Are you looking to do this based on Sales literature or scientific research and official guidance?

https://www.hse.gov.uk/coronavirus/disinfecting-premises-during-coronavirus-outbreak.htm

Following on from the scandal of face masks offering less protection than stated the UV lamp market is the latest area fakers and scammers have started to appear e.g.

Alert number: A12/01064/20 Portable Ultraviolet Disinfection Rod model: JL-630 sold on Amazon did not emit the necessary UV-C

Alert number: A12/00987/20 Sterilize UVC Light Germicidal UVC LED Lamp Portable Home Handheld Disinfection emitted unsafe levels of UV-A and did not emit the necessary UV-C

Alert number: A12/00986/20 UVC 86 UV Steriliser Lamp product emits an unsafe amount of UV-A, UV-B and UV-C

The HSE web site gives some guidance including avoiding exposing skin and eyes.

UV disinfection lamps have been known to remove the initial protien layer for SARS on surfaces...however while there is some research papers out there is no fefinitive research that supports thier use for SARS-COV-2...

We want to use lamps for room disinfection. We've found some companies that claim that UVC wavelength is deadly for viruses and bacteria but not harmful to people's eyes and skin. However, they do not recommend to use these lamps in human presence. 

Anyway, we'd like to install something like this in some of our shared facilities, like bathrooms or kitchens. And turn them on couple times a day. We think it can be more efficient than inhaling chemicals all the time. 

Hope someone here has stories to share.

We had UVC lamps installed in our virology labs. The limitations were as mentioned: they only took out those viruses that are in direct line of sight of the lamps. And if you were to be exposed to the UVC directly you’d get a painful tan.

Thank you everyone for your thoughts.

We know a little by now how UV works and how quickly it can disinfect rooms of certain sizes. However, as it was mentioned above, UV only disinfects what is sees - it can't reach under tables or furniture. But anyway, all the visible surfaces that were touched by presumably Covid-positive, but asymptomatic empolyees - like kettle handles, table surfaces, floors etc - they will be disinfected, right? 

We thought that can be a way to prove to the employees we care. Those lamps can be turned on only in absense of people. And motion sensors stop disinfection cycle once someone enters the room.

Would you feel more confident in a workplace equipped with UV lamps? 

Tati what do you mean by a general area.? As said, I have used in a lab situation which was about 30 m2 in area. We needed 6 x 1 metre UVC tubes fitted to make sure the whole surface area was covered. It was a lab and managed reasonably well; we made sure that there were no nooks and crannies were the UVC could not reach. We had a warning light on the door when the UV was on and it only came after work finished typically from 7 at night to 7 in the morning. Later we fitted an interlock. Setting up lamps like this in a common area where people are coming and going would be problematic. If would only work if it was completely empty of furniture etc but then of course as it was devoid of any facilities nobody would use it and there would not be any risk of people bringing the virus in anyway.

There seems to be this resistance to proper cleaning regimes and people looking at things like this and fogging as a way to get around the need to keep places clean.

Edited by user 27 November 2020 09:40:44(UTC)  | Reason: words and thgings

I understand all of your scepticism. I myselp have doubts, too. So I'm so glad there's a community of professionals who can dilute this thick flow of marketing tricks.

We don't need to make common areas sterile. The idea is to just kill the biggest part of Covid viruses there without spraying chemicals (what we are currently doing). We know we can't kill all of it everywhere, but we'll keep wiping handles, buttons etc. Theoretically this can help reduce the number of infected, can't it? 

Anyway, how do you ensure the safety of workplaces? I mean something other than masks and hand sanitizers. We can't swith to remote work.

Tatti

One of the problems that others have alluded to is the word "safe". One of those words which is almost invariably on a spectrum from 100% safe to 100% dangerous.

Usually, when one puts in place some measure to reduce a risk, it increases another risk (or, even, the same risk).

In this case, my concern would be that if you introduce a measure that you understand to have limitations in effectiveness, others may see it as somehow being a magic cure and reduce their diligence in other precautions (however well you were to explain the limitations).

We have seen much of this over the last few months. In the early part of the pandemic, it was very clear that the No 1 precaution was keeping a distance from those around you - more recently the focus has shifted to face coverings, with even Government guidance shuffling the order of prioritisation of recommended precautions.

In the pre-Covid snake oil sales UV tubes were typically involved with the microbiological control of water and effluent flows. One thing the suppliers were keen to identify is that the UV tube has a finite effective lifespan.

You are starting from the wrong assumption that the workplace is swimming in Covid virus you need to control. Virus need hosts to proliferate not hard inorganic surfaces.

You need to control the potential for introduction of Covid to the workplace - the disinfection and cleaning routines are just that.

Moving to UVC for your situation is to quote AK "biosafety theatre".

"bio-safety theatre"

Doing something with the intention of appearing to be controlling the uncontrollable.

Undertaking activity that has no, or very minimal, impact upon a situation.

Originally Posted by: Tatti S

I still see the benefits from destroying Covid viruses on visible surfaces. They can stay there for quite a long time and can be touched by many people.

But what if it's really a case of possibly destroying slightly more quickly than it would lose viability anyway virus that probably isn't there in the first place, and could be more effectively controlled with something less theatrical (like washing hands)?

“Our employees are slightly hysterical about Covid and they request leaves or simply don't show up at work. Don't you freak out when somebody coughs near you? :)”

Yes, I can see that. People are generally very nervous about the unknown. We have been told about the deadly new virus and most of us only have limited experience of microorganisms. The media either portrays them as not very serious (“its just a glorified cold”)  or we see something like “Contagion” or the “Hot Zone” or (can anyone else remember) “Survivors”  and become totally terrified. The truth being somewhere in the middle. Interestingly one of my first H&S task was to reassure FM staff who seemed terrified of microbiology labs. Of course, these were the guys who thought WAH was no issue and live working-what’s a few volts surging through your body? Show them a lab where you are working with E.coli O157 they run away.  

How to manage  perception of risks is always a big issue.

Edited by user 30 November 2020 20:47:54(UTC)  | Reason: FFS

https://ec.europa.eu/consumers/consumers_safety/safety_products/rapex/alerts/?event=main.listNotifications&lng=en

Report 48 (27/11/2020) is very interesting - along with many hand sanitiser issues there are a lot of UK based reports about dangerous and ineffective UV disinfection lamps