It’s dose dependent not just time dependent. LED uv-c emitters can pump a huge dose onto a surface from a short distance such as this device does.
This recent study showed viral inactivation using such shorter time frames.
cmnybo@discuss.tchncs.de 10 months ago
How well is that actually going to work? UVC sterilization usually takes much longer than 30 seconds.
meyotch@slrpnk.net 10 months ago
thrawn@lemmy.world 10 months ago
WOTA claims 99.9% sterilization via UV-C. Does Japan have false advertising laws? I genuinely don’t see how it can be that fast, but like, it would be dumb to make difficult-to-believe claims if you could be sued for it.
Anyway, mostly unrelated, I used one of these there and I didn’t care if it was that effective. Wasn’t gonna be holding my phone for that span, so any sterilization is nice.
LordKitsuna@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Just because you don’t see how it can be that fast doesn’t mean you should immediately jump to false advertising. Think of it like cooking chicken to a safe temperature, you can do it sous vide at a lower temperature and still get safe chicken it’ll just take 8 hours or you can throw it in an incinerator at a thousand degrees and have it sterilized in a few seconds.
Sterilized is more than just the amount of time it’s also the amount of exposure, an extremely strong UV light needs significantly less time than a weaker one
thrawn@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Oh lol. I said that cause I was inclined to believe it due to false advertising laws. Hence, it would be dumb to make such a grand claim and open yourself up to liability [if it weren’t true]. The anecdote after was worded as mostly unrelated because it wasn’t about the effectiveness, but the convenience of the little unit