The antimicrobial impact of visible violet and blue light has been known for more than a century but hardly been applied for purposeful pathogen reduction or prevention. The disinfecting properties of wide-spread warm-white and cool-white light emitting diodes (LEDs) are investigated by irradiation of staphylococci with different LEDs and varying doses. Additionally, the combination of a white and a violet LED illumination is examined. Both white LEDs exhibit an antimicrobial effect, which seems to be dominated by the blue parts of the LED emissions. Unfortunately, the antimicrobial effect is weak in realistic illumination applications. Additional violet LEDs can significantly enhance this impact without a large change in human color perception. This allows reasonable applications in certain medical and domestic environments without endangering humans.
<abstract> <p>To minimize health risks, surrogates are often employed to reduce experiments with pathogenic microorganisms and the associated health risk. Due to structural similarities between the enveloped RNA-viruses SARS-CoV-2 and Phi6, the latter has been established as a nonpathogenic coronavirus surrogate for many applications. However, large discrepancies in the UV log-reduction doses between SARS-CoV-2 and Phi6 necessitate the search for a better surrogate for UV inactivation applications. A literature study provided the bacteriophage PhiX174 as a potentially more suitable nonpathogenic coronavirus surrogate candidate. In irradiation experiments, the sensitivity of PhiX174 was investigated upon exposure to UV radiation of wavelengths 222 nm (Far-UVC), 254 nm (UVC), 302 nm (broad-band UVB), 311 nm (narrow-band UVB) and 366 nm (UVA) using a plaque assay. The determined log-reduction doses for PhiX174 were 1.3 mJ/cm<sup>2</sup> @ 222 nm, 5 mJ/cm<sup>2</sup> @ 254 nm, 17.9 mJ/cm<sup>2</sup> @ 302 nm, 625 mJ/cm<sup>2</sup> @ 311 nm and 42.5 J/cm<sup>2</sup> @ 366 nm. The comparison of these results with published log-reduction doses of SARS-CoV-2 in the same spectral region, led to the conclusion that the bacteriophage PhiX174 exhibits larger log-reduction doses than SARS-CoV-2, nevertheless, it is a better UV-surrogate at 222 nm (Far-UVC), 254 nm (UVC) and 302 nm (UVB) than the often applied Phi6.</p> </abstract>
(1) Background: Applications using touch screens are increasingly deployed in medical facilities, as well as in public areas. When touching the display with fingers, potentially pathogenic microorganisms such as methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) can be transmitted. An automated process to decontaminate the device in between users would be highly useful. (2) Methods: Thin glass plates were superficially contaminated with the non-pathogenic Staphylococcus carnosus in a controlled manner. Subsequently, UVA radiation of 400 or 380 nm was laterally coupled into the glass plate, which acted as a light guide. Contact agar plates recorded the change in the staphylococci concentration over time. Additionally, the UVA radiation emitted by the glass plates was measured and the potential risk to humans assessed. (3) Results: Staphylococci concentration decreased as a result of UVA radiation for both wavelengths. At 400 nm, it took about 7.5 h and at 380 nm about 1 h until a reduction of 90% was reached. To meet higher disinfection requirements, disproportionately longer irradiation times were necessary. The potential UVA irradiation of humans in front of the glass pane was about 35 µW/cm2 or less and posed no risk to humans. (4) Conclusions: Side-coupled UVA radiation is in principle capable of safely automatically disinfecting microorganisms on touch screens. However, the required irradiation times are still in the hour range, so that a rapid disinfection within a minute or less is not yet possible with the presented setup. However, higher UVA intensities might reduce the current disinfection durations.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.