See the published version of this preprint at Scientific Reports.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research Article
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
View Research Highlight
Research Highlight
created by Research Square
The global spread of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has escalated the need for public sanitation. Ultraviolet (UV) light is a well-established antimicrobial; however, the UV light commonly used for this purpose (~254 nm) poses significant health risks in public spaces due to its cancer-causing effects. Far-UVC light (~207-222 nm) has similar germicidal properties without health risks, as it does not penetrate human eye or skin cells. This group previously found low doses of far-UVC light (222 nm) to be an effective germicide against aerosolized H1N1 influenza virus. In this study, the researchers tested two viruses that are closely related to SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. Because the sensitivity of a virus to UV is determined by its genome size and all coronaviruses have genomes of similar sizes, it is reasonable to expect the sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 to be comparable to these viruses.The authors tested several doses of far-UVC on aerosolized viruses. They found that for both viruses tested, 99.9% of the virus was inactivated at a lower dose than the one needed to inactivate H1N1 virus. The authors also suggested a safe dose for an 8-hour work shift based on recommendations from the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). At this dose, 90% of aerosolized viruses would be deactivated in 8 minutes, 95% in 16 minutes, and 99% in 25 minutes. These results combined with the earlier results for H1N1 suggest that low doses of far-UVC light in heavily occupied spaces would reduce the spread of viral diseases, likely including COVID-19.
View Research Highlight
A direct approach to limit airborne transmission of pathogens is to inactivate them within a short time of their production. Germicidal ultraviolet light (UV), typically at 254 nm, is effective in this context, but it is a health hazard to the skin and eyes. By contrast, far-UVC light (207-222 nm) efficiently kills pathogens without harm to exposed human cells or tissues. We previously demonstrated that 222-nm UV light efficiently kills airborne influenza virus (H1N1); here we extend the far-UVC studies to explore efficacy against human coronaviruses from subgroups alpha (HCoV-229E) and beta (HCoV-OC43). We found that low doses of, respectively 1.7 and 1.2 mJ/cm2 inactivated 99.9% of aerosolized alpha coronavirus 229E and beta coronavirus OC43. Based on these results for the beta HCoV-OC43 coronavirus, continuous far-UVC exposure in public locations at the currently recommended exposure limit (3 mJ/cm2/hour) would result in 99.9% viral inactivation in ~ 25 minutes. Increasing the far- UVC intensity by, say, a factor of 2 would halve these disinfection times, while still maintaining safety. As all human coronaviruses have similar genomic size, a key determinant of radiation sensitivity, it is realistic to expect that far-UVC light will show comparable inactivation efficiency against other human coronaviruses, including SARS-CoV-2.
Visual Abstract
Keywords
aerosolized coronavirus, beta HCoV-OC43, alpha HCoV-229E, far-UVC light,
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Loading...
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at Scientific Reports.
Version 1
Posted 27 Apr, 2020
Community comments: 40
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Virology
Learn more about our company.
See the published version of this preprint at Scientific Reports.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research Article
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at Scientific Reports.
Version 1
Posted 27 Apr, 2020
Community comments: 40
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Virology
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
View the published article at Scientific Reports.
View Research Highlight
Research Highlight
created by Research Square
The global spread of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has escalated the need for public sanitation. Ultraviolet (UV) light is a well-established antimicrobial; however, the UV light commonly used for this purpose (~254 nm) poses significant health risks in public spaces due to its cancer-causing effects. Far-UVC light (~207-222 nm) has similar germicidal properties without health risks, as it does not penetrate human eye or skin cells. This group previously found low doses of far-UVC light (222 nm) to be an effective germicide against aerosolized H1N1 influenza virus. In this study, the researchers tested two viruses that are closely related to SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. Because the sensitivity of a virus to UV is determined by its genome size and all coronaviruses have genomes of similar sizes, it is reasonable to expect the sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 to be comparable to these viruses.The authors tested several doses of far-UVC on aerosolized viruses. They found that for both viruses tested, 99.9% of the virus was inactivated at a lower dose than the one needed to inactivate H1N1 virus. The authors also suggested a safe dose for an 8-hour work shift based on recommendations from the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). At this dose, 90% of aerosolized viruses would be deactivated in 8 minutes, 95% in 16 minutes, and 99% in 25 minutes. These results combined with the earlier results for H1N1 suggest that low doses of far-UVC light in heavily occupied spaces would reduce the spread of viral diseases, likely including COVID-19.
View Research Highlight
A direct approach to limit airborne transmission of pathogens is to inactivate them within a short time of their production. Germicidal ultraviolet light (UV), typically at 254 nm, is effective in this context, but it is a health hazard to the skin and eyes. By contrast, far-UVC light (207-222 nm) efficiently kills pathogens without harm to exposed human cells or tissues. We previously demonstrated that 222-nm UV light efficiently kills airborne influenza virus (H1N1); here we extend the far-UVC studies to explore efficacy against human coronaviruses from subgroups alpha (HCoV-229E) and beta (HCoV-OC43). We found that low doses of, respectively 1.7 and 1.2 mJ/cm2 inactivated 99.9% of aerosolized alpha coronavirus 229E and beta coronavirus OC43. Based on these results for the beta HCoV-OC43 coronavirus, continuous far-UVC exposure in public locations at the currently recommended exposure limit (3 mJ/cm2/hour) would result in 99.9% viral inactivation in ~ 25 minutes. Increasing the far- UVC intensity by, say, a factor of 2 would halve these disinfection times, while still maintaining safety. As all human coronaviruses have similar genomic size, a key determinant of radiation sensitivity, it is realistic to expect that far-UVC light will show comparable inactivation efficiency against other human coronaviruses, including SARS-CoV-2.
Visual Abstract
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Loading...