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 1 year ago
How well is that actually going to work? UVC sterilization usually takes much longer than 30 seconds.
meyotch@slrpnk.net 1 year ago
thrawn@lemmy.world 1 year 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 1 year 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 1 year 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