Skip to main content
Elsevier - PMC COVID-19 Collection logoLink to Elsevier - PMC COVID-19 Collection
. 2022 Aug 2;114:78–86. doi: 10.1016/j.gr.2022.07.010

Pollution free UV-C radiation to mitigate COVID-19 transmission

Ashutosh Kumar a, Abhishek Raj a,b, Ankit Gupta b,c, Sneha Gautam d, Manish Kumar e, Hemant Bherwani a,b, Avneesh Anshul a,b,
PMCID: PMC9345658  PMID: 35936028

Graphical abstract

graphic file with name ga1_lrg.jpg

Keywords: COVID-19; UV radiation; UV-C, Sanitization; Disinfection

Abstract

The high rate of transmission of the COVID-19 virus has brought various types of disinfection techniques, for instance, hydrogen peroxide vaporization, microwave generating steam, UV radiation, and dry heating, etc. to prevent the further transmission of the virus. The chemical-based techniques are predominantly used for sanitization of hands, buildings, hospitals, etc. However, these chemicals may affect the health of humans and the environment in unexplored aspects. Furthermore, the UV lamp-based radiation sanitization technique had been applied but has not gained larger acceptability owing to its limitation to penetrate different materials. Therefore, the optical properties of materials are especially important for the utilization of UV light on such disinfection applications. The germicidal or microorganism inactivation application of UV-C has only been in-use in a closed chamber, due to its harmful effect on human skin and the eye. However, it is essential to optimize UV for its use in an open environment for a larger benefit to mitigate the virus spread. In view of this, far UV-C (222 nm) based technology has emerged as a potential option for the sanitization in open areas and degradation of microorganisms present in aerosol during the working conditions. Hence, in the present review article, efforts have been made to evaluate the technical aspects of UV (under the different spectrum and wavelength ranges) and the control of COVID 19 virus spread in the atmosphere including the possibilities of the human body sanitization in working condition.

1. Introduction

COVID-19 issue is still a challenge even after availability of medicine and vaccine (Cao and Li, 2022, Jamrozik and Selgelid, 2020, Khan et al., 2020, Yang and Wang, 2020, Zhang et al., 2020). Asymptomatic patients were also found and the random deaths of patients were also reported in almost every country including India (Changotra et al., 2021). In case of asymptomatic patient precaution is essentially required among the healthy population because silent transmission may be occurred rapidly in population (Bai et al., 2020, Bherwani et al., 2021, Gao et al., 2021, Yu and Yang, 2020, Zhou et al., 2020). If such kind of disease dispersed among countries, then it can be a high-risk challenge. However, vaccination has positive impact in the control of death but its high transmission rate and its variable acute impact on different patient is still a challenge (Andrews et al., 2022, Coccia, 2022, Wang et al., 2022). One of the serious threats of the virus spreading between countries is due to unavailability of any handy monitoring of COVID-patient during travelling. Therefore, it can be a threat issue at any time in several countries. If the technology is developed to stop the contamination of such kind of viruses, then it will help the country to avoid major impact on economy, health and security (Ferdib-Al-Islam, 2022, Glass et al., 2022, Pensini and McMullen, 2022, Shin et al., 2022).

Typically, different kind of disinfectant techniques hydrogen peroxide vaporization, microwave generating steam, UV radiation and dry heating are available to stop the spreading of COVID-19 (Arellano-Cotrina et al., 2021, Mahanta et al., 2021, Velraj and Haghighat, 2020). Among different chemicals, 75% ethanol, peroxy-acetic acid, chloroform and other chlorine containing disinfectant (sodium hypo-chloride etc.) used to stop the dispersion of virus. These chemical based techniques are predominantly used for sanitization of hand, buildings, hospitals etc. The sanitization of staff, doctors, nurses, and other COVID-19 warriors were also carried out by using ethanol-based sanitizer or other chemicals. Therefore, the consistent use of these chemicals may affect the health of human and environment in unexplored aspects (Abuga and Nyamweya, 2021, Ghafoor et al., 2021, Golin et al., 2020, Mallhi et al., 2020). Moreover, the radiation-based sanitization was available in the form of UV lamp-based technology but it has certain limitations. The UV wavelength lies between 10 and 400 nm and it is a non-ionising part of electromagnetic spectrum (Biasin et al., 2021, Gidari et al., 2021, Saadati, 2016). Recently, Stawicki has suggested utilizing the UV-C for the treatment of COVID 19 virus present in trachea-bronchial region of patient (Stawicki, 2020).

The UV spectrum are divided into four major fragment UV-A, UV-B, UV-C and V UV(vacuum UV) depending on the range of wavelength as shown in Fig. 1 . It is easier to absorb rather than penetrate, reflect or refract, because of lower wavelength compared to visible light. Therefore, optical properties of materials are very important for utilization of UV light on certain applications. UV-A has lowest energy and VU-V region has highest energy because wavelength is inversely proportional to the energy. Therefore, lower wavelength of the UV does not have a good quality of reflection, refraction or transmission. Among UV spectrum, UV-C was used prominently for germ removal (McDevitt et al., 2012, Memarzadeh et al., 2010). However, it can be used in close chamber to inactive microorganism within 20 s in air, but the major concern is related to harmful effect on human skin and eye. UV-C is carcinogenic as well as mutagenic in nature (Davies et al., 2002). Therefore, UV-C is avoided to be used in open working place in the presence of people and it must be handled very carefully in close chamber equipment.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Different types of UV on the basis of their wavelength as per ISO 21348.

During the literature we have not found any review article published before which summarized the technical aspects and application of UV-ray based disinfection techniques along with suitable measures. Hence, the purpose of present review article is to evaluate the technical aspects of UV (under the different spectrum and wavelength ranges) and the control of COVID-19 virus spread in the atmosphere including the possibilities of the human body sanitization in working condition.

2. UV-radiations against COVID-19 pandemic

Generally, epidemic viral infections are more effectual in cold weather, and infections due to COVID-19 will go longer time and or may also repeat. The variation in atmospheric conditions for instance rain, cold, change in temperature with wind, and snow were found as significant component which are influencing upper respiratory zone viral infections (Arora et al., 2021, Mecenas et al., 2020, Rajput et al., 2021, Türsen et al., 2020). Despite, the real impact of above motioned circumstance on corona virus is mysterious. However, some studies reported that the transmission of coronavirus can be slow down with increase in temperature. It has also found that the heat is the key components which affect the coronavirus survival and within the temperature range of 23–25 °C viral load reduce quickly compare to 4 °C temperature. However, study conducted in some cities by Kumar et al. reported that the transmission of coronavirus was not related with heat or UV rays (Kumar et al., 2020).

During the summer season higher amount of UV–radiations reached to the earth and it can become a critical component in stopping corona virus transmission. Regarding the overexposure of UV-rays at a meticulous position at certain time has been provided by UV index which is an international standard measurement. Depending upon the various factors such as category of organism and wavelength of UV-rays, different types of viruses for instance influenza virus, MERS and SARS can be permanently destroy or damage by UV-radiations. In the various countries like China different public transports and central banks were disinfected of coronavirus through UV-light (Dietz et al., 2020, Malateaux, 2020, Parsa et al., 2021). The UV-C light, containing wavelength range of 250–270 nm are effectively absorbed by microbial DNAs and therefore this wavelength range is deadly wavelength for microorganism. Here, nucleic acid bases absorb UV-C radiation which resulted in damage the molecular structure through photodimerization which leads to inability to replicate and inactivation of virus. The treatments of coronavirus infected humans through UV-C radiations are very rare or in very initial stage. However sanitization of N-95 masks during covid-19 pandemic was highly recommended through this technique (Peters et al., 2021, Rohit et al., 2021). Besides, the contaminated waste water containing COVID-19 virus can be treated through high temperature (greater than 56 °C) and UV C (100–280 nm) (Parsa et al., 2021). Auspiciously, UV-germicidal irradiations (UVGI) or UV-C (222 nm) is emerged as a potential contender that does not hurt human skin and eyes nevertheless various kind of study is still required to get deep into it. It has also found that UV-C is lesser carcinogenic compare to UV-B. Hence the uses of UVGI or UV (222 nm) are found to be more effective to disinfect the corona virus. Owing to carcinogenic effects corona virus on humans the use of UV-C in public areas such as railways stations, transportations, airports, malls, hospitals etc are still restricted and required some more approaches need to be included for better disinfection of corona virus (Dietz et al., 2020, Kumar et al., 2020, Welch et al., 2018).

3. UV-based disinfection system

Recently, various types of studies reported to inactivate the coronavirus from the surface of any objects. The main objective was to identify the cost effective technique to disinfect the virus at particular wavelength. As the LEDs are available in market with different wavelength which are different from conventional discharge lamp with constant wavelength emission can optimize the response and provide most appropriate wavelength (Alnaser et al., 2020, Trivellin et al., 2021).

UV light-emitting diodes (UV LEDs) based disinfections technique is becoming more popular due to precise control of radiation pattern, flexible design and reduced size of disinfector. The requirement of low voltage and short turn-on time can be also operated though solar panel and battery. UV LEDs based disinfection unit has established for more efficient for various types of pathogens. On the other hand, UV LEDs with narrow emission characteristic as shown in Fig. 2 (a), and lower wavelength leads to provided lower output. These limitations demanded the UV-LEDs with high wavelength and its efficacy towards various types of pathogens must be examined. Gerchman et al. have studied the disinfection of coronavirus through UV LED and evaluated the wavelength effects. They have investigated the sensitivity of corona virus (HCoV-OC43 used as SARS-CoV-2 surrogate) at different wavelength in human. The UV LED having peak emission at nearly 286 nm was found more effective as shown in Fig. 2(b) and can be used as useful tool for fight against coronavirus (Gerchman et al., 2020). Further, they have designed UV chip technology to test the virucidal activity on SARS-CoV-2 of a device. The obtained result showed a SARS-CoV-2 charge decline of more than 99.9% after 3 min of operation. The highest measurable attenuation of 5.7 Log (99.9998%) was calculated at an irradiation time of 10 min, for all the repetitions, regardless of direct or reflected UV radiation hitting the virus samples in the device (Messina et al., 2021). In the other study, Choi et al. have introduced UV LED irradiation robot for the disinfection of patient room after discharge of patients. They have collected 216 environmental samples from 17 rooms and found the presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA at various surface. The obtained result demonstrated that UV LED based robot is more effective in spacious area like ICU but it performance varied with small places like CTC rooms (Choi et al., 2021).

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

(a) Various emission spectrum of UV LED. (b) Dose response characteristic of the HCoV-OC43 disinfected through UV-LEDs. N signifies the virus count after the designated irradiation and N0 represent the time zero (without irradiation). Panel (a-b) are reprinted with permission from (Gerchman et al., 2020), copyright Elsevier 2020.

Guettari et al. have designed a mobile robot named I-Robot UV-C to inactive the coronavirus at various environmental surfaces. The developed i-Robot UV-C includes two lamp on the top and eight UV-C lamp on the central column. The column of the designed robot was fixed on the mobile base and also included temperature and humidity sensor, pulse motion detector sensor. The designed device disinfected 99.999% bacteria (Guettari et al., 2021). Further, Table 1 summarized the different form of UV in terms of disinfection of SARS-COV-2 with respective to dose and time duration. It is clear from the table that UV LED, UV chip, UV-A, B, and C with range of different wavelength are able to deactivate about 99% of SARS-COV-2 virus at particular UV-dose and time.

Table 1.

Different form of UV in terms of disinfection with respective dose and time duration.

Sr. No. UV Categories Time UV Dose Remarks Ref.
1. UV-LED (267 & 279 nm) 7 mJ/cm2 3-log inactivation of HCoV-OC43 (Gerchman et al., 2020)
2. UV-C (254) 9 min 1048 mJ/cm2 High infectious titer of 5 × 106 TCID50/mL was totally inactivated (Heilingloh et al., 2020)
3. UV-A (365 nm) 15 min 1048 mJ/cm2 Weak effect was observed on infectious titer of 5 × 106 TCID50/mL (Heilingloh et al., 2020)
4. UV-chip 3 min 15 mJ/cm2 The SARS-CoV-2 charge decline at 99.94% (Messina et al., 2021)
10 min 35 mJ/cm2 Highest measurable attenuation of 5.7 Log (99.9998%) (Messina et al., 2021)
5. Far UV-C (222 nm) 25 min 3 mJ/cm2 Aerosolized coronavirus 229E and OC43, respectively inactivated by almost 99.9%. (Buonanno et al., 2020)
6. UV-C (254) 2.98 s 6.556 mJ/cm2 UV Clight was able to inactivate more than 99 % of SARS-CoV-2 viral particles (Sabino et al., 2020)
7. UV-C(222 nm) 30 s 3 mJ/cm2 The obtained result exhibited a 99.7% reduction of viable SARS-CoV-2 based on the TCID 50 assay (Kitagawa et al., 2021)
8. UV-C (254 nm) 1.5 J/cm2 Efficiently deactivate the facepieces of 3 M 1860 and Moldex 1511 (Ozog et al., 2020)
9. UV-C (222 nm) 15 s 81 mJ/cm2 SARS-CoV-2 from forty-eight locations, become negative (Su et al., 2022)
10. UV-C (253.7 nm) 30 s 500 μW/cm2 Reduced SARS-CoV-2 by 10−4.9 fold (Lo et al., 2021)

Inagaki et al. demonstrated that the deep ultraviolet light-emitting diode (DUV-LED) of at wavelength of 280 ± 5 nm rapidly inactivated the SARS-CoV-2 which was collected from infected patient. For the observation of inactivation of virus through DUV-LED irradiation aliquots of 150 μL of virus stock were placed in petri dish of 60 mm and 3.75 mW/cm2 light were projected from work station of 20 mm for different times as shown in Fig. 3 (a-c). The infectious titer decrease the ratio of 87.4% was observed for 1 s irradiation which enhanced up to 99.9% for 10 s irradiation (Inagaki et al., 2020).

Fig. 3.

Fig. 3

Inhibitory result of DUV-light on SARS-CoV-2. (a) Cytopathic variation in virus infected Vero cells under different irradiation conditions including (0 s) without DUV LED –light or with DUV LED –light for 1, 10, 20, 30, 60 s and each of them corresponds to 3.75, 37.5, 75, 112.5, or 225 mJ/cm2, respectively. (b) Formation of Plaque in Vero cell. (c) Disinfection of SARS-CoV-2 though DUV-LED irradiation under different time. Panel (a-c) are reprinted with permission from (Inagaki et al., 2020).

4. Technical aspects of UV based COVID 19 dispersion mitigation equipment

Among UV light UV-A has capability to penetrate the deep layer of human skin whereas UV B and UV-C are considered as actinic (causing photochemical reactions). Recently, Doremolen et al. explored that inaerosol COVID-19 virus remain stable for 3 h. This study was based on Bayesian regression model and it was suggested that stability of virus depends on the kind of surfaces and inoculum shed. The stability was found higher on stainless steel and plastic as compared to copper and cardboard (van Doremalen et al., 2020). Therefore, mitigation technology advancement like UV based tools were designed in most of the countries but UV light source was typically based on low pressure containing mercury vapour arc lamp having wavelength of 254 nm or xenon lamp with broad spectrum. The UV-C tube also emits a considerable concentration of ozone. The germicidal effect of UV-C is already established with several germs and its use in the disinfecting of medical kits were also under process for COVID 19 virus (Hashem et al., 2019, Momattin et al., 2019, Szeto et al., 2020, Torres et al., 2020). Beside this applications, the different designs were also advanced for sanitization of currency, surface, documents, mask and PPE kit etc (Pandya et al., 2021, Ravi et al., 2021, Tiwary et al., 2021). However, these developed design technologies are able to decontaminate the assets up to certain extents but few scientific facts must be considered for effective application.

The intensity of light and contact time in between virus and UV rays are two vital parameters to denature the virus (Hamzavi et al., 2020). The distance of the inoculums from the light source is also an important parameter. Most of the study was performed to kill the virus present in aerosol. In aerosol the intensity required for different viruses are different. For example, for H1N1 influenza virus UV dose was reported 1.1 mJ/cm2 whereas, for alpha (HCoV–229E) and beta (HCoV-OC43) coronavirus required 0.56 mJ/cm2 and 0.34 mJ/cm2 respectively (Buonanno et al., 2020, McDevitt et al., 2012). The D90 dose was found 0.7 mJ/cm2in the earlier corona virus strain germicidal studies (Kowalski, 2015). These variations are due to difference in number of base pair in DNA/RNA. The pyrimidine dimer (especially thymine) is more sensitive towards photo-degradation by UV and hence DNA based viruses are more sensitive with UV-C (Lytle and Sagripanti, 2005). In these studies, the contact time is very less. But the contact time will not be common for each kind of materials such as medical kits, mobile, purse, floor etc (Huber et al., 2021, Narla et al., 2020). Moreover, the virus will denature at different contact time if it is present over the material surfaces and in aerosol. It occurred due to the surface roughness and band gap energy of the material. The transmission of any light without adsorption is only possible if material has lower band gap energy as compared to light energy. The virus may be present in between trough and nano hollow pits at the surface material. Most of the materials are opaque to UV light because of lower wavelength or higher energy. For example, among very few materials, fused quartz (Type 214) is able to transmit at least 86% of incident UV-C light (Sosnin et al., 2015). The utilization of this UV-C light is not applicable to be used in working area because of different kind of harmful effects on human cells.

5. Far UV based option

Recently, a review was published by Toress et al. enlightening the different methods opted for sanitization of accessories for COVID-19 virus (Torres et al., 2020). Briefly, authors explained UV-C (254 nm) based sanitization and their limitations. However, Far UV based techniques were excluded irrespective of the advantages over UVC. However, the study of Far UV-C is started hundred years ago but, now a days, it attracts the researcher as an option to be used for sanitization-based application instead of 254 nm based UV (Buonanno et al., 2016, Kogelschatz, 2004, Seuylemezian et al., 2021, Welch et al., 2018). Because, it is able to kill the microorganism without affecting the skin and retina of human eyes (Barnard et al., 2020, Kang and Kang, 2019, Saadati, 2016, Seuylemezian et al., 2021, Wang et al., 2010, Welch et al., 2018). Significantly, It is non mutagenic to skin cell of human (Barnard et al., 2020, Haider et al., 2020). Therefore, far UV based techniques can be used in open working area for office staff, doctors, nurses and other COVID-19 warrior. Beside this advantage there are number of advantages of the far UV excil lamp as compared to other UV, represented (Oppenländer, 2007, Oppenländer and Sosnin, 2005). Advantages of far UV excil lamp (222 nm) over UV-C (254 nm): (i) variable geometries, (ii) narrow-band emission, (iii) no IR emission, (iv) variable power adjustment, (v) mercury free system, (vi) instant start at full radiation output, (vii) long lamp lifetime (viii) electrode-less configuration.

At present, the excil-lamps are most commonly used in photo-science because, it has extensive lifetime (several thousand hours). The pressure has considerable role in the emission of radiation in excil lamp. The radiant power depends on the pressure of the gas mixture (Schitz et al., 2008). If the pressure of the gas in a bulb exceeds 20–30 kPa, than narrow band radiation emission occurred. It also depends on the nature of filled gas or mixture of gas (Oppenländer and Sosnin, 2005). The efficiency of excil lamp can be increased by optimum voltage application on discharge gap (Lomaev et al., 2002). The emission maxima of halogens and rare gases with and without mixing are represented in Table 2 . Among these radiations, KrCl based emission maxima (222 nm) have several advantages to be used over other exciplexes based emission.

Table 2.

The emission maxima from halogens with rare gases in their respective combinations (Kogelschatz, 2004, Lebedev and Pryanichnikov, 1993, Pikulev et al., 2012).

Halogen gases Rare gases
Emission maxima of pure gas Xe
Kr
Ar
Ne
He
172 nm 146 nm 126 nm 84 nm 74 nm
F 157 nm 354 nm 248 nm 193 nm 108 nm Emission maxima of mixture gas
Cl 259 nm 308 nm 222 nm 175 nm
Br 289 nm 282 nm 207 nm 165 nm
I 342 nm 253 nm 190 nm

The presented chemical reaction occurred between krypton and chlorine (Eqn. (1)), at the pressure of approximately, 0.3–0.5 atm. This reaction is termed as harpoon reaction and KrCl* molecules are produced (Zhang and Boyd, 1996, Zhuang et al., 2010). Since KrCl* molecules are unstable and after coming into ground state it emits the radiation of 222 nm (Zhang and Boyd, 1996, Zhuang et al., 2010).

Kr* + Cl2 → KrCl* + Cl (1)
KrCl* → Kr + Cl + UV radiation (222 nm) (2)

However, the life of excimer lamp is very long but the molecular Cl is incompletely recovered during the intervals between voltage pulses. Hence, the concentration of Cl is reduced by the time. After a long period, the hetero-phase chemical reaction between quartz wall and Cl resulted into degradation of quartz material. This reaction leads to the formation of chlorosiloxanes, a polymer as represented in Eqn. (3) (Zhuang et al., 2010).

nSiO2 (solid) + 2nCl (gas) → SinOnCl2n (Solid) + (n/2)O2 (3)

6. Limitations and future prospects of Hg-based UV radiation on COVID-19 evolution

UV irradiation can be deliberated as a mediation which may displace chemical treatment due to non thermal treatment. It has really a number of benefits over conventional chemical treatment like no disinfectant residuals, insignificant development of disinfection by-products (Aoyagi et al., 2011, Dotson et al., 2012, Lubello et al., 2004, Mori et al., 2007). We can use low or medium-pressure mercury lamps most commonly used as a UV source in UV disinfection methods (Beck et al., 2015, Chevremont et al., 2013a). Although, UV technology is nowadays used as surface treatment but it has number of limitations: (i) UV is not able to facilitate directly to the surface microorganisms due to the characteristic shallow penetration depth. (ii) This shadowing effect of UV radiation also dominant if located in pores or other natural irregularities of surface (Gardner and Shama, 2000, Liu et al., 2015, Shama, 2007). (iii) Fragile quartz based UV lamps have mercury content and have the risk of damaging human health and the environment (Chevremont et al., 2013b, Close et al., 2006).

In the latest literature, researchers have developed “water-assisted UV system”. This device separates and dissolves microorganisms on the sample surface via the agitation. As a result of it, all microorganisms can simply be deactivated via UV radiation whereas the sample is relocated arbitrarily to expose all surfaces to UV irradiation. This process raised UV inactivation effect (Huang and Chen, 2015, Huang and Chen, 2014, Raeiszadeh and Adeli, 2020). Such type of systems may be the path of the reduction of disinfectant effect on many surfaces from the COVOD-19 viruses. This system uses Hg-free photoluminescence technology with UV source and disinfects the samples via only the water without any sanitizer and have a great potential with respect to the conventional Hg-based UV device technology. Apart from that there is a need of number of efforts in renew such type of devices and structured by including a real agitating technology to help practical application in the current type of COVID situations.

7. Safety measures against UV-treatment

UV-light has creates numerous effects on skin may cause high risk of skin cancer and skin pigmentation. Besides, the exposure of naked eye under UV-light may lead to sever problem such as solar retinopathy, photokeratitis, retinal damage, and erythema of eyelids (Behar-Cohen et al., 2013, Ivanov et al., 2018, Izadi et al., 2018).

Hazardous UV-radiation exposure to human eye and skin is considered as direct radiation and secondary exposure are also possible due to reflection of UV-light from the surface and reached to our eye and skin. The secondary reflection of UV-ray from highly reflective surface must be critical consideration during the development of disinfection devices. For example various materials such as stainless-still, aluminium, PTFE surfaces have very high reflectance properties of 50%, 90% and 95% respectively. According to the regulations provided by various types of organizations such as European Agency for Safety and Health, American conference of governmental industrial hygienists and American cancer society, the threshold limit value is demonstrated as “effective” UV dose (irradiance × exposure time) of 3 mJcm−2 under 8 h time frame to human exposure. The used of word “effective” in the regulation is considered as the highest value of sensitivity of human eye that was nearly obtained as 270 nm. This presented wavelength is considered as a reference wavelength to know the biological response of sample under different wavelengths condition. The exposure of UV-radiations to human eye and skin could be reduced with the use of some UV protected goggles and gloves, development of UV protected shield for prevent the exposure (Raeiszadeh and Adeli, 2020).

Although the developer of UV-based disinfector provides all the safety measures, the ultimate goal of success disinfection can be only achieved by an appropriate use of device from the user side. For instance, a person is handling the UV-based disinfector device so he must be aware about the safety measures such as any kind of hand sanitization cannot be done by it, how long and from what distance a surface or object can be irradiated. There providing a comprehensive manual from manufacturer and appropriate knowledge of given manual and handling protocol form user side must be required for the success of UV-based disinfections of coronavirus. The formation of ozone during air disinfection is recognized as one of the crucial problem associated with UV disinfection. The O3 generation is common phenomena occurred with the reaction of O2 with UV rays. However, the design, power and operation time of UV lamps significantly affect O3 generation. It can be reduced by using particular wavelength (Fig. 4 (a, b)) and the technology available such as activated carbon filters, tightly enclosing of lamp with ozone resistant material, ozone filters, particular wavelength filter of UV radiation etc. (Claus, 2021, Salvermoser et al., 2008). The O3 generation simultaneously accompanied with its decay, hence it can be reduced in open area because natural half-life of O3 is reported between 1 and 3 days (Claus, 2021, Koller, 1945). However, Welch et al. reported the formation of ozone was less than 0.005 ppm for far UV C (222 nm) and concentration was not up to the level which can offer antimicrobial effect (Chapman, 1930, Raeiszadeh and Adeli, 2020, Welch et al., 2018). Finally, the ozone formation also must be required to consider during development and use of UV-based disinfection system.

Fig. 4.

Fig. 4

Oxygen absorption with different wavelength of UV. (b) The plot of the spectral power distribution of a typical KrCl lamp in semi logarithmic scale. Panel (a-b) are reprinted with permission from (Claus, 2021), copyright John Wiley and Sons 2021.

8. Conclusion

The capabilities of UV radiations to check the transmission of the Covid-19 virus are well established. In terms of harmful impact on human skin cells and retina from UV-C (254 nm), open area sanitization is quite possible by using far UV-C (222 nm) based technology. It can be used for the sanitization and degradation of microorganisms present in aerosol during the working condition. It is advantageous over mercury-based UV because Kr and Cl are used for UV-C (222 nm), which is non-polluting inert and halogen gas respectively. Hence, far UV-C-based applications instead of higher wavelength-based UV-C overall reduce the hazardous and radiation-based health impact. The other application can also be developed by exploring its different impacts on several microorganisms. The utilization of this technology will also indirectly reduce the use of UV-C (254 nm) based ozone emission and overall reduce air pollution. The various efforts are still required to be applied to achieve safe disinfection from UV light that will protect human life and the surrounding ecosystem.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Ashutosh Kumar: Writing – original draft, Visualization, Formal analysis. Abhishek Raj: Writing – original draft, Visualization, Formal analysis. Ankit Gupta: Conceptualization, Formal analysis. Sneha Gautam: Conceptualization, Formal analysis. Manish Kumar: Conceptualization, Formal analysis. Hemant Bherwani: Conceptualization, Formal analysis. Avneesh Anshul: Conceptualization, Formal analysis.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgments

Acknowledgements

Authors thankfully acknowledge the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), India, and its constituent laboratory CSIR-National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (CSIR-NEERI), Nagpur to support the research. One of the authors (Abhishek Raj) would like to thank CSIR-HRDG, New Delhi, for research support.

References

  1. Abuga K., Nyamweya N. Alcohol-based hand sanitizers in COVID-19 prevention: a multidimensional perspective. Pharmacy. 2021;9:64. doi: 10.3390/pharmacy9010064. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Alnaser, W.E., Ghanem, A.Z., Alnaser, N.W., Manaa, H., Alaraibi, Q., Alshaikh, F., 2020. Do UV LED Devices Immolate SARS-CoV2? Health (Irvine. Calif). 12, 1445–1456. https://doi.org/10.4236/health.2020.1211105
  3. Andrews N., Stowe J., Kirsebom F., Toffa S., Sachdeva R., Gower C., Ramsay M., Bernal J.L. Effectiveness of COVID-19 booster vaccines against covid-19 related symptoms, hospitalisation and death in England. Nat. Med. 2022 doi: 10.1038/s41591-022-01699-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Aoyagi Y., Takeuchi M., Yoshida K., Kurouchi M., Yasui N., Kamiko N., Araki T., Nanishi Y. Inactivation of Bacterial Viruses in Water Using Deep Ultraviolet Semiconductor Light-Emitting Diode. J. Environ. Eng. 2011;137:1215–1218. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)EE.1943-7870.0000442. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  5. Arellano-Cotrina J.J., Marengo-Coronel N., Atoche-Socola K.J., Peña-Soto C., Arriola-Guillén L.E. Effectiveness and Recommendations for the Use of Dental Masks in the Prevention of COVID-19: A Literature Review. Disaster Med. Public Health Prep. 2021;15:e43–e48. doi: 10.1017/dmp.2020.255. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Arora A.S., Rajput H., Changotra R. Current perspective of COVID-19 spread across South Korea: exploratory data analysis and containment of the pandemic. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2021;23:6553–6563. doi: 10.1007/s10668-020-00883-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Bai Y., Yao L., Wei T., Tian F., Jin D.-Y., Chen L., Wang M. Presumed Asymptomatic Carrier Transmission of COVID-19. JAMA. 2020;323:1406. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.2565. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Barnard I.R.M., Eadie E., Wood K. Further evidence that far-UVC for disinfection is unlikely to cause erythema or pre-mutagenic DNA lesions in skin. Photodermatol. Photoimmunol. Photomed. 2020;36:476–477. doi: 10.1111/phpp.12580. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Beck S.E., Wright H.B., Hargy T.M., Larason T.C., Linden K.G. Action spectra for validation of pathogen disinfection in medium-pressure ultraviolet (UV) systems. Water Res. 2015;70:27–37. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2014.11.028. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Behar-Cohen F., Baillet D.A., Krutmann J., Garcia P., Reme C., Wolffsohn O.G. Ultraviolet damage to the eye revisited: eye-sun protection factor (E-SPF®), a new ultraviolet protection label for eyewear. Clin. Ophthalmol. 2013;87 doi: 10.2147/OPTH.S46189. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Bherwani H., Indorkar T., Sangamnere R., Gupta A., Anshul A., Nair M.M., Singh A., Kumar R. Investigation of Adoption and Cognizance of Urban Green Spaces in India: Post COVID-19 Scenarios. Curr. Res. Environ. Sustain. 2021;3 doi: 10.1016/j.crsust.2021.100088. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Biasin M., Bianco A., Pareschi G., Cavalleri A., Cavatorta C., Fenizia C., Galli P., Lessio L., Lualdi M., Tombetti E., Ambrosi A., Redaelli E.M.A., Saulle I., Trabattoni D., Zanutta A., Clerici M. UV-C irradiation is highly effective in inactivating SARS-CoV-2 replication. Sci. Rep. 2021;11:6260. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-85425-w. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Buonanno M., Stanislauskas M., Ponnaiya B., Bigelow A.W., Randers-Pehrson G., Xu Y., Shuryak I., Smilenov L., Owens D.M., Brenner D.J. 207-nm UV Light—A Promising Tool for Safe Low-Cost Reduction of Surgical Site Infections. II: In-Vivo Safety Studies. PLoS One. 2016;11 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0138418. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Buonanno M., Welch D., Shuryak I., Brenner D.J. Far-UVC light (222 nm) efficiently and safely inactivates airborne human coronaviruses. Sci. Rep. 2020;10:10285. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-67211-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Cao Y., Li H. Toward controlling of a pandemic: How self-control ability influences willingness to take the COVID-19 vaccine. Pers. Individ. Dif. 2022;188 doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2021.111447. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Changotra R., Rajput H., Rajput P., Gautam S., Arora A.S. Largest democracy in the world crippled by COVID-19: current perspective and experience from India. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2021;23:6623–6641. doi: 10.1007/s10668-020-00963-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Chapman S. XXXV. On ozone and atomic oxygen in the upper atmosphere. London, Edinburgh. Dublin Philos. Mag. J. Sci. 1930;10:369–383. doi: 10.1080/14786443009461588. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  18. Chevremont A.-C., Boudenne J.-L., Coulomb B., Farnet A.-M. Fate of carbamazepine and anthracene in soils watered with UV-LED treated wastewaters. Water Res. 2013;47:6574–6584. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2013.08.031. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Chevremont A.-C., Boudenne J.-L., Coulomb B., Farnet A.-M. Impact of watering with UV-LED-treated wastewater on microbial and physico-chemical parameters of soil. Water Res. 2013;47:1971–1982. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2013.01.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Choi H.K., Cui C., Seok H., Bae J.-Y., Jeon J.H., Lee G.E., Choi W.S., Park M.-S., Park D.W. Feasibility of ultraviolet light-emitting diode irradiation robot for terminal decontamination of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patient rooms. Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 2021;1–6 doi: 10.1017/ice.2021.95. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Claus H. Ozone Generation by Ultraviolet Lamps †. Photochem. Photobiol. 2021;97:471–476. doi: 10.1111/php.13391. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Close J., Ip J., Lam K.H. Water recycling with PV-powered UV-LED disinfection. Renew. Energy. 2006;31:1657–1664. doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2005.08.034. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Coccia M. Optimal levels of vaccination to reduce COVID-19 infected individuals and deaths: A global analysis. Environ. Res. 2022;204 doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2021.112314. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Davies H., Bignell G.R., Cox C., Stephens P., Edkins S., Clegg S., Teague J., Woffendin H., Garnett M.J., Bottomley W., Davis N., Dicks E., Ewing R., Floyd Y., Gray K., Hall S., Hawes R., Hughes J., Kosmidou V., Menzies A., Mould C., Parker A., Stevens C., Watt S., Hooper S., Wilson R., Jayatilake H., Gusterson B.A., Cooper C., Shipley J., Hargrave D., Pritchard-Jones K., Maitland N., Chenevix-Trench G., Riggins G.J., Bigner D.D., Palmieri G., Cossu A., Flanagan A., Nicholson A., Ho J.W.C., Leung S.Y., Yuen S.T., Weber B.L., Seigler H.F., Darrow T.L., Paterson H., Marais R., Marshall C.J., Wooster R., Stratton M.R., Futreal P.A. Mutations of the BRAF gene in human cancer. Nature. 2002;417:949–954. doi: 10.1038/nature00766. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Dietz L., Horve P.F., Coil D.A., Fretz M., Eisen J.A., Van Den Wymelenberg K. 2019 Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic: built environment considerations to reduce transmission. mSystems. 2020;5 doi: 10.1128/mSystems.00245-20. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Dotson A.D., Rodriguez C.E., Linden K.G. UV disinfection implementation status in US water treatment plants. J. Am. Water Works Assoc. 2012;104:E318–E324. doi: 10.5942/jawwa.2012.104.0075. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. Ferdib-Al-Islam, Ghosh, M., 2022. COV-Doctor: A Machine Learning Based Scheme for Early Identification of COVID-19 in Patients. pp. 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-6636-0_4
  28. Gao Z., Xu Y., Sun C., Wang X., Guo Y., Qiu S., Ma K. A systematic review of asymptomatic infections with COVID-19. J. Microbiol. Immunol. Infect. 2021;54:12–16. doi: 10.1016/j.jmii.2020.05.001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Gardner D.W.M., Shama G. Modeling UV-Induced Inactivation of Microorganisms on Surfaces. J. Food Prot. 2000;63:63–70. doi: 10.4315/0362-028X-63.1.63. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Gerchman Y., Mamane H., Friedman N., Mandelboim M. UV-LED disinfection of Coronavirus: Wavelength effect. J. Photochem. Photobiol. B Biol. 2020;212 doi: 10.1016/j.jphotobiol.2020.112044. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Ghafoor D., Khan Z., Khan A., Ualiyeva D., Zaman N. Excessive use of disinfectants against COVID-19 posing a potential threat to living beings. Curr. Res. Toxicol. 2021;2:159–168. doi: 10.1016/j.crtox.2021.02.008. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Gidari A., Sabbatini S., Bastianelli S., Pierucci S., Busti C., Bartolini D., Stabile A.M., Monari C., Galli F., Rende M., Cruciani G., Francisci D. SARS-CoV-2 Survival on Surfaces and the Effect of UV-C Light. Viruses. 2021;13:408. doi: 10.3390/v13030408. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Glass L.T., Schlachta C.M., Hawel J.D., Elnahas A.I., Alkhamesi N.A. Cross-border healthcare: A review and applicability to North America during COVID-19. Heal. Policy OPEN. 2022;3 doi: 10.1016/j.hpopen.2021.100064. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Golin A.P., Choi D., Ghahary A. Hand sanitizers: A review of ingredients, mechanisms of action, modes of delivery, and efficacy against coronaviruses. Am. J. Infect. Control. 2020;48:1062–1067. doi: 10.1016/j.ajic.2020.06.182. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Guettari M., Gharbi I., Hamza S. UVC disinfection robot. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021;28:40394–40399. doi: 10.1007/s11356-020-11184-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Hamzavi I.H., Lyons A.B., Kohli I., Narla S., Parks-Miller A., Gelfand J.M., Lim H.W., Ozog D.M. Ultraviolet germicidal irradiation: Possible method for respirator disinfection to facilitate reuse during the COVID-19 pandemic. J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 2020;82:1511–1512. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2020.03.085. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Hashem A.M., Hassan A.M., Tolah A.M., Alsaadi M.A., Abunada Q., Damanhouri G.A., El-Kafrawy S.A., Picard-Maureau M., Azhar E.I., Hindawi S.I. Amotosalen and ultraviolet A light efficiently inactivate MERS-coronavirus in human platelet concentrates. Transfus. Med. 2019;29:434–441. doi: 10.1111/tme.12638. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Heilingloh C.S., Aufderhorst U.W., Schipper L., Dittmer U., Witzke O., Yang D., Zheng X., Sutter K., Trilling M., Alt M., Steinmann E., Krawczyk A. Susceptibility of SARS-CoV-2 to UV irradiation. Am. J. Infect. Control. 2020;48:1273–1275. doi: 10.1016/j.ajic.2020.07.031. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Huang Y., Chen H. Inactivation of Escherichia coli O157:H7, Salmonella and human norovirus surrogate on artificially contaminated strawberries and raspberries by water-assisted pulsed light treatment. Food Res. Int. 2015;72:1–7. doi: 10.1016/j.foodres.2015.03.013. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  40. Huang Y., Chen H. A novel water-assisted pulsed light processing for decontamination of blueberries. Food Microbiol. 2014;40:1–8. doi: 10.1016/j.fm.2013.11.017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Huber T., Goldman O., Epstein A.E., Stella G., Sakmar T.P. Principles and practice for SARS-CoV-2 decontamination of N95 masks with UV-C. Biophys. J. 2021;120:2927–2942. doi: 10.1016/j.bpj.2021.02.039. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Imran Haider, Asad Ali, Tooba Arifeen, and A.S.H., 2020. Far UV-C Lights and Fiber Optics Induced Selective Far UV-C treatment against COVID-19 for Fatality-Survival tradeoff. https://doi.org/10.36227/techrxiv.12195870.v1
  43. Inagaki H., Saito A., Sugiyama H., Okabayashi T., Fujimoto S. Rapid inactivation of SARS-CoV-2 with deep-UV LED irradiation. Emerg. Microbes Infect. 2020;9:1744–1747. doi: 10.1080/22221751.2020.1796529. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Ivanov I.V., Mappes T., Schaupp P., Lappe C., Wahl S. Ultraviolet radiation oxidative stress affects eye health. J. Biophotonics. 2018;11 doi: 10.1002/jbio.201700377. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Izadi M., Jonaidi-Jafari N., Pourazizi M., Alemzadeh-Ansari M., Hoseinpourfard M. Photokeratitis induced by ultraviolet radiation in travelers: A major health problem. J. Postgrad. Med. 2018;64:40. doi: 10.4103/jpgm.JPGM_52_17. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Jamrozik E., Selgelid M.J. COVID-19 human challenge studies: ethical issues. Lancet Infect. Dis. 2020;20:e198–e203. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30438-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Kang J.-W., Kang D.-H. Decontamination Effect of the Spindle and 222-Nanometer Krypton-Chlorine Excimer Lamp Combination against Pathogens on Apples (Malus domestica Borkh.) and Bell Peppers (Capsicum annuum L.) Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2019;85 doi: 10.1128/AEM.00006-19. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Khan M., Adil S.F., Alkhathlan H.Z., Tahir M.N., Saif S., Khan M., Khan S.T. COVID-19: a global challenge with old history, epidemiology and progress so far. Molecules. 2020;26:39. doi: 10.3390/molecules26010039. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Kitagawa H., Nomura T., Nazmul T., Omori K., Shigemoto N., Sakaguchi T., Ohge H. Effectiveness of 222-nm ultraviolet light on disinfecting SARS-CoV-2 surface contamination. Am. J. Infect. Control. 2021;49:299–301. doi: 10.1016/j.ajic.2020.08.022. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Kogelschatz, U., 2004. Excimer lamps: history, discharge physics, and industrial applications. Atomic and Molecular Pulsed Lasers, in: Tarasenko, V.F. (Ed.), . pp. 272–286. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.563006
  51. Koller L.R. The production and decomposition of ozone by low pressure mercury vapor lamps. J. Appl. Phys. 1945;16:816–820. doi: 10.1063/1.1707545. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  52. Kowalski, W.J., 2015. SARS Coronavirus UV Susceptibility.
  53. Kumar M., Kuroda K., Dhangar K. The most eagerly awaited summer of the Anthropocene: A perspective of SARS-CoV-2 decay and seasonal change. Groundw. Sustain. Dev. 2020;11 doi: 10.1016/j.gsd.2020.100400. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Liu C., Li X., Chen H. Application of water-assisted ultraviolet light processing on the inactivation of murine norovirus on blueberries. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2015;214:18–23. doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2015.07.023. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Lo C.-W., Matsuura R., Iimura K., Wada S., Shinjo A., Benno Y., Nakagawa M., Takei M., Aida Y. UVC disinfects SARS-CoV-2 by induction of viral genome damage without apparent effects on viral morphology and proteins. Sci. Rep. 2021;11:13804. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-93231-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Lomaev M.I., Tarasenko V.F., Shitts D.V. An effective high-power KrCl excimer barrier-discharge lamp. Tech. Phys. Lett. 2002;28:33–35. doi: 10.1134/1.1448635. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  57. Lubello C., Gori R., Nicese F.P., Ferrini F. Municipal-treated wastewater reuse for plant nurseries irrigation. Water Res. 2004;38:2939–2947. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2004.03.037. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Lytle C.D., Sagripanti J.-L. Predicted Inactivation of Viruses of Relevance to Biodefense by Solar Radiation. J. Virol. 2005;79:14244–14252. doi: 10.1128/JVI.79.22.14244-14252.2005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Mahanta N., Saxena V., Pandey L.M., Batra P., Dixit U.S. Performance study of a sterilization box using a combination of heat and ultraviolet light irradiation for the prevention of COVID-19. Environ. Res. 2021;198 doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2021.111309. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Malateaux, G., 2020. UV Irradiation as a Disinfection Method to Reduce Covid-19 Cross-Contamination in Dentistry: A Scoping Review. Online J. Dent. Oral Heal. 3. https://doi.org/10.33552/OJDOH.2020.03.000552
  61. Mallhi T.H., Khan Y.H., Alotaibi N.H., Alzarea A.I. Walkthrough Sanitization Gates for COVID-19: A Preventive Measure or Public Health Concern? Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 2020;103:581–582. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.20-0533. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. McDevitt J.J., Rudnick S.N., Radonovich L.J. Aerosol Susceptibility of Influenza Virus to UV-C Light. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2012;78:1666–1669. doi: 10.1128/AEM.06960-11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Mecenas, P., Bastos, R.T. da R.M., Vallinoto, A.C.R., Normando, D., 2020. Effects of temperature and humidity on the spread of COVID-19: A systematic review. PLoS One 15, e0238339. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238339 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  64. Memarzadeh F., Olmsted R.N., Bartley J.M. Applications of ultraviolet germicidal irradiation disinfection in health care facilities: Effective adjunct, but not stand-alone technology. Am. J. Infect. Control. 2010;38:S13–S24. doi: 10.1016/j.ajic.2010.04.208. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. Messina G., Della Camera A., Ferraro P., Amodeo D., Corazza A., Nante N., Cevenini G. An Emerging Innovative UV Disinfection Technology (Part II): Virucide Activity on SARS-CoV-2. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2021;18:3873. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18083873. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  66. Momattin H., Al-Ali A.Y., Al-Tawfiq J.A. A Systematic Review of therapeutic agents for the treatment of the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) Travel Med. Infect. Dis. 2019;30:9–18. doi: 10.1016/j.tmaid.2019.06.012. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. Mori M., Hamamoto A., Takahashi A., Nakano M., Wakikawa N., Tachibana S., Ikehara T., Nakaya Y., Akutagawa M., Kinouchi Y. Development of a new water sterilization device with a 365 nm UV-LED. Med. Biol. Eng. Comput. 2007;45:1237–1241. doi: 10.1007/s11517-007-0263-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  68. Narla S., Lyons A.B., Kohli I., Torres A.E., Parks-Miller A., Ozog D.M., Hamzavi I.H., Lim H.W. The importance of the minimum dosage necessary for UVC decontamination of N95 respirators during the COVID-19 pandemic. Photodermatol. Photoimmunol. Photomed. 2020;36:324–325. doi: 10.1111/phpp.12562. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  69. Oppenländer T. Mercury-free sources of VUV/UV radiation: application of modern excimer lamps (excilamps) for water and air treatment. J. Environ. Eng. Sci. 2007;6:253–264. doi: 10.1139/s06-059. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  70. Ozog D.M., Sexton J.Z., Narla S., Pretto-Kernahan C.D., Mirabelli C., Lim H.W., Hamzavi I.H., Tibbetts R.J., Mi Q.-S. The effect of ultraviolet C radiation against different N95 respirators inoculated with SARS-CoV-2. Int. J. Infect. Dis. 2020;100:224–229. doi: 10.1016/j.ijid.2020.08.077. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  71. Lebedev P.K., Pryanichnikov V.I. Present and future production of xenon and krypton in the former USSR region and some physical properties of these gases. Nucl. Instruments Methods Phys. Res. Sect. A Accel. Spectrometers. 1993;327:222–226. [Google Scholar]
  72. Pandya S., Sur A., Solke N. COVIDSAVIOR: A Novel Sensor-Fusion and Deep Learning Based Framework for Virus Outbreaks. Front. Public Heal. 2021;9 doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2021.797808. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  73. Parsa S.M., Momeni S., Hemmat A., Afrand M. Effectiveness of solar water disinfection in the era of COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic for contaminated water/wastewater treatment considering UV effect and temperature. J. Water Process Eng. 2021;43 doi: 10.1016/j.jwpe.2021.102224. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  74. Pensini P., McMullen J. Anthropomorphising nature in times of crisis: A serial mediation model from connectedness to nature via anthropomorphism on support for COVID-19 travel restrictions. Curr. Res. Ecol. Soc. Psychol. 2022;3 doi: 10.1016/j.cresp.2021.100024. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  75. Peters A., Palomo R., Ney H., Lotfinejad N., Zingg W., Parneix P., Pittet D. The COVID-19 pandemic and N95 masks: reusability and decontamination methods. Antimicrob. Resist. Infect. Control. 2021;10:83. doi: 10.1186/s13756-021-00921-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  76. Pikulev A.A., Tsvetkov V.M., Sosnin E.A., Panarin V.A., Tarasenko V.F. Studying the thermodynamic processes in excilamps by the pressure jump method (Review) Instruments Exp. Tech. 2012;55:513–521. doi: 10.1134/S0020441212040136. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  77. Raeiszadeh M., Adeli B. A Critical Review on Ultraviolet Disinfection Systems against COVID-19 Outbreak: Applicability, Validation, and Safety Considerations. ACS Photonics. 2020;7:2941–2951. doi: 10.1021/acsphotonics.0c01245. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  78. Rajput H., Changotra R., Rajput P., Gautam S., Gollakota A.R.K., Arora A.S. A shock like no other: coronavirus rattles commodity markets. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2021;23:6564–6575. doi: 10.1007/s10668-020-00934-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  79. Ravi, P., Lawera, N., Rybicki, F.J., 2021. Literature and Media-Based Review of Personal Protective Equipment 3D Printing Efforts During COVID-19, in: 3D Printing in Medicine and Its Role in the COVID-19 Pandemic. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp. 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-61993-0_2
  80. Rohit A., Rajasekaran S., Shenoy S., Rai S., Iddya K., Dorairajan S.K. Reprocessing of N95 masks: Experience from a resource-limited setting in India. Int. J. Infect. Dis. 2021;104:41–44. doi: 10.1016/j.ijid.2020.12.070. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  81. Saadati, S., 2016. Study of ultraviolet C light penetration and damage in skin. Medical Physicist Programme. University of Gothenburg.
  82. Sabino C.P., Sellera F.P., Sales-Medina D.F., Machado R.R.G., Durigon E.L., Freitas-Junior L.H., Ribeiro M.S. UV-C (254 nm) lethal doses for SARS-CoV-2. Photodiagnosis Photodyn. Ther. 2020;32 doi: 10.1016/j.pdpdt.2020.101995. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  83. Salvermoser M., Murnick D.E., Kogelschatz U. Influence of Water Vapor on Photochemical Ozone Generation with Efficient 172 nm Xenon Excimer Lamps. Ozone Sci. Eng. 2008;30:228–237. doi: 10.1080/01919510802070611. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  84. Schitz D.V., Erofeev M.V., Skakun V.S., Tarasenko V.F., Avdeev S.M. Air-cooled barrier-discharge excilamps. Instruments. Exp. Tech. 2008;51:886–889. doi: 10.1134/S0020441208060195. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  85. Seuylemezian A., Buonanno M., Guan L., Brenner D.J., Welch D. Far-UVC light as a new tool to reduce microbial burden during spacecraft assembly. Adv. Sp. Res. 2021;67:496–503. doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2020.08.037. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  86. Shama G. Process challenges in applying low doses of ultraviolet light to fresh produce for eliciting beneficial hormetic responses. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2007;44:1–8. doi: 10.1016/j.postharvbio.2006.11.004. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  87. Shin H., Nicolau J.L., Kang J., Sharma A., Lee H. Travel decision determinants during and after COVID-19: The role of tourist trust, travel constraints, and attitudinal factors. Tour. Manag. 2022;88 doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2021.104428. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  88. Sosnin E.A., Avdeev S.M., Tarasenko V.F., Skakun V.S., Schitz D.V. KrCl barrier-discharge excilamps: Energy characteristics and applications (Review) Instruments Exp. Tech. 2015;58:309–318. doi: 10.1134/S0020441215030124. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  89. Stawicki, S.P., 2020. Could tracheo-bronchial ultraviolet C irradiation be a valuable adjunct to the management of severe COVID-19 pulmonary infections. Int. J. Acad. Med.
  90. Su W.-L., Lin C.-P., Huang H.-C., Wu Y.-K., Yang M.-C., Chiu S.-K., Peng M.-Y., Chan M.-C., Chao Y.-C. Clinical application of 222 nm wavelength ultraviolet C irradiation on SARS CoV-2 contaminated environments. J. Microbiol. Immunol. Infect. 2022 doi: 10.1016/j.jmii.2021.12.005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  91. Szeto W., Yam W.C., Huang H., Leung D.Y.C. The efficacy of vacuum-ultraviolet light disinfection of some common environmental pathogens. BMC Infect. Dis. 2020;20:127. doi: 10.1186/s12879-020-4847-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  92. Oppenländer T., Sosnin E. Mercury-free Vacuum-(VUV) and UV Excilamps: Lamps of the Future. IUVA NEWS. 2005;7:16–20. [Google Scholar]
  93. Tiwary A., Bhattacharyya S., Matouq M. Reducing non-residential asset sanitisation water footprint for improved public health in water-deficient cities. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2021;75 doi: 10.1016/j.scs.2021.103268. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  94. Torres A.E., Lyons A.B., Narla S., Kohli I., Parks-Miller A., Ozog D., Hamzavi I.H., Lim H.W. Ultraviolet-C and other methods of decontamination of filtering facepiece N-95 respirators during the COVID-19 pandemic. Photochem. Photobiol. Sci. 2020;19:746–751. doi: 10.1039/D0PP00131G. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  95. Trivellin N., Piva F., Fiorimonte D., Buffolo M., De Santi C., Orlandi V.T., Dughiero F., Meneghesso G., Zanoni E., Meneghini M. UV-Based Technologies for SARS-CoV2 Inactivation: Status and Perspectives. Electronics. 2021;10:1703. doi: 10.3390/electronics10141703. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  96. Türsen Ü., Türsen B., Lotti T. Coronavirus-days ın dermatology. Dermatol. Ther. 2020;33 doi: 10.1111/dth.13438. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  97. Velraj R., Haghighat F. The contribution of dry indoor built environment on the spread of Coronavirus: Data from various Indian states. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2020;62 doi: 10.1016/j.scs.2020.102371. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  98. van Doremalen N., Bushmaker T., Morris D.H., Holbrook M.G., Gamble A., Williamson B.N., Tamin A., Harcourt J.L., Thornburg N.J., Gerber S.I., Lloyd-Smith J.O., de Wit E., Munster V.J. Aerosol and Surface Stability of SARS-CoV-2 as Compared with SARS-CoV-1. N. Engl. J. Med. 2020;382:1564–1567. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc2004973. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  99. Wang, D., Oppenländer, T., El-Din, M.G., Bolton, J.R., 2010. Comparison of the Disinfection Effects of Vacuum-UV (VUV) and UV Light on Bacillus subtilis Spores in Aqueous Suspensions at 172, 222 and 254 nm. Photochem. Photobiol. 86, 176–181. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-1097.2009.00640.x [DOI] [PubMed]
  100. Wang L.-Y., Chien T.-W., Lin J.-K., Chou W. Vaccination associated with gross domestic product and fewer deaths in countries and regions. Medicine (Baltimore). 2022;101 doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000028619. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  101. Welch D., Buonanno M., Grilj V., Shuryak I., Crickmore C., Bigelow A.W., Randers-Pehrson G., Johnson G.W., Brenner D.J. Far-UVC light: A new tool to control the spread of airborne-mediated microbial diseases. Sci. Rep. 2018;8:2752. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-21058-w. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  102. Yang P., Wang X. COVID-19: a new challenge for human beings. Cell. Mol. Immunol. 2020;17:555–557. doi: 10.1038/s41423-020-0407-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  103. Yu X., Yang R. COVID-19 transmission through asymptomatic carriers is a challenge to containment. Influenza Other Respi. Viruses. 2020;14:474–475. doi: 10.1111/irv.12743. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  104. Zhang J., Boyd I.W. Efficient excimer ultraviolet sources from a dielectric barrier discharge in rare-gas/halogen mixtures. J. Appl. Phys. 1996;80:633–638. doi: 10.1063/1.362871. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  105. Zhang J., Du Y., Bai L., Pu J., Jin C., Yang J., Guo Y. An Asymptomatic Patient with COVID-19. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2020;201:1428–1429. doi: 10.1164/rccm.202002-0241IM. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  106. Zhou R., Li F., Chen F., Liu H., Zheng J., Lei C., Wu X. Viral dynamics in asymptomatic patients with COVID-19. Int. J. Infect. Dis. 2020;96:288–290. doi: 10.1016/j.ijid.2020.05.030. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  107. Zhuang X., Han Q., Zhang H., Feng X., Roth M., Rosier O., Zhu S., Zhang S. The efficiency of coaxial KrCl * excilamps. J. Phys. D. Appl. Phys. 2010;43 doi: 10.1088/0022-3727/43/20/205202. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Gondwana Research are provided here courtesy of Elsevier

RESOURCES