17 ms·
Study shows proof that a safer UV light effectively kills virus causing Covid-19
- remote_phone 6y agoThis was pretty much guaranteed. There were multiple studies showing that UVC (not Far-UVC) quickly and effectively killed coronavirus. It was basically just crossing the t’s and sorting the i’s to test Far-UVC light that it did the same thing. But based on everything else it was obvious it would. I’m hopeful we can see a lot of low cost Far-UVC appliances over the next year that safely killed coronavirus in indoor places so that we can start living a normal life before vaccines become widespread.
- DenisM 6y agoThere’s money to be made in spectrometers conforming proper spectrum of a given device. The market will be flooded by cheap lights, and most of them will be cutting every bit of cost to turn profit.
- AstralStorm 6y ago222 nm UVC LEDs are cheap enough. Cost cutting is in number of them, power, cooling and looks of the lamp.
- ecesena 6y ago> 222 nm UVC LEDs are cheap enough To my knowledge they don't exist yet. Do you know of any manufacturer that produces them?
- richajak 6y agoIt does not have to be 222nm UVC, actually the most common ones available in the market, 254nm, can also kill the virus. However, the researchers claim that the 222nm is safer. This article is a bit sensational.
- bwilli123 6y agohttps://sites.google.com/view/far-uvccoronavirus/home https://sites.google.com/view/far-uvccoronavirus/home https://medi-immune.com/protectivair/ https://medi-immune.com/protectivair/
- bwilli123 6y agohttps://medi-immune.com/protectivair/ https://medi-immune.com/protectivair/ from April
- blakesterz 6y agoThis is pretty interesting. It made me think that maybe in the end we'll see that the way the pandemic was finally brought under control was through a bunch of things, not just a single thing? It seems like many people are thinking something like "once we get a vaccine it'll be over", which might be true. But maybe it'll be a vaccine, and masks, and something like this, and advances in air filters and a dozen other things that just finally stamp it out, or reduce it to a level where we don't need to think/worry about it. And maybe at the same time that'll help greatly reduce the common cold, the flu, and maybe other things?
- helge9210 6y ago>many people are thinking something like "once we get a vaccine it'll be over" Natural immunity lasts for four months, like common cold. "Vaccine" doesn't make sense.
- nradov 6y agoThe best evidence we have so far indicates that most patients will retain a significant level of immunity for at least several years (just like other human coronaviruses). https://doi.org/10.4049/jimmunol.2000839 https://doi.org/10.4049/jimmunol.2000839
- imeron 6y agoI think if we reduce the common things (like the cold and flu) too much we will have more serious infections sweeping across the planet. The immune system needs training too. Just like for kids living in a clean environment (no dogs, dirt, etc.) are more prone to illnesses.
- empthought 6y agoI think you are wrong. Please cite some peer-reviewed sources.
- gardenthoughts 6y ago
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- exabrial 6y agoWhat portion of sunlight is 222nm?
- whatshisface 6y agoIt's a pedantic answer but... 0%. ;)
- zamfi 6y ago0% is also the non-pedantic answer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_spectrum_en.svg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_spectrum_en.sv... 222nm is blocked by the (upper, I believe) atmosphere.
- gonzo41 6y agoJust wait for all the deniers to start smashing lights. Hopefully this is a nice easy way to safely deal with this issue. Combined with masks. It seems like a way you could really clamp down.
- DenisM 6y agoIt’s quite exciting - replacing existing overhead lighting with 222nm lightbulbs could make public spaces inhabitable again. Alas I couldn’t find any 222nm light bulbs for sale. I imagine hundreds of Chinese companies are setting up production lines as we speak.
- phreenet 6y agoI'm no expert on this and this isn't a political post although it's been politicized, please don't beat me up. Can someone who is knowledgeable explain to me how this virus could have evolved in nature with such sensitivity to UV light? I've heard it explained that the driving belief that this virus was modified in a lab for study of SARS class viruses and escaped (not released, not as a weapon) is because it never had to adapt to sunlight. Is there a way that science could answer or prove this virus is in fact a natural mutation/evolution?
- function_seven 6y agoIf it spread among bats, I could see sunlight not being a selective pressure on the virus. They're nocturnal animals, right?
- eutectic 6y agoI would say it's a case of large surface area to volume ratio, inability to repair damage, and lack of selective pressure (why protect yourself from sunlight when you spend your time inside an animal?). No great mystery.
- gonzo41 6y agoWARNING Repeating a conspiracy theory I read : They think it came from underground Bats. And the whole "escaped" from lab thing was that a few Miners got sick years ago in a mine near Wuhan and the Lab there was the treating facility. At the time know one knew what they were dealing with so they quarantined and ....middle middle middle... Someone pulls out a corona virus for some bench top lab work a few years later and it gets out. END Conspiracy Maybe bats? Please don't beat me up :P
- beervirus 6y agoSunlight doesn't contain any 222 nm light. That's why there's no selection pressure for a virus to be able to survive irradiation at 222 nm.
- zamfi 6y agoThis is the probably the right answer. See e.g., this link https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_spectrum_en.svg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_spectrum_en.sv... for what wavelengths of sunlight reach the earth’s surface.
- nograpes 6y agoLink to (paywalled?) article: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2020.08.022 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2020.08.022
- d--b 6y agoHow much exposure does it need?
- sauwan 6y agoFTA: >An in vitro experiment by HU researchers showed that 99.7% of the SARS-CoV-2 viral culture was killed after a 30-second exposure to 222 nm UVC irradiation at 0.1 mW/cm2.
- AstralStorm 6y agoThis is slightly long to effectively remove the virus from air with people in there breathing it. It's good for an airlock or surface disinfection though.
- Zancarius 6y ago30 seconds would be easy enough to fulfill for people queuing up at lines, such as at a point of sale though. Sure, if you're standing next to someone who's infected that's probably not enough time, but combined with other measures it might reduce the spread to others. One of the studies that was investigating the use of hydroxychloroquine came up with an interesting statistic that had nothing to do with HCQ: They found that individuals with no PPE interacting at less than 6' from someone infected with SARS-CoV-2 had about a 15% chance of contracting it after 10 minutes of exposure. I'd imagine UV would reduce this even further. This study was covered in Dr. Seheult's update 81[1] video. It's a bit ironic, because the study showed a failure of HCQ, but I'm not completely sure I'd suggest the study itself failed since there's valuable insight that came as a consequence of it! [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5w7FiDJe1g&t=2m32s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5w7FiDJe1g&t=2m32s
- caseysoftware 6y agoIs UV-C dangerous to people? If so, after how long? It'd be interesting to consider this for doctor's waiting rooms, boarding areas for planes & trains, and waiting areas for restaurants. Just waiting for your table or appointment could sanitize you with zero additional effort. Not 100% but reducing the impact/risk in otherwise close quarter space would reduce the overall spread.
- jjtheblunt 6y agoIs there any virus not imperiled by UV light?
- conception 6y agoRight? Lava kills Covid! News at 11!
- scotty79 6y agohttps://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinococcus_radiodurans https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinococcus_radiodurans should be fairly resistant.
- lgats 6y agoen: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinococcus_radiodurans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinococcus_radiodurans
- jjtheblunt 6y agobut that's a bacterium
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- nimish 6y agoI mean, great? But sanitization doesn't seem to affect spread despite the obsession over cleaning surfaces. If the virus transmits in aerosols, as we have determined, does this 222nm light kill that? No. It shows a smear of virus on a plate is killed by 222nm light. I think it's the right solution for the wrong problem.
- AstralStorm 6y agoStill useful for airlocks and perhaps disinfecting masks if tested on that.
- trident1000 6y agoRemember when people went ballistic when Trump suggested UV light therapy could be a treatment. (probably still isnt but it was considered a scientific impossibility that UV light does anything to a virus at the time).
- WalterGR 6y agoYou're wrong. "Suppose that we hit the body with a tremendous, whether it's ultraviolet or just very powerful light," Trump said at the White House coronavirus press briefing, adding: "Supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way." It was absolutely not considered a scientific impossibility that UV light would have an affect on the virus outside the body.
- trident1000 6y agoNot impossible either: "A Cedars-Sinai research team is in the pre-clinical stages of developing a technology that harnesses intermittent ultraviolet (UV) A light for treating viruses and bacteria. The technology has not been tested or used on patients. Cedars-Sinai has filed for patents related to the technology and has signed a licensing agreement with Aytu BioScience with the aim of potentially enabling near-term use as a COVID-19 intervention for critically ill, intubated patients." It was a suggestion to explore it (all possibilities).
- WalterGR 6y agoIf it was an informed suggestion, where are we on injecting disinfectant into bodies?
- ajmarsh 6y agoYes when the majority of what you say is untrue, people have a tendency to discount your recommendations.
- mensetmanusman 6y agoPeople’s heads explode when he says lots of things. It would be better if he never mentioned anything, so that it wouldn’t muddy the waters. We know that he won’t stop being who he is though, so we are being extorted by the situation to change.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- brightball 6y agoAt my wife’s office, one of the first things we did to prepare to reopen was install AirOasis units on each AC unit. It’s a UV light inside the return that is designed to kill anything in the air. The bulbs need to be changed every 2 years. It won’t do any good in close contact, but at least as air is recirculated we can be confident that the air is being cleaned effectively. Had them installed on my house years ago because of an air quality problem and they worked great.
- joshuaheard 6y agoMy reverse osmosis water filter also has UV light to "kill" micro-organisms. I put kill in quotes because it doesn't actually kill them, but break up their DNA so they can't reproduce.
- liability 6y agoI'm no biologist, but isn't DNA used for more than just reproduction? I'm under the impression that a living organism uses it's own DNA to guide the synthesis of various proteins needed by the organism to continue living. Destruction of this DNA could kill the organism, not merely render it infertile.
- dr_zoidberg 6y agoYou are right, damage to the DNA can kill an organism, if extensive enough. As for rendering it infertile, that's usually all that's needed to prevent bacteria from spoiling things (food, beverages, etc).
- peter422 6y ago“A reverse osmosis filter has a pore size of approximately 0.0001 micron” Attaching a UV to that isn’t killing anything. Nothing that can be killed is fitting through an RO membrane.
- thatcat 6y agouv could prevent biofilm formation on the membrane though; assuming the flow is UV -> RO.
- latortuga 6y agoRelated question: is UV light useful or practical for household sanitizing? Specifically I'm thinking about dirty dishes in the kitchen. Say, a cutting board that had raw chicken on it. Would UV light render such a surface safe? What about in, say, a dishwasher? Could sanitize cycles use less energy that way?
- ClumsyPilot 6y agoUV light can't get into cracks, penetrate dirt, nooks and crannies, so steam in the dishwasher will do a better job. It can create Ozone, which kills bacteria and damages respiratory tracks. It can be a bug or a feature in the right hands. Hard UV also leaves a nasty sunburn. In Russia it's used for domesric disinfection for a long time - you turn on a big lanp and leave the room for a few hours.
- liability 6y agoIn the right context, the generation of ozone is a feature because ozone can penetrate into cracks and whatnot that are shadowed from the UV itself. I do wonder how much you'd need for this to be truly effective though.
- legerdemain 6y agoOh god, homemade "ozonators" like this bare mercury lamp one.[1] HN sometimes has a misplaced admiration of ex-USSR-ian resourcefulness, but the cultural climate of top-secret alternative cures and conspirology is exactly what popularizes breathing cures, DIY bleach injection, "bringing the light inside," and other desperate, dangerous self-experimentation. A top result for "ozonator" in Russian advertises that ozone therapy is "used for wound-healing, immune system recovery, removal of cellulite, and obesity." Just breathe it in! [1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ru/0/00/Ozonator.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ru/0/00/Ozonator.jpg
- ClumsyPilot 6y agoDude, wth. I am talking about actual proper device that you place in a room, leave the room and it runs on a timer. That's what normal people have. Sure there is a fascination with alternative medicine in Russia, but thats a separate problem, among many others.
- scotty79 6y agoI hope this will get popular during this pandemic so all public places will have some 222nm lights and we'll be able to enjoy way less cases of flu and colds in the future.
- supernova87a 6y agoIt kind of has to be done when people aren't there, or within the ventilation system. You can't have UV lights directly exposing people...
- scotty79 6y agoWith 222nm you can. I think that's a game changer. Because current UV is unsafe and restricted to professional applications where risk of misuse is acceptably low. And 222nm could be applied in commercial and consumer setting because it's safe for humans.
- ShinTakuya 6y agoIt's safe for the skin, but I'd question deploying something like that widely until the other potential side effects are explored. For instance what if constantly disrupting the surface bacteria on skin had negative long term effects, even if the skin itself isn't damaged by the light? You can argue that some level of exposure to viruses is good for your immune system. It's not proven, but there are certainly some scientists suggesting that excessive hygiene could be linked to autoimmune diseases, too.
- scotty79 6y agoI don't think exposing skin bacteria would be the problem. We are walking around with plenty of skin covered to keep the reservoir of our microbiome. Also sunlight is pretty strong disinfectant too ans everybody used to bath in sunlight for centuries. And as for hygienic hypothesis ... benefits from hygiene are huge and easy to observe while link to autoimmune diseases is disputed. And if it exists is probably through parasites we got rid of, not bateria or viruses that were not so easy to get rid of.
- onetimeusename 6y ago>Tests were conducted using Ushio’s Care222 krypton-chloride excimer lamp This sounds like it is a limiting factor to use. Excimer lamps in general come with a host of environmental and production concerns. I can't even say anything about the availability or characteristics of krypton-chloride gas.
- Recursing 6y agoWhy can't we make the same light using LEDs?
- mooman219 6y ago> The band gap of the semiconductor determines the wavelength of the light created. The thing about LEDs is that their wavelength is fixed by the material. If you want a different wavelength, you generally need a different material. Designing materials is hard, which is why the blue led got the nobel prize a few years ago. > The type of material for UV LED is AlGaN, which will have a layer of aluminum grown on top of GaN on either Sapphire or SiC substrate. Aluminum as metal is conductive, but on AlGaN it is not. To get to a far UV band like 222nm, high density of aluminum needs to grow, which becomes non-conductive. You would need to compensate it with extremely high voltage current to generate really low level of wattage, let alone all the heat it generates. So there is no commercial vitality to it. That's the reason the whole industry on 222nm is on excimer light. This is a gist of some comments on: https://www.reddit.com/r/Optics/comments/fyqhht/how_are_leds_of_specific_wavelengths_designed_how/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Optics/comments/fyqhht/how_are_leds...
- reificator 6y ago> I didn't use the quote feature because it makes reading on phones hard. Quotes here generally look like the above, the indentation thing is meant for code and abused to show quotes.
- mooman219 6y agoThanks for the clarification, I misattributed users misusing quotes in code blocks as the method to quote a text (which causes some pain on small displays). I've edited the original comment to reflect this.
- ecesena 6y agoHighly recommended TED talk: https://www.ted.com/talks/david_brenner_a_new_weapon_in_the_fight_against_superbugs https://www.ted.com/talks/david_brenner_a_new_weapon_in_the_... And the longer interview: https://www.ted.com/talks/david_brenner_can_light_stop_the_coronavirus https://www.ted.com/talks/david_brenner_can_light_stop_the_c...
- rtkaratekid 6y agoMy first question is wouldn’t that cause strains of bacteria to develop UV resistance? Otherwise it’s a pretty cool step forward
- xkcd-sucks 6y agoHigh energy photons being what they are, at some point only more mass will protect against it. The same reason 10 minutes of bleach exposire kills most bacteria/virii but humans just get superficial burns. i.e., it's easier for multicellular life to develop resistance to these kinds of things than unicellular life
- SashaRuvin 6y agoI'm hearing about consumer grade UVC sanitizing devices[1] more, and also see "electrostatic cleaning"[2] touted by building management companies. I've had trouble determining if these are just buzzwords or if these really make a difference. [1] https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/uvlyzer-sleek-uvc-sanitizing-phone-accessory#/ https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/uvlyzer-sleek-uvc-sanitiz... [2] https://www.cloroxpro.com/products/clorox/total-360/ https://www.cloroxpro.com/products/clorox/total-360/
- Vrondi 6y agoWhat distance from the surface can these lights be and still effectively kill microorganism? 8 feet away? Or only a few centimeters?
- jimsmart 6y agoI don't know the answer to your question, specifically. But it might be helpful to know that the power/strength of light diminishes according to the inverse-square law. That is, if one doubles the distance, there is quarter the amount of light falling on a given area (vis: it is quarter of the strength), and, vice versa, if one halves the distance, the amount of light increases four-fold. Due to this rate of fall-off, it means that it is much more effective if the light source is closer.
- dreamcompiler 6y agoThis is an important confirmation but it's not new. Researchers at Columbia have been studying far UV on coronaviruses for a long time, and it's well-established that far UV kills them. The problem is that far UV lights are rather expensive at the moment. https://www.cuimc.columbia.edu/news/far-uvc-light-safely-kills-airborne-coronaviruses https://www.cuimc.columbia.edu/news/far-uvc-light-safely-kil...
- 2dvisio 6y agoSame here: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-67211-2 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-67211-2
- alimw 6y agoTo avoid confusing presidents a better title would be: "Safer UV light effective in destroying virus particle associated with transmission of Covid-19"