MIT Research Shows Germicidal UV Lights May Generate Indoor Air Pollutants


New analysis from MIT signifies that whereas newer UV gentle sources at 222 nanometers, designed to cut back airborne pathogens, are safer than conventional UV, they’ll produce dangerous compounds indoors. Credit: José-Luis Olivares, MIT; iStock

While helpful for killing pathogens together with SARS-CoV-2, the lights could trigger undesirable chemical reactions and must be used with air flow, researchers say.

Many efforts to cut back transmission of ailments like COVID-19 and the flu have centered on measures akin to masking and isolation, however one other helpful strategy is lowering the load of airborne pathogens by way of filtration or germicidal ultraviolet gentle. Conventional UV sources may be dangerous to eyes and pores and skin, however newer sources that emit at a distinct wavelength, 222 nanometers, are thought-about protected.

Potential Hazards of UV Light Usage

However, new analysis from MIT exhibits that these UV lights can produce doubtlessly dangerous compounds in indoor areas. While the researchers emphasize that this doesn’t imply the brand new UV lights must be prevented solely, they do say the analysis suggests it is vital that the lights have the suitable strength for a given indoor state of affairs, and that they’re used together with applicable air flow.

The findings had been lately reported within the journal Environmental Science and Technology, in a paper by current MIT postdoc Victoria Barber, doctoral pupil Matthew Goss, Professor Jesse Kroll, and 6 others at MIT, Aerodyne Research, and Harvard University.

While Kroll and his workforce normally work on points of outside air air pollution, in the course of the pandemic they grew to become more and more thinking about indoor air high quality. Usually, little photochemical reactivity occurs indoors, in contrast to open air, the place the air is continually uncovered to daylight. But with the usage of gadgets to wash indoor air utilizing chemical strategies or UV gentle, “all of a sudden some of this oxidation is brought indoors,” triggering a possible cascade of reactions, Kroll says.

Initially, the UV gentle interacts with oxygen within the air to type ozone, which is itself a health threat. “But also, once you make ozone, there’s a possibility for all these other oxidation reactions,” Kroll says. For instance, the UV can work together with the ozone to provide compounds referred to as OH radicals, that are additionally highly effective oxidizers.

Barber, who’s now an assistant professor on the University of California at Los Angeles, provides, “If you have volatile organic compounds in the environment, which you do basically in all indoor environments, then these oxidants react with them and you make these oxidized volatile organic compounds, which in some cases turn out to be more harmful to human health than their unoxidized precursors.” The course of additionally results in the formation of secondary natural aerosols, she says. “Again, this stuff is harmful to breathe, so having it in your indoor environment is not ideal.”

Indoor Air Quality and UV Light

The formation of such compounds is especially problematic within the indoors, Kroll says, as a result of folks spend a lot of their time there, and low air flow charges can imply these compounds may accumulate to comparatively high ranges.

Having studied such processes in out of doors air for years, the workforce had the suitable gear in hand to look at these pollution-forming processes indoors instantly. They carried out a sequence of experiments, first exposing clear air to the UV lights inside a managed container, then including one natural compound at a time to see how they every affected the compounds that had been produced. Although additional analysis is required to see how these findings apply to actual indoor environments, the formation of secondary merchandise was clear.

UV Technology and Ventilation

The gadgets that make use of the brand new UV wavelengths, referred to as KrCl excimer lamps, are nonetheless comparatively uncommon and costly. They’re utilized in some hospital, restaurant, or industrial settings relatively than in houses. But whereas they’ve typically been touted as an alternative choice to air flow, particularly in hard-to-ventilate older buildings, the brand new examine means that’s not applicable. “Our big finding was that these lights are not a replacement for ventilation, but rather a complement to it,” says Kroll, who’s a professor of civil and environmental engineering, and of chemical engineering.

Some have proposed that with these gadgets, “maybe if you could just deactivate the viruses and bacteria indoors, you wouldn’t need to worry about ventilation as much. What we showed is that, unfortunately, that’s not necessarily the case, because when you have less ventilation, you get a buildup of these secondary products,” Kroll says.

He suggests a distinct strategy: “There may be a sweet spot in which you’re getting the health benefits of the light, the deactivation of pathogens, but not too many of the disbenefits of the pollutant formation because you’re ventilating that out.”

Implications and Future Research

The outcomes up to now are from exactly managed lab experiments, with air contained in a Teflon bag for testing, Barber factors out. “What we’re seeing in our bag is not necessarily directly comparable to what you would see in a real indoor environment,” she says, “but it does give a pretty good picture of what the chemistry is that can happen under radiation from these devices.”

Goss provides that “this work allowed us to validate a simple model that we could plug in parameters to that are more relevant to actual indoor spaces.” In the paper, they use this info “to try to apply the measurements we’ve taken to estimate what would happen in an actual indoor space.” The subsequent step within the analysis might be to try follow-up research taking measurements in real-world indoor areas, he says.

“We’ve shown that these are a potential concern,” Kroll says. “But in order to understand what the full real-world implications are, we need to take measurements in real indoor environments.”

“These 222-nanometer radiation devices are being deployed in bathrooms, classrooms, and conference rooms without a full accounting of the potential benefits and/or harm associate with their operation,” says Dustin Poppendieck, a analysis scientist on the National Institute for Standards and Technology, who was not related to this examine. “This work lays the foundation for a proper quantification of potential negative health impacts of these devices. It is important this process is completed prior to relying on the technology to help prevent the next pandemic.”

Reference: “Indoor Air Quality Implications of Germicidal 222 nm Light” by Victoria P. Barber, Matthew B. Goss, Lesly J. Franco Deloya, Lexy N. LeMar, Yaowei Li, Erik Helstrom, Manjula Canagaratna, Frank N. Keutsch and Jesse H. Kroll, 12 October 2023, Environmental Science & Technology.
DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.3c05680

The work was supported by the National Science Foundation, the Harvard Global Institute, and an NIEHS Toxicology Training Grant.

Source link

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top button