This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
Disinfection with LED lamps is a promising ecological and economical substitute for mercury lamps. However, the optimal time/dose relationship needs to be established. Pathogen inactivation by UV-A primarily relies on induced reactive oxygen species (ROS) formation and subsequent oxidative damage. While effective against bacteria and enveloped viruses, non-enveloped viruses are less sensitive. In this study, we explored the disinfection properties of 10 W UV-A LED, emitting in the 365–375 nm range. UV-A at high values of irradiance (~ 0.46 W/cm 2 ) can potentially induce ROS formation and direct photochemical damage of the pathogen nucleic acids, thus improving the disinfection. The UV-A inactivation was evaluated for the bacterium Escherichia coli ( E. coli ), non-enveloped RNA bacteriophage MS2, and enveloped mammalian RNA virus—Semliki Forest virus (SFV). The 4 log10 reduction doses for E. coli and SFV were 268 and 241 J/cm 2 , respectively. Furthermore, in irradiated E. coli , ROS production positively correlated with the inactivation rate. In the case of MS2 bacteriophage, the 2.5 log10 inactivation was achieved by 679 J/cm 2 within 30 min of irradiation. The results demonstrate significant disinfection efficiency of non-enveloped virus MS2 using high-irradiance UV-A. This suggests a potential strategy for improving the inactivation of UV-A-unsusceptible pathogens, particularly non-enveloped viruses. Additionally, the direct UV-A irradiation of self-replicating viral RNA from SFV led to a significant loss of viral gene expression in cells transfected with the irradiated RNA. Therefore, the virus inactivation mechanism of high-irradiance UV-A LED can be partially determined by the direct damage of viral RNA.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Spunde et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: