ArticlePhotodiagnosis and photodynamic therapy2022
UV 254 nm is more efficient than UV 222 nm in inactivating SARS-CoV-2 present in human saliva.
Article in Photodiagnosis and photodynamic therapy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Evaluation of ultraviolet irradiation at 254 nm and 222 nm in inactivating human noroviruses on surfaces.Applied and environmental microbiology · 2026Article
- Tropism, replication competence, and cellular responses of HAdV-14p1 in human airway organoids.iScience · 2026Article
- Label-free visualization and quantitative analysis of Far UV-C skin safety with dynamic optical coherence tomography with subcellular resolution.Biomedical optics express · 2025Article
- Far-ultraviolet light causes direct DNA damage in human lung cells and tissues.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- Heat inactivation of SARS-CoV 2 enabled the measurement of salivary cortisol during COVID-19 pandemic.Endocrine · 2024Article
- Article
- Methods for SARS-CoV-2 hospital disinfection,Infection prevention in practice · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ultraviolet (UV) light can inactivate SARS-CoV-2. However, the practicality of UV light is limited by the carcinogenic potential of mercury vapor-based UV lamps. Recent advances in the development of krypton chlorine (KrCl) excimer lamps hold promise, as these emit a shorter peak wavelength (222 nm), which is highly absorbed by the skin's stratum corneum and can filter out higher wavelengths. In this sense, UV 222 nm irradiation for the inactivation of virus particles in the air and surfaces is a potentially safer option as a germicidal technology. However, these same physical properties make it harder to reach microbes present in complex solutions, such as saliva, a critical source of SARS-CoV-2 transmission. We provide the first evaluation for using a commercial filtered KrCl excimer light source to inactivate SARS-CoV-2 in saliva spread on a surface. A conventional germicidal lamp (UV 254 nm) was also evaluated under the same condition. Using plaque-forming units (PFU) and Median Tissue Culture Infectious Dose (TCID
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.