Device uses uv light to neutralize virus under mask

[Panina]

Thinking how safe is this? Battery pack?

Oracle Lighting Develops Virus Neutralizing UV-Light Face Mask for Consumer / Medical Use

METAIRE, LA (05.15.2020) – Oracle Lighting has revealed details on the new Antimicrobial Irradiation Respirator (aka AIR device), a patent-pending wearable UVGI face mask sanitizer system. The AIR …

the12voltnews.wordpress.com

Device would potentially neutralize coronavirus using UV light

Oracle Lighting has developed a virus neutralizing, UV face mask for consumer and medical use.

www.foxnews.com

 

[Steve Fatula]

I would think it's safe. I use UV light to disinfect my phone, ring, keys, etc after I get back from somewhere. I wash my cloth masks using the sanitize cycle on my washer, it will kill it.

https://www.digitaltrends.com/health-fitness/how-to-clean-and-sterilize-your-homemade-face-mask/

 

[Panina]

I would think it's safe. I use UV light to disinfect my phone, ring, keys, etc after I get back from somewhere. I wash my cloth masks using the sanitize cycle on my washer, it will kill it.

https://www.digitaltrends.com/health-fitness/how-to-clean-and-sterilize-your-homemade-face-mask/

Which brand model UV light do you have? Time for me to get one.

 

[Steve Fatula]

Which brand model UV light do you have? Time for me to get one.

Here goes the political discussion, lol. I merely bought one from China on Amazon. Look for "UV cell phone sanitizer", don't think mine even has a model. It accepts anything small really. The advantage is unlike wiping it, it cleans even inside the ports since light can penetrate small openings (as can a virus).

 

[VacationForever]

I would think it's safe. I use UV light to disinfect my phone, ring, keys, etc after I get back from somewhere. I wash my cloth masks using the sanitize cycle on my washer, it will kill it.

https://www.digitaltrends.com/health-fitness/how-to-clean-and-sterilize-your-homemade-face-mask/

Do you know if it carries any health risk to the person who is in close proximity?

 

[Steve Fatula]

Do you know if it carries any health risk to the person who is in close proximity?

I don't know for sure, no. But it's a case, so can't see how it would pose a health risk. But not 100% sure. I don't see how any UV light can escape.

 

[T_R_Oglodyte]

Disclaimer: I have some professional experience involving the use of UV light for disinfection of water and wastewater, though my last work in the field was about 25 years ago (pre-LED technology).

The disinfection ability of UV light is occurs in very specific, and limited wavelengths. There are lots of UV lights, but unless it was specifically designed for disinfection, it isn't going to be very effective. Further, the wave length output of a traditional UV lamp shifts over time, and the light loses disinfection power. I don't know if UV-LED has the same issue.

Finally, effective disinfection occurs within a "window", which is a combination of duration of exposure and intensity of the light. The more intense the light, the shorter the time, but there is an effective minimum. The article specifically mentions use of UV for disinfection of water, so let's go down that path.

The units that I was involved with had contact times on the order of one to two minutes, using lamps that were sufficiently powerful that full shielding was required. The applications that we were looking at specifically involved killing viruses. One of the earliest projects I worked on involved a pilot project in which the water was seeded with inactivated polio virus. I suspect a mask like this that would have enough power to provide true disinfection would also pose a significant hazard for accidentally creating blindness, burning your skin, and creating significant risk for skin cancer.

In sum - my level of skepticism about the effectiveness of this product is pretty high. This looks as if somebody just slapped something together, and put in on the market with no real testing or verification that it will do what they claim it will do.

I will also say that it is extremely likely that the US EPA will shut this operation down pretty quickly for selling unregistered and untested microbicide. Much the same they have been doing with those chlorine dioxide generator necklaces that are illegally imported from Asia and sold over the internet. Basically, you are not allowed to sell something to the public that you say will disinfect and purify air or water unless you can prove it actually does what you claim it does.

 

[dioxide45]

I have a Phillips Sonicare toothbrush that came with a special charger and toothbrush head UV light disinfection gizmo. When you put the head in the gizmo you can't even turn it on until you close the little door. Open the door and the light goes out. I thought that these types of UV light could be damaging to your eyes. Wouldn't there be concern wearing it that close to your eyes?

My gizmo also runs for two minutes. I doubt the virus would have enough exposure for it to be destroyed by the UV light.

 

[T_R_Oglodyte]

Wouldn't there be concern wearing it that close to your eyes?

I think so. Or just even light leakage burning your skin.

A simple design check - for this the design, how long would particles containing virus be in the irradiation zone. Then using data on the using UV light to kill virus, calculate how much UV energy is required to complete disinfection within that time, and determine the input wattage needed to provide that light given the efficiency in producing UV light at the needed spectrum. Then compare that with the size of the battery pack that comes with the unit and the output capacity of the LED cells.

I bet if you ask the manufacturer for that information they will be unable to provide it. They will want you take their word that it works. So ask to see the results of their testing to verify that it kills virus. I bet they won't have that either.

 

[Steve Fatula]

My comments regarding UVC light phone sanitizers (the correct wavelength) which was sort of off topic but thought Panina would like it... I am inclined to believe they do work. I actually have sold LED UV lights. They are specifically focused in a very narrow range, they don't produce lights in vastly different wavelengths (except for older cheaper ones). They are fairly expensive to buy those LED bulbs, but they do exist, primarily in China. I have a UV strip light right behind me actually. Using a specific wavelength, they are also used to charge certain types of paint that are used for decorations and such. My theater ceiling has the Milky Way, moon, and a few other things painted on it with special paint. The LED strip lights around my oval ceiling (that you can't see from the ground level) put off blacklight to charge those lights, and then with lights off, you see the milky way. It's really nice. With lights on, you see my blue ceiling, not the paint. But UVC led bulbs are actually better now as far as I know, and do last longer as they don't shift wavelengths or burn out. UVC leds are very common in China, and hard to get from any US source. I used to order them from China. An LED strip 370nm that was 6' used to cost $400! But no more. For my paint charging, 370nm was the ideal wavelength. They were very very good at it. Obviously that is not the disinfecting range but I used to sell those as well.

Here's a good reference article on UV LED bulbs:

https://www.laserfocusworld.com/las...olet-leds-illuminate-the-scientific-landscape

I don't know about the masks, no experience with such things. Seems like it should work but I agree they would need to get approval to properly sell them.

The whole thing about eye damage is not so simple and is a different issue.

 

[T_R_Oglodyte]

My comments regarding UVC light phone sanitizers (the correct wavelength) which was sort of off topic but thought Panina would like it... I am inclined to believe they do work. I actually have sold LED UV lights. They are specifically focused in a very narrow range, they don't produce lights in vastly different wavelengths (except for older cheaper ones). They are fairly expensive to buy those LED bulbs, but they do exist, primarily in China. I have a UV strip light right behind me actually. Using a specific wavelength, they are also used to charge certain types of paint that are used for decorations and such. My theater ceiling has the Milky Way, moon, and a few other things painted on it with special paint. The LED strip lights around my oval ceiling (that you can't see from the ground level) put off blacklight to charge those lights, and then with lights off, you see the milky way. It's really nice. With lights on, you see my blue ceiling, not the paint. But UVC led bulbs are actually better now as far as I know, and do last longer as they don't shift wavelengths or burn out. UVC leds are very common in China, and hard to get from any US source. I used to order them from China. An LED strip 370nm that was 6' used to cost $400! But no more. For my paint charging, 370nm was the ideal wavelength. They were very very good at it. Obviously that is not the disinfecting range but I used to sell those as well.

Here's a good reference article on UV LED bulbs:

https://www.laserfocusworld.com/las...olet-leds-illuminate-the-scientific-landscape

I don't know about the masks, no experience with such things. Seems like it should work but I agree they would need to get approval to properly sell them.

The whole thing about eye damage is not so simple and is a different issue.

I'm entirely skeptical that they can anywhere near the lumens needed to provide disinfection within the small space (e.e., short residence time). And I would be beyond amazed if they actually tested the unit before marketing it.

Not only does it actually disinfect, how well is it going to hold up to use? How durable is the shielding? What types of exposure conditions will cause the unit to breakdown.

 

[Steve Fatula]

I'm entirely skeptical that they can anywhere near the lumens needed to provide disinfection within the small space (e.e., short residence time). And I would be beyond amazed if they actually tested the unit before marketing it.

Not only does it actually disinfect, how well is it going to hold up to use? How durable is the shielding? What types of exposure conditions will cause the unit to breakdown.

My oval ceiling is 14 feet across and the 370 NM LEDs put out a *lot* of light. It charges faster than even a dance club industrial black light shined directly up (I have a $400 semi industrial one that is pretty large!). My painter brought in the massive big daddy. But again as far as my ceiling blacklight, this is different than the disinfecting application which I have less (but some) experience with using UVC LEDs. I understand the skepticism. But some prominent US based magazines have tested some of the phone disinfectors as well. Don't have a reference off hand. Certainly, they would not be officially sanctioned here in the US. But that's the same argument drug makers use when you import drugs from overseas. But I get it. I can't prove mine works. Then again, I can't prove the drugs I have imported for the last 15 years work either, or work as well.

Here's a test from the Discovery Channel, referenced from a publication:

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/phonesoap-review-does-it-work_l_5e62c0bfc5b68d6164544fed

 

[T_R_Oglodyte]

My oval ceiling is 14 feet across and the 370 NM LEDs put out a *lot* of light. It charges faster than even a dance club industrial black light shined directly up (I have a $400 semi industrial one that is pretty large!). My painter brought in the massive big daddy. But again as far as my ceiling blacklight, this is different than the disinfecting application which I have less (but some) experience with using UVC LEDs. I understand the skepticism. But some prominent US based magazines have tested some of the phone disinfectors as well. Don't have a reference off hand. Certainly, they would not be officially sanctioned here in the US. But that's the same argument drug makers use when you import drugs from overseas. But I get it. I can't prove mine works. Then again, I can't prove the drugs I have imported for the last 15 years work either, or work as well.

You're disregarding residence or exposure time - my initial post in the thread. If you want to zap an inert object with a beam, you can shine the beam on the object for as long as needed. Or if it's just a unit that passively zaps whatever passes through it's beam - provided it stays in the beam long enough to get zapped.

Irradiation time is a key variable focusing the sun on a piece of cardboard with a magnifying glass. One second does nothing. 30 seconds and it will start smoldering, if not catch fire. Direct two magnifying glass focused beams on the same spot and cut the time in half.

With the virus particle supposedly passing through the mask in a fraction of a second, you need a much more powerful beam in that irradiation chamber. And that's assuming that the residence time in the mask irradiation zone is longer than the absolute minimum time needed to deactivate the virus regardless of intensity.

 

[T_R_Oglodyte]

Another important factor. If the virus particle is encased inside a larger particle (such as inside a droplet of mucousy body fluid), there's a good chance that the UV light won't reach the virus particle at all.

 

[Xan]

If you are just disinfecting a mask, my hubby just puts them in the bright sunshine outside for about an hour.
He was in the Army for 24 years and worked in the military hospitals, so we have the N95 masks, surgical gloves, etc....
I guess when you’re in the field, you have to improvise with proven methods that work.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SmithOp]

If you are just disinfecting a mask, my hubby just puts them in the bright sunshine outside for about an hour.
He was in the Army for 24 years and worked in the military hospitals, so we have the N95 masks, surgical gloves, etc....
I guess when you’re in the field, you have to improvise with proven methods that work.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

UVC is blocked by the ozone in our atmosphere. The heat from the sun may be effective at killing the virus.

I’m skeptical of the effectiveness of these led light masks, agree with Trog.

Can you kill coronavirus with UV light?

There’s only one type of UV that can reliably inactivate Covid-19 – and it’s extremely dangerous.

www.bbc.com

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Steve Fatula]

You're disregarding residence or exposure time - my initial post in the thread. If you want to zap an inert object with a beam, you can shine the beam on the object for as long as needed. Or if it's just a unit that passively zaps whatever passes through it's beam - provided it stays in the beam long enough to get zapped.

Irradiation time is a key variable focusing the sun on a piece of cardboard with a magnifying glass. One second does nothing. 30 seconds and it will start smoldering, if not catch fire. Direct two magnifying glass focused beams on the same spot and cut the time in half.

With the virus particle supposedly passing through the mask in a fraction of a second, you need a much more powerful beam in that irradiation chamber. And that's assuming that the residence time in the mask irradiation zone is longer than the absolute minimum time needed to deactivate the virus regardless of intensity.

Hmm, I think you are confusing two different discussions. I am (still) speaking of cell phone cleaners. It sits in the chambers over 5 minutes. Regarding cleaner masks, that is a valid point about residence time.

 

[T_R_Oglodyte]

Hmm, I think you are confusing two different discussions. I am (still) speaking of cell phone cleaners. It sits in the chambers over 5 minutes. Regarding cleaner masks, that is a valid point about residence time.

In that case, we may have been communicating cross-ways. Going back to your initial post in this sequence, I thought that you positing that the cleaner masks would be effective, extrapolating from your other experiences with UV light. And I correspondingly have been focusing on issues with the masks.

 

[Steve Fatula]

In that case, we may have been communicating cross-ways. Going back to your initial post in this sequence, I thought that you positing that the cleaner masks would be effective, extrapolating from your other experiences with UV light. And I correspondingly have been focusing on issues with the masks.

Yeah, I think I confused the conversation. My initial assessment was for masks, but did not put enough thought into it. I agree it's unlikely they will work, though, they may have a solution to the problems noted. I am not going to review their documents though. The phone sanitizers, I do believe the evidence says they work.

 

[Panina]

Initially I got excited but within a few moments I thought no way this can work and I was thinking what if the battery pack explodes in terms like e cigarettes.

 

[isisdave]

The velocity of the inspiratory flow is about 1 m/sec. So if your mask is 3 cm deep, the air going through it is going to be exposed to the UV for about 30 ms. Even if the mask slows down the flow 10x, that's still only 300 ms. I am skeptical that that duration is long enough.

Also, I'd worry about UVC exposure and burns. The website says the UV light is directed into the mask, away from the user, to prevent any direct skin exposure. but how can this be guaranteed, when the user is installing the device inside his own mask. What about reflection from plastic surfaces onto the skin. What about when Certain People wonder "hmm, is this thing working?" and stare into it?

And what does this thing weigh, with an internal battery pack? Won't it be tugging the mask down?