←back to thread

118 points venkii | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
mahrain ◴[] No.45343382[source]
I have worked on such systems at Signify: There are numerous barriers to wider adoption except for very high risk situations. For instance: there have yet to be lawsuits to determine the risk of exposing people to UV. As you see in the comments below, any "UV" is considered dangerous by people not aware of the biological effects of various wavelenghts.

Besides this, excimer lamps have a low expected lifetime, of both the light source as well as the filter due to the high energy in the UV photons. This makes replacement (and maintenance cost) a real risk. This could be remedied by similar wavelength LEDs from companies like CrystalIS but these are expensive and very low power (only work germicidal on a short distance).

Prof. Brenner at Columbia University has first foreseen applications of 222nm in operating rooms, to prevent infection during surgery.

On the whole, it would need significant investment in both research, certification and risk analysis for this to become commercially viable, so while some of the technology is there, the market demand so far just is not -- post-pandemic.

replies(4): >>45343507 #>>45343550 #>>45344311 #>>45345213 #
modeless ◴[] No.45343550[source]
Yeah I saw a lamp for this and it had a proximity sensor to prevent overexposure. There's no way I'm buying a lamp that needs that to be safe. Especially if it's expensive and only lasts a year or two.
replies(1): >>45346204 #
1. OutOfHere ◴[] No.45346204[source]
I am not convinced that far-UVC is safe for the skin and eyes. I suspect it will cause red spots on skin.

I would rather use it in an enclosed apparatus that has a fan to change its air, but only while measuring the ozone level sensitively.