Table A3.
Comparison between the decontamination effectiveness of UVC LEDs and physical methods.
| Other Methods | Other Methods’ Results | UVC LEDs’ Results | Better? | Enhanced Effect? |
Biological
Indicator |
Area | Source |
| 222 nm KrCl excilamp | D (~3.8, S. typhimurium) | B (~1.5, S. typhimurium) | excilamp | Yes 1 | Bacteria | Food | [61] |
| 60 °C mild heat |
na | B (~1, L. monocytogenes) | na | Yes | Bacteria | Materials | [72] |
| HEPA | na | D (>3 HCoV-229E) | na | Yes 2 | Viruses | Air | [32] |
| Ultrasound | D (>5, E. coli) | D (>5, E. coli) | = | Yes 3 | Bacteria | Water | [58] |
| UVA | B (<1, E. coli) | B (~1.75, E. coli) | UVC | Yes 4 | Bacteria | Water | [5] |
| UVA | B (<0.5, MS2) | B (>1.5, MS2) | UVC | Yes | Viruses | Water | [5] |
| UVA | na | D (4.5, E. coli) | na | Yes 4 | Bacteria | Water | [26] |
| UVA | na | na | na | Yes | Bacteria | Water | [48] |
| UVA | na | na | na | No | Viruses | Water | [48] |
| UVA | na | D (4, E. coli) | na | No | Bacteria | Water | [52] |
| UVA | B (0.2, E. coli) | D (3, E. coli) | UVC | No | Bacteria | Food | [69] |
| UVB | B (<1, E. coli) | D (4, E. coli) | UVC | No | Bacteria | Water | [2] |
| UVB | B (~2.8, E. coli) | B (~1.75, E. coli) | UVB | Yes 4 | Bacteria | Water | [5] |
| UVB | B (2.5, E. coli) | D (3, E. coli) | UVC | Yes | Bacteria | Food | [69] |
Notes: “B” represents below disinfection level, “D” indicates that the method reached disinfection level. “na” means “Not available.” “=“ displays similar results. 1 The authors achieved additive effects only for L. monocytogenes [61]. 2 The combination led to faster decaying rates [32]. 3 The authors found improved results when combining Hydrogen peroxide, UVC LEDs, and Ultrasound [58]. 4 The authors reached synergistic effects by pre-irradiating the biological indicators with the other method, then exposing them to UVC [5,26].