NYC Subway System and UVC Light Disinfection

"The Cleanse Portal"...just walk in and turn around slowly...

..."According to Maxik, the Cleanse portal disrupts the ability for viruses and bacteria to replicate, deactivating roughly 90 percent of pathogens on your skin and clothes in roughly 10 to 12 seconds."...

Watch video....

https://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/far-uvc-light-coronavirus

https://healthelighting.com/pages/cleanse

https://healthelighting.com/products/cleanse-portal

Uses just 20 watts...

ADMIN note

This comment has been deleted to remove vulgar content.

Some one wants to sell their lamps, and this panic is the best way to market. The UV that can neutralise CoVid is UVC - which literally fries the Virus (or any other pathogen) and also the human skin. This is the range, highest energy UV, that we are protected against by the Ozone layer. UVC lamps are in use, but only where there are no humans around (air ducts, water treatment, even equipment sanitisation). Even there were some articles, of cleaning hospital premises - with Robotic UV - since the human can be even affected by the reflected one. There is not a single literature which supports getting human skin exposed to UVC. The other two UVs, probably the one they would use, UVA and less likely, but possibly UVB have no enmity with CoVID, or for that matter most of pathogens.

Another problem of UBC is it is rapidly absorbed by the outermost layer (say of the clothe) and not even cross a small strand to kill the virus taking shelter behind it. You don't expect the virus to sit on the outermost surface and be ready to be bombarded with UV, even normal dust impregnate inside the fibers.

Well I can see you haven't been paying attention...They are talking about UVC in the 222nm wavelength specifically that has proven both lethal to viruses and bacteria and harmless to the skin and eyes....

We have been discussing this for weeks here on Cr4....(pack a lunch)

Here is the thread I started 3/26....

https://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/134098/The-Ultimate-Weapon-in-the-Fight-Against-the-Covid19-Virus

Been away for some length, yes, that is an option, and a proven one too, which should have been operational for quite some time now, I wonder why did they wait... and when the principle as well as methodology (including the lamps) are available in public domain, the adoption seem to have been done a bit late.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-21058-w

Well they got caught all of a sudden with this covid19 outbreak, they were waiting for FDA approval for months, now they seem to have been fast-tracked to some sort of approval, not sure of any limitations....but the factory has been ramping up production which was targeted for several months in the future, but they seem to have licensed several manufacturers and distributors now, so we are starting to see announcements like the one posted here...So it just seems to me now it's how fast the technology can be deployed which is a relative issue because the need is so great....So basically it's been tested by several independent labs for different areas of efficacy and safety, and has passed with flying colors as far as anything I've seen....Even with a massive effort this is going to take a while before they become commonplace....We still need to see feedback from studies on the effect deployment has in geographic areas...The big question is how many lights need to be deployed to have the desired effect of stopping a pandemic like this...and if there are any unintended consequences...also need to study light locations, longevity and costs to maintain these systems...

Meanwhile I was looking at the literature, it seems to be highly divided. I remember doing some literature study on it some time back (about the local measures to be used), but left it, when I saw it can't go inside fibers (I completely wrongly thought it might have some mini-x-ray properties).

If you look here,

http://www.uvresources.com/blog/uv-c-lamps-staying-safe/

it prohibits, whereas this one says it is very safe.

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0201259

222-nm UVC light may effectively penetrate bacterial cells (diameter of <1 μm); however, 222-nm UVC light struggles to reach mammalian nuclei, as this UVC light is strongly absorbed by proteins and other biomolecules in cells (diameter ranging approximately between 10 and 25 μm) and markedly attenuated before reaching the nucleus [14, 25]. It has also been established that 222-nm UVC light fails to penetrate stratum corneum, and thus does not reach epidermal cells underlining stratum corneum [14]. Furthermore, single irradiation with 222-nm UVC has been reported to elicit a bactericidal effect in mammalian cells without inducing DNA lesions [14, 16, 12]. However, the effect of chronic irradiation with 222-nm UVC to mammalian cells remains unknown.

The problem is - whom to go with ? The second one is a research paper, but can I be sure it wasn't sponsored by Industry - and it is wine is good/ wine is bad type research ? Anyway, thre was another case study, when the students by mistake (or deliberately) left in a operation room with black light on (in addition to normal of course) and after half an hour, they found some skin burn etc, but all were reversible damage so for less than a minute we can smile and Bear, and may be dance away.

But there are two points which really made me to forego this idea at our establishment.

First was mouse-skin has quite some protective fur, which we lack.

But more important was that the light won't penetrate the clothes, then what it would clean? surface of clothes? I feel it is excellent for nonporous surfaces, where the pathogens can't hide, but porous objects it might not be useful. The virus which sits on the surface, sooner or later would be either blown off by wind (even breeze) or would embed (again by wind), at least after its sticky (saliva/ mucous) cover is blown off/ dried.

In fact I thought once of going the tested way - gassing the virus (Chlorine Di Oxide) - which is safe at low doses to humans, but pathogens, including CoVID don't like it. This was used by, if I recall correctly, Pentagon during Anthrax scare - injecting some ppm into the air - but it is a slow poison, requires minutes to get rid off the pathogen. It is OK for enclosed office space , where it gets the minutes, but not in walk-through tunnels.

Anyway, these even if does nothing, would give some psychological support to the mass, who desperately need it at this time of (I strongly feel misplaced) scare, and if it is effective, well and good.

222nm was known for a few years (you could see above papers) - but probably what they did was - recently there was some research going on to produce LEDs with this exact wave-length, for efficiency purpose (since other wise you need to filter off everything else, and naturally would lose even the target frequency's intensity), so better to generate the frequency and not filter.

That was a couple of months ago with 3D printing, with some nano particles thrown in here and there. It was in the IEEE spectrum. Probably that has entered the commercial phase now.

Your first link appears to have been written either before 222nm light sources became available, or by author(s) unaware of them. Although it does mention the definition of UVC as the range from 280 to 200 nm, It makes no mention of 222nm waves.

Having suffered a very painful UVC burn to my eyes (around 30 years ago), I definitely appreciate the warning provided, but I have now read sufficiently about the 222nm wavelength to be convinced that it is indeed safe.

By the way - for 30 second exposure one would need somewhere between 5 to 10 mw/ cm-square (of the order of 200 mj/cm2)

https://www.clordisys.com/pdfs/misc/UV%20Data%20Sheet.pdf

Normally corresponds with several other papers on the subject (on non-living).

And a testing was done in this,

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305417919300920

for checking efficacy in Shadow areas (behind obstruction) which the UV people claim immaterial, due to reflectivity of light, but wasn't really found to be so (naturally, as shorter wavelengths being more prone to be absorbed than get reflected). Anyway it would at least do something.

You keep comparing the longer wavelength UVC to the 222nm wavelength, the 222nm has been tested and kills much faster than the longer wavelength UVC at a lower intensity(2 mj/cm²)...If you had read the entire thread I linked above you would have all this information....I posted a myriad of studies....and there is no 222nm LED's, again I posted a recent world record of 232nm that was achieved in the lab....even the 254nm LED's that are available are really expensive in the hundreds of dollars each...

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/acsphotonics.9b00600

(this was for 222nm)

file:///C:/Users/Administrator/Downloads/manuscript.pdf

A direct approach to limit airborne transmission of pathogens is to inactivate them within a short time of their production. Germicidal ultraviolet light (UV), typically at 254 nm, is effective in this context, but it is a health hazard to the skin and eyes. By contrast, far-UVC light (207-222 nm) efficiently kills pathogens without harm to exposed human cells or tissues. We previously demonstrated that 222-nm UV light efficiently kills airborne influenza virus (H1N1); here we extend the far-UVC studies to explore efficacy against human coronaviruses from subgroups alpha (HCoV-229E) and beta (HCoV-OC43). We found that low doses of, respectively 1.7 and 1.2 mJ/cm2 inactivated 99.9% of aerosolized alpha coronavirus 229E and beta coronavirus OC43.

(don't go by the dose here ... later you would see the time of exposure corresponding to the dose)

......

Interpreting this as an intensity of ~3 mJ/cm2 /hour, and based on our results here for the beta HCoV-OC43 coronavirus, continuous far-UVC exposure at this intensity would result in 90% viral inactivation in approximately 8 minutes, 95% viral inactivation in approximately 11 minutes, 99% inactivation in approximately 16 minutes and 99.9% inactivation in approximately 25 minutes. Increasing the intensity by, say, a factor of 2 would halve these disinfection times, while still maintaining safety

(this was too with the far UVC - 222 nm). Thogh it it is waiting for peer review, but the interpretations look to be consistent, and also this being from University, likely to be more fair in claims than the claims of the industries.

The only link you furnish is for LED's in the 278nm range...the second part of your post seems to be from your own computer files....The longer wavelength UVC light is what you are talking about, and the longer wavelength can penetrate skin and damage cells, the shorter wavelength UVC light in the 222nm wavelength cannot penetrate the dead cell layer on the surface of the skin....when you get even shorter below 200nm the light can barely penetrate the air molecules...that's why the far UVC light is blocked from the Earth's surface, it can't penetrate far enough...

https://news.columbia.edu/ultraviolet-technology-virus-covid-19-UV-light

..."Airborne-mediated microbial diseases such as influenza and tuberculosis represent major public health challenges. A direct approach to prevent airborne transmission is inactivation of airborne pathogens, and the airborne antimicrobial potential of UVC ultraviolet light has long been established;

however, its widespread use in public settings is limited because conventional UVC light sources are both carcinogenic and cataractogenic. By contrast, we have previously shown that far-UVC light (207–222 nm) efficiently inactivates bacteria without harm to exposed mammalian skin.

This is because, due to its strong absorbance in biological materials, far-UVC light cannot penetrate even the outer (non living) layers of human skin or eye; however, because bacteria and viruses are of micrometer or smaller dimensions, far-UVC can penetrate and inactivate them.

We show for the first time that far-UVC efficiently inactivates airborne aerosolized viruses, with a very low dose of 2 mJ/cm2 of 222-nm light inactivating >95% of aerosolized H1N1 influenza virus. Continuous very low dose-rate far-UVC light in indoor public locations is a promising, safe and inexpensive tool to reduce the spread of airborne-mediated microbial diseases."...

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-21058-w

https://mavenroundtable.io/progressive-liberty/causes-and-passions/research-shows-that-222nm-safe-uvc-light-can-eradicate-airborne-covid-19-CnVzI9oUdUKBByr6NIWLSg

..."Ultraviolet (UV) light is the part of the electromagnetic spectrum generally categorized according to the wavelength range in UVA (315-400 nm), UVB (280-315 nm), and UVC (200-280 nm). Far-UVC light, in particular, refers to wavelengths in the 200-220 nm region. In general, the higher the wavelength the more penetrating the UV light."....

..."We have developed an approach for UV-based sterilization using single-wavelength UVC light to kill microbes, but potentially without harming human cells or tissues. It involves the use of far-UVC radiation generated by inexpensive filtered excimer lamps that emit primarily a single UVC wavelength; in particular, our approach has used a krypton-bromine (Kr-Br) or a krypton-chlorine (Kr-Cl) excimer lamp that produces high-intensity light at 207 nm or 222 nm, respectively. In addition, excimer lamps contain no mercury and are thus environmentally safe compared with conventional germicidal lamps."...

https://www.crr.columbia.edu/research/research-spotlight/dr-manuela-buonanno

You are right, the original is

https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-25728/v1

Excuse me but your OP quotes the original article that "The lamps emit rays called “UVC,” a relatively obscure part of the spectrum that consists of a shorter, more energetic wavelength of light that can be harmful to humans if exposed directly."... That contradicts your claim of these frequencies as being harmless.

The American Cancer Society expects UVC to be carcinogenic. Carcinogenic is hardly "harmless".

I agree, more details are needed. With high energy UVC, they counter the harmful effect to humans by pulsing it, where it’s still deadly to pathogens.

As far as it being carcinogenic. When I employed at a shipyard. A lot of the wood we used was carcinogenic.

when we routered Red Cedar (a known carcinogenic), we had to fully suit up the machine operators in full PPE. This was 30 years ago.

so again more details are needed.

I think the confusion lies in that the lights that will initially be installed in the subway are not the 222nm type, but the conventional 254-280nm uvc lights....they will be operated when the subway is empty during cleaning timeout....Eventually the 222nm lights will be added when FDA approval is granted...the temporary grant by the FDA was only while the country was under a state of emergency...The 222nm lights can still be used by private individuals....at least that is my understanding...

What the majority have a hard time is... while your bringing a lot of information to light (My attempt at pun) where the details are still being assembled, they don’t realize or comprehend it. And are challenging it, which isn’t bad, or down right refuting it for a variety of reasons.

as I stated earlier, let cooler heads prevail.

thanks for the info you have been providing... if I’m ever on Jeopardy, and I get a daily double on CoronaVirus catagory... I’m going all in.

..."We have shown in vitro that UV light at 207 nm produces no significant biological damage in a human skin 3-D tissue model. Then we extended the 207-nm safety studies in vivo in a hairless mouse skin model using a UV fluence at which 207-nm UV excimer light and 254-nm light from a germicidal lamp are both highly effective for inactivating MRSA, as assessed in our earlier in-vitro bactericidal studies.

Eight relevant cellular and molecular damage endpoints including epidermal hyperplasia, pre-mutagenic UV-associated DNA lesions, skin inflammation, and normal cell proliferation and differentiation were evaluated in mice dorsal skin harvested 48 h after UV exposure. Figure 2 shows the increase in epidermal thickness (left panel) and DNA photodamage (right panel) measured as percentage of cyclobutane pyrimidine dimers (CPD) and 6-4 pyrimidine pyrimidone dimers (6-4 PP) (shown as black nuclei) that are typically induced by UV light exposure.

We found that while conventional germicidal UV (254 nm) exposure produced significant effects for all the studied skin damage endpoints, the same fluence of 207 nm UV light produced results that were not statistically distinguishable from the zero exposure controls. Similar results were obtained with the 222-nm light."...

https://www.crr.columbia.edu/research/research-spotlight/dr-manuela-buonanno

..."A range of far-UVC exposures, from 3.6 µJ/cm2 up to 281.6 mJ/cm2, were used to define a response calibration

curve. Films were scanned as 48 bit RGB TIFF images at 150 dpi using an Epson Perfection V700 Photo flatbed scanner (Epson, Japan) and analyzed with radiochromic film analysis software32 to calculate the total exposure based on measured changes in optical density.

Measurements using both a silicon detector and UV sensitive films were combined to compute the total dose received by a particle traversing the exposure window. The three vertically stacked lamps produced a nearly uniform dose distribution along the vertical axis thus every particle passing horizontally through the irradiation chamber received an identical dose.

The lamp width (100 mm) was smaller than the width of the irradiation chamber window (260 mm) so the lamp power was higher near the center of the irradiation chamber window compared to the edge. The UV sensitive film indicated a power of approximately 120 µW/cm2 in the center third of the window and 70 µW/cm2 for the outer thirds.

e silicon detector was used to quantify the reflectivity of the aluminum sheet at approximately 15% of the incident power. Combining this data allowed the calculation of the average total dose of 2.0 mJ/cm2 to a particle traversing the window in 20 seconds.

Additionally, the silicon detector was used to confirm the attenuation of 222-nm light through a single sheet of plastic film was 65%. the addition of one or two sheets of plastic film between the lamps and the irradiation chamber window yielded aver- age doses of 1.3 mJ/cm2 and 0.8 mJ/cm2, respectively...

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323072310_Far-UVC_light_A_new_tool_to_control_the_spread_of_airborne-mediated_microbial_diseases

Generally that's true for the longer wavelength UV light....but not for the shorter 207 - 222nm wavelengths, as is shown here....

How can quoting the Original Posting be considered Off Topic?

Honestly, this narrow band far UVC disinfection technique just seems too good to be true.

So far every narrowed search I've found so far on the safety of this narrow band of light using Google refer back to the same Columbia University research back in 2018. In contrast searches for the safety of UVC light in general confirms that this broader band of light kills viruses and damages people.

I see echoes of the Theranos folly here. I hope I'm wrong but if this really is such a cheap, golden solution to sterilization I wonder why in two years this light is not already commonly implemented?

..." I wonder why in two years this light is not already commonly implemented?"...

Talk to the FDA....

Yes the initial research was done at Columbia Univ where Brenner is a professor, it was his baby...That research team spun off a company Ushio, and the technology and different lighting companies have sprung up designing and distributing different lights...You don't find much because it is new...but there have been several studies done to prove efficacy and safety in compliance with FDA guidelines on the path to commercialization....The lights are currently being distributed by a handful of companies, several of which I have posted links to...FDA authorization has been fast tracked, I don't know the details beyond that...

Because of political liberals who demand such nonsense as controlled experiments, double-blind studies, and replication. These are concepts utterly beyond the ken of our current leadershit.

...but, but, we have all that...

According to Klaran, a company in the business of disinfection, the key idea is penetration depth. It's true that the shorter the wavelength, the more energy per photon, but also the less the penetration depth. The skin consists of a layer of dead cells and energy dissipated in these dead cells does not initiate cancer.

"The intensity from point sources like UVC LEDs falls off as 1 over distance squared, and once it gets past the scattering length, it falls off exponentially. This means that 1) the further away the UVC source from a human, the lesser dose he is exposed to, and 2) the absorption length of UVC radiation in human skin is extremely short so that almost no UVC radiation can reach the living cells in the skin; all the absorption occurs in the dead cell layers."

https://www.klaran.com/is-uvc-safe

• FIGURE 1 :: IMPACT OF UV LIGHT ON HUMAN TISSUE

• The penetration spectrum of light and UV radiation into human tissue.
  The scattering increases with decreased wavelength.

I'm thinking that the blue and red plots are not in the same units, so where they cross is probably not significant.

I have an old EPROM eraser up in the attic somewhere. If I can find it, I might repurpose it as a sterilizer for face masks. I know it generates UVC cause it smells of ozone when it's turned on.

The mercury vapor uv lights, such as used in eprom erasers generally only last a year before they need to be replaced...However you can buy the bulbs on Amazon for about $10...

My first job out of college I worked 2nd shift,... the company I worked for, repurposed existing computers for the CAD department... the manager at the time who was an a$s... he claimed them as his, because the monitors where huge!!!... but the display screen size was actually smaller... he came in early to set up ‘his’ computer. (Second shift we worked with the lights off, with the only light coming from our monitors, and the open door to the hallway.

well, he made a big fuss, and said, how much more productive than the rest of us he’s going to be, (I may have made a comment something to the effect of That’ll be a first...) and when second shift started, he merrily went about his business,... well, he had configuration issues, and worked all night on it... and we were all putting in overtime...

near the end of the shift, I turned the lights on and I asked him how’s it going,...

when he turned around to talk to me...he looked something like this...

that monitor was putting out so much radiation,... that was the reason who ever had it, got rid of it.

I told him, he shouldn't be using that computer, his eyes are going to burn out... he thought I was jealous... I had a very hard time not laughing... and I told him to go look in the mirror...

So we have two competing companies that both hold patented technology....

Then we also have the Healthe' product line owned by Lighting Science..

https://healthelighting.com/pages/cleanse

https://www.reuters.com/companies/LSCG.PK

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/302857465_Wavelength_converting_lighting_device_and_associated_methods

https://patents.google.com/patent/US8384984B2/en

So this might be a different light type...based on a MEMS (micro electromechanical system) that converts one wavelength to another or several....need to find more details...this is Maxik the cto of Lighting Science...

UV has it's place also ozone is powerful sanitizer and has little danger IF USED PROPERLY. I have used ozone for years as deodorizer, sanitizer and bug control. Several of my clients used ozone to overcome the corona virus. Something to keep in mind.

It's also an area fraught with quackery....

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brittmariehermes/2016/10/13/naturopathic-medicine-week-endemic-quackery-ozone-therapy/#3c8e76f446a2

https://asiatimes.com/2020/05/far-uv-radiation-can-help-combat-covid-19/

In car system of uvc light for disinfection launched....not far uvc so no people present...but LED

https://www.ledsmagazine.com/directory/led-packages/uv-ir-leds/press-release/14173719/seoul-semiconductor-seoul-viosys-violeds-technology-with-proven-999-sterilization-of-new-coronavirus-covid19-in-30-seconds-now-adopted-for-automotive-indoor-sterilization-solution

I've come up with an idea, it relies on the eventual development of far UVC 222nm LEDs....It's a clip on downward facing LED panel that clips on the bill of a cap...for acne prevention and treatment...and those little creatures that live on the surface of your face, you don't know about those, then never mind, spare yourself the details...anyway this is just for illustrative purposes only, not an accurate representation....

https://ktla.com/morning-news/healthe-company-on-using-uv-light-technology-to-fight-covid-19/

The video was good, but I found the "Healthe" website difficult to navigate. I hate it when I have to scroll to find things... In the video, the guy did mention that the Disinfection Tote (the only item showing a price on the website) used the older (presumably 254nm) technology.

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/northern-virginia-business-testing-new-disinfecting-technologies-in-office/2283077/

The cleaning has started...more details

https://www.metro-magazine.com/security-and-safety/news/738301/mta-to-use-uv-light-to-clean-transit-system

You would think that this type cleaning was already being done...I'm shocked, shocked to learn it has not....

https://www.zmescience.com/science/news-science/far-uvc-lamps-pandemic-5523/

Please note that although uvc light can be used for disinfection, but it is still harmful for human body and eyes. Be attention!

It's probably a good idea to read the thread before commenting....

Good news, hope we can get through the nightmare.