Hey there, Have you run irradiance/dose simulations to see how one single lamp actually behaves? The output value being incredibly low, and based on the Square over Distance rule, most of the room is actually not getting much. I get that this lamp is meant for air cleaning, but this is really far-stretched, as I cannot see how the air is directed to the area under the lamp, and even if so, hours are required to actually reach proper log-reductions of common microorganisms with such a small mount of UV-C light.
The safe limits for humans (in the US, in Europe it is significantly lower until there is enough evidence to change that) is significantly below values that molds require to be reduced by a 99% factor.
It looks good on paper, but I am afraid that besides the “wow-effect”, figures and data will not show this as having any significant impact. Especially when compared to 254nm. For 500$, it is possible to get an upper-unit not directed at people, that will have a UV-C output tenfolds higher than the 222nm.
UV-C light is not just on or off, it takes time and proper doses to reach effect. IN HVAC ducts, there are several kW of UV-C lamps installed just for a standard cross section. This is not because it is not efficient, this is because there are only a few seconds to disinfect the air that is passing along the lamps.
Sorry to be the bearer of such news, but 222nm seems to be rising based on very thin air (no pun intended).
Hey there,
Have you run irradiance/dose simulations to see how one single lamp actually behaves?
The output value being incredibly low, and based on the Square over Distance rule, most of the room is actually not getting much. I get that this lamp is meant for air cleaning, but this is really far-stretched, as I cannot see how the air is directed to the area under the lamp, and even if so, hours are required to actually reach proper log-reductions of common microorganisms with such a small mount of UV-C light.
The safe limits for humans (in the US, in Europe it is significantly lower until there is enough evidence to change that) is significantly below values that molds require to be reduced by a 99% factor.
It looks good on paper, but I am afraid that besides the “wow-effect”, figures and data will not show this as having any significant impact. Especially when compared to 254nm. For 500$, it is possible to get an upper-unit not directed at people, that will have a UV-C output tenfolds higher than the 222nm.
UV-C light is not just on or off, it takes time and proper doses to reach effect. IN HVAC ducts, there are several kW of UV-C lamps installed just for a standard cross section. This is not because it is not efficient, this is because there are only a few seconds to disinfect the air that is passing along the lamps.
Sorry to be the bearer of such news, but 222nm seems to be rising based on very thin air (no pun intended).