Not an expert at all but went into a recent deep dive of far UVC/other forms of UV used in BSL3+ labs (high pathogen security).
My naive answer is: I don’t think so*
To reduce the cost of running a lab by far uvc use, we probably want to reduce, cut or exchange current measures of contamination and exposure protection.
We mainly want to protect the people working there from pathogens and protect the material/cells from contamination. Contamination can be inanimate, but if we focus on microorganisms, we want to avoid sterile medical equipment, lab grown food or lab research being contaminated with environmental or human pathogens, whilst keeping living organisms safe from exposure.
Typical UV (UVA, UVB, GUV) of higher wavelengths is already used in high doses to sterilise surfaces or equipment, but isn’t considered safe generally for low dose continuous exposure, so that’s what far UVC is usually preferred for- a safe background way to reduce exposure to environmental pathogens.
Far UVC seems to shine in public indoor locations such as transport, schools, hospitals, etc but in labs focused on materials, analytics of cells and samples, testing etc the protective effects of far UVC seem less cost-effective than alternatives, and the potential harm to samples or materials presents a unique stopper.
But the issue here is:
Far UVC may damage the material or cells being studied, whether for research or to produce food
Far UVC may also have an effect on environmental building materials or sensitive lab equipment
Far UVC in labs with PPE may present diminishing returns, since the low penetration means any separation through masks/ventilators/suits already protects living individuals from pathogen contact
Far UVC is still queried, despite probably being safe at certain doses, not every lab may take the risk of new technology
Far UVC requires quite a direct contact from emitted wavelengths to the pathogen to effectively inactivate it
Far UVC doesn’t work on heavier molecular weight pathogens, including gram positive bacteria
There is some evidence of complex pathogens gaining resistance to far UVC, or potential risks of waning immunity if environmental exposure is reduced (clean world theory)
So saving costs by cutting PPE budgets/scope seems unlikely, and cutting budgets in sterilisation also seems less effective than using higher UV wavelengths for inanimate sterilisation.
But, my cruxes of how it may save money include if:
saved money through lower staff absence if environmental pathogens can be eliminated in just general lab spaces (like in offices, entrances)
PPE or materials can be continuously externally sanitised for reuse (rather than through more dangerous UV after full removal), e.g. if someone needs a break/to eat etc
far UVC shows to have no significant damage on equipment, buildings etc and the study isn’t of animate cells or materials- wherein labs of electronics, material science etc can keep pathogen free environments (since no living cells are being studied), so can cut budgets on some infection control e.g. sanitiser, masks?
Not an expert at all but went into a recent deep dive of far UVC/other forms of UV used in BSL3+ labs (high pathogen security).
My naive answer is: I don’t think so*
To reduce the cost of running a lab by far uvc use, we probably want to reduce, cut or exchange current measures of contamination and exposure protection.
We mainly want to protect the people working there from pathogens and protect the material/cells from contamination. Contamination can be inanimate, but if we focus on microorganisms, we want to avoid sterile medical equipment, lab grown food or lab research being contaminated with environmental or human pathogens, whilst keeping living organisms safe from exposure.
Typical UV (UVA, UVB, GUV) of higher wavelengths is already used in high doses to sterilise surfaces or equipment, but isn’t considered safe generally for low dose continuous exposure, so that’s what far UVC is usually preferred for- a safe background way to reduce exposure to environmental pathogens.
Far UVC seems to shine in public indoor locations such as transport, schools, hospitals, etc but in labs focused on materials, analytics of cells and samples, testing etc the protective effects of far UVC seem less cost-effective than alternatives, and the potential harm to samples or materials presents a unique stopper.
But the issue here is:
Far UVC may damage the material or cells being studied, whether for research or to produce food
Far UVC may also have an effect on environmental building materials or sensitive lab equipment
Far UVC in labs with PPE may present diminishing returns, since the low penetration means any separation through masks/ventilators/suits already protects living individuals from pathogen contact
Far UVC is still queried, despite probably being safe at certain doses, not every lab may take the risk of new technology
Far UVC requires quite a direct contact from emitted wavelengths to the pathogen to effectively inactivate it
Far UVC doesn’t work on heavier molecular weight pathogens, including gram positive bacteria
There is some evidence of complex pathogens gaining resistance to far UVC, or potential risks of waning immunity if environmental exposure is reduced (clean world theory)
So saving costs by cutting PPE budgets/scope seems unlikely, and cutting budgets in sterilisation also seems less effective than using higher UV wavelengths for inanimate sterilisation.
But, my cruxes of how it may save money include if:
saved money through lower staff absence if environmental pathogens can be eliminated in just general lab spaces (like in offices, entrances)
PPE or materials can be continuously externally sanitised for reuse (rather than through more dangerous UV after full removal), e.g. if someone needs a break/to eat etc
far UVC shows to have no significant damage on equipment, buildings etc and the study isn’t of animate cells or materials- wherein labs of electronics, material science etc can keep pathogen free environments (since no living cells are being studied), so can cut budgets on some infection control e.g. sanitiser, masks?