Far-UV is possibly the best tool we have against COVID and very few people actually know what it is. Here's an intro of what it is, effectiveness, safety and how it's created.
1/14
TLDR - Far UV is a range of UV light that you can expose people to in comparatively high doses to other UV light. You can safely shine it in an occupied room and it will be extremely effective at killing airborne microbes. This can't be done with other UV light.
2/14
What is Far-UV?
UV is broken up into 3 ranges:
UVA: 315-400 nm
UVB: 280-315 nm
UVC: 100-280 nm
Far-UV is a range of UVC light between 200-230 nm. It's "far away" from visible light. Near UV is 300-400 nm.
3/14
UVC wavelengths are good at killing microbes. When it's used for that purpose, it's called ultraviolet germicidal irradiation (UVGI) or germicidal ultraviolet (GUV). It can disinfect air, water and surfaces.
4/14
Effectiveness
The best data we have so far is this experiment. A 15 W far UV lamp in a 32 m³ room gives 33-66 equivalent air changes per hour. A CR box would give you 15 eACH. So 1 far-uv lamp = 2-4 CR boxes in a typical room in your home.
5/14
You can easily scale this up. Using 5 lamps, it provided 128-322 eACH (like 9-14 CR boxes in your dining room. Can you imagine having that many going? 🤣) The equivalent clean air delivery rate from far-UV vastly exceeds anything possible with ventilation or filtration.
6/14
The experimental data was recently confirmed through mathematical modeling showing you can achieve more than 100 eACH with far-uv.
To state this as clear as possible: there are no other technologies that are that effective.
What makes Far-UV special is that light between 200-230 nm is really bad at penetrating anything. The outer layer of your skin is the stratum corneum. It's dead tissue. It provides a protective layer to the living tissue underneath.
8/14
Your eyes are also covered with a tear layer and far-UV is not good at penetrating that either. Think of your whole body with a protective covering 3-30 µm thick. Why is this important?
9/14 colorado.edu/today/2021/10/…
For other UV wavelengths, you cannot expose a room to UV light at doses effective at killing microbes when people are there. Because far-uv does not penetrate the outer layers well, your body can handle a high dose and you can irradiate the room with people there.
10/14
For reference, most UVGI uses mercury lamps with 254 nm light. The exposure limit per day is 6 mJ/cm². For far-uv, the limit on the eyes is 160 mJ/cm²
and skin is 479 mJ/cm². A factor of 27 and 80 x respectively.
11/14
So you can shine far-UV light in a room, it will be very effective at killing microbes and will have minimal effects on the occupants. This is what makes it unique and cannot be done with other UV wavelengths. You still need to remain within limits.
12/14
KrCl excimer lamps give off light in the far-uv range primarily around 222 nm with some light outside the far-uv range. Many companies add a light filter to remove wavelengths outside the far-uv range.
13/14 uvmedico.com/lamps/uv222-pe…
Lots of questions and comments. Here are some follow ups.
Far UV has a ton of potential, but there is still a lot we don’t know. There are many possible issues which I believe can be mitigated. Caution is still warranted at this time.
For personal far uv, we don’t have evidence it is effective and I’m skeptical it does anything. I won’t use it until there is some proof (like the experiment in tweet 5 or mathematical modelling). It can be used for sterilizing surfaces, but that doesn’t help with COVID.
If you are using far-uv, you need to make sure you remain beneath the exposure limits. Here's what they are and how to ensure you do that.
The threshold limit value (TLV) is the amount of energy an area of your eyes or skin can be exposed to over 8 hours. These values are measured in mJ/cm² (mJ is a unit of energy, cm² is area). These values vary depending on the type of UV light you are exposed to.
Most UV light used for germicidal purposes is 254 nm created by mercury lamps. The TLV for light in this range is 6 mJ/cm². ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P…
The @O_S_P_E IAQ Advisory Committee Core recommendations for transparency:
Share information about your facility’s air quality with occupants including sharing the strategies you are using to ensure safe indoor air and install CO2 monitors with readable displays. 🧵
Our detailed guidance is found in the document.
There are 4 main points: 1. IAQ info should be publicly available 2. Proper signage and training for IAQ equipment 3. Use of CO2 sensors 4. Education campaigns
Air quality measures often fail because either people in the space are expected to operate them when they have no idea, or because of neglect by those responsible for the building combined with lack of knowledge by the occupants not knowing something is wrong.
On Saturday night, my daughter got invited to a birthday party at a kids' spa. She had a fun time. We got there early. There were only a few people there and CO2 levels were sky high.
Thermostat fan was set to "auto", but I couldn't hear it turn on when I set it to "on". No ventilation. The nail polish and other chemicals used there create a very unhealthy environment for the workers. This isn't safe.
ASHRAE requires very high ventilation levels for these places. It's meaningless. No one cares and instead of creating a safe environment, the landlord saves energy costs and pushes the costs onto the healthcare system. The employees pay for it with their health.
The @O_S_P_E Indoor Air Quality Advisory Group core recommendations for additive air cleaning technologies:
Do not use additive air cleaning methods or similar products, such as ionization, until there is a standardized way to ensure their safety and effectiveness.
🧵
Our more detailed guidance provides a description of what this is, examples of types of technologies and how to address existing systems.
These systems are commonly known as electronic air cleaners in the IAQ world, but it isn't a well-defined term. We've opted for the term additive cleaners since the goal of these technologies is to add particles or reactive species into the air.
"We have mechanical ventilation (MV), so we don't need portable HEPA filters"
This common argument has tons of flaws. Here's a list of them 🧵.
1. What is the outdoor air delivery rate from the MV? Many older MV systems are designed for very low ventilation rates. It doesn't even come close to modern minimum requirements. Existing MV doesn't mean it is sufficient for airborne disease mitigation.
2. Is it working properly? The assumption should be it isn't. Without proper monitoring, we don't know. Having an extra layer of protection (HEPA filters) is a good idea.
The @O_S_P_E Indoor Air Quality Advisory Group core recommendation for UVGI: 🧵
Use upper room UVGI systems installed by qualified professionals in health care settings and congregate living settings. Consider its use in high-risk settings and places with high occupant density.
Our detailed guidance discusses all the different ways UV light can be used, what we recommend and what we don't recommend. Our core recommendation is for upper room UV systems to be implemented widespread in healthcare and congregate living settings.
In Canada in 2013, more than 200 000 HAIs - 0.6% of the population infected. 8000 Canadians died from HAIs. That number has likely gone up during COVID.