Abstract
Recent interest in commercial devices containing germicidal ultraviolet lamps with a peak emission wavelength at 222 nm (GUV222) has focused on mitigating virus transmission indoors and disinfecting indoor spaces while posing minimum risk to human tissue. However, 222 nm light can produce ozone (O3) in air. O3 is an undesirable component of indoor air because of health impacts from acute to chronic exposure and its ability to degrade indoor air quality through oxidation chemistry. We measured the total irradiance of one GUV222 lamp at a distance of 5 cm away from the source to be 27.0 W m-2 ± 4.6 W m-2 in the spectral range of 210 nm to 230 nm, with peak emission centered at 222 nm and evaluated the potential for the lamp to generate O3 in a 31.5 m3 stainless steel chamber. In seven four-hour experiments average O3 mixing ratios increased from levels near the detection limit of the instrument to 48 ppbv ± 1 ppbv (94 μg m-3 ± 2 μg m-3). We determined an average constant O3 generation rate for this lamp to be 1.10 mg h-1 ± 0.15 mg h-1. Using a radiometric method and chemical actinometry, we estimate effective lamp fluences that allow prediction of O3 generation by the GUV222 lamp, at best, within 10 % of the measured mixing ratios. Because O3 can react with gases and surfaces indoors leading to the formation of other potential by-products, future studies should evaluate the production of O3 from GUV222 air cleaning devices.
Introduction
The on-going COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the need for effective, in room, low energy air cleaning devices to enable safer in-person interactions in indoor environments.1,2,3 Portable cleaning devices use a range of technologies that may have uncharacterized impacts on indoor air quality.4 These impacts could result in human exposure to pollutants that are at odds with the intended benefit of the technology.5 One such technology is germicidal ultraviolet lamps that operate with a peak emission wavelength at 222 nm (GUV222). This wavelength is appealing as research to date indicates it does not significantly penetrate human skin and is effective at inactivating pathogens.6,7,8
Air cleaning devices equipped with GUV222 lamps are of particular importance when considering the potential for ozone (O3) formation. In the range of 175 nm to 242 nm, molecular oxygen (O2) will absorb light and dissociate with a quantum yield of unity to produce two ground state oxygen atoms (O), via reaction 1, that can then go on to recombine with O2, in a termolecular reaction involving a collisional body (M = N2 or O2), to form O3 via reaction 2.9,10,11
Reactions 1 and 2 are two of the four reactions comprising The Chapman mechanism which describes the production of O3 in the stratosphere.12 Characterization of spectral output and potential for O3 production is necessary when considering the application of GUV222 devices for mitigating virus transmission while maintaining good air quality in indoor environments.
While O3 itself can be a harmful by-product of air cleaner operation13, it can also react with gases and surfaces indoors14—including human skin15—leading to the formation of other potentially concerning by-products such as gas-phase aldehydes and ultra-fine particulate matter.16 Of particular concern is the exposure to O3 and O3-generated indoor pollutant by-products from application of multiple GUV222 units in small and/or poorly ventilated indoor spaces.17 Here we present measurements of O3 generation from a commercial GUV222 lamp in a stainless-steel laboratory chamber, support our O3 formation observations with a chemical kinetic model, and determine O3 generation rates for this GUV222 lamp that can be used in future evaluations of GUV222 technologies in indoor spaces.
Methods
Measurement of the GUV222 Lamp Emission Spectrum
Spectral irradiance measurements of a krypton chloride (KrCl) excimer GUV222 lamp were performed with a commercial UV spectrometer (Mightex Systems model: HRS-UV1-025) with detection sensitivity in the spectral range of 200 nm to 415 nm. GUV222 emission light was collected by an integrating sphere detector that was connected to the spectrometer by a UV-transmitting optical fiber patch cable. Wavelength calibration of the spectrometer was achieved by use of spectral calibration lamps with well-defined emission peaks. For the spectral irradiance calibration, an internal FEL lamp setup was used to establish the absolute scale in the 300 nm to 400 nm range, and this scale was tied (tie point at 310 nm) to an unscaled spectral calibration factor that was obtained from a deuterium lamp in the 200 nm to 340 nm range. This process yielded a continuous absolute spectral calibration factor from 210 nm to 415 nm for the UV spectrometer. We estimate the uncertainty (k=2) of the spectral irradiance measurements at 222 nm to be 17 %.
Operation of Chamber and Experiment Design
We operated the commercial GUV222 lamp in a 31.5 m3 environmentally controlled walk-in chamber instrumented to measure O3 (Thermo 49iq O3 monitor) and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6; proton-transfer mass spectrometry) to measure the chamber air change rate (Figure S8). The O3 monitor was calibrated to the NIST Standard Reference Photometer prior to the study.18 A series of seven experiments were conducted to measure O3 production from the GUV222 lamp. Prior to the experimental series the chamber was passivated with 100 ppbv of O3 for ten hours. A metal fan was placed in the chamber to facilitate mixing. The GUV222 lamp was positioned in the upper corner of the chamber pointed down and towards the center of the chamber opposite of the fan (Figure S4).
Prior to each experiment we operated the chamber to achieve a temperature of 20 °C and 50 % relative humidity. At the beginning of each experiment temperature and humidity control was stopped and the vents controlling the recirculation of air were closed. The average temperature during the experiments was 22.5 °C ± 1.3 °C, and the average relative humidity was 42.8 % ± 6.0 %. The GUV222 lamp was then turned on for four hours over which O3 concentration was measured. SF6 was injected into the chamber at the start of each experiment and air change was determined from the first order loss constant (Figure S8). Tetrachloroethylene was vaporized and introduced to the chamber at the beginning of four of the experiments to measure the effective photon flux via actinometry (e.g., Peng, et al. 2023)19.
Results
GUV222 Lamp Emission Spectrum
Figure 1a shows the spectral irradiance versus wavelength of the GUV222 lamp measured directly under and at several distances from the lamp.
(a) GUV222 lamp emission spectra showing peak emission at 222 nm measured at six different distances. (b) The total irradiance versus distance showing a drop-off proportional to 1/d1.52.
The main emission peak is at 222 nm, as reported by other studies examining emission spectra of KrCl lamps20, accompanied by a lower-wavelength tail distribution.21 By integrating under the spectral irradiance curve over the entire emission range, the total irradiance can be calculated and plotted as a function of distance from the lamp (Figure 1b). The total irradiance in the immediate vicinity of the lamp is high (105 W m-2 at 0 cm and 27 W m-2 at 5 cm) but drops very quickly with distance. This drop-off follows the relationship, E ∼ 1/d1.52, where E is irradiance and d the distance from the lamp.
Measurement and Modeling of O3 Production from the GUV222 Lamp
We measured elevated levels of O3 in our chamber after four hours of GUV222 lamp operation as shown in Figure 2.
The average O3 mixing ratio from seven GUV222 lamp experiments is shown as the solid black line with the variability (2σ) shown by the gray shaded area. The average and standard deviation of seven modeled O3 mixing ratios is shown as determined by the irradiance method in dark red and actinometry method in light red. The O3 measured from the experiment where the light was blocked is shown in purple.
Four hours after turning the GUV222 lamp on, we observed 48 ppbv ± 1 ppbv (94 μg m-3 ± 2 μg m-3) of O3 in the chamber. To rule out the influence of other physical phenomena related to operation of the GUV222 lamp (e.g., electrical arcing13) being responsible for O3 production we operated the lamp, for one experiment, with the output of the lamp covered to prevent light from illuminating the chamber. No O3 generation was observed in that experiment (Figure 2, purple trace) providing evidence that photolysis of O2 at 222 nm was responsible for production of O3.
At the end of each experiment the lamp was turned off and the decay of O3 was measured (Figure S6). We assume that O3 is lost to stainless steel chamber surfaces and homogeneous gas-phase reactions via a first order process. Additionally, some O3 is lost via air change which was quantified from SF6 decay measurements (≈ 6 %; Figure S8). We determine the rate constant from a linear fit of the natural log of O3 mixing ratio versus time (equation 3).
In equation 3, kdecay is the first order rate constant for loss of O3 to the chamber surfaces and homogeneous gas-phase reaction, 
is the air change rate (h-1), and t is time. Rates of O3 decay (kdecay) remained relatively constant throughout the experiments only varying by 2 %.
We calculate theoretical O3 production from the GUV222 using chemical production and loss and physical loss terms in equation 4.
The first term on the right hand side of the equation is the O3 production from photolysis of O2 at 222 nm, the second term accounts for loss of ozone through the odd-oxygen (Ox = O3 + O) steady-state (k1 = 7.96 × 10−15 cm3 molecule-1 s-1; k2 = 6.10 × 10−34 cm6 molecule-2 s-1), and depositional loss to chamber walls and homogeneous gas-phase reactions is accounted for in the measured kdecay. The odd-oxygen steady-state is established from the rapid production of oxygen atoms (O) from both O2 and O3 photolysis (jO3 is the photolysis rate constant for O3) and the recombining of O with O2 to form O3.
As shown in equation 4, the photolysis rate of O2 drives O3 production from the GUV222 lamp and the first-order photolysis rate constant (jO2) is strongly dependent on the photon flux (F; equation 5) from the lamp.
Using the measured irradiance spectrum (Figure 1) from the lamp we calculate an effective O2 absorption cross section (σO2)9 of 4.30 × 10−24 cm2 across a wavelength (λ) range between 210 nm and 230 nm (compared to 4.09 × 10−24 cm2 at 222 nm). The photolysis quantum yield of O2 (ΦO2) between 210 nm and 230 nm is unity.22 We estimate an effective photon flux (F) from the GUV222 lamp from two different methods: (1) by determining the average of the measured irradiance projected into a cone (irradiance method) and (2) following the method of Peng, et al. (2023)19, using chemical actinometry23 with tetrachloroethylene (C2Cl4) as the actinometer (actinometry method).
Briefly, for the irradiance method, we generated an irradiance field within a 31.5 m3 cone by expanding the GUV222 lamp irradiance point source axially following the relationship, E ∼ 1/d1.52, and angularly following a relatively tight half-angle of ≈ 55° (equation S4). We then averaged the projected irradiance over the emission volume to get the effective photon flux. For the actinometry method, C2Cl4 was introduced to the chamber and the GUV222 lamp was turned on for four hours to measure the C2Cl4 photolysis rate. Using the measured C2Cl4 photolysis rate, effective cross section (σC2Cl4), and reported photolysis quantum yield (Φ C2Cl4), we determined the effective photon flux (equation S8). Between 210 nm and 230 nm, effective GUV222 lamp powers of 32.7 mW m-2 and 21.7 mW m-2 were determined from the irradiance method and actinometry, respectively. Details of the effective photon flux determination methods are discussed in the supplemental information.
The models both show rapid production of O3 early in the experiment and on the approach to steady-state conditions. This rapid rise in O3 concentration is due to photolytic production and the relative lack of non-photolytic loss and is consistent with the measured data. For the irradiance method, O3 levels are over-predicted by ≈ 33 %. We expect over-estimation of the effective photon flux using this irradiance method because we are not accounting for attenuation of the incident radiation by interactions with the chamber walls. Ma, et al. (2023) recently demonstrated that different types of stainless steel reflect 222 nm light reflect with an efficiency of ≈ 20 %.24 The 31.5 m3 modeled conical irradiance field slightly extends beyond the chamber walls, but the lamp was positioned in a corner of the chamber such that a large volume of the chamber air was irradiated by the UV light, therefore, our model should be mostly valid. In reality, a majority of the ozone is created within 2 m of the lamp (Table S1), so the cone extending beyond the chamber walls results in small overestimation of ozone production. Accurately accounting for reflectance and exact chamber dimensions would decrease the effective photon flux and thus modeled O3 production.
In contrast, for the actinometry method, the model underpredicts O3 levels by ≈ 11 %. An effective lamp power of 23 mW m-2 (kdecay= 0.17 h-1) would be needed to reconcile the 11% deficit in modeled O3 production, which is captured by the measured variability of the effective photon flux determined from actinometry (21.7 ± 1.7 W m-2). Despite some discrepancies between modeled and measured O3, our calculations provide evidence to suggest the mechanism of O3 production from GUV222 lamps is likely photolysis of O2 from 222 nm light, and not from other physical phenomena.
Determination of O3 Generation Rates from GUV222 Lamps
In the chamber experiments O3 was generated from the GUV222 lamp while simultaneously being lost through air change, gas-phase reactions, and deposition to surfaces. Thus, the O3 production rate from the lamp can be determined by solving for the generation rate (GR) in the transient solution to the mass balance equation presented in equation 5.
Where [O3]i and [O3]t are the initial and time t O3 mixing ratios, V is the volume of the chamber (31.5 m3), and GR is the O3 generation rate (μg m-3).
Calculated O3 production rates from the GUV222 lamp, presented in Table 1, varied within 2%.
Summary of O3 decay constants, air change rates, and O3 generation rates.
From an average of seven experiments, the O3 generation rate from the 222 nm lamp was measured to be 1096 μg h-1 ± 15 μg h-1.
Conclusions
We measured the spectral irradiance of a commercial GUV222 lamp from 210 nm to 230 nm showing a peak emission at 222 nm. Results from seven replicate experiments of the single 222 nm commercial GUV222 lamp used in this study yielded a mean O3 generation rate of 1096 μg h-1. O3 generation rates determined in this study could be used to predict O3 production and accumulation in indoor spaces from commercial GUV222 lamps like the one used in this study. The results observed in this study apply to this lamp and may vary between unit, manufacturer, and test conditions. For instance, a recent study24 measured an O3 generation rate from an unfiltered GUV222 lamp nearly ten times lower than the average value reported in this study however that study did not account for the dynamic deposition of O3 to chamber walls which likely resulted in lower measured O3 generation rates. Like the losses of O3 to chamber walls and gas-phase reactions observed in this study, similar reactive losses of O3 generated from GUV222 devices would be expected in real indoor environments with potential impacts for by-product formation that would affect indoor air quality.25 Based on the results from this study we suggest more measurements of O3 production should be made from commercial air cleaning devices employing GUV222 lamps in both real indoor and laboratory settings.
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors. All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript.
Disclaimer
Certain equipment, instruments, or materials, commercial or non-commercial, are identified in this paper in to specify the experimental procedure adequately. Such identification is not intended to imply recommendation or endorsement of any product or service by NIST, nor is it intended to imply that the materials or equipment identified are necessarily the best available for the purpose.
Acknowledgments
We would like to acknowledge James Norris and Peter Trask for calibration of the ozone instrument used in this study. We would like to thank Howard Yoon and Cameron Miller for assistance with irradiance calibrations of our UV spectroradiometers. We thank and acknowledge Jose Jimenez for providing recommendations for experimental design.
References
