. The other two most often advertised in the United States are major autohemotherapy, usually shortened to MAH, and a higher dose variant of it called 10-pass ozone. All three draw blood, mix it with medical grade ozone, and return it to the same patient, but they differ in how much blood is handled per session, whether the blood passes through a filter, and how the gas is delivered [1]. Clinics frequently market one procedure as an upgrade on another, implying that more ozone, more blood volume, or an added filtration step means a stronger or more advanced treatment. This guide lays out what actually differs between the three, in the clinics’ own published descriptions, and what the published research does and does not support for each.

The three procedures in one table

Clinic-published descriptions of each procedure vary, so the figures below are ranges reported by the specific sources cited rather than fixed standards.

	MAH	10-pass ozone	EBO2
Blood handled	About 60 to 200 mL, drawn once [2][6]	About 200 mL per pass, up to about 2,000 mL total across 10 passes [5][7]	A continuous flow described as a larger total volume than batch methods; no single agreed figure is published [1]
Batches or continuous	Single batch, mixed and reinfused	Repeated batches, about 10 per session	Continuous closed loop
Filtration	None	None	Hollow-fiber filter in the circuit [1]
Ozone gas per session	Roughly 90 to 200 mL, reported concentrations of about 20 to 70 micrograms per mL [5]	Roughly 900 to 2,000 mL total, cumulative dose reported around 140,000 micrograms by an unreviewed source [7]	Not reported by clinics in comparable per-liter terms
Typical duration	Varies; not stated by the sources reviewed here	About 60 to 90 minutes [5]	About 60 minutes
Typical price	About $140 at the clinic sampled here [6]	Not stated consistently by our sources	$799 to $1,250 at clinics sampled here and in a companion guide [9][10]; see the cost guide

MAH: the original method

Major autohemotherapy is the oldest of the three. A clinician draws a modest volume of blood into a bag or bottle, mixes it with an oxygen and ozone gas mixture, and drips the ozonated blood back into the same vein. One clinic sampled here describes drawing about 60 mL and dripping it back for a session priced at $140 [6]. Descriptions elsewhere put the draw closer to 200 mL [5]. A controlled, single-blind crossover study of 12 hemodialysis patients who received nine sessions of ozonated autohemotherapy found no significant change in C-reactive protein or interleukin-6 compared with nine sham, oxygen-only sessions, though the authors note that a null result for two inflammatory markers does not rule out other biological effects [2].

10-pass: MAH at higher volume and pressure

10-pass ozone (also marketed as hyperbaric ozone or OHT) was developed by Austrian gynecologist Johann Lahodny, who, according to an unreviewed encyclopedia entry currently flagged for proposed deletion on the site that hosts it, began focusing on the method around 2010 after testing progressively higher ozone doses on himself [7]. No published, peer-reviewed history of the technique’s origin was found; the only peer-reviewed paper connected to Lahodny is the 2022 mitochondrial-bioenergetics report discussed below [3]. Instead of one draw and one reinfusion, blood is pulled into a pressurized glass vial, ozonated, and returned, and the cycle repeats about ten times in a single sitting. One description puts each pass at about 200 mL of blood mixed with 90 to 200 mL of ozone gas, for a cumulative exposure roughly ten times a single MAH pass [5]. A separate account of the same technique, the same unreviewed encyclopedia entry discussed above, reports a cumulative ozone dose of about 140,000 micrograms per session [7]; the one peer-reviewed paper on the method does not state a specific dose figure [3]. The name reflects the ten repeated transits of blood through the device, not a whole-body pressurized chamber like the ones used in wound care or diving medicine, even though clinics sometimes borrow the word “hyperbaric” to describe it because each pass happens inside a pressurized glass vial.

The one published study of the method, a small 2022 report co-authored by Lahodny, measured a laboratory index of mitochondrial function in six patients before and after two OHT sessions given within a week, and found the index improved, driven mainly by an increase in the cells’ maximum respiration and reserve capacity [3]. The same paper attributes part of that change to activation of an antioxidant and detoxifying enzyme pathway, consistent with the broader argument that a large, controlled ozone dose triggers a beneficial oxidative stress response [3]. That is a laboratory biomarker in six people, not a symptom, a diagnosis, or a comparison against patients who did not receive OHT, and the paper’s own conflict of interest statement notes that Lahodny pioneered the method himself.

EBO2: continuous circuit plus filter

EBO2 differs from both by running a continuous circuit rather than discrete passes. Blood is drawn from one arm, passed through a hemofilter and a gas exchange device, and returned through the other arm without stopping, over roughly an hour. The developers of the technique argue that a continuous circuit delivers a more controlled ozone dose across a larger blood volume than batch methods like MAH, and that the added filtration step is the main structural difference from both MAH and 10-pass [1]. Clinics vary in how they describe the total volume processed, and none of the sources reviewed for this comparison give a single agreed total figure [1].

What the evidence supports for each

None of the three procedures has been tested against the others in a controlled trial, so claims that one works better than another, or that a higher ozone dose produces a proportionally better result, are not something the published record can support in any form. MAH has the most controlled data of the three, and the one available crossover trial found no measurable change in the two inflammatory markers it tracked [2]. 10-pass ozone has a single published study: an uncontrolled report of six patients, co-authored by Lahodny himself, that measured a laboratory marker of mitochondrial function rather than any clinical outcome [3]. A PubMed search for “10 pass” and ozone therapy, run on 2026-09-17, returned that single result, and a search for “ten-pass” returned none; no controlled trial of 10-pass ozone has been published [4]. EBO2’s own literature is discussed at length in a companion guide on whether EBO2 works. Across all three, more ozone or more blood volume is not shown by any controlled study to produce a better result, and none of the three is FDA-approved to treat any condition. Ozone therapy is not FDA-approved for any use, and federal rules describe ozone as a toxic gas with no known useful medical application in specific, adjunctive, or preventive therapy [8].

Cost and time comparison

Session length is not consistently documented for MAH by the sources reviewed here, while 10-pass runs as long as 90 minutes and EBO2 sessions are generally described as taking about an hour. Price tends to track equipment and filtration rather than session length. The MAH session sampled here cost $140 [6], while EBO2 clinics sampled here and in a companion guide charged $799 to $1,250 per session [9][10], with multi-session packages common at both ends of the market; see the EBO2 cost guide for the full set of sampled prices and what drives them. None of the sources reviewed here published a comparably documented 10-pass price list, so a prospective patient should ask a specific clinic for its own pricing rather than assume it sits at any particular point between MAH and EBO2.

Which clinics offer which, and why

Integrative and functional medicine clinics tend to offer whichever procedure matches the equipment they have bought, and many now offer more than one option on the same price list, sometimes suggesting a patient “graduate” from MAH to 10-pass or EBO2 over time. Clinics marketing 10-pass often frame it as a stronger dose for chronic or long-standing conditions, while clinics marketing EBO2 emphasize the filter and the “cleaning” of the blood as the differentiator; see a companion guide on what the filter removes for what is documented about that step. Clinics offering MAH tend to price it as an entry-level option or as maintenance between higher-dose sessions. None of this reflects a documented difference in outcomes; it reflects differences in equipment cost and how each clinic chooses to position its services, and a clinic’s internal comparison of its own offerings is not the same thing as an independent trial comparing them. Anyone comparing options should also read about the clinics offering each procedure in their area before assuming that a higher price or a larger ozone dose means a better result.

Bottom line

MAH, 10-pass ozone, and EBO2 are three ways of exposing blood to ozone outside the body, distinguished mainly by blood volume, batching versus continuous flow, and whether a filter is used. 10-pass delivers more ozone than MAH, and EBO2 adds filtration that neither of the other two has, but more gas or an added filtration step has not been shown in a controlled trial to produce a better clinical outcome. The one 10-pass study in the literature is uncontrolled and written by the technique’s own inventor [3], and the one controlled MAH trial found no effect on the markers it measured [2]. Anyone choosing between them is choosing based on cost, session length, and a clinic’s own description of its equipment, not on comparative evidence, and a higher price or a larger ozone dose is a description of the procedure, not a proxy for how well it works. A physician who knows a patient’s full history is better placed to weigh any of these three options than a clinic price list is.