The need to perform sterilization with UVC light due to pandemic and other pathogens, always raises question of using UVC light (254 nm) without proper control and confinement. This is because direct exposure to UVC radiation is harmful to human health.
What are real physical causes of UVC radiation in humans and at what average distance is UVC artificial light source really effective? Should we really be exposed to this type of radiation?
I think that protocols warning correct way to use UVC radiation for sterilization should be developed and distributed by WHO to countries as a guideline.
The lamp at 254 nm UVC should only be used in areas that are inaccessible during irradiation. While it has strong germicidal power, it is also harmful to the human body, causing skin cancer and cataracts.
Although slightly different from the purpose of Dr. Filipe Wiltgen, it is reported that the shorter wavelength of 222 nm light can be directly irradiated to the human skin with the same germicidal power. According to the following paper, 254 nm reaches the deepest layer of the skin's epidermis, the basal layer, and damages the DNA of the cells, whereas 222 nm reaches only the very surface layer (plaque), the stratum corneum, and does not damage the DNA of the epidermal cells. I think their report should be more recognized and tested.
Article Long-term Effects of 222-nm ultraviolet radiation C Steriliz...
Article Exploratory clinical trial on the safety and bactericidal ef...
Dear Dr. Kengo Shibuya,
I have actually seen many applications of direct sterilization with UVC radiation at a length of 254 nm, mostly unconfined, but I have not seen any using UVC at 222 nm.
The possibility of using an artificial UVC light that can sterilize and not be harmful to human health is very interesting. I will read and research more about UVC at 222 nm starting with these two articles.
This reinforces the need to disclose and avoid direct exposure to UVC light (254 nm).
Thank you for your contribution.
Dear Eda Alemdar,
Thank you very much for your contribution.
More and more I think it is important to alert population that tries to protect themselves from viruses such as pandamy, to do the right way without aggravating health problems.
Here in Brazil, I came to see proposals for using UVC artificial light (254 nm) as an alternative to replacing fluorescent lamps in classrooms.
I am deeply concerned about the lack of information about indiscriminate UVC radiation.
It exists as Prof. Dr. Kengo Shibuya an option with UVC (222 nm), I read the articles sent by him, and others I found about UVC (222 nm) and it seems to be a very interesting solution. However, in my opinion for sterilization, I think UVC (254 nm or 222 nm) in the contained form, that is, without exposure, is a relevant and safe option.
Equipment and machines can make use of this UVC light if they keep the light contained in some type of cavity only for applications without direct exposure to humans.
Best Regards.
Dear Phil Geis,
Yes, it is same principle as welding mask. The light emitted is UVC 254 nm, which is why it cannot be seen without protection.
Imagine that here in Brazil I saw a proposal for machines or replacement of common lamps with UVC 254 nm?
You can't even pay for it. We need to publicize this so that people are not exposed to a problem and not a solution!
Thank you very much for your contribution to this discussion!
- Badges
- Science topic