Thread by @masknerd

[1] Impact of test methods on Far-UVC performance against bioaerosols
Katherine Ratliff, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
#ICFUST
#ICFUST2023

[2] How effect? how to compare tech types? How can lab results be used to inform predictions?
How do extrapolate lab tests to real world applications?

[3] Use large bioaerosol test chamber(10x12x25 feet) with mock HVAC system.
Use MS2 as surrogate, and most importantly also did replicates.
Quantify log reduction and CADR of 222nm lamps and portable HEPA air cleaners.

[4] Result from Far-UV device showed 3 log reduction over 90 minutes. However, up to a 2 log reduction during control test, so need to also include just what happens naturally. Greater than time matched log10 reduction.
Variability in testing is also big factor, so do replicates

[5] Testes also using Saliva and DI Water as solution, larger difference shown with Saliva, but again this is due to solution reducing inactivation naturally with no mitigation(this moving fast so hang on!)

[6] Too fast and missed the data, showed difference between DI water and simulated saliva highlighting difference in stability of controls. Data showed HEPA more effective than Far-UV.

[7] Q: Ewan Eadie: How many UV lamps where installed
A: Just two UV lights, as per manufacturer.[Note no fluence rates were given, I think this is more important]

Q: There was no fluence given, and can have a large impact. How do we express fluence and CADR?
A: Was two USHIO B1 lights, and choice of BSL, so in consideration for future.