Skip to content
The methodOpen data
Back to the collection

Far-UVC light (222 nm) efficiently and safely inactivates airborne human coronaviruses

Manuela Buonanno, David Welch, Igor Shuryak, David J. Brenner

2020 · Scientific Reports

Biology & medicine
Read the paper
HN score
0
Mentions
6
Readers
6
Months
4
What’s in a score?

From the abstract

Abstract A direct approach to limit airborne viral transmissions is to inactivate them within a short time of their production. Germicidal ultraviolet light, typically at 254 nm, is effective in this context but, used directly, can be a health hazard to skin and eyes. By contrast, far-UVC light (207–222 nm) efficiently kills pathogens potentially without harm to exposed human tissues. We previously demonstrated that 222-nm far-UVC light efficiently kills airborne influenza virus and we extend those studies to explore far-UVC efficacy against airborne human coronaviruses alpha HCoV-229E and beta HCoV-OC43. Low doses of 1.7 and 1.2 mJ/cm 2 inactivated 99.9% of aerosolized coronavirus 229E and OC43, respectively. As all human coronaviruses have similar genomic sizes, far-UVC light would be expected to show similar inactivation efficiency against other human coronaviruses including SARS-CoV-2. Based on the beta-HCoV-OC43 results, continuous far-UVC exposure in occupied public locations at the current regulatory exposure limit (~3 mJ/cm 2 /hour) would result in ~90% viral inactivation in ~8 minutes, 95% in ~11 minutes, 99% in ~16 minutes and 99.9% inactivation in ~25 minutes. Thus while staying within current regulatory dose limits, low-dose-rate far-UVC exposure can potentially safely provide a major reduction in the ambient level of airborne coronaviruses in occupied public locations.

Metadata: Crossref. Abstracts retain their original authors’ rights.

In the conversation

Original HN comments, with labels from simple text rules. A label describes the whole comment and may miss context or irony. Read the discussion to make up your own mind. About the labels

6 selected excerpts · 6 total mentions

Animats
Neutral mention · rule
The concept is good [1], but the hardware is crappy. There's a lot of fake junk out there. The fake junk comes in two forms - UV lights that emit in dangerous parts of the spectrum, and UV lights so weak as to be at "homeopathic levels". Lamps that emit around 222nm are significantly more expensive than the wrong lamps. Typical fake on eBay.[3] Previously on HN: [2] [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-67211-2 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34794273 [3] https://www.ebay.com/itm/394713677079
Original comment Can ultraviolet lightbulbs end the next pandemic before it starts?
ajmurmann
Neutral mention · rule
There are also other, novel things we could do to fight infectious diseases that get pretty much no traction. Far-range UVC lights immediately come to mind. These kill viruses and single-celled organisms quickly while not harming humans. Just imagine this installed in all public, closed spaces! Schools, offices, restaurants, public transit all could be heavily reduced in how well any infectious diseases gets spread there. Yet, this is almost entirely absent from public discourse. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-67211-2
Original comment Viruses that were on hiatus during Covid are back, behaving in unexpected ways
zuminator
Neutral mention · rule
I have no involvement in this industry, neither academically or by investment. Just on a learning journey, like many here. Disingenuous? It does me no good to deny that accusation, but I think the discourse level here is higher if we dispute each other's facts over disputing each other's motives. You appear to have a much more deeply rooted interest than I on this subject, and I have no reason to dispute your facts, but as for your opinion that "it doesn't pass the [ocular] smell test," a web search turns up, "the reason is that far-UVC light has a range in biological materials of less than a few micrometers, and thus it cannot reach living human cells in the skin or…
Read the full comment
eyes, being absorbed in the skin stratum corneum or the ocular tear layer."[0] You're undoubtedly already familiar with that so I'm sure there's some reason you have for finding it less than conclusive. In any event, I totally agree with you that the safety of this needs to be firmly established before releasing 222nm lamps for general home use, although I think a more limited use might be acceptable (for example, placing the bulb in a UV-opaque enclosure and circulating the room air through that unit). [0] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-67211-2
Original comment New type of ultraviolet light makes indoor air as safe as outdoors
rocqua
Neutral mention · rule
As per this article: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-67211-2 > ... far-UVC light has a range in biological materials of less than a few micrometers, and thus it cannot reach living human cells in the skin or eyes, being absorbed in the skin stratum corneum or the ocular tear layer. The ocular tear layer, according to 30s of googling, is just the wet layer over your eyes (the stuff that turns into tears when you produce to much of it). So the idea is that this is eye-safe because the radiation gets absorbed by the small layer of wetness on your eyes.
Original comment New type of ultraviolet light makes indoor air as safe as outdoors
Zenst
Neutral mention · rule
I was thinking HEPA filtration may already cater for virus's, but with HEPA certification being .3 microns and the COVID-19 virus 0.12 microns, then it gets down to individual air conditioning systems. Some may use ionising in combination or UV. So I foresee a whole raft of legislation and requirements for office spaces ahead. Which will only help drive the work from home long-term as cheaper office space. But also help shift us away from open plan offices that I've never met anybody who liked. As for herd immunity - that really is best effective against viruses that do not mutate that quickly. Corona-viruses from my understanding, do mutate. Though it is often the case…
Read the full comment
that mutations of a virus over time lean towards mutations that make them less impacting upon the host. Which may be down to natural selection in that those with no impact can spread it more and no virus really wants to kill the host. Impacted/dead hosts tend to be less effective in transmission. So may very well be down to that aspect in why they tend to become less impacting. On the UV aspect https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-67211-2 a UV wavelength of 222nm that is effective against the virus and safe for humans. Though how stable current UV output is and by that if you had a 222nm light, over time would that drift and become less human safe is something I'd want to check. There again - flu's and colds are more prevalent during winter months when we have less sun and less UV. Can't ignore that pattern.
Original comment The experiment that proved airborne disease transmission

Keep following the thread.

More in Biology & medicine

More from the same topics.