what's a quick way to verify UVC from germicidal lamp?

[danny burstein]

[snip]

The second best way [a] to clear out microbial nasties
is via hydrgen perxide misting. The equipment is
still quite expensive and rare, but gaining traction
in hospitals and other high risk areas.

Here's a technical/medical professional article
about it:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2546749/

And a markting quasi advert:

http://www.europeancleaningjournal.com/magazine/articles/case-studies/hydrogen-peroxide-fogging-an-opportunity-for-cleaning-firms

You might, emphasize might, be able to find a local
source of this type of equipment for rent.

(Probably not at any reasonable price).

[a] the first is via high intensity radiation.
I doubt you'd find that a plausable option.


--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]

 

[pfjw@aol.com]

Let's cut to the chase. If the goal is to sanitize a former sickroom of potentially dangerous and/or persistent bacteria and viruses, using effective means-and-methods as economically as practical, do so with established materials following established procedures and protocols.

https://www.mnhospitals.org/Portals/0/Documents/ptsafety/CDICleaning/4.%20Environmental%20Services%20Cleaning%20Guidebook.pdf

http://dhss.alaska.gov/dph/Epi/id/SiteAssets/Pages/Infection-Prevention-Boot-Camp/Discharge-Cleaning-Kit.pdf

Otherwise, it is just speculation and baseless opining.

NOTE: I work in, but not for a major medical school and in their major research and teaching facility. Animals, BSL-3 labs, and all that. Cleaning is a serious concern as on any given day, there is about $30,000,000 in research happening within the building. This building also happens to be attached to a major hospital that closed in November. Where, again, cleaning was a serious business.

Guys and gals, UV is in use - but only in very specialized applications. Otherwise, it is too slow and far too dangerous. Around the animals, it is mostly alcohol and dilute bleach. In the patient rooms it was a mix of alcohol-based wipes and solutions together with various sanitary wipes using complex molecule germicides. BUT, for any sort of spill of patient fluids, blood or similar, it was bleach. Good old bleach. Kills everything, and is easily removed when done.

Ah, well. I guess it MUST be the hard way.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

 

[JBI]

On 1/21/20 3:19 PM, pfjw@aol.com wrote:

Let's cut to the chase. If the goal is to sanitize a former sickroom of potentially dangerous and/or persistent bacteria and viruses, using effective means-and-methods as economically as practical, do so with established materials following established procedures and protocols.

https://www.mnhospitals.org/Portals/0/Documents/ptsafety/CDICleaning/4.%20Environmental%20Services%20Cleaning%20Guidebook.pdf

http://dhss.alaska.gov/dph/Epi/id/SiteAssets/Pages/Infection-Prevention-Boot-Camp/Discharge-Cleaning-Kit.pdf

Otherwise, it is just speculation and baseless opining.

NOTE: I work in, but not for a major medical school and in their major research and teaching facility. Animals, BSL-3 labs, and all that. Cleaning is a serious concern as on any given day, there is about $30,000,000 in research happening within the building. This building also happens to be attached to a major hospital that closed in November. Where, again, cleaning was a serious business.

Guys and gals, UV is in use - but only in very specialized applications. Otherwise, it is too slow and far too dangerous. Around the animals, it is mostly alcohol and dilute bleach. In the patient rooms it was a mix of alcohol-based wipes and solutions together with various sanitary wipes using complex molecule germicides. BUT, for any sort of spill of patient fluids, blood or similar, it was bleach. Good old bleach. Kills everything, and is easily removed when done.

Ah, well. I guess it MUST be the hard way.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

Well, just as a follow up, while I did expose the light sealed room to
the 200 W lamp for 30 minutes, I also followed up with 70% iso alcohol
solution. The smell of the room did change after the lamp had been used
with the characteristic strong smell of ozone.

Until the alcohol dried, I kept any animals away and also aired out the
room to negate the ozone. I have now been occupying the room nearly 16
hours per day since "decontamination" and have not gotten sick like the
former occupants. Still taking care to wash hands frequently above all
else.

Just to share, my first experience in the realization of UVC light was
when I was in shop class way back when. When we were finished with our
projects, the teacher would have us place all of out goggles into a
cabinet, then the cabinet was closed and the light was activated to 15
minutes. I doubt that bulb had ever been changed, plus the light was at
the top corner of the cabinet. Not all the goggles would have had
exposure on every side. Makes me wonder about the effectiveness.

 

On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 15:46:01 -0500, JBI <JBI@ez1.net> wrote:

On 1/21/20 3:19 PM, pfjw@aol.com wrote:
Let's cut to the chase. If the goal is to sanitize a former sickroom of potentially dangerous and/or persistent bacteria and viruses, using effective means-and-methods as economically as practical, do so with established materials following established procedures and protocols.

https://www.mnhospitals.org/Portals/0/Documents/ptsafety/CDICleaning/4.%20Environmental%20Services%20Cleaning%20Guidebook.pdf

http://dhss.alaska.gov/dph/Epi/id/SiteAssets/Pages/Infection-Prevention-Boot-Camp/Discharge-Cleaning-Kit.pdf

Otherwise, it is just speculation and baseless opining.

NOTE: I work in, but not for a major medical school and in their major research and teaching facility. Animals, BSL-3 labs, and all that. Cleaning is a serious concern as on any given day, there is about $30,000,000 in research happening within the building. This building also happens to be attached to a major hospital that closed in November. Where, again, cleaning was a serious business.

Guys and gals, UV is in use - but only in very specialized applications. Otherwise, it is too slow and far too dangerous. Around the animals, it is mostly alcohol and dilute bleach. In the patient rooms it was a mix of alcohol-based wipes and solutions together with various sanitary wipes using complex molecule germicides. BUT, for any sort of spill of patient fluids, blood or similar, it was bleach. Good old bleach. Kills everything, and is easily removed when done.

Ah, well. I guess it MUST be the hard way.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

Well, just as a follow up, while I did expose the light sealed room to
the 200 W lamp for 30 minutes, I also followed up with 70% iso alcohol
solution. The smell of the room did change after the lamp had been used
with the characteristic strong smell of ozone.

Until the alcohol dried, I kept any animals away and also aired out the
room to negate the ozone. I have now been occupying the room nearly 16
hours per day since "decontamination" and have not gotten sick like the
former occupants. Still taking care to wash hands frequently above all
else.

Just to share, my first experience in the realization of UVC light was
when I was in shop class way back when. When we were finished with our
projects, the teacher would have us place all of out goggles into a
cabinet, then the cabinet was closed and the light was activated to 15
minutes. I doubt that bulb had ever been changed, plus the light was at
the top corner of the cabinet. Not all the goggles would have had
exposure on every side. Makes me wonder about the effectiveness.

Well, if the disinfection relied on ozone then it may have worked very
well. Ozone is a better disinfectant for turbid water than chlorine
because it will penetrate into the dirt particles better. Ozone in the
air also works very well.
Eric

 

[amdx]

On 1/20/2020 9:29 PM, John Robertson wrote:

On 2020/01/20 6:23 p.m., amdx wrote:
On 1/19/2020 9:01 AM, amdx wrote:
On 1/19/2020 8:59 AM, amdx wrote:
On 1/18/2020 3:11 PM, KC JONES wrote:
I've had a germicidal lamp more or less in storage for a number of
years, but recently brought it out to sterilize a room where a
person had been sick.  However, I don't know if it still emits the
germ killing UVC spectrum.  What's a quick way I could tell for
sure? Thanks.

I see UVC covers 200nm to 280nm. I don't know anything about UVC
bulbs so I need to ask is does yours have a specific wavelength
output? Like 270nm? My limited search finds bulbs of 254nm to 270 nm.
  I did a little searching and didn't find anything in the way of
UVC sensors. But maybe a way to back into it?
  Adafruit has a UV sensor that works from 240nm to 370nm for $6.50.
Maybe buy a filter for UVA and UVB, to cover that sensor and see if
it senses any UVC. OR buy a UVC sensor and flip flop covering and
uncovering the sensor and see if you get a square wave output.

                                       Mikek

  I should have posted the sensor.
https://cdn-shop.adafruit.com/datasheets/1918guva.pdf

  and the adafruit pcb.

https://www.adafruit.com/product/1918?gclid=Cj0KCQiAmZDxBRDIARIsABnkbYTW4uwwxg5rvIcjY6z2MlUDvmN4QcL5PgAGeBvgHixbOqSlqbiXfFMaAn90EALw_wcB




  No one has responded to my post. Is there anything fundamentally
wrong other than the cost of filters is high and the sensor has it
weakest response in the UVC wavelength.
  I don't mind the idea getting shot down, I'd learn something.

                                        Mikek

Hi Mikek,

While your information may be valid, it is of little use to the OP to
try to use a UV bulb to sterilize the room. It would be dangerous to his
eyes and or skin, and it would be ineffective as the UV only would
effect microbes that are on a surface the UV light would strike, plus
the UV light has to be near (under 1 foot typically) to have a high
enough concentration and it needs to light up the organisms for up to
five minutes to be sure of killing them. Thus you have to hold the UV
lamp for five minutes over every square inch of the room and you won't
get any of the crevasses at all!

So totally impractical.

On the other hand if you made a separate posting under the topic of
tools to measure UV bandwidth (or similar) you might get more bites!

John :-#)#

Ok, I just want to say one word to you, just one word, Copper!

http://theconversation.com/copper-is-great-at-killing-superbugs-so-why-dont-hospitals-use-it-73103

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimicrobial_properties_of_copper

OK, OK same problem, getting it over the entire room.
But it would be interesting to see what harmful effects having
lots of copper fittings all over a hospital would cause.
Most of us have spent years drinking water that spent the night in a
copper pipe, so maybe no problem.
Mikek

 

[gregz]

KC JONES <kcharlie@nowhere.net> wrote:

I've had a germicidal lamp more or less in storage for a number of years,
but recently brought it out to sterilize a room where a person had been
sick. However, I don't know if it still emits the germ killing UVC
spectrum. What's a quick way I could tell for sure? Thanks.

My mom had a dryer with UV lamp, think it was for the ozone fresh smell. I
noticed in the hospital they had random UV lights facing up in hallways. I
would think some device using filter to determine band exists. I recall
hearing of a UV device wheeled into rooms for sterilization.

Greg

 

[Sergey Kubushyn]

KC JONES <kcharlie@nowhere.net> wrote:

I've had a germicidal lamp more or less in storage for a number of
years, but recently brought it out to sterilize a room where a person
had been sick. However, I don't know if it still emits the germ killing
UVC spectrum. What's a quick way I could tell for sure? Thanks.

Wonder what is this all about...

UVC germicidal lamp uses Hg vapor discharge. This produces UVC because of
the pure physics of that discharge so if you see the lamp lights up you can
be 100% sure it produces UVC. It simply can't do otherwise unless that Hg
transmutated into another element but one would need a philosophers' stone
for that to happen.

Intensity is another question but that can be judged from the current that
lamp draws.

---
******************************************************************
* KSI@home KOI8 Net < > The impossible we do immediately. *
* Las Vegas NV, USA < > Miracles require 24-hour notice. *
******************************************************************

 

[James Reaper]

On 1/18/20 4:11 PM, KC JONES wrote:

I've had a germicidal lamp more or less in storage for a number of
years, but recently brought it out to sterilize a room where a person
had been sick.  However, I don't know if it still emits the germ killing
UVC spectrum.  What's a quick way I could tell for sure?  Thanks.

Once upon a time, I was part of a test study on mercury vapor lamps with
the outer envelopes broken so only the inner, strong UVC element
illuminated. Both 175 and 400 watt bulbs were tested. Can't speak much
for UVC detection without instrumentation, but a quick test might be
illuminating small insects, like crickets or flies. If they die
quickly, there's 99% certainty that you have UVC.

 

[James Reaper]

On 1/18/20 4:11 PM, KC JONES wrote:

I've had a germicidal lamp more or less in storage for a number of
years, but recently brought it out to sterilize a room where a person
had been sick.  However, I don't know if it still emits the germ killing
UVC spectrum.  What's a quick way I could tell for sure?  Thanks.

Something I've always wondered about were Tesla coils. When I was a
kid, I built one and let it run arcing from HV to ground for nearly an
hour. When my parents arrived home from work, the house was so full of
ozone that we all had to leave for a couple of hours with the windows
wide opened to air out the house. Would that much ozone have killed
surface bacteria as a germicidal lamp would have?

 

[danny burstein]

[snip]

Once upon a time, I was part of a test study on mercury vapor lamps with =

the outer envelopes broken so only the inner, strong UVC element=20
illuminated.

*whew*, thanks.

I was 99 percent sure I remembered those days of mercury arc
lamps needing that extra, outer, envelope 'cuz worries
about the UV intensity, and even that Duro Test had marketed
a "safety lamp" ("bulb") that, if the outer glass broke, would
shut itself down.

(this would have been the 1970's)

But none of the yung'uns around me believe that was ever teh case.

Any idea how they cleared up that problem? I replaced a bunch
of legacy mercury lamps about two decades ago and there weren't
any warnings on the packages.

Thanks.

--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]

 

[James Reaper]

On 1/23/20 3:27 PM, danny burstein wrote:

Once upon a time, I was part of a test study on mercury vapor lamps with =

the outer envelopes broken so only the inner, strong UVC element=20
illuminated.

*whew*, thanks.

I was 99 percent sure I remembered those days of mercury arc
lamps needing that extra, outer, envelope 'cuz worries
about the UV intensity, and even that Duro Test had marketed
a "safety lamp" ("bulb") that, if the outer glass broke, would
shut itself down.

(this would have been the 1970's)

But none of the yung'uns around me believe that was ever teh case.

Any idea how they cleared up that problem? I replaced a bunch
of legacy mercury lamps about two decades ago and there weren't
any warnings on the packages.

Thanks.

Odd. I still have an outdoor mercury lamp on my property, a 250 W
lamp. I just replaced it last year and the UV warnings were still
present concerning breaking the outer envelope. So they would
definitely still emit UVC if the envelope was broken.

Ways of getting around the UVC hazard included shutdown mechanisms so
that the lamp extinguished when the envelope was broken, providing a
lamp housing that has a glass cover (like street lights have), or
switching out to something different altogether where the UVC hazard
doesn't exist such as LED. There's been an ongoing effort to outlaw the
mv lamps.

 

[pfjw@aol.com]

On Thursday, January 23, 2020 at 3:07:39 PM UTC-5, James Reaper wrote:

Something I've always wondered about were Tesla coils. When I was a
kid, I built one and let it run arcing from HV to ground for nearly an
hour. When my parents arrived home from work, the house was so full of
ozone that we all had to leave for a couple of hours with the windows
wide opened to air out the house. Would that much ozone have killed
surface bacteria as a germicidal lamp would have?

http://www.ozoneapplications.com/info/ozone_bacteria_mold_viruses.htm

It takes a LOT. Once that level is reached, however, the killing does not take a huge amount of time. And ozone concentrations will vary by the amount diffused and the amount generated as it is very short-lived.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

 

[danny burstein]

In <r0d0qr$rel$1@dont-email.me> James Reaper <jreap6678@aoldot.net> writes:

Odd. I still have an outdoor mercury lamp on my property, a 250 W
lamp. I just replaced it last year and the UV warnings were still
present concerning breaking the outer envelope. So they would
definitely still emit UVC if the envelope was broken.

Amusingly the ones I purchased didn't have thos waarning.

I think... they were 185 watt replacements I picked
up at Home Depot. (No one else had them).

Ways of getting around the UVC hazard included shutdown mechanisms so
that the lamp extinguished when the envelope was broken, providing a
lamp housing that has a glass cover (like street lights have), or
switching out to something different altogether where the UVC hazard
doesn't exist such as LED. There's been an ongoing effort to outlaw the
mv lamps.

New fixtures/ballasts have been a no no for a decade or
so by now, and replacement lamps have been attriting down.

About ten years ago I found a drop-in flourescent replacement
for the aforementioned 185 watter. The power factors/wave forms/
how it worked... made my head hurt, but somehow it did.

(We've since swapped the whole fixture for an LED unit).

Oh, here we go:

[Duromex, the successor to Duro Test, website]

"1975: Securilux (Safe-T-Vapor)

"This was the first mercury lamp with a safety mechanism that
extinguished the arc tube in case of an exterior light bulb smash. "

http://duromex.com/about

--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]

 

[whit3rd]

On Thursday, January 23, 2020 at 12:27:08 PM UTC-8, danny burstein wrote:

I was 99 percent sure I remembered those days of mercury arc
lamps needing that extra, outer, envelope 'cuz worries
about the UV intensity, and even that Duro Test had marketed
a "safety lamp" ("bulb") that, if the outer glass broke, would
shut itself down.

(this would have been the 1970's)

But none of the yung'uns around me believe that was ever teh case.

Any idea how they cleared up that problem?

Some mercury lamps have quartz envelopes, that take the high temperature, but
those ALSO pass UV. Most low-intensity lamps don't need quartz. and glass
that is opaque to UV is easily formulated. Welder's helmets always have such a
glass filter (in addition to the visible-light-attenuating dark ones).

Heck, some halogen incandescents need a safety glass pane, as well.

 

[Stephen Wolstenholme]

On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 15:07:35 -0500, James Reaper
<jreap6678@aoldot.net> wrote:

On 1/18/20 4:11 PM, KC JONES wrote:
I've had a germicidal lamp more or less in storage for a number of
years, but recently brought it out to sterilize a room where a person
had been sick.  However, I don't know if it still emits the germ killing
UVC spectrum.  What's a quick way I could tell for sure?  Thanks.

Something I've always wondered about were Tesla coils. When I was a
kid, I built one and let it run arcing from HV to ground for nearly an
hour. When my parents arrived home from work, the house was so full of
ozone that we all had to leave for a couple of hours with the windows
wide opened to air out the house. Would that much ozone have killed
surface bacteria as a germicidal lamp would have?

I did the same thing. When my mother got home she said the house
smelled like the seaside. My Tesla coil was used a few times just to
make the seaside smell. I don't know if it killed all the bacteria.

Steve

--
http://www.npsnn.com

 

[Tim R]

On Friday, January 24, 2020 at 8:25:14 AM UTC-5, Stephen Wolstenholme wrote:

I did the same thing. When my mother got home she said the house
smelled like the seaside. My Tesla coil was used a few times just to
make the seaside smell. I don't know if it killed all the bacteria.

Steve

--
http://www.npsnn.com

There are people who use an ozone generator to get rid of mold and mildew smells, especially in warehouses. There are others who claim it it works by numbing your nose rather than killing the actual mold.

 

On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 06:46:08 -0800 (PST), Tim R <timothy42b@aol.com>
wrote:

On Friday, January 24, 2020 at 8:25:14 AM UTC-5, Stephen Wolstenholme wrote:

I did the same thing. When my mother got home she said the house
smelled like the seaside. My Tesla coil was used a few times just to
make the seaside smell. I don't know if it killed all the bacteria.

Steve

--
http://www.npsnn.com

There are people who use an ozone generator to get rid of mold and mildew smells, especially in warehouses. There are others who claim it it works by numbing your nose rather than killing the actual mold.

A secretary where I worked had to get rid of cat urine smell at an
apartment she rented out. Even after a thorough cleaning of the
apartment involving washing the walls where the cat pissed there was a
lingering odor. She used an ozone generator that was left in place
running for a few days. It worked very well. But some rubber items she
had left on a counter near the generator turned into some sort of goo.
Eric