Page 1 of 1

Far-UVC light: a magic bullet?

Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2022 4:32 pm
by Brightonian
This press release suggests SARS-CoV-2 particles can be zapped with "Far-UVC" light, ultraviolet light with (I think) a wavelength in the 122 to 200 nm range. Given that Covid infections generally happen indoors, I'm tempted to buy a UV sanitiser lamp as it seems you can get ones emitting in this range.

Or is it a bit more complicated than that? E.g. only works in idealised conditions, or unintended consequences?

Re: Far-UVC light: a magic bullet?

Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2022 4:34 pm
by science_fox
I'm sure most viruses are susceptible to UV in any form. Even good old sunlight. And Covid is hugely spread by inhaling aerosol droplets rather than any surface to surface transmission.

Masks and good ventilation go a long long way further than shining a funky light at them for a few minutes.

Re: Far-UVC light: a magic bullet?

Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2022 4:51 pm
by shpalman
Brightonian wrote:
Wed Mar 23, 2022 4:32 pm
This press release suggests SARS-CoV-2 particles can be zapped with "Far-UVC" light, ultraviolet light with (I think) a wavelength in the 122 to 200 nm range. Given that Covid infections generally happen indoors, I'm tempted to buy a UV sanitiser lamp as it seems you can get ones emitting in this range.

Or is it a bit more complicated than that? E.g. only works in idealised conditions, or unintended consequences?
To sanitise something in particular or to illuminate the whole room? In not entirely sure it's a good idea to illuminate the whole room when you're in it.

Re: Far-UVC light: a magic bullet?

Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2022 7:10 pm
by basementer
The release makes it clear that they tested it on bacteria, not viral particles. So making the headline about COVID seems a bit of a stretch.

Re: Far-UVC light: a magic bullet?

Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2022 11:25 pm
by dyqik
basementer wrote:
Wed Mar 23, 2022 7:10 pm
The release makes it clear that they tested it on bacteria, not viral particles. So making the headline about COVID seems a bit of a stretch.
It'll definitely work on CoVID. And skin cells.

UVC lamps are already used in HVAC systems to kill off mold that can grow on cooling coils and to sanitize air. They're about $70 on Amazon.

Re: Far-UVC light: a magic bullet?

Posted: Thu Mar 24, 2022 7:11 am
by WFJ
Brightonian wrote:
Wed Mar 23, 2022 4:32 pm
This press release suggests SARS-CoV-2 particles can be zapped with "Far-UVC" light, ultraviolet light with (I think) a wavelength in the 122 to 200 nm range. Given that Covid infections generally happen indoors, I'm tempted to buy a UV sanitiser lamp as it seems you can get ones emitting in this range.

Or is it a bit more complicated than that? E.g. only works in idealised conditions, or unintended consequences?
I'm not sure what you mean by the bolded part, but if you're suggesting the reason there's less transmission outdoors is because of UV killing the virus then that's false, as no UVC reaches Earth's surface.

Re: Far-UVC light: a magic bullet?

Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2022 7:57 pm
by TAFKAsoveda
dyqik wrote:
Wed Mar 23, 2022 11:25 pm
basementer wrote:
Wed Mar 23, 2022 7:10 pm
The release makes it clear that they tested it on bacteria, not viral particles. So making the headline about COVID seems a bit of a stretch.
It'll definitely work on CoVID. And skin cells.

Indeed, even Big Clive is wary of those lamps