Different biological effects of exposure to far-UVC (222 nm) and near-UVC (254 nm) irradiation.

Ultraviolet C (UVC) light has long been used as a sterilizing agent, primarily through devices that emit at 254 nm. Depending on the dose and duration of exposure, UV 254 nm can cause erythema and photokeratitis and potentially cause skin cancer since it directly modifies nitrogenated nucleic acid bases. Filtered KrCl excimer lamps (emitting mainly at 222 nm) have emerged as safer germicidal tools and have even been proposed as devices to sterilize surgical wounds. All the studies that showed the safety of 222 nm analyzed cell number and viability, erythema generation, epidermal thickening, the formation of genetic lesions such as cyclobutane pyrimidine dimers (CPDs) and pyrimidine-(6-4)-pyrimidone photoproducts (6-4PPs) and cancer-inducing potential. Although nucleic acids can absorb and be modified by both UV 254 nm and UV 222 nm equally, compared to UV 254 nm, UV 222 nm is more intensely absorbed by proteins (especially aromatic side chains), causing photooxidation and cross-linking. Here, in addition to analyzing DNA lesion formation, for the first time, we evaluated changes in the proteome and cellular pathways, reactive oxygen species formation, and metalloproteinase (MMP) levels and activity in full-thickness in vitro reconstructed human skin (RHS) exposed to UV 222 nm. We also performed the longest (40 days) in vivo study of UV 222 nm exposure in the HRS/J mouse model at the occupational threshold limit value (TLV) for indirect exposure (25 mJ/cm2) and evaluated overall skin morphology, cellular pathological alterations, CPD and 6-4PP formation and MMP-9 activity. Our study showed that processes related to reactive oxygen species and inflammatory responses were more altered by UV 254 nm than by UV 222 nm. Our chronic in vivo exposure assay using the TLV confirmed that UV 222 nm causes minor damage to the skin. However, alterations in pathways related to skin regeneration raise concerns about direct exposure to UV 222 nm.

UV 254 nm is more efficient than UV 222 nm in inactivating SARS-CoV-2 present in human saliva.

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 (TCID50) per milliliter we found that 99.99% viral clearance (LD99.99) was obtained with 106.3 mJ/cm2 of UV 222 nm for virus in DMEM and 2417 mJ/cm2 for virus in saliva. Additionally, our results showed that the UV 254 nm had a greater capacity to inactivate the virus in both vehicles. Effective (after discounting light absorption) LD99.99 of UV 222 nm on the virus in saliva was ∼30 times higher than the value obtained with virus in saline solution (PBS), we speculated that saliva might be protecting the virus from surface irradiation in ways other than just by intensity attenuation of UV 222 nm. Due to differences between UV 222/254 nm capacities to interact and be absorbed by molecules in complex solutions, a higher dose of 222 nm will be necessary to reduce viral load in surfaces with contaminated saliva.