
Study confirms wearable, filter-free, breathing device sterilizes inhaled air [pdf] - _8nvo
https://medi-immune.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Final-Report-1-Sept-2017-Fully-Signed.pdf
======
zzzcpan
Apparently this is related to their ProtectivAir device: [https://medi-
immune.com/protectivair/](https://medi-immune.com/protectivair/)

An actual article where the link came from:
[https://www.ptcommunity.com/wire/revolutionary-breathing-
dev...](https://www.ptcommunity.com/wire/revolutionary-breathing-device-
offers-likely-solution-covid-19-pandemic)

~~~
Gibbon1
That seems a reasonable and cheap device. An improvement might be to sterilize
the exhaled air as well.

~~~
nikolay
That's a great idea. I hope somebody makes mass production of these. The
disposable respirators are expensive (in the log run) and lead to pollution.
At the end, for medical reasons, we just want germs to be inactivated. I
wonder if this kills fungi as well, but I doubt it would do anything to fungal
spores, but for those maybe a washable filter could be used.

~~~
Gibbon1
I know just a little about sterilization. Because I worked on controls for
sterilizers.

As a general problem killing spores is what's hard. With gas sterilization
they 'precondition' product at 120 degrees and 80% humidity in order to
encourage spores to activate. With CO60 gamma radiation the product comes out
a bit warm. Steam sterilization is done at 258 degF. You get the idea.

Compared to spores influenza type viruses are trivial to kill.

~~~
nikolay
Do you know what's the diameter of the spores? There's so much about reusing
masks [0], but I read nowhere about the fungi concerns. Respirators can be
breeding grounds for fungi when they get damp, and even though with N95 you
can breathe them in, most probably, I'm sure they release toxic fumes. Fungi
can "eat" pretty much anything - if they can live on stones and find "food"
there, I'm sure there's enough "food" for them in the reused masks as well.

[0]: [https://www.n95decon.org/](https://www.n95decon.org/)

------
ape4
In ferrets!

(The article says: infection in ferrets, which are the standard animal model
for human influenza infection.)

------
Exmoor
As someone with a fairly limited understanding of how these sterilizing UV
rays work, I've wondered if it would be possible to install overhead UV lights
that either came on at intervals or were on constantly to help sterilize
surfaces in common areas that see high numbers of people. For example, inside
of elevators.

Is something like that just not practical/possible or has it just not been
seen as a priority prior to our current situation?

~~~
TheHeretic12
3 Problems with that:

1\. UV light capable of sterilization destroys or degrades most materials very
quickly, worse than leaving it out in the sun.

2\. UV lights tend to be very energy-expensive, and there is not much
advancement in green tech to mitigate that, unlike visible LEDs and such.

3\. Damage to peoples eyes and skin, means you must have interlock systems to
make sure nobody is around.

4\. UV light will not sanitize something it does not directly shine on. Any
shadow is a gap. An indoor space would have to be engineered in a certain way,
not even postmodern architects would like it.

The only profitable UV sanitizers I ever see are in the medical/dental field
anyway, used for autoclaving things. They do have UV rooms for things like
hazmat suits, but they tend to be the domain of industrial accident response,
EPA or FEMA types. Again, the power they require, and the grade of radiation
they give off, they are too hazardous to allow ordinary people to be near them
when operating.

~~~
unholythree
People forget your first point way too often. I’ve had to deal with air
handlers that were retrofitted with a UV systems that I’m sure sounded like a
marvelous idea to my institution; however none of the insulation or wiring was
rated for UV exposure. So after a few years it was a total mess.

------
im3w1l
You guys seem to be missing the best part. It automatically turns viral
particles into a vaccine of sorts.

> Three doses (500 PFU each)of UV-treated aerosol through the IASD, given 9-10
> days apart, protected against disease in terms of significantly reduced
> weight loss compared to the mock-treated group, although the ferrets were
> not protected against infection.

~~~
zootam
Thats a great side effect when dealing with being exposed to the virus, but I
think health professionals would not recommend this instead of a vaccine.

------
ebg13
Given that certain sterilizing UVC wavelengths are known to not penetrate the
epidermis, could we just attach a bunch of LEDs tuned to that range to a
headband or something instead of making people breathe through an enclosed
apparatus?

~~~
zootam
>[https://www.who.int/uv/faq/whatisuv/en/index2.html](https://www.who.int/uv/faq/whatisuv/en/index2.html)

>The three types of UV radiation are classified according to their wavelength.
They differ in their biological activity and the extent to which they can
penetrate the skin. The shorter the wavelength, the more harmful the UV
radiation. However, shorter wavelength UV radiation is less able to penetrate
the skin.

>Short-wavelength UVC is the most damaging type of UV radiation. However, it
is completely filtered by the atmosphere and does not reach the earth's
surface.

>Medium-wavelength UVB is very biologically active but cannot penetrate beyond
the superficial skin layers. It is responsible for delayed tanning and
burning; in addition to these short-term effects it enhances skin ageing and
significantly promotes the development of skin cancer. Most solar UVB is
filtered by the atmosphere.

I think this is a misunderstanding.

It won't penetrate deep into the skin, it will continuously cook the top
layers.

[https://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q9450.html](https://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q9450.html)

Frequent exposure WILL cause damage to skin and eyes.

Creating and selling personal protective equipment should be taken very
seriously.

Putting UVC light sources on a headband without controlling airflow is simply
too risky, no one could safely guarantee that a stray air current and or virus
from an unexpected angle would be exposed to enough light for enough time to
be safe. Air flow must be controlled.

~~~
ebg13
> _It won 't penetrate deep into the skin, it will continuously cook the top
> layers.

> Frequent exposure WILL cause damage to skin_

This report seems to say that that is not true for 222nm
[https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0201259)

~~~
zootam
Glad I was wrong! Hopefully this can be certified and implemented in all kinds
of sterilization devices ASAP.

Thank you for the link.

------
DocSavage
Looks like a cool device for high-virus areas like front-line health care
workers.

------
krzat
How about a mask with filter and UV lights that periodically disinfect it?
Could be cheaper.

And from other UV uses, it would be cool to use it for disinfecting bathrooms
when nobody is inside.

------
Havoc
That's really cool for immune compromised people! Way better than living in a
bubble

I wonder if this is dangerous long term though in the "hygine hypothesis
sense"?

------
zootam
A maker's implementation:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzGrh2io9Ds&](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzGrh2io9Ds&)

Looks cool, not sure how well it works.

~~~
mleonhard
That mask uses UVA which doesn't kill germs. Only the horrifyingly dangerous
UVC kills germs. Don't even think about making a DIY UVC device. You could
blind yourself in seconds.

[https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200327-can-you-kill-
cor...](https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200327-can-you-kill-coronavirus-
with-uv-light)

