Received: 15 July 2019 | Revised: 2 November 2019 | Accepted: 4 November 2019

DOI: 10.1111/ina.12619

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Comparison of disinfection performance of UVC-LED and

conventional upper-room UVGI systems

Sunday S. Nunayon | Huihui Zhang | Alvin C. K. Lai

Department of Architecture and Civil

Engineering, City University of Hong Kong,
Hong Kong, China
Correspondence
Alvin C. K. Lai, Department of Architecture
and Civil Engineering, City University of
Hong Kong, Tat Chee Avenue, Kowloon,
Hong Kong, China.
Email: alvinlai@cityu.edu.hk
Funding information
Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong
Special Administrative Region of China,
Grant/Award Number: CityU 11273116 and
CityU 11204217.
Abstract
We developed a novel, compact upper-room ultraviolet germicidal irradiation sys-
tem with light-emitting diode sources (UR-UVGI-LED) to enhance the disinfection
of bioaerosols in an enclosed room space. Its effectiveness was evaluated and com-
pared with the conventional upper-room ultraviolet germicidal irradiation system
with mercury vapor sources (UR-UVGI-MV). Escherichia coli, Serratia marcescens, and
Staphylococcus epidermidis were atomized under the well-mixed condition and ex-
posed to UR-UVGI-LED (or UR-UVGI-MV) device. The intensity output of the UR-
UVGI-LED was also varied from 0% (no LED), 25%, 50% to 100% to further evaluate
the UR-UVGI-LED disinfection effectiveness under different power levels. The decay
rates for UR-UVGI-LED ranged from −0.1420 ± 0.04 min−1 to −0.3331 ± 0.07 min−1
for Escherichia coli, −0.1288 ± 0.01 min−1 to −0.3583 ± 0.02 min−1 for Serratia marc-
escens, and −0.0330 ± 0.01 min−1 to −0.0487 ± 0.01 min−1 for Staphylococcus epi-
dermidis. It was noticed that the intensity level had a non-linear influence on the
UR-UVGI-LED’s performance. The decay rates achieved by the UR-UVGI-MV sys-
tem were −0.3867 ± 0.08 min−1, −0.4745 ± 0.002 min−1, and −0.1624 ± 0.02 min−1
for Escherichia coli, Serratia marcescens, and Staphylococcus epidermidis, respectively.
Hence, the disinfection performance of both UR-UVGI-LED and UR-UVGI-MV sys-
tems was comparable for Escherichia coli and Serratia marcescens. These results dem-
onstrate that the UR-UVGI-LED system has a high potential to be used as a safe and
effective irradiated light source to disinfect indoor airborne pathogens.

KEYWORDS

airborne pathogens, disinfection bioaerosols, IAQ, light-emitting diode, ultraviolet C, upper-

room UVGI

1 | I NTRO D U C TI O N
Airborne transmitted pathogenic infections can cause various dis-
eases and threaten human health and lives severely. Indoor path-
ogens can be transmitted through the heating, ventilating and air
conditioning (HVAC) systems.1,2 To reduce infection risk, engineer-
ing control strategies should be implemented. A classical solution is
filtration or dilution in which clean ventilation air is introduced into
the room to replace any contaminated air. Filtration techniques in
the HVAC system can remove particles from both outdoor and in-
door sources. The minimum efficiency reporting value (MERV) is a
standard index, with ratings from 1 to 20, used to rate the effective-
ness of air filters for particles in the range of ≤0.3 µm to ≥ 10 µm
in size.3 Medium-grade filters—MERV ratings from 5 to 9,4,5 are
not effective for removing small bacteria and viruses.6 For many
general premises, it is not economically feasible to apply high ven-
tilation rates or use high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters.1
Considering the adverse implication of exposure to indoor airborne

180 | © 2019 John Wiley & Sons A/S. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ina Indoor Air. 2020;30:180–191.
Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd
NUNAYON et al.
pathogens on human health,7 there is a huge demand for efficient
indoor air disinfection technologies.8
Air disinfection is an imperative part of air treatment processes to
remove pathogenic microorganisms from the air. Different technolo-
gies have been developed and applied for effective air disinfection.
Among them, ultraviolet (UV) radiation is one of the demonstrated
technologies. Ultraviolet germicidal irradiation (UVGI), particularly in
the ultraviolet C (UVC) wavelengths band (180-280 nm), has been
recognized as having strong germicidal effects.9 UVC irradiation is
known to kill microorganisms by disrupting the bonds that hold the
microorganisms’ deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) or ribonucleic acid
(RNA) bases and strands together. 10
Ultraviolet C irradiation can be applied in duct systems or lo-
cated indoors. As short-term overexposure to UVC irradiation
can cause red skin (erythema) and painful eye inflammation (pho-
tokeratitis) in humans, precautions must be implemented if such
systems are installed indoors.11 Several national and international
groups have established human exposure limits (ELs) for UVGI ex-
posure. For example, the American Conference of Governmental
Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) and the International Commission on
Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) have recommended a
2
threshold limit value (TLV) of 6.0 mJ/cm for a person's exposure
12,13
to UV dose within an 8-hour period per day. Therefore, care-
ful and intelligent application of stipulated international guidelines
for human exposure to UVC is very important both in the design
and installation of UVGI fixtures to ensure that UVGI exposure level
of room occupants are below current safe exposure levels. This in-
cludes measurements of UVGI irradiance in the lower room, espe-
cially at the eye level, to determine compliance with occupational
14
safety and health guidelines. Also, a UVC system should be fixed
to the upper portion of a wall or under the ceiling. Thus, indoor UVC
irradiation is often referred to as “upper-room” UVGI, or UR-UVGI
for short. The disinfection principle of upper-room systems is that
the airborne pathogens are elevated to reach the irradiated zone and
then become disinfected and it has been widely tested.15,16 Since its
introduction in the early 20th century,9 the UR-UVGI system with
mercury vapor source (UR-UVGI-MV) has dramatically curtailed the
morbidity and mortality of tuberculosis (TB) pandemic in healthcare
facilities.17 Reports from more recent studies have also lent cre-
dence to the effectiveness of UR-UVGI-MV against TB.18,19 Besides
TB, researchers have extended their studies to cover some other
popular bacteria for full-sized room settings. In two operating rooms
where ceiling-mounted UR-UVGI-MV lamps were operated, Goldner
et al20 measured approximately 50% reduction in the concentration
of culturable airborne bacteria. Macher et al21 evaluated the effec-
tiveness of four-numbers 15 W UR-UVGI-MV fixtures on a mixture
of bacteria in a hospital waiting room (90 m3) and observed an effi-
ciency ranging between 14% and 19%. In another related study in
which one 15 W wall-mounted UR-UVGI-MV fixture was installed
3 22
and operated in a 36 m room under 2 ACH, Miller and Macher
found that the effectiveness of the UR-UVGI-MV system was about
50% for Bacillus Subtilis spores and Micrococcus luteus, and approxi-
mately 100% for Escherichia coli.
| 181
Practical Implications
• High power UVC-LED has been recently developed but
its disinfection efficiency for airborne pathogens has
not been thoughtfully tested and understood.
• We described an innovative, safe and compact UR-
UVGI-LED device and compared its disinfection efficacy
with the conventional UR-UVGI-MV system.
• The uniquely attractive aspect of the UR-UVGI-LED
system is the ability to vary its output intensity, which
could not be realized with the traditional UR-UVGI-MV
system.
• Both devices were challenged by three bacteria, and
comparable disinfection efficacies were found.
• The UR-UVGI-LED has a high potential for the next gen-
eration indoor air disinfection device, and even applica-
ble for very small environments.
It has also been speculated that other transmitted diseases like
the common cold, 23 influenza, 24,25 SARS, 26 and smallpox can poten-
tially be controlled by UVC irradiation.
However, there is no significant improvement in the design and
construction of the conventional UR-UVGI-MV system since it was
introduced to the commercial market. Low or medium pressure mer-
cury vapor lamps are often used to generate UVC irradiation for
UR-UVGI-MV installation. These mercury lamps have many disad-
vantages: the short lifespan of approximately 4000-10 000 hours,
requiring frequent replacement, and the component (mercury) is
also a major known environmental contaminant. 27 Moreover, the
irradiation source is housed in a fixture with long and closely sep-
arated louvers that horizontally collimate UV rays. The reflection
at the louvers’ surfaces leads to energy loss in the current design
of the UR-UVGI-MV system, reflecting its energy inefficiency. It is
reported that only 2% of its total electrical wattage is converted
to the irradiation that exits at the louvers. 28 The more critical con-
cern is the health issue as lamps that do not filter ozone-producing
wavelengths are sometimes misapplied despite the availability of
commercial mercury vapor lamps with low/no ozone. 29,30 Another
shortcoming of the conventional UR-UVGI-MV system is the bulky
size. Many units may be required for a large room, which may affect
its esthetics.
As an emerging technology, the use of ultraviolet light-emit-
ting diode (UVC-LEDs) to produce UV radiation has many advan-
tages. It is a semiconductor p-n junction device that emits light
in a narrow spectrum. UVC-LEDs require no warm-up time and
relatively little energy to operate and have a very long operational
lifespan, of up to 100 000 hours. 31 UVC-LEDs are also environ-
mentally friendly; they do not contain toxic materials or emit pol-
lutants indicating that their production, use, and disposal have
no potential negative impact on the environment and on human
health.
182 | NUNAYON et al.
For sterilization or disinfection applications, high power rating
UVC-LEDs are required, and they are only available commercially
just a few years ago. Several studies have proven that UVC-LEDs
can effectively inactivate pathogen in water.32,33 Currently, one
major disadvantage of UVC-LEDs is that, to disinfect the same vol-
ume of room air that the conventional mercury vapor lamp would
sterilize, a lot of UVC-LEDs are required due to their characteristic
low wattages. Another key concern is that UVC-LEDs dissipate lots
of wasted heat. Nonetheless, with the advancement of optical engi-
neering, it is anticipated that the thermal efficiency of UVC-LEDs will
be improved substantially in the coming few years. For example, as
at 3 years ago, the highest wattage of commercially available UVC-
LEDs was less than 10 mW, but now, it has been increased to 50 mW.
To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to consider UR-
UVGI-LEDs for the disinfection of room air. Seeing the considerable
progress achieved and projected trends expected on the develop-
ment of UVC-LEDs, this new UV source is believed to be a promising
alternative for air disinfection.
The inactivation efficacy of UV against airborne bacteria differs,
which may technically depend on the UV fluence required for de-
creasing the number of bacteria by an order of logarithmic magni-
tude. The term fluence is calculated as the product of UV irradiance
(W/m2) and exposure time (s).34 Apart from the UV fluence, the spe-
cies of bacteria is also an important parameter determining the UV
inactivation efficacy of bacteria aerosol. Almost all bacteria, except
for spores, are sensitive to moderate levels of UV exposure, but the
magnitude of the effect can be tremendously species dependent.35
The UV sensitivity of bacteria depends strongly on the type of cell
membrane with which bacteria are being wired, and bacteria with
thick membranes are significantly less sensitive to UV inactivation.
Maximum effectiveness is usually observed for the UR-UVGI-MV
system against gram-negative than gram-positive bacteria spe-
cies.36 However, the inactivation performance of the UR-UVGI-LED
system against different airborne bacteria species has rarely been
reported. Another important factor for consideration when making
an economically reasonable decision on the UV device to adopt for
conducting the inactivation of bioaerosols is the energy efficiency
of such a system. One of the commonly used indices for characteriz-
ing the energy efficiency of an UV disinfection device is the cost of
electrical energy consumption per year, which has been previously
used by Yang et al36 to estimate the electricity efficiency of in-duct
UVGI for bacteria disinfection. Thus, the same index for the cost
of electrical energy consumption per year can be applied for both
conventional UR-UVGI-MV and UR-UVGI-LED disinfection devices
to determine their electrical energy efficiencies. However, studies
considering both disinfection performance and energy efficiency of
conventional UR-UVGI-MV and UR-UVGI-LED systems have barely
been reported in the literature.
In this study, we designed and compared the disinfection ef-
ficacy of a novel UR-UVGI-LED system with the conventional
UR-UVGI-MV system. The performance of the two systems was
quantified by log-reduction and single-stage decay rate. Different
input current levels to the developed UR-UVGI-LED system were
investigated. Also, the energy consumption of both disinfection de-
vices during UV irradiation was analyzed. The results from this study
may offer an important understanding of the control of indoor bio-
aerosols by using UV irradiation and help abate the environmental
impacts of airborne microbes.
2 | M ATE R I A L S A N D M E TH O DS
2.1 | Study design
Escherichia coli (E. coli) (ATCC 10536), Serratia marcescens (S. marc-
escens) (ATCC 6911), and Staphylococcus epidermidis (S. epidermidis)
(ATCC 12228) were used as the challenge bioaerosols. These bacteria
are categorized as biosafety level 1. The bacteria cells were atomized
by a 24-jet Collison nebulizer (BGI, Inc., Waltham, MA, USA) that was
connected to a portable compressor and operated at a pressure of 45
F I G U R E 1 Experimental setup (A)
Process of aerosolization of test bacteria
(B) Process of air sampling
NUNAYON et al.
psi (310.26 kPa) with filtered compressed air. Both the nebulizer and
the portable compressor were positioned in a chamber next to the test
chamber. The bioaerosols were delivered into the test chamber using a
thoroughly disinfected copper tube (labeled as ixa in Figure 1) that was
12 mm in diameter and 1 m long. To improve the delivery efficiency
and minimize possible bacteria loss, it [the copper tube] was attached
to the end of a short buffer tube, between the nebulizer and copper
tube, instead of directly to the nozzle of the nebulizer. To achieve the
aerosolization of the test samples at breathing level, the other end
of the copper tube was inserted at a height of 1.5 m above the floor
through the south wall of the chamber. After the aerosolization pro-
cess, the copper tube was removed and replaced with another copper
tube (labeled as ixb in Figure 1) in like manner to the copper tube de-
scribed above. To perform the air sampling, the replacement tube was
also inserted into the chamber at one end (at the same position) and
connected to an impactor through a cast acrylic sheet squared box
(151 mm × 151 mm × 151 mm) at the other end. The relative positions
of the copper sampling tubes inlet were 54 cm away from the fan face
and 50 cm above the fan top; about 42 and 150 cm away from the UR-
UVGI-LED and conventional UR-UVGI-MV devices, respectively, and
51 cm below both UR-UVGI-LED and conventional UR-UVGI-MV de-
vices. The single-stage viable Andersen cascade impactor (N6, Thermo
Scientific) was used to sample the airborne microbial concentrations.
The sampler was connected to a vacuum pump, and the sampling vol-
ume was adjusted to a standard flow rate of 28.3 liters per minute
(LPM). The setup of the experimental design is shown in Figure 1.
2.2 | Experimental chamber
We conducted the experiments in a full-scale test room with a dimen-
sion of 2.30 m (L) × 2.25 m (W) × 2.30 m (H). The chamber has its
external walls insulated with fiberglass with one door but no windows.
The temperature and relative humidity of the chamber were controlled
and monitored during the experiments. A detailed description of the
test chamber has been given elsewhere.37 To achieve air movement
FIGURE 2 Disinfection devices (A) UR-UVGI-LED (B) UR-UVGI-MV
| 183
and the proper mixing of the aerosolized bacteria within the room, one
23 cm wide oscillating fan was mounted on a stool at the left corner of
the wall through which the copper tubes were inserted. The fan was
operated with the dual oscillation of vertical and horizontal motions
(representing up/down & left/right, respectively) at constant rotation
speed during the experiments. The vertical airspeed of the fan was
1.58 m/s at 56 cm away from the fan. On the sidewall of the chamber,
one component of the UR-UVGI-LED device and one component of
the UR-UVGI-MV device were installed to perform the disinfection,
separately. Both the control and the treatment experiments for the
UR-UVGI-LED (or UR-UVGI-MV) irradiation system were conducted
under the same test chamber conditions. The test chamber we used to
study the efficacy of the UR-UVGI-LED and the UR-UVGI-MV devices
separately is schematically illustrated in Figure 1.
2.3 | The UR-UVGI-LED device
We developed a novel UR-UVGI-LED device (left on Figure 2). It
consisted of 10 individual UVC-LEDs (Klaran series, Crystal IS Inc).
For each UCV-LED, the rated optical output was >20 mW under the
rated voltage of 9 V and the rated current was 350 mA. Hence, the
total rated optical output for 10 UVC-LEDs was >200 mW, and the
total input current was 3.5A. The array of the UVC-LEDs was fixed
onto a heat sink.
These 10 individual UVC-LEDs were arranged in the form of a
well-packed rectangular array (5 by 2 matrix). The complete module
of the UR-UVGI-LED device was hung midway from one of the walls
of the test room at a height of 2.01 m (see Figure 1).
2.4 | The conventional UR-UVGI-MV device
A 21 W modern ultraviolet germicidal lamp (TB-12-W/50, American
Ultraviolet) was installed on the north wall (right on Figure 2), di-
rectly opposite the door in the test room (Figure 1). It consists of
184 | NUNAYON et al.

a glass envelope, a pair of electrodes, and a mercury amalgam.
Also, it had 14 angled panes of black-painted steel louvers. The UR-
UVGI-MV system was also hung at a height of 2.01 m.
2.5 | Selection and preparation of tested bacteria
Table 1 lists the bacteria strains and growth media. They are com-
monly found in a variety of environments, and they are typical
airborne microorganisms in bioaerosol research. These bacteria spe-
cies have also been used in previous UVGI studies for both upper
rooms and induct applications because they are vulnerable to inac-
tivation by UVC.15,38 They are common bacteria in humans and usu-
ally cause serious infections. The selection criterion and preparation
of the tested bacteria have previously been reported elsewhere.37
Concisely, for each experiment, a colony of each tested bacterium
was separately obtained from frozen stocks, inoculated onto a nutri-
ent agar (NA, BD) plate, and then incubated in a temperature con-
trolled incubator at 37°C. In order to keep the concentration of each
tested bacterium at an approximately constant value for each test,
the suspension for each type of bacterium was successively diluted
to different ratios and this provided a base suspension containing
populations of approximately 10 8 CFU/mL. The harvested cells in
50 mL of sterilized deionized water were transferred into a 24-jet
collision nebulizer (BGI) for aerosolization. Occasionally, the bacteria
suspensions were stored at dry ice temperature and used for the
aerosol experiments within less than 24 hours after preparation.
2.6 | Experimental procedure
Before performing the experiment, the impactor, air sampling box,
and copper tubes were sterilized by spraying them with 70% etha-
nol. About 1 hour before each experiment, the test chamber was
also decontaminated with a 21 W modern UV germicidal lamp (TB-
12-W/50, American Ultraviolet). The UV germicidal lamp was turned
off after disinfecting the room air.
For every test, a 50 mL solution of each type of test bacterium
from the same stock was independently transferred into the nebu-
lizer, and filtered compressed air was then added into the nebulizer
to aerosolize and deliver the specific airborne bacterium into the
center of the test chamber. The oscillating fan was operated before
aerosolization and ran continuously during air sampling to achieve a
well-mixed indoor condition.
Once the 5 minutes bioaerosol aerosolization was complete,
the collection of airborne bacteria into the bioaerosol sampler then
commenced. Petri dishes containing 15 mL of nutrient agar medium
were interchangeably placed between the base and jet classification
stage of the impactor, and samples were obtained. The total sam-
pling time was 13 minutes for 8 test times set at t = 0, 1, 3, 5, 7, 9,
11, and 13 minutes. This sampling duration was adopted because
samples collected beyond this period were found to be nearly zero.
For each test time, the air samples were taken for 1 minute. We ap-
plied a 1 minute interval between successive test times so that the
surfaces of the impactor could be disinfected, and the agar plate re-
placed. For example, at test time t = 0, the air sample was taken im-
mediately after aerosolization without turning on the UR-UVGI-LED
(or UR-UVGI-MV) device. After this moment, the UR-UVGI-LED (or
UR-UVGI-MV) system was powered up, and the air samples were
collected after a UV exposure of 1 minute. The same procedure
was repeated for the other test times. Each experiment was inde-
pendently performed at least three times for each bacteria species.
For every condition tested, the natural decay was determined by
performing the experiment without operating the UR-UVGI-LED (or
UR-UVGI-MV) system.
Upon sample collection, the inoculated nutrient agar plates were
then incubated at 37°C for 24 hours. The number of colony-form-
ing units (CFUs) on each nutrient agar plate was manually counted.
To determine the performance of our UR-UVGI-LED (and the UR-
UVGI-MV) devices, the rate of reduction in the bioaerosol concen-
trations with and without UVGI were determined and compared.
Any possible bacteria loss in the copper pipe from the nebulizer to
the chamber, and in the pipe and Perspex box between the chamber
and the impactor was considered negligible because the control ex-
periment, indirectly, had taken such losses into account.
For the UR-UVGI-MV system, the UV irradiance was measured
using a UV/VIS fiber-optic spectrometer (ULS3648, Avantes). The
measurement procedure has been reported elsewhere,40 but with
the radiometer (Model ILT1400-A, International Light Technologies)
equipped with a 254 nm narrow-band detector (SEL/NS254/W).
The sensor of the spectrometer, usually fixed to a fiber-optic cable,
was mounted on a tripod. As the intensity is very sensitive to the
source orientation, particularly at the vicinity of the fixture, it was
very crucial to ensure that the detector faced perpendicularly to the
UR-UVGI-MV fixture.
The UV irradiance of the UR-UVGI-LED lights was also measured
with the same spectrometer, which was positioned perpendicular to
the UR-UVGI-LED device. The distance between the spectrometer's

TA B L E 1 Microorganisms, associated growth media and available UV rate constants

UV rate constants
Gram status Microorganism Collection number Culture medium (m2/J)39

Gram-negative bacteria E. coli ATCC 10536 Nutrient agar 0.21400-0.50628

S. marcescens ATCC 6911 Nutrient agar 0.06167-0.70657
Gram-positive bacteria S. epidermidis ATCC 12228 Nutrient agar 0.00800-0.12670

Abbreviation: ATCC, American Type Culture Collection.

NUNAYON et al. | 185

sensor and the UR-UVGI-LED device was 0.014 m. One distinctive the proportion at which the bioaerosol concentration in the indoor
feature of the UR-UVGI-LED device is the ease of changing its ir- space decays with respect to time under the environmental conditions
radiation by adjusting the input current while the intensity of the tested. The relationship between S and k is expressed in Equation (2).
UR-UVGI-MV system could not be adjusted. In this regard, three dif-
ferent output intensities (output power level) were selected for all Ct
= e−kt (2)
measurements (more details on Results). C0
Figure 3 shows the emission spectra for both the UR-UVGI-LED
and the UR-UVGI-MV systems. The spectrum for the UR-UVGI-LED As no mechanical ventilation was operated, removal due to
system was taken under the 3.5 A rated current with a correspond- mechanical ventilation was zero. Therefore, from Equation (2),
ing voltage of 8 V. The UR-UVGI-LED and the UR-UVGI-MV systems the decay rate of indoor bacteria during UR-UVGI-LED (or UR-
exhibited peak emission wavelengths at 270.8 and 254.96 nm, with UVGI-MV) device operation can be written as Equations (3a,
full widths at half maximum (FWHM) spectral bandwidth of 8 and 3b). 35,41
15 nm, respectively.
CLED−on (t)
= e−kt = e−(kn +kLED )t (3a)
C0
2.7 | Determination of inactivation level and
decay rates
Cmv−on (t)
= e−kt = e−(kn +kmv )t (3b)
C0
The inactivation level was determined by counting the CFUs with
and without the UR-UVGI-LED (or UR-UVGI-MV) device turned on.
A dimensionless parameter called the survival fraction (S) was de- where kn is the natural decay rate, kLED and kmv are decay rates due
termined based on Equation (1). It is the ratio of the concentration to UV irradiations from UR-UVGI-LED and conventional UR-UVGI-MV
of bioaerosols at any specific time, t, to the initial concentration of devices, respectively; the sum of kn and kLED (or kmv) is termed as total
bioaerosols measured at t = 0. decay rate. The slope of the best-fitted straight line of S against t gives
the k. The kLED (or kmv) presented in the results is termed as “effective
Ct
S= (1) k,” which was obtained by subtracting the natural die-off rate from the
C0
total decay rate.

In Equation (1), Ct is the bacteria concentration at a specified

elapsed time (or exposure time), t, and C0 is the initial bacteria con- 3 | R E S U LT S A N D D I S CU S S I O N
centration. We also determined the decay rate for the UR-UVGI ON
condition (kLED or kmv as the case may be) and the natural decay rate 3.1 | UR-UVGI-LED Intensity
(kn), that is, UR-UVGI OFF condition. The decay rate, k, is defined as
We measured the quantity of output light intensity emitted by the
10 UVC-LEDs at different input currents, and the results are shown
in Figure 4. The intensity increased with the input current up to 1.5
210
UR-UVGI-LED A, and then the intensity reached a plateau at 40.77 µW/cm2 until
180 UR-UVGI-MV 3.5 A (referred to as 100%). As the input currents just reached 0.6
Intensity (µW/cm2)

A and 0.3 A, the irradiation intensities were already 50% and 25%,
150
respectively, of the maximum value. The finding is very informative
120 and suggests that there is no need to operate the UR-UVGI-LED sys-
tem at the rated current (3.5 A in this case) to obtain 100% output as
90 the manufacturer suggested.
60
30 3.2 | UR-UVGI-MV irradiance
0
Unlike the UR-UV-GI-LED device, only one UV irradiance level

250 260 270 280 290 300 was achievable for the UR-UVGI-MV system because it was not
feasible to vary the intensity of the UV lamp. The spectrometer
Wavelength (nm)
measurements when the UR-UVGI-MV system was operating re-
F I G U R E 3 Emission spectra for UR-UVGI-LED and UR-UVGI- sulted in an average UV irradiance of 18.95 µW/cm2 at the irradi-
MV systems ated zone.
186 | NUNAYON et al.
50
40
Intensity (µW/cm2)
30 3.5 A (100 %)
40.77 µW/cm2
20
0.6 A (50 %)
21.53 µW/cm2
10
0.3 A (25 %)
11.35 µW/cm2
0 −0.1420 ± 0.04 min−1. For S. marcescens, the mean decay rates were
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Input current (A)
FIGURE 4 LED intensity against input current
3.3 | Comparison of disinfection under UR-UVGI-
LED and UR-UVGI-MV irradiations
The disinfection of various bacteria in the test chamber was con-
ducted with the UR-UVGI-LED and the conventional UR-UVGI-MV
devices independently. The quantity ln(Ct/C0) was plotted against
the exposure time. The illustrations of the control groups of three
bacteria in Figures 5, 6, and 7 demonstrate that the populations that
were not exposed to UVC radiation (either UR-UVGI-LED or UR-
UVGI-MV system) showed little reduction throughout the duration
of the experiments.
For the UR-UVGI-LED system operated at 25%, 50%, and 100%
irradiation intensity levels, the highest levels of inactivation for the
E. coli bacterium following exposures of 13 minutes were approx-
imate CFU count reductions of 4.3-log10, 5.3-log10, and 7.4-log10,
respectively. For the S. marcescens bacterium, the highest levels of
inactivation following exposures of 13 minutes to the UR-UVGI-LED
at 25%, 50%, and 100% irradiation intensity levels were approximate
CFU count reductions of 3.7-log10, 5-log10 , and 6.4-log10, respec-
tively. However, the exposure of the S. epidermidis to the same ir-
radiation intensities of the UR-UVGI-LED system at 25%, 50%, and
100% amounted to insignificant inactivation compared with the con-
trol. Approximate reductions of 1.0-log10 in the CFU counts of S. epi-
dermidis were observed after an exposure duration of 13 minutes for
all the UR-UVGI-LED system's intensities.
Similarly, we observed in our data that the concentration reduc-
tions for E. coli (7.1-log10 reduction, see Figure 5E), and S. marcescens
(6.8-log10 reduction, see Figure 6E) induced by the conventional UR-
UVGI-MV system were not significantly higher than the peak reduc-
tion reported for the UR-UVGI-LED system above, but substantial
reduction difference was observed for S. epidermidis (4.2-log10 re-
duction, see Figure 7E).
The decay rate is another parameter that quantifies the disinfec-
tion performance of the UR-UVGI system. The comparison of the
decay rates for E coli, S. marcescens, and S. epidermidis, together with
the natural decay, are depicted in Figures 5, 6, and 7, respectively
for both the UR-UVGI-LED and the conventional UR-UVGI-MV sys-
tems. We observed different decay rates among the three bacteria
species. Decay 1, 2, and 3 are results of three sets of the experi-
ments for each bacteria species.
For E. coli, the disinfection was significant compared with the
natural decay. At UR-UVGI-LED system's irradiation intensity levels
of 25%, 50%, and 100%, the mean decay rates increased system-
atically and were −0.1673 ± 0.04 min−1, −0.2257 ± 0.04 min−1, and
−0.3331 ± 0.07 min−1, respectively. The natural decay rate of E. coli was
−0.1640 ± 0.02 min−1, −0.2785 ± 0.05 min−1, −0.3583 ± 0.02 min−1,
and −0.1288 ± 0.01 min−1 for the 25%, 50%, 100% UR-UVGI-LED
output intensities and the natural decay rate, respectively. At the UR-
UVGI-LED system's irradiation intensity levels of 25%, 50%, and 100%,
the mean decay rates for S. epidermidis were −0.0207 ± 0.01 min−1,
−0.0113 ± 0.03 min−1, and −0.0487 ± 0.01 min−1, respectively.
Meanwhile, the natural decay rate was −0.0330 ± 0.01 min−1. Almost
all results showed an increase in decay rate with intensity.
Correspondingly, the conventional UR-UVGI-MV system pro-
vided an average −0.3867 ± 0.08 min−1, −0.4745 ± 0.002 min−1, and
−0.1624 ± 0.02 min−1, as decay rates for E. coli, S. marcescens, and
S. epidermidis, respectively.
The current finding agrees with the previous discussion of the
log-reductions in CFU counts, which showed that the gram-positive
bacterium, S. epidermidis, due to its thicker cell wall42 was less sus-
ceptible to irradiation by both the UR-UVGI-LED and the conven-
tional UR-UVGI-MV systems than the gram-negative bacteria, E. coli,
and S. marcescens.43,44 Previous studies have suggested that S. epi-
dermidis has similar responses to UV irradiation.36,37
The effective disinfection potential of the UR-UVGI-LED system
is observed in this study through the significant reductions and/or
decay rates. It is, however, noticed that the UR-UVGI-MV system
was 1.16, 1.32, and 3.33 times higher than the highest decay rates
by the UR-UVGI-LED system for E. coli, and S. marcescens, and S. epi-
dermidis, respectively. A thoughtful discussion between the two sys-
tems is given.
The design flexibility of the UR-UVGI-LED system surpasses that
of the mercury vapor lamp system, offering the opportunity of innova-
tive disinfection systems with a high level of integration. Several other
potential advantages of using the UR-UVGI-LED system over the
lamp-based—UR-UVGI-MV system that must be considered for prac-
tical applications include compact size, no warm-up time, less mainte-
nance cost, and the potential for very long operational lifetimes of the
LEDs before replacement. Longer-lifetime is a very important benefit
especially for applications in rural areas, where maintenance and re-
pairs are usually difficult. For manufacturing LEDs, no environmental
NUNAYON et al. | 187

F I G U R E 5 The inactivation decay (A) Exposure time (min) (B) Exposure time (min)
rates of E. coli under (A) natural die-
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
off condition (no UVC irradiation), (B)
0.0 0.0

Concentration, ln (C)
Concentration, ln (C)
UR-UVGI-LED at a 25% irradiation kLED = –0.1673 ± 0.04 min–1
intensity level (C) UR-UVGI-LED at a 50% –1.5 –1.5
irradiation intensity level, (D) UR-UVGI- –3.0 –3.0
LED at a 100% irradiation intensity level,
–4.5 Decay 1: R 2 = 0.993 –4.5
and (E) UR-UVGI-MV irradiation Decay 2: R 2 = 0.967
–6.0 Decay 3: R 2 = 0.964 –6.0 Decay 1: R 2 = 0.988
–7.5 –7.5 Decay 2: R 2 = 0.992
kn = –0.1420 ± 0.04 min–1 Decay 3: R 2 = 0.943
–9.0 –9.0
Natural die-off condition UR-UVGI-LED at 25%
(no UVC irradiation) irradiation intensity level

(C) Exposure time (min) (D) Exposure time (min)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
0.0 0.0
Concentration, ln (C)

Concentration, ln (C)
kLED = –0.2257 ± 0.04 min –1
kLED = –0.3331 ± 0.07 min–1
–1.5 –1.5
–3.0 –3.0
–4.5 –4.5
–6.0 –6.0
Decay 1: R 2 = 0.942 Decay 1: R 2 = 0.995
–7.5 Decay 2: R 2 = 0.991 –7.5 Decay 2: R 2 = 0.994
–9.0 Decay 3: R 2 = 0.993 –9.0 Decay 3: R 2 = 0.989

UR-UVGI-LED at 50% UR-UVGI-LED at 100%

irradiation intensity level irradiation intensity level

(E) Exposure time (min)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
0.0
Concentration, ln(C)

kMV = –0.3867 ± 0.08 min–1

–1.5
–3.0
–4.5
–6.0
Decay 1: R 2 = 0.95
–7.5 Decay 2: R 2 = 0.98
–9.0 Decay 3: R 2 = 0.96

UR-UVGI-MV irradiation

hazardous materials are needed or generated, and no harmful ozone
is generated during the operation. Moreover, the wavelength diversity
of UV-LEDs creates the opportunity to select a certain wavelength
for a specific purpose. This can target specific pathogens to enhance
disinfection efficacy.
In view of the clear potential benefits that we have high-
lighted for LED-based air disinfection systems, there is a need to
strengthen developmental efforts to expressly enhance or improve
the UR-UVGI-LED system's performance for air disinfection. This
is possible by considering both the typical challenges and various
advantages of the UR-UVGI-LED system to maintain a highly reli-
able, compact and robust system and ensure the preservation of
the most beneficial qualities of LED-based systems compared to
lamp-based systems.
3.4 | Comparison of energy consumption
between UR-UVGI-LED and UR-UVGI-MV systems
Energy consumption was adopted as a common index to evaluate
and compare the energy utilization efficiency between the devel-
oped UR-UVGI-LED and the conventional UR-UVGI-MV systems. In
this study, only the energy consumed by each of these disinfection
devices was considered whereas other ancillary consumption was
not accounted for. To analyze the energy implication of using the de-
veloped UR-UVGI-LED and the conventional UR-UVGI-MV systems,
the annual energy consumed by both UR-UVGI devices was deter-
mined at comparable effectiveness, and the annual energy costs (C)
were further estimated. The annual energy cost was calculated from
Equation (4).
 188 | NUNAYON et al.

Exposure time (min) Exposure time (min) F I G U R E 6 The inactivation decay

(A) (B)
rates of S. marcescens under (A) natural
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
die-off condition (no UVC irradiation),
0.0 0.0

Concentration, ln (C)
Concentration, ln (C)

kLED = –0.1640 ± 0.02 min–1 (B) UR-UVGI-LED at a 25% irradiation

–1.5 –1.5 intensity level (C) UR-UVGI-LED at a 50%
–3.0 –3.0 irradiation intensity level, (D) UR-UVGI-
Decay 1: R 2 = 0.940 LED at a 100% irradiation intensity level,
–4.5 Decay 2: R 2 = 0.940 –4.5 and (E) UR-UVGI-MV irradiation
–6.0 Decay 3: R 2 = 0.910 –6.0 Decay 1: R 2 = 0.980
–7.5 –7.5 Decay 2: R 2 = 0.950
kn = –0.1288 ± 0.01 min–1 Decay 3: R 2 = 0.970
–9.0 –9.0
Natural die-off condition UR-UVGI-LED at 25%
(no UVC irradiation) irradiation intensity level

(C) Exposure time (min) (D) Exposure time (min)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
0.0 0.0
Concentration, ln (C)
Concentration, ln (C)

kLED = –0.2785 ± 0.05 min–1 kLED = –0.3583 ± 0.02 min–1

–1.5 –1.5
–3.0 –3.0
–4.5 –4.5
–6.0 –6.0
Decay 1: R 2 = 0.960 Decay 1: R 2 = 0.999
–7.5 Decay 2: R 2 = 0.997 –7.5 Decay 2: R 2 = 0.980
Decay 3: R 2 = 0.960 –9.0 Decay 3: R 2 = 0.996
–9.0
UR-UVGI-LED at 50% UR-UVGI-LED at 100%
irradiation intensity level irradiation intensity level

(E) Exposure time (min)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
0.0
Concentration, ln(C)

Decay 1: R2 = 0.94
–1.5 Decay 2: R2 = 0.92
Decay 3: R2 = 0.90
–3.0
–4.5
–6.0
–7.5
kMV = –0.4745 ± 0.002 min–1
–9.0
UR-UVGI-MV irradiation

C = P ⋅ hw ⋅ Re
where C is the cost of the annual energy consumption, US$/year; hw
is the total working hour of the UR-UVGI-LED or the conventional
UR-UVGI-MV system in 1 year, hw = 2920 hours per year; Re is the
45
rate of one Kilowatt-hour of electricity, Re = 0.14 $/kWh ; P is the
power of the UR-UVGI-LED or the conventional UR-UVGI-MV sys-
tem at full operation intensity. In our calculation of the annual en-
ergy cost, for the developed UR-UVGI-LED device, the power (P) in
Equation (4) was the product of the input current at full output inten-
sity and the corresponding voltage (ie, P = I·V) where current, I = 2A
and voltage, V = 8V. As mentioned earlier, the UR-UVGI-LED system
could attain almost full output intensity at 1.5 A and increasing the
current did not show any tangible difference in the overall output in-
(4) tensity (Figure 4). It is reasonable not to consider the manufacturer's
rated current of 3.5 A in our calculation. Therefore, we adopted 2.0
A as the input current to determine the power of the UR-UVGI-LED
system. In addition, the rated voltage of the UR-UVGI-LED system
when operated at a full gear was 9 V, but for safety reasons and to
avoid damaging the LEDs, we operated the UR-UVGI-LED system at
8 V. Thus, by substituting the values of I and V into the power equa-
tion, the power of the UR-UVGI-LED system at full operation inten-
sity was 16 W. Whereas, for the UR-UVGI-MV system, the power (P)
was measured using an AC clamp power meter (CM3286-01) and it
was found to be 21 W.
By our calculation, it was shown that the annual fee consumed
by the UR-UVGI-LED system (6.54 $/year) was lower than that
NUNAYON et al. | 189

F I G U R E 7 The inactivation decay (A) Exposure time (min) (B) Exposure time (min)
rates of S. epidermidis under (A) natural
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
die-off condition (no UVC irradiation),
0.0 0.0

Concentration, ln (C)
Concentration, ln (C)
(B) UR-UVGI-LED at a 25% irradiation
intensity level (C) UR-UVGI-LED at a 50%
irradiation intensity level, (D) UR-UVGI-
–1.5 –1.5
Decay 1: R 2 = 0.810
LED at a 100% irradiation intensity level, Decay 1: R 2 = 0.860
–3.0 –3.0 Decay 2: R 2 = 0.995
and (E) UR-UVGI-MV irradiation Decay 2: R 2 = 0.960
Decay 3: R 2 = 0.950
Decay 3: R 2 = 0.890
–4.5 –4.5
kn = –0.0330 ± 0.01 min –1 kLED = –0.0207 ± 0.01 min–1
–6.0 –6.0
Natural die-off condition UR-UVGI-LED at 25%
(no UVC irradiation) irradiation intensity level

(C) Exposure time (min) (D) Exposure time (min)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
0.0 0.0
Concentration, ln (C)

–1.5
Decay 1: R 2 = 0.950
–3.0 Decay 2: R 2 = 0.990
Decay 3: R 2 = 0.980
–4.5
kLED = –0.0113 ± 0.03 min
–6.0
UR-UVGI-LED at 50%
irradiation intensity level
Concentration, ln (C)
–1.5
Decay 1: R 2 = 0.990
–3.0 Decay 2: R 2 = 0.980
Decay 3: R 2 = 0.995
–4.5
–1 kLED = –0.0487 ± 0.01 min–1
–6.0
UR-UVGI-LED at 100%
irradiation intensity level

(E) Exposure time (min)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
0.0
Concentration, ln (C)

kMV = –0.1624 ± 0.02 min–1

–1.5

–3.0

–4.5 Decay 1: R 2 = 0.98

Decay 2: R 2 = 0.99
–6.0 Decay 3: R 2 = 0.99

UR-UVGI-MV irradiation

by the conventional UR-UVGI-MV system (8.58 $/year) over the 4 | CO N C LU S I O N S

course of a year. This implies that the conventional UR-UVGI-MV
system is 31.19% more expensive to operate. Notwithstanding the
heat dissipation of LEDs, our (developed) UR-UVGI-LED device is
still marginally energy efficient compared with the conventional
UR-UVGI-MV system. This indicates that useful energy is gener-
ally minimal compared with the amount wasted as heat. Unlike
the conventional UR-UVGI-MV system, the application of the
UR-UVGI-LED system for room air disinfection is new and has a
high potential for future development. It is expected that with the
recent advancements in electro-optical technologies, the energy
efficiency of the UR-UVGI-LED system will likely increase more
substantially.
The Minamata Convention on Mercury has a serious impact on the
production of mercury-added products. A new UV source is needed
to substitute the conventional low-pressure mercury vapor lamps.
In this work, a novel upper room UR-UVGI-LED device was
tested in a full-size experimental chamber and the performance
was compared with the conventional UR-UVGI-MV system. Three
different bacteria were selected: two gram-negative bacilli—E. coli
and S. marcescens, and one gram-positive coccus—S. epidermidis.
The performance metrics employed in this study to compare
the effectiveness of the two UR-UVGI systems in reducing in-
door bioaerosols were log reduction and decay rate. Overall, the
190 | NUNAYON et al.
disinfection performance (in terms of the decay rate) of the UR-
UVGI-LED system at maximum intensity was 13.86%, 24.49%, and
70.01% less than the disinfection performance of the conventional
UR-UVGI-MV system for E. coli, S. marcescens, and S. epidermidis,
respectively.
The gram-negative species showed significant decay rate and
sensitivity upon exposure to separate UV irradiance from both
UR-UVGI-LED and conventional UR-UVGI-MV systems while the
gram-positive species showed reduced decay rate and sensitivity.
This demonstrates that the magnitude of reduction in indoor micro-
bial concentration by the UR-UVGI-LED and the conventional UR-
UVGI systems varies widely between species of bacteria.
The UR-UVGI-LED system has largely shown that it is a prom-
ising tool for future applications in airborne pathogen disinfection.
The high disinfection potential at this emerging stage indicates that
it stands the chance to outperform the conventional UR-UVGI-MV
system in the near future. In addition, the UR-UVGI-LED system can
be slightly more energy cost-effective at comparable disinfection ef-
fectiveness than the conventional UR-UVGI-MV system for room air
microbial contaminants.
We also recommend that the performance of the UR-UVGI-LED
system under different environmental conditions should be explored
in future investigations. Also, airborne bacteria have significantly
different biological characteristics compared with airborne viruses,
therefore, the disinfection efficacy of the UR-UVGI-LED system for
disinfection of room airborne viruses is worth investigating in future
studies.
AC K N OW L E D G E M E N T
This research was fully supported by General Research Funds
from the Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong Special
Administrative Region of China [CityU 11273116 and CityU
11204217].
ORCID
Sunday S. Nunayon https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6962-0484
Huihui Zhang https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5316-5533
Alvin C. K. Lai https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6202-1988
REFERENCES
1. Azimi P, Stephens B. HVAC filtration for controlling infec-
tious airborne disease transmission in indoor environments:
Predicting risk reductions and operational costs. Build Environ.
2013;70:150-160.
2. Piekarska K, Trusz A, Szczęśniak S. Bacteria and fungi in two
air handling units with air recirculating module. Energy Build.
2018;178:154-164.
3. ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 52.2-1999. Method of Testing General
Ventilation Air-Cleaning Devices for Removal Efficiency by Particle
Size.
4. Stephens B, Siegel J, Novoselac A. Energy implications of filtration
in residential and light-commercial buildings, ASHRAE Research
Project (RP-1299) Final Report 2010. Available at http://built-
envi.com/wp-conte​nt/uploa​ds/2014/06/ASHRAE-D-RP-1299.pdf
(Accessed 27/09/19).
5. Stephens B, Novoselac A, Siegel JA. The effects of filtration on
pressure drop and energy consumption in residential HVAC sys-
tems (RP-1299). HVAC&R Res. 2010b;16(3):273-294.
6. Lu Z, Lu WZ, Zhang JL, Sun DX. Microorganisms and parti-
cles in AHU systems: Measurement and analysis. Build Environ.
2009;44:694-698.
7. Liu Z, Ma S, Cao G, Meng C, He BJ. Distribution characteristics,
growth, reproduction and transmission modes and control strate-
gies for microbial contamination in HVAC systems: A literature re-
view. Energy Build. 2018;177:77-95.
8. Huang R, Agranovski I, Pyankov O, Grinshpun S. Removal of viable
bioaerosol particles with low-efficiency HVAC filter enhanced by con-
tinuous emission of unipolar air ions. Indoor Air. 2008;18:106-112.
9. Reed NG. The history of ultraviolet germicidal irradiation for air dis-
infection. Public Health Rep. 2010;125:15-27.
10. Santos AL, Moreirinha C, Lopes D, Esteves AC, Henriques I, Almeida
A, Domingues MR, Delgadillo I, Correia A, Cunha A. Effects of UV
radiation on the lipids and proteins of bacteria studied by mid-infra-
red spectroscopy. Environ Sci Technol. 2013;47:6306-6315.
11. NIOSH. Criteria for a recommended standard: Occupational ex-
posure to ultraviolet radiation. Publication No. 73-11009 (1972)
1-100.
12. American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists
(ACGIH). Ultraviolet Radiation: TLV(R) Physical Agents 7th Edition
Documentation (2010).
13. International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection
(ICNIRP). Guidelines on limits of exposure to ultraviolet radiation
of wavelengths between 180 and 400 nm (incoherent optical radi-
ation). Health Phys. 2004;87(2):171-186.
14. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-National Institute
for Occupational Safety and Health (CDC-NIOSH). Environmental
Control for Tuberculosis: Basic Upper-Room Ultraviolet Germicidal
Irradiation Guidelines for Healthcare Settings.
15. Ko G, First MW, Burge HA. The characterization of upper-room ul-
traviolet germicidal irradiation in inactivating airborne microorgan-
isms. Environ Health Perspect. 2002;110(1):95-101.
16. Escombe AR, Moore DA, Gilman RH, Navincopa M, Ticona E,
Mitchell B, Noakes C, Martínez C, Sheen P, Ramirez R, Quino W,
Gonzalez A, Friedland JS, Evans CA. Upper-room ultraviolet light
and negative air ionization to prevent tuberculosis transmission.
PLoS Medicine. 2009;6(3):0001-0012.
17. Riley RL, Knight M, Middlebrook G. Ultraviolet susceptibility of BCG
and virulent tubercle bacilli. Am Rev of Respir Dis. 1976;113:413-418.
18. Mphaphlele M, Dharmadhikari AS, Jensen PA, Rudnick SN, van
Reenen TH, Pagano MA, Leuschner W, Sears TA, Milonova SP, van
der Walt M, Stoltz AC, Weyer K, Nardell EA. Institutional tuber-
culosis transmission. Controlled trial of upper room ultraviolet air
disinfection: a basis for new dosing guidelines. Am J Respir Crit Care
Med. 2015;192:477-484.
19. Nardell EA. Indoor environmental control of tuberculosis and other
airborne infections. Indoor Air. 2015;26:79-87.
20. Goldner JL, Moggio M, Beissinger SF, McCollum DE. Ultraviolet
light for the control of airborne bacteria in the operating room. Ann
N Y Acad Sci. 1980;353:271-284.
21. Macher JM, Alevantis LE, Chang YL, Liu KS. Effect of ultraviolet
germicidal lamps on airborne microorganisms in an outpatient
waiting room. Applied Occupational and Environmental Hygiene.
1992;7(8):505-513.
22. Miller SL, Macher JM. Evaluation of a methodology for quantifying
the effect of room air ultraviolet germicidal irradiation on airborne
bacteria. Aerosol Sci Technol. 2000;33(3):274-295.
23. Dick EC, Jennings LC, Mink KA, Wartgow CD, Inhorn SL. Aerosol
transmission of rhinovirus colds. J Infect Dis. 1987;156:442-448.
24. Musher DM. How contagious are common respiratory tract infec-
tions? N Engl J Med. 2003;348:1256-1266.
NUNAYON et al.
25. McDevitt JJ, Rudnick SN, Radonovich LJ. Aerosol Susceptibility
of Influenza Virus to UV-C Light. Appl Environ Microbiol.
2012;78:1666-1669.
26. Olsen SJ, Chang HL, Cheung TYY, Tang AF, Fisk TL, Ooi SP, Kuo
HW, Jiang DD, Chen KT, Lando J, Hsu KH, Chen TJ, Dowell SF.
Transmission of the severe acute respiratory syndrome on aircraft.
N Engl J Med. 2003;349:2416-2422.
27. Sarigiannis DA, Karakitsios SP, Antonakopoulou MP, Gotti A.
Exposure analysis of accidental release of mercury from compact
fluorescent lamps (CFLs). Sci Total Environ. 2012;435–436:306-315.
28. Rudnick SN, First MW, Sears T, Vincent RL, Brickner PW, Ngai PY,
Zhang J, Levin RE, Chin K, Rahn RO, Miller SL, Nardell EA. Spatial
distribution of fluence rate from upper-room ultraviolet germicidal
irradiation: Experimental validation of a computer-aided design
tool. HVAC&R Res. 2012;8:774-794.
29. Morrison GC, Shaughnessy R, Shu S. Setting maximum emission
rates from ozone emitting consumer appliances in the United States
and Canada. Atmos Environ. 2011;45:2009-2016.
30. Schalk S, Adam V, Arnold E, Brieden K, Voronovand A, Witzke H.
UV-Lamps for Disinfection and Advanced Oxidation - Lamp Types.
Technologies and Applications. IUVA News. 2006;8(1):32-37.
31. Crawford MH, Banas MA, Ross MP, Ruby DS, Nelson JS, Boucher R,
Allerman AA. Final LRDR report: Ultraviolet water purification sys-
tems for rural environments and mobile applications. Sandia Report.
2005.
32. Li GQ, Wang WL, Huo ZY, Lu Y, Hu HY. Comparison of UV-LED and
low pressure UV for water disinfection: Photoreactivation and dark
repair of Escherichia coli. Water Res. 2017;126:134-143.
33. Zou X, Lin Y, Xu B, Cao T, Tang Y, Pan Y, Gao Z, Gao N. Enhanced
inactivation of E. coli by pulsed UV-LED irradiation during water dis-
infection. Sci Total Environ. 2019;650:210-215.
34. Bowker C, Sain A, Shatalov M, Ducoste J. Microbial UV fluence-re-
sponse assessment using a novel UV-LED collimated beam system.
Water Res. 2011;45(5):2011-2019.
35. Xu P, Peccia J, Fabian P, Martyny JW, Fennelly KP, Hernandez
M, Miller SL. Efficacy of ultraviolet germicidal irradiation of up-
per-room air in inactivating airborne bacterial spores and mycobac-
teria in full-scale studies. Atmos Environ. 2003;37:405-419.
36. Yang Y, Zhang H, Nunayon SS, Chan V, Lai ACK. Disinfection ef-
ficacy of ultraviolet germicidal irradiation on airborne bacteria in
ventilation ducts. Indoor Air. 2018;28(6):806-817.
| 191
37. Lai ACK, Nunayon SS, Tan TF, Li WS. A pilot study on the disinfec-
tion efficacy of localized UV on the flushing-generated spread of
pathogens. J Hazard Mat. 2018;358:389-396.
38. Green CF, Scarpino PV. The use of ultraviolet germicidal irradia-
tion (UVGI) in disinfection of airborne bacteria. Environ Eng Policy.
2001;3(1):101-107.
39. Kowalski W. Ultraviolet Germicidal Irradiation Handbook: UVGI for Air
and Surface Disinfection. London, New York: Springer Heidelberg
Dordrecht; 2009.
40. Yang Y, Lai ACK, Kong RYC, Deng Q. Experimental and numerical
study of the performance of upper-room ultraviolet germicidal ir-
radiation with the effective Z-value of airborne bacteria. Aerosol Sci
Technol. 2017;51:1123-1134.
41. Yang Y, Lai ACK, Wu C. Study on the disinfection efficiency of mul-
tiple upper-room ultraviolet germicidal fixtures system on airborne
microorganisms. Build Environ. 2016;103:99-110.
42. Beauchamp S, Lacroix M. Resistance of the genome of Escherichia
coli and Listeria monocytogenes to irradiation evaluated by the in-
duction of cyclobutane pyrimidine dimers and 6-4 photoprod-
ucts using gamma and UV-C radiations. Radiat Physics Chem.
2012;81:1193-1197.
43. Gayan E, Serrano MJ, Raso J, Alvarez I, Condon S. Inactivation of
Salmonella enterica by UV-C light alone and in combination with
mild temperatures. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2012;78:8353-8361.
44. Kim SJ, Kim DK, Kang DH. Using UVC light-emitting diodes at
wavelengths of 266 to 279 nanometers to inactivate foodborne
pathogens and pasteurize sliced cheese. Appl Environ Microbiol.
2016;82:11-17.
45. HK Electric Investment. Estimated electricity cost of common ap-
pliances, 2017. https​://www.hkele​c tric.com/en/custo​mer-servi​
ces/billi​ng-payme​nt-elect​ricity-tarif​fs/know-more-about-elect​rici-
ty-consu​mptio​n/estim​ated-elect​ricity-cost-of-common-appli​ances​
Accessed March 16, 2019.
How to cite this article: Nunayon SS, Zhang HH, Lai ACK.
Comparison of disinfection performance of UVC-LED and
conventional upper-room UVGI systems. Indoor Air.
2020;30:180–191. https​://doi.org/10.1111/ina.12619​