Buonanno, M., Welch, D., Shuryak, I., & Brenner, D. J. (2020). Far-UVC light (222nm) efficiently and safely inactivates airborne human coronaviruses. Scientific Reports, 10(1), 1-8.
Click to view the 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/cm2 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/cm2/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.
222 nm遠紫外光低至1.2至1.7 mJ / cm2的劑量可殺滅99.9％空氣中的新冠狀病毒
222 nm 和 254 nm 紫外線
Kaidzu, S., Sugihara, K., Sasaki, M., Nishiaki, A., Igarashi, T., & Tanito, M. (2019). Evaluation of acute corneal damage induced by 222-nm and 254-nm ultraviolet light in Sprague–Dawley rats. Free radical research, 53(6), 611-617
Click to view the abstract
Two hundred twenty-two nanometres ultraviolet (UV) light produced by a krypton–chlorine excimer lamp is harmful to bacterial cells but not skin. However, the effects of 222-nm UV light exposure to the eye are not fully known. We evaluated acute corneal damage induced by 222- and 254-nm UV light in albino rats. Under deep anaesthesia, 6-week-old Sprague–Dawley albino rats were exposed to UV light. The exposure levels of corneal radiation were 30, 150, and 600 mJ/cm2. Epithelial defects were detected by staining with fluorescein. Superficial punctate keratitis developed in corneas exposed to more than 150 mJ/cm2 of UV light, and erosion was observed in corneas exposed to 600 mJ/ cm2 of UV light. Haematoxylin and eosin staining also showed corneal epithelial defects in eyes exposed to 254-nm UV light. However, no damage developed in corneas exposed to 222-nm UV light. Cyclobutane pyrimidine dimer-positive cells were observed only in normal corneas and those exposed to 254-nm UV light. Although some epithelial cells were stained weakly in normal corneas, squamous epithelial cells were stained moderately, and the epithelial layer that was detached from the cornea exposed to 600 mJ/cm2 of light was stained intensely in corneas exposed to 254-nm UV light. In the current study, no corneal damage was induced by 222-nm UV light, which suggested that 222-nm UV light may not harm rat eyes within the energy range and may be useful for sterilising or preventing infection in the future.