Kvam Erik, Davis Brian, Benner Kevin
GE Research, One Research Circle, K1 5D29, Niskayuna, NY 12309, USA.
Current, Greenville, SC 29607, USA.
Life (Basel). 2022 Oct 31;12(11):1747. doi: 10.3390/life12111747.
The germicidal efficacy of LED UV-A lighting has scarcely been compared in continuous and pulsed modes for contaminated surfaces. Herein, we compare the disinfection properties of pulsed versus continuous lighting at equal irradiances using a 365 nm LED device that replicates the doses of occupied-space continuous disinfection UV-A products. Representative organisms evaluated in this study included human-infectious enveloped and non-enveloped viruses (lentivirus and adeno-associated virus, respectively), a bacterial endospore (), and a resilient gram-positive bacterium (). Nominal UV-A irradiances were tested at or below the UL standard limit for continuous human exposure (maximum irradiance of 10 W/m). We observed photoinactivation properties that varied by organism type, with bacteria and enveloped virus being more susceptible to UV-A than non-enveloped virus and spores. Overall, we conclude that continuous-mode UV-A lighting is better suited for occupied-space disinfection than pulsing UV-A at equivalent low irradiances, and we draw comparisons to other studies in the literature.
LED紫外线A照明对受污染表面的杀菌效果在连续和脉冲模式下几乎没有进行过比较。在此，我们使用一个365纳米的LED装置，在相同辐照度下比较脉冲照明与连续照明的消毒特性，该装置可复制占用空间连续消毒紫外线A产品的剂量。本研究中评估的代表性生物体包括人类感染性包膜病毒和非包膜病毒（分别为慢病毒和腺相关病毒）、一种细菌芽孢（）和一种有弹性的革兰氏阳性细菌（）。名义紫外线A辐照度在连续人体暴露的UL标准限值或以下进行测试（最大辐照度为10 W/m）。我们观察到光灭活特性因生物体类型而异，细菌和包膜病毒比非包膜病毒和芽孢对紫外线A更敏感。总体而言，我们得出结论，在同等低辐照度下，连续模式的紫外线A照明比脉冲紫外线A更适合占用空间消毒，并且我们与文献中的其他研究进行了比较。
