News Commentary | June 30, 2020
Once the use of UVC light against COVID‑19 was clinically validated, the key challenge of UVC light was that it can harm humans and thus can only be used when people are not present. In contrast, far‑UVC light uses wavelengths that can't penetrate human tissue, so the lights can be used when people ... To read more, click here.
News Commentary | August 20, 2020
Incorporating UV light into existing protocols is one of the simpler approaches to addressing COVID‑19, provided that the bulbs are changed regularly (UV lights age out of efficacy fairly quickly) and that the personnel follow good practices when handling the UV‑exposed trays. While clients can ... Not part of subscription
Analyst Insight | June 30, 2021
Introduction Many organizations have had to completely shut down their indoor spaces or operate under severe restrictions during the COVID‑19 pandemic. Although there is eagerness among businesses to reopen, many stakeholders continue to be concerned about worker safety, especially in office ... Not part of subscription
by Danielle Bradnan
While UV-C lights are known to destroy organic tissue, including some viruses (although there is not yet any evidence regarding COVID-19), the use of UV-C lights on buses and subway systems for morning cleaning is misguided. It is true that the UV-C lights will likely provide better sterilization than traditional cleaning methods alone, but the value they provide is diminished every time a new person boards the bus or subway. UV-C lights are better for applications where they can be used repeatedly throughout the day, as the protection afforded is highest immediately after the lights are used. Clients need to be thoughtful in how they deploy UV-C lights and consider them as part of a portfolio of strategies for disease mitigation.
For the original news article, click here .