International Ultraviolet Association
6935 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 207
Chevy Chase, MD 20815
www.iuva.org

Far UV-C Radiation: Current State-of Knowledge
Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of
the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the International Ultraviolet Association.

Executive Summary
The COVID-19 pandemic has heightened awareness of the risks associated with disease transmission bysurface- and, particularly, airborne-associated pathogens; this risk awareness brings a desire for solutions.
UV-C radiation (at shorter wavelengths outside the visible spectrum) has been employed for air and surface
disinfection since the 1940's. There is unequivocal evidence that UV-C can be used to reduce the incidenceof communicable diseases transmitted via fomites and by airborne droplets or aerosols across a range ofsettings. UV-C disrupts the reproductive cycle of the targeted pathogens, rendering them inactive. Further,recent studies have conclusively shown that UV-C rapidly inactivates SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes
COVID-19, as well as other common airborne pathogens such as influenza viruses.
Far UV-C radiation (200-230 nm) is a region of the UV-C spectrum not traditionally used for disinfection,
though it has been known to be an effective antimicrobial and antiviral agent. The significance of Far UVC is that, whereas exposure to conventional germicidal UV (250-280 nm) at germicidal doses is potentiallyhazardous, biophysical and experimental evidence suggest this is not the case for Far UV-C; greater
absorption by protective surface layers results much less damage to skin and eye, while maintaining
disinfection efficacy. Thus Far UV-C offers the potential to fundamentally change how and where UV-C
radiation can be used for surface and, particularly, airborne decontamination, opening the potential for its
use in occupied spaces.
This White Paper is a scientific review of Far UV-C technology and the state of the art research; this,however, does not constitute a complete review of regulations around this technology, which may vary
substantially region-to-region and by application. Key conclusions of this Report, made through analysis
of published literature and collation of expert knowledge, are:• Inactivation of viral pathogens by Far UV-C is at least, and often more effective as compared withconventional UV-C.
• There is no evidence, to date, of any adverse human eye or skin damage (including considerationof skin cancers) from Far UV-C delivered at relevant germicidal exposures.
• Far UV-C sources often emit potentially harmful radiation outside of the Far UV-C range, though
at relatively lower intensity. Spectral characterization of Far UV-C sources is crucial when
understanding their safety; sources with significant emission above 230 nm may require opticalfiltering.
• Ozone generation by some Far UV-C lamps has been observed and, though manageable, should beconsidered and measured during application design.
In summary, while research should continue into both the safety and efficacy of Far UV-C, the material inthis Report suggests that there is sufficient evidence for immediate consideration of this technology during
this world-wide health crisis. Far UV-C offers a promising technology to reduce surface and airborne
disease transmission in occupied spaces, including COVID-19 and other viral diseases, when it is properly
designed, engineered, and applied.
1

ScopeAs part of its COVID-19 initiatives, the International Ultraviolet Association (IUVA) convened a Task
Force (TF) to assemble a comprehensive summary of the current state-of-knowledge related to Far UV-C
technologies for use in disinfection of air and surfaces. This summary addresses the antimicrobial andantiviral properties of Far UV-C radiation (with particular focus on antiviral behavior), the effects of Far
UV-C radiation on mammalian tissues, and the potential for formation of ozone by Far UV-C devices. In
a broader sense, this document is intended to provide a summary of what we know and what we do notknow about Far UV-C radiation and its application in practical settings. The aggregation of knowledge inthis document may be used to inform decisions regarding current and planned applications of Far UV-C
radiation, research priorities, and development of regulations related to Far-UV-C-based applications.

The UV Spectrum and Far UV-C
The ultraviolet spectrum is a band of electromagnetic radiation at higher energies (i.e., shorter wavelengths)
than visible light (see Figure 1), divided into three major categories: UV-A (315-400 nm), UV-B (280-315nm), and UV-C (100-280 nm); vacuum-UV (VUV, 100–200 nm), is further defined as a sub-category of
UV-C. While there are some differences among definitions that have been presented to define the ranges
of UV radiation, for the purposes of this White Paper, we further sub-divide UV-C into germicidal UV(UVGI at 250-280 nm), Far UV-C (at 200–230 nm), and vacuum-UV (VUV, at 100–200 nm).†

Figure 1. Electromagnetic spectrum and the position of ultraviolet radiation within it. Designations of
the wavelength ranges that define UV-A, UV-B, UV-C are shown, along with the sub-categories of UV-C(UVGI, Far UV-C, and VUV).

†

Note: The wavelength ranges listed above conform to the definitions provided by the International Commission on
Illumination (CIE) (see http://cie.co.at/eilvterm/17-21-008). Another prominent professional organization, theInternational Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC), presents a slightly different set of wavelength ranges
for these categories of UV radiation (see https://goldbook.iupac.org/terms/view/UT07492). Specifically, the IUPAC
defines UV-A and UV-B in the same manner as CIE, but defines UV-C as radiation with wavelengths of 200-280 nm,
while VUV is defined as radiation with wavelengths of 100-200 nm

2Sources of Far UV-C Radiation
UV-C inactivation relies on the generation of UV radiation from artificial sources. The most common Far
UV-C sources are barrier discharge excimer lamps,1 first developed in the 1980s.2 In these devices, avoltage is applied across a sealed chamber containing a rare gas-halogen mixture exciting the gas into a
plasma state; the resulting excited molecular complex then undergoes an electron transition to emit quasimonochromatic radiation. Various excimers may form in the plasma, leading to primary and secondary(weaker) emission peaks. The contributions from different electron transitions may, to an extent, beenhanced or suppressed by tuning the lamp design (e.g., gas pressure and composition).3
Recent work has focused on krypton-chloride excimer (KrCl*) lamps. Emission spectra vary somewhat
depending on the lamp design, with KrCl* lamps typically exhibiting a dominant peak at ~222 nm withfull-width-half-maximum ~4 nm; in addition there are also lower wavelength emissions extending to 200
nm and below, and higher-wavelength emissions from other KrCl* and Cl2* transitions,1 extending to ~300
nm and above (Figure 2). These off-nominal emissions can represent up to ~15% of the total power output
of a typical unfiltered KrCl* lamp, as illustrated by full emission, unfiltered spectra, shown in Figure 2.
In practical terms, the emission peak from a KrCl* lamp centered at 222 nm is well-suited to the applications
that are discussed in this document. Radiation at longer wavelengths can be problematic in terms of human
eye and skin exposure risks, while shorter wavelengths can be problematic due to potential ozone
generation. As such, most practical applications of KrCl* should include optical filters to minimize
contributions of radiation from wavelengths significantly longer or shorter than the peak centered at 222
nm (also illustrated in Figure 2). The majority of Far UV-C research involves optically-filtered KrCl*lamps.
Other gaseous lamp based technologies may also be possible for generation of Far UV-C radiation, such as
metallic vapor lamps4 or optically-filtered medium-pressure mercury lamps,5 though their practical utility
has yet to be demonstrated for UV-based air and surface disinfection applications.
Solid state emitters in the Far UV-C range have recently been demonstrated,6 using conventional UV-C
LED construction with thin layers of AlGaN to form the LED’s photon-generating “active region.” These
devices are benefitting from recent developments in longer-wavelength UV-C LEDs,7 though each step
toward shorter wavelengths uncovers new challenges that must be overcome. At present, Far UV-C LEDs
are limited to micro-Watt outputs and exhibit short lifetimes,8 and so do not currently represent a viable
technology for disinfection. It should be noted, however, that a similar set of challenges was faced, andovercome, by UV-C LEDs in the 250–280 nm range. More exotic solid-state formulations, such as
hexagonal BN layers9 and nanowire structures,10 have been demonstrated, though these devices are notready for commercial application. The various construction methods and compositions of these solid-state
emitters lead to significant variation in peak and bandwidth characteristics, and emissions are notnecessarily confined to the Far UV-C range.

3Normalized Output

1

Lamp A Without Filter
Lamp A With Filter
Lamp B Without Filter
Lamp B With Filter

0.1

0.01

0.001

0.0001
200

220

240

260

280

Wavelength (nm)1.0Lamp A Without Filter
Lamp A With Filter
Lamp B Without Filter
Lamp B With Filter

Normalized Output

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
200

220

240

260

280

Wavelength (nm)Figure 2. Emission spectra from commercially-available KrCl* lamps with and without optical filters.
Normalized output presented on a log10 scale (top panel) and on a linear scale (bottom panel). For bothlamps, the spectra were measured independently and normalized to output at the wavelength
corresponding to peak output (ca. 222 nm).

4

Inactivation By UV-C/Far UV-C Radiation
How Far UV-C Works - Inactivation Mechanisms
UV inactivation is controlled by two key parameters: wavelength and total UV exposure (commonlyreferred to as UV dose or fluence).11, 12 Germicidal efficacy varies with UV-C wavelength and is unique tothe microbe or virus being targeted: the germicidal action spectrum describes this response. Though
germicidal action spectra vary among microbial and viral species,13 a common feature is a local peak in the
260–270 nm region, where UV-C causes nucleic acid breakdown resulting in inactivation of the pathogen(aka, disinfection). This, coupled with the ready availability of mercury vapor-based lamps led to thehistoric focus of conventional mercury vapor-based UVGI systems (emitting predominantly at 254 nm).
Wavelengths below 230 nm are typically highly effective for inactivation due to the absorbance of photons
by both nucleic acids and proteins (see Figure 3); however these wavelengths have been less widely
researched, presumably because of the difficulty in finding UV-C sources operating at this region. The
absorbance of Far UV-C by nucleic acids and proteins can lead to photochemical damage to bothbiomolecule types, providing two pathways to inactivation of microorganisms and viruses.
While these shorter Far UV-C wavelengths are more readily absorbed by target pathogens, they can also bereadily absorbed by surrounding media, resulting in reduced inactivation. For example, airborne viralpathogens are often contained within aerosol droplets, which themselves often contain relatively highconcentrations of proteins. The presence of these compounds may limit penetration of Far UV-C radiation
into aerosols, depending on the aerosol diameter and composition, which in turn will influence delivery ofphotons to the target pathogens.14 At present, the effects of absorbance by aerosol proteins (and otherconstituents) are understood at a qualitative level but expected to be minimal due to the short optical
pathlength; improvement of our understanding of the effects of this behavior in quantitative terms
represents an area for future research.

5

Absorbance (Normalized to 254 nm)

100
Nucleic Acid
Protein
10

1

0.1

0.01
200

220

240

260

280

300

Wavelength (nm)Nucleic Acid
Protein

Absorbance (normalized to 254 nm)

60

40

20

10

5

0
200

220

240

260

280

300

Wavelength (nm)Figure 3. Normalized absorbance of nucleic acids (DNA/RNA) and the protein trypsin (in dry form);(top) log10-scale, (bottom) linear scale (reproduced from Setlow et al.15 Voet et al.16).

6

How Much Far-UV-C Is Required - Inactivation Studies
The term “log inactivation” (or informally “log kill” [sic]) is often used to describe the effect of disinfectant
exposure on a pathogen population. The formal definition of log inactivation is:
𝑿 𝒍𝒐𝒈𝟏𝟎 𝒖𝒏𝒊𝒕𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒗𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒕𝒓𝒂𝒏𝒔𝒍𝒂𝒕𝒆𝒔 𝒕𝒐𝑵= 𝟏𝟎#𝑿
𝑵𝟎(1)
𝑵

As examples, 1 log10 unit of inactivation corresponds to 90% inactivation 5𝑵 = 𝟎. 𝟏7, 2 log10 units of𝟎𝑵inactivation corresponds to 99% inactivation 5𝑵 = 𝟎. 𝟎𝟏7, 3 log10 units of inactivation corresponds to𝑵

𝟎99.9% inactivation 5𝑵 = 𝟎. 𝟎𝟎𝟏7, and so on. This equation is the basis for the scales and the data plotted
𝟎in Figures 4, 5, and 7-9.
UV-C irradiation is effective against microbial and viral pathogens in air, water, and on surfaces.
Coronaviruses specifically are highly susceptible to UV-C radiation, as illustrated in Figures 4 and 5. Using
data from studies conducted based on aqueous (liquid) suspensions of viruses employing accepted
guidelines or best practice and methods for measuring UV dose and for assessing viral inactivation, it canbe seen that this behavior holds for irradiation from a conventional 254 nm emitting lamp, as well as fromsources that emit at other UV-C wavelengths, including Far UV-C.

7

100

Storm et al. (2020) SARS-CoV-2
Bianco et al. (2020) SARS-CoV-2
Ma et al. (2021) HuCoV-229E
Ma et al. (2021) MHV
Narita et al. (2020) Influenza A
Sagripanti and Lytle (2020) SARS-CoV-2
Pendyala et al. (2020) SARS-CoV-2
Rockey et al. (2020) SARS-CoV-2
Rockey et al. (2020) SARS-CoV-1
Rockey et al. (2020) MERS
Rockey et al. (2020) MHV

N/N0

10-1

10-2

10-3

10-4
0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

UV254 Dose (mJ/cm2)
Figure 4. Measured UV254 dose-response behavior of common ssRNA respiratory pathogens, including
numerous coronaviruses, in aqueous suspension. Measured inactivation responses of coronaviruses areindicated by blue symbols; measured inactivation of Influenza A virus is indicated by red symbols. Also
included are predictions of coronavirus responses from genomic models (dashed lines).
As an example, at 254 nm, approximately 1 log10 reduction of coronaviruses is achieved for each 2 mJ/cm2
delivered UV-C fluence (“dose”), as illustrated in Figure 4, above. For comparison, pathogenic viruses
such as poliovirus and rotavirus require roughly 4-5 times that amount (i.e., 8-10 mJ/cm2) for each log10
unit reduction.

8

Figure 5. Measured UV222 dose-response behavior of common respiratory ssRNA viruses including
numerous coronaviruses in aqueous suspension. Measured inactivation responses of coronaviruses areindicated by blue symbols; measured inactivation of Influenza A virus is indicated by red symbols. The
open symbol represents a reported value beyond the detection limit of the viral infectivity assay.
Based on experimental data available, 222 nm UV irradiation is at least as effective as 254 nm UV
irradiation for inactivation of viruses and phage viral surrogates and the data suggest that about 2 log10
reduction of coronaviruses is achieved for each 2 mJ/cm2 delivered UV-C fluence, as illustrated in Figure
5, corresponding to roughly twice the rate of inactivation as observed at 254 nm. Therefore, data for 254
nm UV inactivation can conservatively represent the expected virus inactivation at 222 nm.
Genome size, measured in kilo-bases (kb) or kilo-base pairs, has been demonstrated as a key factor thatgoverns the response of viruses to UV-C radiation.17-20 In general, large genomes provide more targets forphotochemical damage, and as such, viruses with larger genomes tend to be inactivated relatively quickly.
The type of genome (either single-stranded [ss], double-stranded [ds], RNA, or DNA) can also influence
the responses of viruses to UV-C exposure. For context, the coronaviruses have the largest known genomes
among ss-RNA viruses; this appears to be an important contributing factor to the ease with which
coronaviruses are inactivated by UV-C exposure. Viruses with ds genomes are often relatively resistant to
UV-C exposure because the complementary nucleic acid strand can facilitate repair. The presence of aviral envelope can influence the susceptibility of viruses to exposure to some physical agents, such has heator shear forces. However, it is not clear that the presence of a viral envelope influences the responses of9viruses to UV-C exposure. A summary of the genetic properties of the viruses and bacteriophage reported
herein is presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Summary of genetic properties of human viruses and bacteriophage described herein.
Sequencing information can be found in https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/, using NCBI accession number.
Genome size
GenomeEnveloped orVirus(kilobases or
NCBI accessionTypenon-enveloped
kilobase pairs)
SARS-CoV-2
ssRNA
Enveloped
29.8 kb
MN908947
SARS-CoV-1
ssRNA
Enveloped
29.7 kb
NC_004718
MERS
ssRNA
Enveloped
30.1 kb
NC_019843.3
MHV
ssRNA
Enveloped
31.3 kb
AY700211
HuCoV-229E
ssRNA
Enveloped
27.3 kb
NC_002645
HuCoV-OC43
ssRNA
Enveloped
30.7 kb
NC_006213
Influenza A
segmented
Enveloped
13.5 kb
NC_002016-002023(H1N1)
ssRNA
Adenovirus
dsDNA
Non-enveloped
35.9 kb
AC_000007(Type 2)
segmented
F6
Enveloped
13.4 kb
NC_003714-003716
dsRNA
Bacteriophage
T1
dsDNA
Non-enveloped
48.8 kb
NC_005833
Bacteriophage
T1UV(assumed similar
dsDNA
Non-enveloped
n/aBacteriophage
to T1)Qβ
ssRNA
Non-enveloped
4.2 kb
NC_001890
Bacteriophage
MS2
ssRNA
Non-enveloped
3.6 kb
NC_001417
Bacteriophage
Inactivation models based on genomic properties of viruses have recently been developed for 254 nm UV
irradiation.18-20 These models yield predictions that are similar to reported measurements of viralinactivation at 254 nm; moreover, the predictions of these models are consistent with each other. Currently,
no models exist to characterize UV dose-response behavior for 222 nm UV irradiation, likely due to theadditional importance of protein damage in Far UV-C inactivation mechanisms21 that genomic-basedmodels cannot represent. The enhanced inactivation of viruses at Far UV-C wavelengths, compared to UV
254 nm, such as represented by studies on respiratory adenoviruses illustrated in Figure 6,22, 23 has beenshown to be due to protein damage.21

10

Figure 6. Spectral sensitivity of adenovirus 2 as measured by infectivity, compared to nucleic acid
(DNA) damage, for wavelengths between 210 and 290 nm.22
Compared to UV inactivation of viruses in aqueous media, the inactivation of coronaviruses on surfaces orin aerosols appears to be slightly more effective, with greater than 1 log10 reduction achieved for each 2
mJ/cm2 delivered UV dose (see Figure 7). Based on these and other available UV inactivation data,
inactivation of viruses suspended in water or other aqueous media appears to provide a conservative
estimate of the inactivation response that can be achieved on surfaces or in aerosols.
These data suggest that the inactivation of viruses using either 222 nm or 254 nm on surfaces or in aerosols
is expected to be greater than in aqueous suspension. However, inactivation of pathogens (including
viruses) in aerosols and on surfaces by exposure to UV-C radiation is also complicated by the effects ofabsorption by the surrounding media. As a result, quantification of UV-C dose delivery to (viral) pathogens
in aerosols and on surfaces can be difficult. Extrapolation of these initial findings to other surface types andconditions is currently a subject of on-going research.
Properly designed experiments to measure UV-C dose-response behavior involve the use of a UV-C
exposure device that delivers a controllable, quantifiable dose to a viral population. By conducting these
exposures over a range of relevant UV-C doses, with corresponding culture-based measurements of virus
or microbe inactivation, it is possible to quantify UV-C dose-response behavior. For aqueous suspensionsof viruses or microbes, these experiments often involve a (pseudo) collimated beam,24 for which welldefined, standardized methods have been established.25 For airborne and surface-associated viruses, nosuch standard currently exists, although several competing guidelines and laboratory devices have beendeveloped to approach the objectives described above.26
A complicating factor in the translation of UV-C dose-response behavior to practical applications, such as
disinfection of air or surfaces, is the fact that the target population of pathogens is almost certain to receive11

a distribution of doses, i.e., some pathogens may receive high doses, and some may receive low doses.
Principles of process engineering dictate that the low dose population will control disinfection efficacy,
often described by log10 reduction of the target pathogen population. The dose distribution delivered by anair disinfection system will be influenced by power, placement, and distribution of UV-C sources, as wellas air circulation for air disinfection and surface characteristics (e.g., shadowing, gaps, and crevices) for
surface disinfection. For UV-C systems used for disinfection of water, numerical methods involving
integrated applications of computational fluid dynamics and fluence rate field modeling have become theindustry standard for system design, as well as for simulations of the UV-C dose distribution and process
performance.27-35 It is likely that simulations and design of UV-C disinfection systems for air and surfaces
will benefit from similar modeling approaches and work in this area has begun.36 These numerical models
can be used to simulate dynamic and steady-state behavior of UV-C disinfection systems, including thoseused to disinfect air and surfaces. The models themselves require validation based on physicalmeasurements. Research in this area is likely to continue to evolve as interest and demand for UV-based
disinfection systems grows.
Beyond the numerical models, it is also important that empirical (experiment-based) methods emerge fortesting and validation of UV-C systems that are used to disinfect air and surfaces. Here again, there is aconsiderable knowledge base that can be drawn on from UV-C systems that have been applied fordisinfection of water. Well-defined protocols for testing and validation of these systems have been
established in the United States37, 38 and in western Europe.39-43 In general, these testing and validation
protocols are based on the use of surrogate challenge microbes or viruses to quantify disinfection efficacy.
Given the history and success of these applications, and the fact that they are based on measurements ofinactivation of non-pathogenic challenge agents that are well-understood within the engineering andregulatory communities, it is likely that testing and validation protocols for UV disinfection systems thatare used for air and water will adopt a similar strategy. However, research related to the application of UVC radiation for disinfection of air and surfaces is not as mature as for water-based applications, and detailsof these methods still need to be refined.

12Figure 7. UV inactivation of ssRNA respiratory viruses on surfaces and in aerosols at 222 nm and 254
nm. Measured inactivation responses of coronaviruses are indicated by blue symbols; measured
inactivation of Influenza H1N1 virus is indicated by red symbols. The open symbols represent reported
values beyond the detection limit of the viral infectivity assay.

Surrogates for UV Inactivation of Respiratory Viruses
UV inactivation of coronaviruses can be represented by inactivation of certain phage surrogates at both 254
and 222 nm as illustrated in Figures 8 and 9, respectively. A good surrogate will be non-pathogenic tohumans, easy to culture and assay, and be no more sensitive to UV exposure than the target pathogen at the
wavelength(s) emitted by the UV source of interest. Identification of surrogates for SARS-CoV-2 (andother airborne viral pathogens) offers the potential to quantify or validate the performance of UV-based
mitigation measures.
At 254 nm, the rate of inactivation of coronaviruses can be represented by T1UV phage, T1 phage, or moreconservatively by Qb phage. For 222 nm irradiation, the rate of inactivation of coronaviruses can be
represented by T1UV or F6 phage, or more conservatively by Qb phage. MS2 phage could be employed
as a conservative surrogate for both 254 nm and 222 nm radiation, though with varying sensitivity at each(data not shown because they are inconsistent with the vertical axis scales in Figures 8 and 9). Thisdifference in suitability of acceptable surrogates could have a meaningful impact on future validation

13

protocols for these technologies: a one-size-fits-all approach to UV-C disinfection is not likely to beeffective across the broad range of possible applications.

100

Storm et al. (2020) SARS-CoV-2
Bianco et al. (2020) SARS-CoV-2
Ma et al. (2021) HuCoV-229E
Ma et al. (2021) MHV
Beck et al. (2015) T1UV Phage
Li and Blatchley (2021) T1 Phage
Beck et al. (2015) Qb Phage

N/N0

10-1

10-2

10-3

10-4

10-5
0

10

20

30

40

50

UV254 Dose (mJ/cm2)
Figure 8. UV254 dose-response behavior of coronaviruses and phage that could serve as (conservative)
surrogates. Measured inactivation responses of coronaviruses are indicated by blue symbols; measured
inactivation responses of potential phage surrogates are indicated by red symbols; measured inactivation
responses of conservative phage surrogates are indicated by charcoal gray symbols.

14

100

Ma et al. (2021) MHV
Robinson et al. (2021) SARS-CoV-2
Ma et al. (2021) HuCoV-229E
Ma et al. (2021) MHV
Beck et al. (2015) T1UV Phage
Beck et al. (2015) Qb Phage
Ma et al. (2021) F6 Phage

N/N0

10-1

10-2

10-3

10-4

10-5
0

5

10

15

20

25

UV222 Dose (mJ/cm2)
Figure 9. UV222 dose-response behavior of coronaviruses and phage that could serve as (conservative)
surrogates. Measured inactivation responses of coronaviruses are indicated by blue symbols; measured
inactivation responses of potential phage surrogates are indicated by red symbols; measured inactivation
responses of conservative phage surrogates are indicated by charcoal gray symbols.

Safety Aspects of Human Exposure to Far UV-C Radiation
Multiple recent studies of health effects from Far UV-C exposures of the eye and skin indicate that the
wavelengths below about 230 nm are substantially safer than longer UV-C wavelengths.44-55 Theseexperimental observations are consistent with biophysical considerations regarding the much shorter
penetration depth of Far UV-C radiation as compared with longer wavelength UV-C radiation. The
biophysical background here is that UV-C radiation at wavelengths less than about 230 nm is strongly
absorbed by all proteins (particularly through the peptide bond) and by other biomolecules,45, 56, 57 and so
its ability to penetrate living tissue is quite limited. This phenomenon is quantified by wavelengthdependent measurements shown in Figure 10 (see also information in Figure 3). These considerations andexperimental results have led to proposals to modify safety guidelines for human exposure in the Far UVC spectral region, including for whole-room exposure in occupied settings (see below).58-60

15

Figure 10. Measured wavelength-dependent UV absorbance, averaged over measurements for eightcommon proteins. From Ref. 45
Skin
A significant concern about the safe use of UV-C in germicidal applications has long been the potential for
promotion of skin cancer.59, 61, 62 However, past reviews of the photocarcinogenesis risks focused only on
254 nm and longer UV-B and UV-A wavelengths.63 Epidemiological studies of skin cancer clearly showed
the causal factor of ambient solar radiation to be primarily attributable to the UV-B component.64 To date,there have been no human epidemiological studies done to study skin cancer resulting solely from UV-C
exposure, as this has not been a concern because so few people have been exposed. Even so, it is clear that
our outermost layer of skin (i.e., the human stratum corneum) strongly attenuates UV-C radiation such thatvery little UV-C radiation reaches the germinative, basal layer of the epidermis, where the DNA would
have to be altered to potentially initiate skin cancer.49, 50, 62, 63 For Far UV-C radiation, which is morestrongly attenuated in the stratum corneum than longer UV-C wavelengths or UV-B, the biophysicalsituation is even clearer, in that very little Far UV-C radiation reaches even the superficial layers of theepidermis, and essentially none reaches the deeper basal layer, negating Far UV-C as a cancer risk (seeFigure 11).
Additionally, there have been a number of recent experimental safety studies of Far UV-C radiation inhuman skin and hairless mouse skin, both in vitro and in vivo. Of the ten peer-reviewed published studies,nine have shown no measurable negative impacts,44, 46, 48-54 despite including much larger doses than would
be permitted in a human exposure scenario; the one published study55 that did show evidence of skinerythema used an unfiltered Far-UVC excimer lamp, i.e. with a significant component of UV-C radiation
at wavelengths >230 nm; this 2015 study was essentially repeated in 2020 by Fukui et al.48 using opticallyfiltered 222 nm radiation (i.e., without the >230nm components) at similar and higher doses, and noevidence of erythema or any skin safety risk was observed.
These in-vivo human skin results are consistent with the recent studies by Buonanno et al.54 who applied awell-established ex-vivo human skin model (EpiDerm), where no significant increased yields of pre16

mutagenic cyclobutane-pyrimidine-dimer (CPD) DNA lesions were seen after exposure to 125 mJ/cm2 ofunfiltered Far-UVC radiation, and a slight increase at 500 mJ/cm2 was seen. In turn, these results are
consistent with the results from Yamano et al.52 who conducted a study with hairless mice; they exposed
two genotypes of hairless mice that are highly susceptible to carcinogenesis to a Far-UV-C dose of 500
mJ/cm2 and reported a faint detection of CPDs, but only in the uppermost cells of the epidermis, a finding
recently duplicated in in-vivo human skin studies.53 These most superficial, outer-most cells of theepidermis are at the end of their lifetime, about to become the dead cells that comprise the outermost skinlayer – the stratum corneum. Consistent with these observations, Yamano et al.52 reported no evidence for
Far-UV-C-induced skin cancer in their study with skin-cancer prone mice. The demonstration of little orno skin damage at these exposures (being above those typically required for disinfection) supports theapplication of germicidal Far UV-C technology in occupied spaces.

Figure 11. Penetration of UV wavelengths into human skin; arrows represent an estimate of 90%
absorption depth. UV-C wavelengths at 222 nm do not appear to penetrate the stratum corneum; whereas,
254 nm does penetrate into upper epidermis. UV-B wavelengths, such as 300 nm, do penetrate to thecritically important germinative (basal) layer of the epidermis and have sufficient energy to mutate DNA.
UV-A wavelengths at 340 nm, 360 nm, and 400 nm penetrate well into the dermis, but the lower photon
energies are far less damaging than 300 nm. [Figure courtesy of DH Sliney].
Eye
There have been quite limited studies of the effects of ocular exposures to Far UV-C wavelengths. Kaidzu
et al. 47, 65 assessed threshold photokeratitis in a rat eye model. They conducted assessments at 24 hrs post
exposure using slit-lamp bio-microscopy, staining, and surface mapping. They reported exposure
thresholds at four UV-C wavelengths (nominally 207 nm, 222 nm, 235 nm, and 254 nm) as well as one
UV-B wavelength (311 nm); the measured thresholds for a detectable effect on the cornea at 207 nm and222 nm were above 5,000 mJ/cm2 and 15,000 mJ/cm2 respectively, which are far above the current safety
guidelines. Kaidzu et al. 47, 65 also undertook a histological assessment of the cornea using CPDs as amarker for DNA damage, which were analyzed for each wavelength and as a function of exposure dose.
The depth of observed CPDs varied with wavelength; for the Far UV-C 207 nm and 222 nm exposures, theCPD biomarker was only observed in the upper superficial cells of the corneal epithelium, cells which are17

sloughed off in a few days in the normal corneal epithelial life cycle. Analogous to the skin, the germinative
cells of the cornea are located in the limbus, at the border between the cornea and conjunctiva, and are thus
protected from Far UV-C radiation by several cell layers (see Figure 12). By contrast, in theircorresponding studies with 254 nm and 313 nm exposures, CPDs were observed in all layers of the cornea
including the corneal endothelium.

Figure 12. Penetration of UV wavelengths into the human eye. UV-C wavelengths at 222 nm hardly
penetrate to the corneal epithelium; whereas, 254 nm does penetrate well into the epithelium and into thestroma. There is some evidence of penetration even to the endothelium. UV-B wavelengths, such as 300
nm do penetrate to the lens, and oblique rays to the critically important germinative layer of the lensbehind the iris and have sufficient energy to mutate DNA. UV-A wavelengths are strongly absorbed byfluorophores in the lens and protect the retina. [Figure courtesy of DH Sliney].

18

The corneal injury thresholds reported by Kaidzu et al.47, 65 for Far-UVC radiation are significantly higher
than those reported by Pitts.66 A likely explanation is that Pitts used wide-bandwidth arc-monochromator
exposures centered at 220 nm, 240 nm, and 250 nm. The bandwidths were sufficiently large (10 nm fullwidth, half-maximum, FWHM) that the derived action spectrum was severely flattened, as also occurred inthe 310-nm region.67 Since the Pitts data were used in development of the current UV exposure limits,60, 68
these limits are overly-conservative, as discussed below.
Exposure Limit Guidelines
The guidelines for human exposure to UV-C radiation currently are identical worldwide. The best-known
limits are from the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) and theInternational Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP); these published limits haveremained largely unchanged for at least 3 decades.58, 69. The spectral weighting function, S(l), was based
upon corneal and skin injury thresholds available in the 1970s, and fortunately there were thresholds
available in the UV-B that were from monochromatic thresholds.60 Figure 13 provides a graphical summaryof the current guidance values of S(l) across the UV spectrum. Figure 14 illustrates the corresponding 8hr exposure limits.

Relative Spectral Effectiveness, S(l)

100

10-1

10-2

10-3

10-4

Current Guidance
Proposed Guidance (2021), Eyes
Proposed Guidance (2021), Skin

10-5
200

250

300

350

400

Wavelength (nm)Figure 13. Comparison of current and proposed guidance for relative spectral effectiveness, S(l), as afunction of wavelength. Proposed guidance values were presented by ACGIH. Proposed values for eye
exposure are protective of skin; proposed values for skin are presented for circumstances where humaneyes are protected from exposure.

19

28-hr Exposure Limit (mJ/cm )105
Current Guidance
Proposed Guidance (2021), Eyes
Proposed Guidance (2021), Skin

104

103

102

101

100
200

250

300

350

400

Wavelength (nm)Figure 14. Comparison of 8-hr exposure limits for UV-C radiation, based on relative spectral
effectiveness values illustrated in Figure 13.
In 2020 the ACGIH issued a “Notice of Intended Change” of the UV Threshold Limit Values (TLVs), andthese proposals incorporated for the first time a separation of limits for the eye and skin at wavelengths
below 300 nm and an increase in current limits for the eye at wavelengths below 250 nm.58 The proposedvalues of S(l) for skin and eye exposure are also included in Figure 13 to allow comparison with the existingvalues. Exposure limits based on the proposed values of S(l) for skin and eye exposure are illustrated in
Figure 14. The proposed daily (based on an 8-hour exposure period per day), time-weighted exposure
limits at 222 nm would rise from 23 mJ/cm2 (for both skin and eyes) to 161 mJ/cm2 for the eye and 479
mJ/cm2 for the skin. The skin exposure limits are perhaps still rather more conservative than might bejustified by the data described above.
Risks for Sensitive Individuals for Exposure to Far UV-C Radiation
Risk estimates of necessity refer to populations, though the Exposure Limit Guidelines discussed above aredesigned to be sufficiently conservative as to account for a reasonable distribution of sensitivities. Here we
consider the tissue subcategories of individuals who might potentially be systematically more sensitive than
average to the effects of Far UV-C radiation, such as those with sensitive or photosensitive skin, or withdry eye. Given that the increased skin safety associated with Far UV-C exposure derives largely from thestratum corneum thickness (SCT), then it is relevant that SCT is not significantly different between
individuals who do or do not have “sensitive skin.”70 Likewise, SCT is not statistically significantly
different between individuals who have skin cancers vs. healthy individuals.71 Also the SCT is generally
independent of age, sex, and race 72. Correspondingly for the eye, in a study of tear-layer thickness in dry20

eye patients, there was no significant difference in the muco-aqueous tear layer thickness or the lipid tearlayer thickness in healthy vs. mild-moderate vs. severe dry-eye patients.73 Therefore, the available data do
not provide evidence that there are significant subgroups of individuals who, by virtue of age, sex, race,
health conditions, or genetics, are systematically more sensitive than average to the effects of far UV-C
radiation.

Ozone Generation by Far UV-C Lamps
Another safety-related concern connected to Far UV-C-based applications is the potential to generate
ozone. The primary focus of this section is on photochemical formation (and decomposition) of ozone;
however, it should be noted that ozone may also be formed as a result of corona discharges, which areassociated with some Far UV-C sources. Moreover, the accumulation of ozone in ambient air will begoverned not only by reactions that lead to formation and decay of ozone, but also air circulation and mixing
in the vicinity of the Far UV-C source.
Ozone Exposure Limits
Ozone has been shown to affect the respiratory system as well as the cardiovascular and central nervous
systems. Exposure limits for gas-phase ozone have been established by many governmental and nongovernmental organizations that have responsibilities to ensure public health. Table 2 provides a summaryof exposure limits for O3 that have been established by several of these organizations. In general, theselimits call for gas-phase O3 concentration to be maintained less than 0.05-0.1 ppmv.
Table 2. Summary of regulatory and guideline exposure limits for gas-phase O3.
O3 Limit
O3 Exposure Limit
Agency or𝒎𝒈
Name orComments
ppmv 5 𝒎𝟑 7
Organization
AcronymTime-weighted average (TWA) for up to a
TWA
0.1 (𝟎. 𝟐)
10-hr work day during a 40-hr work week
NIOSH/OSHA74(𝟎.
ST
Short-term TWA
0.3
𝟔)
Primary and secondary NAAQS; annual
EPA75
NAAQS
4th-highest daily maximum 8-hour
0.070 (𝟎. 𝟏𝟒)
concentration, averaged over 3 years
76
(𝟎.
WHO
Guideline
8-hour mean exposure concentration
0.1
𝟐)
0.05 (𝟎. 𝟏)
Heavy work
ACGIH
Guideline
0.10 (𝟎. 𝟐)
Moderate work
Reactions Responsible for Ozone Formation and Decay from Far UV-C Sources
Photochemical formation and destruction of ozone in the gas phase have been investigated extensively,
largely because of the roles played by ozone in tropospheric and stratospheric chemistry, as well as withthe use of vacuum UV (VUV) sources as ozone generators. Ozone (𝑶𝟑 ) is generated by short wavelength
UV radiation (𝝀 ≲ 𝟐𝟒𝟐 𝒏𝒎) or in electrical discharges (corona) when molecular oxygen (𝑶𝟐 ) is present.
Ozone can also be generated photochemically by a combination of ozone precursors (e.g., nitrogen oxides
and hydrocarbons) at longer wavelengths UV (𝟐𝟗𝟎 𝒏𝒎 ≲ 𝝀 ≲ 𝟒𝟎𝟎 𝒏𝒎), but this mechanism of ozone
formation is unlikely to contribute significantly to ozone generation by Far UV-C sources.
Much of our current understanding of the potential for ozone formation from Far UV-C sources is based onstudies of ozone formation and destruction in the stratosphere, which are initiated by photochemical
reactions. The basic reactions that are responsible for photochemically-initiated formation anddecomposition of ozone were first proposed by Sydney Chapman in 1930. The “Chapman Cycle”
comprises the following set of reactions:77, 78
21

𝑶𝟐 + 𝒉𝝂 → 𝑶 + 𝑶(2)

𝑶 + 𝑶𝟐 + 𝑴 → 𝑶𝟑 + 𝑴(3)𝑶𝟑 + 𝒉𝝂 → 𝑶 + 𝑶𝟐

(4)

𝑶 + 𝑶𝟑 → 𝑶𝟐 + 𝑶𝟐

(5)

𝑶 + 𝑶 + 𝑴 → 𝑶𝟐 + 𝑴(6)Reactions 2 and 4 in this sequence are both photochemical. The rates of these reactions are governed by
the rate at which UV photons in the relevant wavelength range are absorbed by the reactant molecules. In
the case of reaction 2, the reactant is molecular oxygen (O2), while for reaction 4 the reactant is ozone (O3).
Absorption cross-sections (𝝈) indicate the ability of gases to absorb radiation as a function of wavelength.‡
Figure 15 illustrates the absorption cross-sections (absorption spectrum) for gas-phase O2 for wavelengths
that include vacuum UV (VUV) and UV-C. Absorption starts to become quantifiable at wavelengths lessthan about 242 nm, which represents the practical upper limit of the wavelength range that initiates reaction
2. Within the range of wavelengths that are relevant to applications that involve UV-C and VUV, theabsorption cross-sections of O2 are characterized by the Herzberg continuum, which represents a regular,smooth increase of absorption as wavelength decreases from roughly 240 nm down to 200 nm. For
wavelengths from roughly 200 nm down to 175 nm, a banded structure known as the Schumann-Runge
bands becomes evident; this structure is attributable to promotion of the O2 molecule from a ground state
to excited state transitions.79 Note that the vertical axis in Figure 15 is presented on a log10 scale; therefore,
absorption by O2 in the Schumann-Runge bands is several orders of magnitude more efficient than in the
Herzberg continuum.

‡

In atmospheric chemistry, the most common unit of concentration is molecules/cm3. As in other applications of theBeer-Lambert law, a term must be included to describe the probability of photon absorption (at a given wavelength).
The absorption cross-section is that term in atmospheric chemistry. Note that the common units for the absorption
cross-section (cm2/molecule) are dimensionally-consistent with those of the molar absorption coefficient (𝜀), with
common units of L/mole×cm, that is often used in applications of the Beer-Lambert law involving liquids,

22

Figure 15. Absorption cross sections for molecular oxygen (O2) for wavelengths that comprise the VUVand UV-C ranges. Image modified from Encyclopedia of Atmospheric Sciences.80 The shaded blue area
indicates the Far UV-C range.
Ozone is also photoactive. Wavelengths of radiation less than about 320 nm are sufficiently energetic toinitiate reaction 4. As with any photochemical reaction, the absorption behavior of the reactant (in this caseO3) will play a key role in governing the kinetics of the reaction. Figure 16 illustrates recommended valuesof the absorption cross-sections (absorption spectrum) for O3 for temperatures between 293-298 K (2025°C, or nominally room temperature).

23

Figure 16. Recommended absorption cross-sections (𝝈) for O3 for temperature in the range 293-298 K.
Data from: Chemical Kinetics and Photochemical Data for Use in Stratospheric Modeling, Evaluation
Number 19, JPL.81 The shaded blue area indicates the Far UV-C range.
Generation of ozone will depend on balance between the rates of ozone formation and decay. Since bothprocesses are initiated photochemically and the rates of these reactions are directly influenced by absorptionof UV radiation, it is useful to compare the absorption spectra of the two reactants, O2 and O3. Figure 17
provides this comparison for wavelengths of radiation that are relevant to most UV-C systems where ozone
may be generated, including systems that involve Far UV-C sources of radiation. The data presented in
Figure 17 indicate that ozone is a much stronger absorber of UV-C radiation than molecular oxygen on a
per-molecule basis; however, the concentration of O2 is likely to be many orders of magnitude larger thanthe concentration of O3. Consequently, the rate of reaction 2 is generally faster than the rate of reaction 4
with Far UV-C or VUV sources. For example, for a system operating with an air mixture at a total pressureof 1.0 atm with a temperature of 20°C and O3 present near the regulatory limit for O3 (0.1 ppmv), with theambient air being exposed to radiation at 222 nm (the peak wavelength from a KrCl* lamp), reaction 2 willproceed roughly 4.3 times faster than reaction 4. In a room where (essentially) no ozone is present (i.e.,
when a Far UV-C lamp is turned on), the ratio of the rates of ozone formation and decay will be muchlarger. Therefore, the potential exists for generation of O3 from Far UV-C sources.
However, it is important to put this information into the proper context, specifically as it relates to Far UVC sources. Continuing with the example of KrCl* sources, at 222 nm the absorption cross-section for O2
is roughly 4 orders of magnitude lower than at 172 nm, the characteristic wavelength of a Xenon excimer
lamp. Xenon excimer lamps are commonly used for O3 generation because of the strong absorbance by O2of radiation at their characteristic emission wavelength, 172 nm. In fact, Xenon excimer lamps can be quite24

efficient as O3 generators. A KrCl* lamp will also generate O3 photochemically, but the generation rate
will be orders of magnitude lower than from a Xenon excimer lamp.

Figure 17. Absorption cross-sections for O2 and O3 for the wavelength rate 200 nm – 300 nm. Data
from: Chemical Kinetics and Photochemical Data for Use in Stratospheric Modeling, Evaluation Number
19, JPL.81 The shaded blue area indicates the Far UV-C range.
Generation of O3 by a Far UV-C source will depend on the fundamental chemistry described above, butalso local conditions of application. Relevant conditions will include the output power and output spectrumof the Far UV-C source, as well as air circulation and mixing in the vicinity of the lamp.
Additionally, it should be noted that excimer lamps, depending on power and design, are driven by voltages
in the 2-10 kV range, which are applied to the outside of the lamp. At these high voltages there can becorona discharges on the exterior surface of the lamp. Since the discharge will happen in air, ozone
generation rates by corona discharge can be an important contributor to ozone formation from a Far UV-C
lamp and can be significantly higher than ozone generation by photochemical processes.
Ozone Generation Measurements
A “standard method” does not exist for measurement of O3 production by Far UV-C lamps. As such, thedevelopment of a standard method represents a need.
For ozone-generating lamps, such as non-optically-filtered low-pressure Hg lamps (with a secondary line
at 185 nm) or Xenon excimer lamps (peak output at 172 nm), ozone generation rates have been measured
by inserting the lamp in a tube. The tube and lamp are flushed with a constant flow rate of gas (typically anitrogen-oxygen mixture) under conditions of controlled humidity and temperature. Real-time25

measurements of ozone concentration in the exhaust gas from this system are used to estimate ozone
production rate by application of mass-balance principles.
Since KrCl* lamps (peak output at 222 nm) generate very small amounts of ozone and modern forms ofsuch lamps are not cylindrical, the use of the approach described above becomes challenging. Beyond thegeometric constraints of such a test, it is also difficult to accurately quantify the low concentrations of ozone(typically in the sub ppbv range) at the exit of the tube.
For measurement of such low ozone generation rates, it is suggested to place the lamp into a relatively small(tens of liters) enclosed, well-mixed volume of air and measure the change of ozone concentration inside
the volume as a function of time; mixing is necessary to overcome the tendency of O3 to settle within thecolumn of air. For such an experiment, it is critical to minimize or eliminate the presence of any reduced
compounds in the enclosed vessel, as these compounds are likely to react rapidly with ozone, thereby
skewing the results of the test. For that reason, the vessel should be constructed of materials that are nonreactive with ozone, such as glass or stainless steel. Time-course measurements of ozone concentration
within the well-mixed chamber should be conducted using a calibrated ozone detector with resolution of atleast 10 ppbv.
Figure 18 illustrates example data sets from the protocol described above. Mass balance principles can beused to calculate the ozone production rate from the time-course ozone concentration measurements. Ozone
production rate should be normalized with respect to lamp output power to allow calculation of an ozone
generation index that could be used across a range of applications with one or many lamps.

0.8
One 222 nm lamp (40.8 mW)
Two 222 nm lamps (81 mW)

Ozone Concentration (ppm v)

0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0

5

10

15

20

time (min)Figure 18. Example of time-course measurements of ozone concentration in a 35 L, well-mixed closed
vessel with a single KrCl* lamp (40.8 mW output power) and two lamps (total of 81 mW output power).
26

As illustrated in Figure 18, the ozone concentration gradient decreases as ozone concentration increases,
because of photochemical decay of ozone. Therefore, estimates of ozone generation rate from these lamps
should be based on the initial, quasi-linear portion of the curve.
It is important to keep the data from Figure 18 in proper context. The measurements reported in Figure 18
were collected in a small, well-mixed, inert chamber with no air circulation. As such, these conditions are
essentially optimized for accumulation of ozone from a Far UV-C lamp. In practical applications of thesedevices, air circulation from a conventional HVAC system can be used to maintain the ambient ozone
concentration well below the limits that are presented in Table 2. By extension, this indicates that practicalapplications of Far UV-C sources should be developed by considering air circulation and mixing that isbrought into an indoor air space by the existing HVAC system.
Two leading manufacturers of KrCl* lamps provided typical, measured ozone generation rates for theirlamps. The lamps were operated at <12 W electrical power. The manufacturers reported significantly
different generation rates of 85 µg/hour (9.4 µg O3/W×hr) and 12 µg/hour (1.1 µg O3/W×hr). One
manufacturer also reported data for a 70 W lamp of 12 mg/hour (170 µg O3/W×hr). It must be noted thatthe coaxial design of that lamp is quite different from the previously-mentioned low power lamps. The
substantially higher ozone generation rate of this lamp is attributable to the contributions of corona
discharges on the outside of the lamp, which led to much higher ozone generation than by justphotochemical processes.
It is also worth noting that the methods used to measure ozone production from these lamps were different
between the two manufacturers. The development of an industry standard for this measurement is needed
to clarify the potential for ozone production in applications of Far UV-C sources.
Ozone Generation in Applications
Control of ozone exposure to humans and the environment will require that ozone generation rates fromthese lamps be quantified using a standardized method. Since the lamps will always be used in fixtures, itis the responsibility of the fixture manufacturer to provide data to customers about the ozone emission fromthe fixture.
For rough estimates of the room ozone concentration the following formula can be used:
𝑶𝒛𝒐𝒏𝒆 𝑪𝒐𝒏𝒄𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 =𝑶𝒛𝒐𝒏𝒆 𝑮𝒆𝒏𝒆𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑹𝒂𝒕𝒆 × 𝒕𝒊𝒎𝒆
𝑹𝒐𝒐𝒎 𝑽𝒐𝒍𝒖𝒎𝒆(9)

Using one of the above-mentioned lamps (<12 W) as an example, ozone generation within a room of 1000
cubic feet (28.3 m3 – standard room size for UL867) will be 0.034 ppmv; such an installation would likely
fall below the UL867 upper limit82 of 0.050 ppmv, particularly when “real world” conditions of air mixing
and in/outflow are also considered. However, a larger installation (e.g., 70 W lamp), an ambientconcentration of 4.7 ppmv would be expected.
Given the number of variables in lamp design, emission spectrum, lamp power, lamp duty cycle, room
volume, air circulation, and air exchange rates, it is not possible to say whether a given Far UV-C
installation presents an ozone risk without assessing its specifics. Ozone generation by current Far UV-C
lamps must be discussed by fixture manufacturers and considered by those installing or managing these
fixtures.

27

Conclusions
Based on the evidence in the published literature and the collation of expert knowledge by the authors, thefollowing conclusions can be drawn:• Far UV-C technology is currently dominated by one source type, the KrCl* lamp. Althoughalternate devices exist, they are not yet practically viable for disinfection applications.
• Though commonly referred to as 222 nm lamps, a KrCl* lamp will emit polychromatic radiation
across a wide segment of the UV-C range; optical filters may be needed to limit substantial
emissions to the Far UV-C range.
• Far UV-C is an effective viral disinfectant, with particular suitability as a technology response totransmission of SARS-CoV-2 via air and surfaces,
o The efficacy of Far UV-C against viral pathogens is at least as high as that of conventional
UVGI, and benefits from the long history of this technology as a disinfectant in a wide
range of settings.
o Absorption of UV-C radiation by dissolved constituents within aerosols or on solid
surfaces will diminish the effectiveness of UV-C-based disinfection processes. The
effects of UV-C absorption (and other optical processes) on UV-C disinfection efficacy
for air and surfaces is understood qualitatively; development of a quantitative
understanding of these effects is a research need.
o Numerous non-pathogenic surrogate viruses (phages) are known that may enablevalidation test methodologies; however, selection of an appropriate surrogate will dependon the target virus and the wavelength(s) of UV-C radiation being applied.
• Solid photobiological principles underpin the hypothesis that Far UV-C radiation is less-damaging
to mammalian tissues than longer-wavelength UV-C or UV-B radiation.
o Evidence in support of this hypothesis has been mounting over the last decade, with anacceleration in interest since the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic.
o The predominant concern of skin carcinogenesis by UV exposure is misapplied inconsideration of Far UV-C technology; a re-education on the photobiological connection
between UV radiation and skin cancer is required.
o Regulators and standards agencies on the global scale are monitoring the safety of thistechnology, and motion towards loosening restrictions on UV-C exposure (including Far
UV-C) has already been observed.
• Ozone generation by Far UV-C sources is a due concern, resulting from photochemical and corona
discharge processes,
o The rate of ozone generation by these sources is orders of magnitude lower than forconventional “ozone generating” UV lamps.
o Reasonable application of these sources for continuous, room-scale disinfection could beachieved while maintaining ozone concentrations below regulated values; however, it isalso reasonable to consider applications where ambient ozone concentrations would
exceed these values.
o It is the responsibility of lamp manufacturers and those installing such systems to properly
communicate and assess the potential ozone hazard of these systems.

28

Task Force Membership
The IUVA Task Force (TF) on Far UV-C Radiation for Disinfection of Air and Surfaces was formed witha goal of including expertise that spanned the three general issues described above: disinfection efficacy,
safety of human exposure, and potential for ozone formation. Below is a list of TF members, each of whom
contributed to the development of this white paper:
Ernest R. Blatchley III (TF Chair) is the Lee A. Rieth Professor in Environmental Engineering at Purdue
University, where he holds a joint faculty appointment in the Lyles School of Civil Engineering and theDivision of Environmental & Ecological Engineering. His research addresses theoretical and practicalaspects of the use of UV radiation. Professor Blatchley serves as a member of the IUVA Board as well as
Vice President for the Americas.
David Brenner is the Director of the Columbia University Center for Radiological Research. Founded bya student of Marie Curie, and focusing on new ways to use radiation to better human health, the Center isthe oldest and largest radiation biology center in the US. He is also Director of the Columbia RadiologicalResearch Accelerator Facility (RARAF), which is a national facility dedicated to probing the mechanisms
underlying the biological effects of different radiations. Brenner is a recipient of the Failla gold medal, theannual award given by the Radiation Research Society for contributions to radiation research, and theOxford University Weldon Prize for development of mathematical methods applied to problems in Biology.
Holger Claus (Chair, Ozone Generation Sub-Committee) is the Vice President of Technology at Ushio
America Inc. Throughout his career he has developed and produced various kind of light sources, likefluorescent lamps, various kind of UV lamps, short arc Xenon, laser driven Xenon and super high pressure
Mercury lamps, LED and laser products, and excimer lamps. Recently he has been leading the technicaland regulatory efforts of Ushio America Inc. to introduce 222 nm lamps into the scientific community andthe market.
Troy E. Cowan is the owner and founder of Vision Based Consulting, LLC, supporting clients in Federal
program development and regulatory compliance tasks. Over the last four plus years, Troy has helped
establish and facilitate the IUVA’s 100 member Healthcare/UV Working Group, working towards thedevelopment of UV-C output and efficacy standards. As part of this effort, three international workshops havebeen delivered and multiple presentations made to IUVA, SPIE, ASHRAE and ISO on using UV-C to combat
HAIs, with companion articles published in the Journals of Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology, the
SPIE Journal and UV Solutions on this critical issue.
Karl Linden (Chair, Disinfection Efficacy Sub-Committee) is a Professor of Environmental Engineeringand the Mortenson Professor in Sustainable Development at the University of Colorado Boulder, USA. His
research investigates novel water and wastewater treatment systems, including advanced and innovative
UV systems for inactivation of pathogens and degradation of organic and other emerging contaminants.
Linden served as 2019-2020 President of the Association of Environmental Engineering and Science
Professors (AEESP) and 2013-2015 President of the International Ultraviolet Association (IUVA).
Yijing Liu (YP representative) is a second year Ph.D. student at the Ohio State University. She is working
with Dr. Natalie Hull at the Water Treatment Engineering and Microbiome Research Group. She focuses
on research related to the water microbiome, especially related to antibiotic resistant bacteria andopportunistic pathogens after ultraviolet (UV) treatments and the impacts on human health at the point ofuse.
Ted Mao is President, MW Technologies, Inc., offering “CTO for hire” to help start-up companies todevelop and commercialize new technologies in the CleanTech space. He is currently an executive board
29

member of International UV Association (IUVA), Vice President of IUVA Americas and Coordinator of
IUVA COVID-19 Task Force. Dr. Mao was Vice President, Research and Chief Technology Officer for
14 years at Trojan Technologies.
Sung-Jin Park is Chief Technology Officer and co-founder of Eden Park Illumination, Inc., and also an
adjunct faculty in the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering at the University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign. His research and development work for the last 20 years have been focused on
microplasma technology and science, including UV generation from microplasma lamps and theirapplications.
Patrick J (PJ) Piper is the Founder and CEO of Far UV Technologies, and served as PI for the company’s
NASA and AFWERX SBIR research and development contracts targeting foodborne illnesses and SARSCoV-2 disinfection. Far UV Technologies has been rapidly commercializing 222nm Krypton Far UV
disinfection ceiling lighting, floor lamp and handheld wand innovations, secured a broad technology andlicensing agreement with Boeing, been awarded National Stock Numbers by the Department of Defense
for Krypton Far UV solutions and is supporting multiple collaborative academic and industry Far UV
research efforts and partnerships.
Rich Simons is Head of Application Science at AquiSense Technologies and has been developing UV-C
LED systems for more than a decade; following a Ph.D. in water disinfection reactor design he hasdeveloped numerous UV products, and promotes the use of advanced technologies in system design. The
core of Rich’s work is to combine new and existing technologies in a way that extends their application
space: the focus is less market disruption, and more market construction.
David Sliney (Chair, Safety Sub-Committee) served as the President of the American Society for
Photobiology in 2008-2009, was Director of CIE Division 6 (Photobiology and Photochemistry), and he is
Chair of the IES Photobiology Committee. He holds a Ph.D. in biophysics and medical physics from
University College London, Institute of Ophthalmology. Dr. Sliney managed the Laser/Optical Radiation
Program at what is now the Army Public Health Center until retiring in 2007. He is a faculty associate at
the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health. His research interests focus on subjects related to ultraviolet
effects upon the eye, photobiological hazards of intense optical sources and lasers, and optical safety of
medical devices.

References
1.
Sosnin, E. A.; Oppenlander, T.; Taranenko, V., Applications of capacitive and barrier discharge
excilamps in photoscience. J Photochem Photobiol C 2006, 7 (4), 145-63.
2.
Tarasenko, V. F.; Sosnin, E. A., Barrier-discharge excilamps: History, operating principles,
prospects. J. Opt. Technol. 2012, 79 (10), 653-8.
3.
Shuibov, A. K.; Shevera, I. V.; General, A., Low-pressure ultraviolet emitter utilizing chlorineand krypton chloride molecules. High Temperature 2004, 42, 875-8.
4.
Zelikoff, M.; Wyckoff, P. H.; Achenbrand, L. M.; Loomis, R. S., Electrodeless discharge lamps
containing metallic vapors. J Opt Sci America 1952, 42 (11), 818-9.
5.
Beck, S. E.; Wright, H. B.; Hargy, T. M.; Larason, T. C.; Linden, K. G., Action spectra forvalidation of pathogen disinfection in medium-pressure ultraviolet (UV) systems. Water Res 2015, 70,
27-37.
6.
Kneissl, M., A Brief Review of III-Nitride UV Emitter Technologies and their applications. In
III-Nitride Ultraviolet Emitters, Kneissl, M.; Rass, J., Eds. Springer: Switzerland, 2016.
7.
Amano, H.; Collazo, R.; De Santi, C.; Einfeldt, S.; Funato, M.; Glaab, J.; Hagedorn, S.;
Hirano, A.; Hirayama, H.; Ishii, R.; et_al., The 2020 UV emitter roadmap. J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 2020,
53, 503001.
308.
Kneissl, M.; Seong, T. Y.; Han, J.; Amano, H., The emergence and prospects of deep-ultraviolet
light-emitting diode technologies. Nature Photonics 2019, 13, 233-44.
9.
Vuong, T. Q. P.; Cassabois, G.; Valvin, B.; Rousseau, E.; Summerfield, A.; Mellor, C. J.;
Cho, Y.; Cheng, T. S.; Albar, J. D.; Eaves, L.; Fuxon, C. T.; Beton, P. H.; Novikov, S. V.; Gil, B.,
Deep ultraviolet emission in hexagonal boron nitride grown by high-temperature molecular beam epitaxy.
2D Materials 2017, 4, 021023.
10.
Zhao, S.; Lu, J.; Hai, X.; Yin, X., AlGaN nanowires for Ultraviolet light-emitting: Recent
progress, challenges, and prospects. Micromachines 2020, 11, 125.
11.
Harm, W., Biological Effects of Ultraviolet Radiation. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge,
England, 1980.
12.
Jagger, J., Introduction to Research in Ultra-Violet Photobiology. Prentice-Hall: Englewood
Cliffs, N.J., 1967.
13.
Beck, S. E.; Wright, H. B.; Hargy, T. M.; Larason, T. C.; Linden, K. G., Action spectra forvalidation of pathogen disinfection in medium-pressure ultraviolet (UV) systems. Water Research 2015,
70, 27-37.
14.
Barancheshme, F.; Philiber, J.; Noam-Amar, N.; Gerchman, Y.; Barbeau, B., Assessment ofsaliva interference with UV-based disinfection technologies. Journal of Photochemistry & Photobiology,
B: Biology 2021, 217, 112168.
15.
Setlow, R.; Doyle, B., THE ACTION OF MONOCHROMATIC ULTRAVIOLET LIGHT ON
PROTEINS. Biochimica Et Biophysica Acta 1957, 24 (1), 27-41.
16.
Voet, D.; Gratzer, W. B.; Cox, R. A.; Doty, P., ABSORPTION SPECTRA OF
NUCLEOTIDES, POLYNUCLEOTIDES, AND NUCLEIC ACIDS IN THE FAR ULTRAVIOLET.
Biopolymers 1963, 1 (3), 193-208.
17.
Lytle, C. D.; Sagripanti, J. L., Predicted inactivation of viruses of relevance to biodefense by solar
radiation. Journal of Virology 2005, 79 (22), 14244-14252.
18.
Sagripanti, J. L.; Lytle, C. D., Estimated Inactivation of Coronaviruses by Solar Radiation With
Special Reference to COVID-19. Photochemistry and Photobiology 2020, 96 (4), 731-737.
19.
Pendyala, B.; Patras, A.; Pokharel, B.; D'Souza, D., Genomic Modeling as an Approach to
Identify Surrogates for Use in Experimental Validation of SARS-CoV-2 and HuNoV Inactivation by UVC Treatment. Frontiers in Microbiology 2020, 11.
20.
Rockey, N. C.; Henderson, J. B.; Chin, K.; Raskin, L.; Wigginton, K. R. Predictive modeling ofvirus inactivation by UV. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.10.27.355479v1.
21.
Beck, S. E.; Hull, N. M.; Poepping, C.; Linden, K. G., Wavelength-Dependent Damage toAdenoviral Proteins Across the Germicidal UV Spectrum. Environmental Science & Technology 2018, 52(1), 223-229.
22.
Beck, S. E.; Rodriguez, R. A.; Linden, K. G.; Hargy, T. M.; Larason, T. C.; Wright, H. B.,
Wavelength Dependent UV Inactivation and DNA Damage of Adenovirus as Measured by Cell Culture
Infectivity and Long Range Quantitative PCR. Environmental Science & Technology 2014, 48 (1), 591598.
23.
Linden, K. G.; Thurston, J.; Schaefer, R.; Malley, J. P., Enhanced UV inactivation of
adenoviruses under polychromatic UV lamps. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 2007, 73 (23),7571-7574.
24.
Blatchley III, E. R., Numerical modelling of UV intensity: Application to collimated-beamreactors and continuous-flow systems. Water Research 1997, 31 (9), 2205-2218.
25.
Bolton, J. R.; Linden, K. G., Standardization of methods for fluence (UV dose) determination inbench-scale UV experiments. Journal of Environmental Engineering-Asce 2003, 129 (3), 209-215.
26.
Welch, D.; Buonanno, M.; Grilj, V.; Shuryak, I.; Crickmore, C.; Bigelow, A. W.; RandersPehrson, G.; Johnson, G. W.; Brenner, D. J., Far-UVC light: A new tool to control the spread of
airborne-mediated microbial diseases. Scientific Reports 2018, 8.
27.
Chiu, K.; Lyn, D. A.; Savoye, P.; Blatchley, E. R., Integrated UV disinfection model based onparticle tracking. Journal of Environmental Engineering-Asce 1999, 125 (1), 7-16.
31

28.
Lyn, D. A.; Chiu, K.; Blatchley, E. R., Numerical modeling of flow and disinfection in UV
disinfection channels. Journal of Environmental Engineering-Asce 1999, 125 (1), 17-26.
29.
Naunovic, Z.; Lim, S.; Blatchley, E. R., Investigation of microbial inactivation efficiency of a
UV disinfection system employing an excimer lamp. Water Research 2008, 42 (19), 4838-4846.
30.
Ahmed, Y. M.; Jongewaard, M.; Li, M. K.; Blatchley, E. R., Ray Tracing for Fluence Rate
Simulations in Ultraviolet Photoreactors. Environmental Science & Technology 2018, 52 (8), 4738-4745.
31.
Ahmed, Y. M.; Ortiz, A. P.; Blatchley, E. R., Stochastic Evaluation of Disinfection Performancein Large-Scale Open-Channel UV Photoreactors. Journal of Environmental Engineering 2019, 145 (10).
32.
Ducoste, J. J.; Liu, D.; Linden, K., Alternative approaches to modeling fluence distribution andmicrobial inactivation in ultraviolet reactors: Lagrangian versus Eulerian. Journal of Environmental
Engineering-Asce 2005, 131 (10), 1393-1403.
33.
Ducoste, J.; Linden, K.; Rokjer, D.; Liu, D., Assessment of reduction equivalent fluence bias
using computational fluid dynamics. Environmental Engineering Science 2005, 22 (5), 615-628.
34.
Imoberdorf, G. E.; Taghipour, F.; Mohseni, M., Radiation field modeling of multi-lamp,
homogeneous photoreactors. Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology a-Chemistry 2008, 198 (2-3),
169-178.
35.
Sozzi, D. A.; Taghipour, F., UV reactor performance modeling by Eulerian and Lagrangian
methods. Environmental Science & Technology 2006, 40 (5), 1609-1615.
36.
Buchan, A. G.; Yang, L.; Atkinson, K. D., Predicting airborne coronavirus inactivation by farUVC in populated rooms using a high-fidelity coupled radiation-CFD model. Scientific Reports 2020, 10(1).
37.
EPA, U. S., Ultraviolet Disinfection Guidance Manual for the Final Long Term 2 Enhanced
Surface Water Treatment Rule. Water, O. o., Ed. Washington, DC, 2006.
38.
Emerick, R. W.; Tchobanoglous, G. Ultraviolet Disinfection Guidelines for Drinking Water andWater Reuse; National Water Research Institute: Fountain Valley, CA, 2012.
39.
ÖNORM, Devices for the disinfection of water using ultraviolet radiation Part 1: Devices
equipped with UV low pressure lamps - Requirements and testing. Vienna, Austria, 2020; Vol. ÖNORM
M 5873-1:2020.
40.
ÖNORM, Plants for the disinfection of water using ultraviolet radiation—Requirements andtesting—Part 2: Medium pressure mercury lamp plants. ÖNORM
M 5873-2 ed.; Vienna, Austria, 2003.
41.
ÖNORM, Devices for the disinfection of water using ultraviolet radiation Part 3: Reference
radiometers for devices equipped with UV low pressure lamps Requirements and testing. Vienna, Austria, 2020; Vol. ÖNORM
M 5873-3:2020.
42.
German; Standardization, I. f., Devices for the disinfection of water using ultraviolet radiation
Part 1: Devices equipped with UV low pressure lamps - Requirements and testing. Berlin, Germany,
2020; Vol. DIN
19294-1:2020.
43.
German; Standardization, I. f., Devices for the disinfection of water using ultraviolet radiation
Part 3: Reference radiometers for devices equipped with UV low pressure lamps Requirements and testing. Berlin, Germany, 2020; Vol. DIN
19294-3:2020.
44.
Buonanno, M.; Ponnaiya, B.; Welch, D.; Stanislauskas, M.; Randers-Pehrson, G.; Smilenov,
L.; Lowy, F. D.; Owens, D. M.; Brenner, D. J., Germicidal Efficacy and Mammalian Skin Safety of 222nm UV Light. Radiat. Res. 2017, 187 (4), 483-491.
45.
Buonanno, M.; Randers-Pehrson, G.; Bigelow, A. W.; Trivedi, S.; Lowy, F. D.; Spotnitz, H.
M.; Hammer, S. M.; Brenner, D. J., 207-nm UV light - a promising tool for safe low-cost reduction ofsurgical site infections. I: in vitro studies. PLoS One 2013, 8 (10), e76968.
46.
Buonanno, M.; Stanislauskas, M.; Ponnaiya, B.; Bigelow, A. W.; Randers-Pehrson, G.; Xu,
Y.; Shuryak, I.; Smilenov, L.; Owens, D. M.; Brenner, D. J., 207-nm UV Light-A Promising Tool for32

Safe Low-Cost Reduction of Surgical Site Infections. II: In-Vivo Safety Studies. PLoS One 2016, 11 (6),e0138418.
47.
Kaidzu, S.; Sugihara, K.; Sasaki, M.; Nishiaki, A.; Igarashi, T.; Tanito, M., Evaluation of acutecorneal damage induced by 222-nm and 254-nm ultraviolet light in Sprague-Dawley rats. Free Radic Res
2019, 53 (6), 611-617.
48.
Fukui, T.; Niikura, T.; Oda, T.; Kumabe, Y.; Ohashi, H.; Sasaki, M.; Igarashi, T.; Kunisada,M.; Yamano, N.; Oe, K.; Matsumoto, T.; Matsushita, T.; Hayashi, S.; Nishigori, C.; Kuroda, R.,
Exploratory clinical trial on the safety and bactericidal effect of 222-nm ultraviolet C irradiation in
healthy humans. PLoS One 2020, 15 (8), e0235948.
49.
Cadet, J., Harmless Effects of Sterilizing 222-nm far-UV Radiation on Mouse Skin and Eye
Tissues. Photochem Photobiol 2020, 96 (4), 949-950.
50.
Barnard, I. R. M.; Eadie, E.; Wood, K., Further evidence that far-UVC for disinfection isunlikely to cause erythema or pre-mutagenic DNA lesions in skin. Photodermatol Photoimmunol
Photomed 2020, 36 (6), 476-477.
51.
Hanamura, N.; Ohashi, H.; Morimoto, Y.; Igarashi, T.; Tabata, Y., Viability evaluation oflayered cell sheets after ultraviolet light irradiation of 222 nm. Regen Ther 2020, 14, 344-351.
52.
Yamano, N.; Kunisada, M.; Kaidzu, S.; Sugihara, K.; Nishiaki-Sawada, A.; Ohashi, H.;
Yoshioka, A.; Igarashi, T.; Ohira, A.; Tanito, M.; Nishigori, C., Long-term Effects of 222-nm
ultraviolet radiation C Sterilizing Lamps on Mice Susceptible to Ultraviolet Radiation. Photochem
Photobiol 2020, 96 (4), 853-862.
53.
Hickerson, R. P.; Conneely, M. J.; Tsutsumi, S. K. H.; Wood, K.; Jackson, D. N.; Ibbotson, S.
H.; Eadie, E., Minimal, superficial DNA damage in human skin from filtered far-ultraviolet-C (UV-C). Br
J Dermatol (2021) https://doi.org/10.1111/bjd.19816.
54.
Buonnano, M.; Welch, D.; Brenner, D. J., Exposure of human skin models to KrCl excimer
lamps: The impact of optical filtering Photochemistry and Photobiology (2021) In Press.
55.
Woods, J. A.; Evans, A.; Forbes, P. D.; Coates, P. J.; Gardner, J.; Valentine, R. M.; Ibbotson,
S. H.; Ferguson, J.; Fricker, C.; Moseley, H., The effect of 222-nm UVC phototesting on healthy
volunteer skin: a pilot study. Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed 2015, 31 (3), 159-66.
56.
Goldfarb, A. R.; Saidel, L. J., Ultraviolet absorption spectra of proteins. Science 1951, 114(2954), 156-7.
57.
Setlow, J., The molecular basis of biological effects of ultraviolet radiation and photoreactivation.
In Current topics in radiation research, M, E.; A, H., Eds. North Holland Publishing Company:
Amsterdam, 1966; Vol. II, pp 195-248.
58.
ACGIH 2021 TLVs and BEIs: Based on the Documentation of the Threshold Limit Values for
Chemical and Physical Agents & Biological Exposure Indices; American Conference of Governmental
Industrial Hygienists: Cincinnati, OH, 2021.
59.
Sliney, D., Balancing the Risk of Eye Irritation from UV-C with Infection from Bioaerosols.
Photochemistry and Photobiology 2013, 89 (4), 770-776.
60.
Sliney, D. H.; Stuck, B. E., A Need to Revise Human Exposure Limits for Ultraviolet-C
Radiation. Photochemistry and Photobiology 2021, 97, in press.
61.
Organization, I. S., Photocarcinogenesis action spectrum (non-melanoma skin cancers). In
Standard ISO/CIE 28077:2016(E), ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2016.
62.
(CIE), I. C. o. I. UV-C Photocarcinogenesis Risks from Germicidal Lamps; 2010.
63.
Forbes, P. D.; Cole, C. A.; Forbes, P. D.; deGruijl, F., Origins and Evolution of
Photocarcinogenesis Action Spectra, Including Germicidal UVC. 2020.
64.
Moan, J.; Grigalavicius, M.; Baturaite, Z.; Dahlback, A.; Juzeniene, A., The relationshipbetween UV exposure and incidence of skin cancer. Photodermatology Photoimmunology &Photomedicine 2015, 31 (1), 26-35.
65.
Kaidzu, S.; Sugihara, K.; Sasaki, M.; Nishiakib, A.; Ohashi, H.; Igarashi, T.; Tanito, M., Reevaluation of rat corneal damage by short wavelength UV revealed extremely less hazardous property of
222 nm-UV-C. Private Communication, Under Peer Review 2021.
33

66.
Pitts, D. G., The Human Ultraviolet Action Spectrum. American Journal of Optometry andPhysiological Optics 1974, 51, 946-960.
67.
Chaney, E. K.; Sliney, D. H., Re-evaluation of the ultraviolet hazard action spectrum-the impactof spectral bandwidth. Health Physics 2005, 89 (4), 322-332.
68.
Sliney, D. H., The Merits of an Envelope Action Spectrum for Ultraviolet Exposure Criteria.
American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal 1972, 32, 415-431.
69.
ICNIRP, Guidelines on limits of exposure to ultraviolet radiation of wavelengths between 180 nm
and 400 nm (incoherent optical radiation). Health Physics 2004, 87 (2), 171-186.
70.
Richters, R. J.; Falcone, D.; Uzunbajakava, N. E.; Varghese, B.; Caspers, P. J.; Puppels, G. J.;
van Erp, P. E.; van de Kerkhof, P. C., Sensitive Skin: Assessment of the Skin Barrier Using Confocal
Raman Microspectroscopy. Skin Pharmacol Physiol 2017, 30 (1), 1-12.
71.
Lock-Andersen, J.; Therkildsen, P.; de Fine Olivarius, F.; Gniadecka, M.; Dahlstrom, K.;
Poulsen, T.; Wulf, H. C., Epidermal thickness, skin pigmentation and constitutive photosensitivity.
Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed 1997, 13 (4), 153-8.
72.
Tagami, H., Stratum Corneum Cell Layers. In Textbook of Aging Skin, Farage, M. A., Ed.
Springer-Verlag: Berlin Heidelberg, 2015.
73.
Segev, F.; Geffen, N.; Galor, A.; Cohen, Y.; Gefen, R.; Belkin, A.; Arieli, Y.; Epshtein, S.;
Oren, A.; Harris, A., Dynamic assessment of the tear film muco-aqueous and lipid layers using a novel
tear film imager (TFI). Br J Ophthalmol 2020, 104 (1), 136-141.
74.
NIOSH NIOSH Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards.
https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/npgd0476.html.
75.
EPA NAAQS Table. https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants/naaqs-table.
76.
Organization, W. H. Ambient (Outdoor) Air Pollution. https://www.who.int/news-room/factsheets/detail/ambient-(outdoor)-air-quality-and-health.
77.
Chapman, S., A Theory of Upper-Atmospheric Ozone. Memoirs of the Royal MeteorologicalSociety 1930, 3 (26), 103-125.
78.
Wayne, R. P., Chemistry of Atmospheres. Clarendon Press: Oxford, England, 1985.
79.
Finlayson-Pitts, B. J.; Pitts, J. N. J., Atmospheric Chemistry: Fundamentals and Experimental
Technniques. John Wiley & Sons: New York, 1986.
80.
Stamnes, K., Radiation Transfer in the Atmosphere: Ultraviolet Radiation. In Encyclopedia ofAtmospheric Sciences, 2nd ed.; North, G. R.; Pyle, J. A.; Zhang, F., Eds. Elsevier: Amsterdam, 2015;
Vol. 5, pp 37-44.
81.
Burkholder, J. B.; Sander, S. P.; Abbatt, J. P. D.; Barker, J. R.; Cappa, C.; Crounse, J. D.;
T.S., D.; Huie, R. E.; Kolb, C. E.; Kurylo, M. J.; Orkin, V. L.; Percival, C. J.; Wilmouth, D. M.; Wine,P. H., Chemical Kinetics and Photochemical Data for Use in Atmospheric Studies. Jet Propulsion
Laboratory, C. I. o. T., Ed. NASA: 2020; Vol. Evaluation Number 19.
82.
Underwriters Laboratories, I., UL Standard for Safety for Electrostatic Air Cleaners. Northbrook,IL, 2000; Vol. UL 867, p 82.

34