Source: COVID’s Collateral Damage: Germicidal Lamps May Damage Corneas: SF STAT!: South Florida Hospital News
Since the pandemic flared in North America, I’ve had quite a few discussions about UV disinfection with media, companies, hospital staff, and various other interested people. There are two major concerns I always try to emphasize:
- UV can be an effective disinfection tool IF and ONLY IF it’s used properly (distance, time, power) and at the correct wavelengths (e.g. UV in sunlight, not so good); and
- UV disinfection is not safe for the “amateur” user unless it’s been properly designed and engineered into a system that prevents people from exposing their eyes or skin.
Unfortunately, there are many products now out on the market, widely available to the public, that don’t meet concern #1, or #2, or even both! Concern #1 is not so bad for the public. If someone thinks they are disinfecting something but it actually is doing nothing, then it’s more a waste of time and money than a safety issue (as long as they don’t ignore other infection prevention suggestions). Concern #2 (safety) however, is a more serious issue. And now in the media (as in the link above), we start to see reports of people with eye damage due to these inappropriate (and potentially illegal) devices. This is sad, and has potentially long-term consequences for those individuals.
My recommendation: don’t mess around with UV disinfection unless you really know what you are doing. It’s fine in commercial, hospital, and other installations where it has been properly done. I don’t recommend it for home use in rooms or those hand-held devices. For those who contact me, I’m usually happy to provide quick initial impressions on UV devices and their practicality and safety.
2 thoughts on “COVID’s Collateral Damage: Germicidal Lamps May Damage Corneas: South Florida Hospital News”
Will you please look at aerobiotix.com and offer your comments.
That’s interesting, I hadn’t run across that particular device before. I don’t see anything alarming or obviously questionable about it. In principle the design should work, especially since it has a HEPA filter that will remove stuff that the UV doesn’t get, and the UV portion is sealed within the device so it should be safe from a UV exposure point of view. This is not an endorsement, but at first glance I don’t see any red flags.