ACS Publications. Most Trusted. Most Cited. Most Read
Model Evaluation of Secondary Chemistry due to Disinfection of Indoor Air with Germicidal Ultraviolet Lamps
My Activity

Figure 1Loading Img
  • Open Access
  • Editors Choice
ADDITION/CORRECTION. This article has been corrected. View the notice.
Anthropogenic Impacts on the Atmosphere

Model Evaluation of Secondary Chemistry due to Disinfection of Indoor Air with Germicidal Ultraviolet Lamps
Click to copy article linkArticle link copied!

Open PDFSupporting Information (1)

Environmental Science & Technology Letters

Cite this: Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. 2023, 10, 1, 6–13
Click to copy citationCitation copied!
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.2c00599
Published December 2, 2022

Copyright © 2022 American Chemical Society. This publication is licensed under

CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 .

Abstract

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

Air disinfection using germicidal ultraviolet light (GUV) has received increasing attention during the COVID-19 pandemic. GUV uses UVC lamps to inactivate microorganisms, but it also initiates photochemistry in air. However, GUV’s indoor-air-quality impact has not been investigated in detail. Here, we model the chemistry initiated by GUV at 254 (“GUV254”) or 222 nm (“GUV222”) in a typical indoor setting for different ventilation levels. Our analysis shows that GUV254, usually installed in the upper room, can significantly photolyze O3, generating OH radicals that oxidize indoor volatile organic compounds (VOCs) into more oxidized VOCs. Secondary organic aerosol (SOA) is also formed as a VOC-oxidation product. GUV254-induced SOA formation is of the order of 0.1–1 μg/m3 for the cases studied here. GUV222 (described by some as harmless to humans and thus applicable for the whole room) with the same effective virus-removal rate makes a smaller indoor-air-quality impact at mid-to-high ventilation rates. This is mainly because of the lower UV irradiance needed and also less efficient OH-generating O3 photolysis than GUV254. GUV222 has a higher impact than GUV254 under poor ventilation due to a small but significant photochemical production of O3 at 222 nm, which does not occur with GUV254.

This publication is licensed under

CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 .
  • cc licence
  • by licence
  • nc licence
  • nd licence
Copyright © 2022 American Chemical Society

Introduction

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

Germicidal ultraviolet light (GUV) has been employed to disinfect air in indoor spaces since the 1930s. (1) It has been shown to effectively limit the airborne transmission of infectious diseases, e.g., measles and tuberculosis. (1−3) This is due to photon-induced dimerization of pyrimidines in the nucleic acids of airborne pathogens (and loss of their ability to replicate as a result). GUV fixtures use lamps that emit in the UVC range, most commonly at 254 nm (hereinafter “GUV254”). (4) As 254 nm UV can cause skin and eye irritation, (5) GUV254 is usually applied near the ceiling (Figure 1a) or inside ventilation ducts. Recently, 222 nm UV has been shown to not only have a strong capability of inactivating airborne viruses, (6) but also is claimed to be safe to humans (7) (although this is controversial (8)), potentially allowing whole-room GUV applications (“GUV222”) (Figure 1b). Ground-resting GUV-based air cleaners have also been commercialized, in which a fan continuously pulls air into a box and exposes it to UV light, from which the occupants are shielded. (9)

Figure 1

Figure 1. Schematics of a germicidal ultraviolet air disinfection system at (a) 254 nm and at (b) 222 nm in a room; (c) absorption cross sections of several important gas-phase species relevant to this study (a discontinuity in the spectrum of methacrolein is due to lack of data).

During the COVID-19 pandemic, GUV has drawn renewed interest as a tool for airborne virus inactivation. Inhalation of an airborne virus is widely accepted as the main transmission route of COVID-19, (10−12) which explains the dominant indoor character of transmission. (13) An important component of the transmission is due to superspreading events, (14) which have been shown to be mostly explained by shared-room airborne transmission. (15) Much transmission also happens in close proximity due to short-range airborne transmission, but even in this situation a substantial fraction of the inhaled virus may come from well-mixed room air. (16,17) As COVID-19 remains widespread, and with the possible appearance of new variants, there is a pressing need to remove inhalable viruses from indoor environments. (3) Similar measures would be beneficial for other airborne diseases such as tuberculosis, measles, or a future pandemic virus.
Physical measures such as natural and/or mechanical ventilation and air filtration have been proven safe and effective. (18) Nevertheless, mechanical ventilation and air filtration usually can remove airborne pathogens only at a few effective air changes per hour (ACH) (19) and natural ventilation can be highly variable and impractical depending on weather, or when pollution, allergens or noise are present outdoors. When a high virus removal rate (e.g., >10 ACH) needs to be ensured (e.g., in high-risk environments), GUV emerges as a practical and potentially cost-effective way to achieve it. (3,18)
UVC light is known to generate strong oxidants (e.g., OH radicals, and sometimes also O3 depending on the wavelengths used), (20) which can subsequently oxidize volatile organic compounds (VOCs) indoors and initiate organic radical chemistry in indoor air. (21,22) Energetic UVC photons can also directly photolyze many VOCs, such as peroxides (23,24) and carbonyls, (25,26) and generate organic radicals. This radical chemistry is thought to lead to further oxidation of indoor VOCs and the formation of oxygenated VOCs (OVOCs) and secondary organic aerosol (SOA), both of which may have negative health effects. (27) Surveys of the concentration of total VOCs in indoor environments range from ∼0.1–4 mg m–3. (28−30) Thus, there is always a significant amount of VOC to react with any radicals and oxidants that are generated indoors, and any “air cleaning” technique that can create radicals and/or oxidants indoors has the potential to lead to secondary chemistry. (27) Very few studies on this topic have been conducted with state-of-the-art measurements or models. Recently, air cleaning devices based on chemistry induced by UV light (photocatalysis and OH generation, but not GUV), often also marketed as suitable for air disinfection, have been experimentally shown to produce significant amounts of OVOCs and SOA. (31,32)
Despite the potential of GUV to cause secondary chemistry, to our knowledge this topic has not been studied in detail to date. Some studies of GUV inactivation effectiveness have included measurements of ozone, to assess whether any was generated. (9) These studies report no production of ozone when mercury vapor lamps coated to limit emission from wavelengths nearer to the ozone generating wavelength of 185 nm are used, as expected. However, some uncoated or improperly coated lamps are commercially available, so ozone production can be a problem in some cases. In this study, we perform a first modeling evaluation of the impacts of GUV254 (assuming properly coated lamps) and GUV222 on indoor air quality. The amounts of OVOC and SOA that can be formed in typical indoor environments are investigated.

Materials and Methods

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

We include the photochemistry due to GUV and subsequent radical, oxidation, and SOA formation chemistries. Given the complexity of the composition of indoor air, we simplify both the chemical species present indoors and the reaction scheme, while keeping them consistent with the state-of-the-art knowledge for indoor air. Surface reactions are neglected but could be important and should be investigated in future studies.
The chemical mechanism for this study is a combination of the inorganic radical chemistry in an oxidation flow reactor (OFR) model (20,33,34) and part of the Regional Atmospheric Chemistry Mechanism (RACM) (35) relevant to this study. Section S1 of the Supporting Information provides more details of the mechanism. The mechanisms are run within the open-source KinSim chemical kinetics simulator, (36) and are made available in GitLab (https://gitlab.com/JimenezGroup/KinSim_Cases_Mechs/). We perform all simulations until a steady state is reached.
We investigate a typical indoor space with representative indoor and urban outdoor air concentrations from the literature (Table S2). The initial concentrations of most VOCs are estimated based on McDonald et al., (37) with the total VOC concentration assumed to be 1.7 mg m–3, a typical value for US indoor spaces. (28) See Section S2 for details on species lumping and initial conditions.
The GUV254 fixture in our simulations is based on the AeroMed LEXUS L2.1 Open. (38) The space irradiated by this device is 45 m3, and is placed in a room of 300 m3 (volume of a typical classroom), thus the irradiated volume is 15% of the volume of the room, consistent with refs (39,40). The GUV254 model has two compartments, one for the irradiated zone and the other for the rest of the room, while that for GUV222 has only one compartment. Based on the UV inactivation rate constants at 222 nm for SARS-CoV-2, (6,7) the UV intensity for GUV222 is adjusted such that it provides the same whole-room effective virus-removal rate as GUV254 (see Section S3). Three levels of ventilation, i.e., a representative residential level (0.3 ACH, “low ventilation”), (41) a representative commercial level (3 ACH, “medium ventilation”), (19) and a representative medical level (9 ACH, “high ventilation”) (3) are simulated in this study. Indoor VOC emissions are set such that all VOC concentrations remain at their literature-constrained initial values at low ventilation without chemistry occurring. To test COVID-19 infection risk in different situations, we assume the presence of an infector shedding aerosolized SARS-CoV-2 at 16 quanta h–1 (roughly for light exercise while speaking 50% time), (42) which is consistent or lower than values constrained for literature superspreading events. (15) A quantum is an infectious dose that, if inhaled by a susceptible person, will lead to a probability of infection of 1–1/e. (15,43) The rate of SARS-CoV-2 loss apart from ventilation and GUV (i.e., due to intrinsic loss of infectivity, aerosol deposition etc.) is assumed to be 1 h–1.

Results and Discussion

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

Disinfection

Figure 2 shows the amount of SARS-CoV-2 present in the room to be consistent with the steady-state prediction. In the absence of GUV, the emission rate of SARS-CoV-2 is 16 quanta h–1, and its total loss rate 1.3 h–1 (0.3 h–1 from ventilation and 1 h–1 from decay and deposition) for the low-ventilation case. The steady state SARS-CoV-2 quantity in the entire room is 12.3 quanta. It is lowered to 4 and 1.6 quanta by increasing the ventilation rate to 3 and 9 ACH, respectively. When GUV with a whole-room virus-removal rate of ∼30 h–1 is applied, SARS-CoV-2 decreases to ∼0.6, ∼0.5, and ∼0.4 quanta in the low-, medium-, and high-ventilation cases, respectively. The relative impact of GUV is higher at low ventilation, as expected.

Figure 2

Figure 2. Final quantity/concentration of the main (types of) species of interest in this study under different GUV and ventilation conditions. In the GUV254 cases, the volume-weighted average concentrations for the whole room are shown. The stable chemical species concentrations are similar between the irradiated and unirradiated zones, while the radical and SARS-CoV-2 concentrations in the unirradiated zone can be significantly lower and higher, respectively (Table S3). Note that some panels use a log scale for concentrations while other panels use a linear scale. SOA is assumed to have a molar weight of 200 g mol–1.

The total quantity of SARS-CoV-2 does not directly reflect its infection risk, which also depends on the volume of the room and the inhalation by susceptible occupants. For an occupant with a breathing rate of 0.5 m3 h–1 (typical for light physical activities) (44) present in the 300 m3 room with low ventilation and no GUV fixture for 1 h, ∼0.02 quantum is inhaled. This corresponds to an infection probability of ∼2%, since the infection probability is approximately equal to the inhaled quanta if the latter is small. (45) For the cases studied in this work, infection risk is reduced by a factor of about 3 by medium ventilation, and by a factor of ∼22/8/4 when adding GUV to a low/medium/high ventilation situation.

Secondary Chemistry

For chemical species in the room, ventilation alone (without GUV) can make some difference (Figure 2). The differences in O3, NO, and ketone concentrations are largely due to these species being ventilated in or out. For other chemical species, secondary chemical processes also play a role. OH radicals can form even without UV, i.e., from limonene ozonolysis. As a result, OH radicals are higher at medium and high ventilation, which introduces more O3 from outdoors than at low ventilation. OH concentration at high ventilation is not higher than medium ventilation because high ventilation also decreases indoor limonene, reducing the overall limonene-O3 reaction rate. HO2 radical concentration is lower at higher ventilation because of higher NO being ventilated into the room, which reacts with HO2. All other organic radicals and stable products shown in Figure 2 (including SOA) have higher concentrations in the low-ventilation case due to higher VOC concentrations.
With GUV254, although the concentration of photolyzable O3 remains relatively stable (due to much stronger replenishment from outdoor air ventilation than photolytic destruction), the chemistry is significantly altered by UV (Figure 2). The fundamental cause of this change is OH production from O3 photolysis. (20) OH concentrations in the GUV254 cases are approximately a factor of 1.2–5 and 3–20 times those in the corresponding no-UV cases for the whole room average and for the irradiated zone, respectively. The difference in the higher-ventilation cases is larger, due to more O3 in the room from outside air (Figure 2 and Table S3). OH in the higher-ventilation cases is similar to daytime outdoor urban levels. (46) This OH level is high enough to drive substantial oxidation of VOCs, production of other radicals (e.g., HO2 and organic peroxy radicals (RO2)), and SOA formation. Organic peroxides (including hydroperoxides), carbonyls (aldehydes (excluding formaldehyde) and ketones (excluding acetone)), and organic nitrates (including peroxynitrates) are among common VOC oxidation products and all have ∼10% to several-fold concentration increases (Figure 2). The exceptions are ketones (excluding acetone), whose production is dominated in the model by UV-independent limonene ozonolysis (Figure 2). Doubling RH significantly increases OH concentration, but changes of product species are within 10% of the base RH results, likely due to nonlinear buffering from the reaction scheme (not shown). The exceptions are ketones, which are relatively unreactive and dominated in the model by the chemistry-independent acetone emission and its dilution by ventilation (Figure 2). In addition to VOC oxidation by OH, radicals (OH, HO2, and RO2) are also produced by active photolysis of carbonyls and peroxides at 254 nm, where both strongly absorb (Figure 1c). Due to higher peroxy radical concentrations, NO is lowered to ∼30 ppt at low ventilation (Figure 2). Such a low NO concentration leads to reactions of RO2 with both HO2 and NO being important, as estimated per ref (47) (Section S4).
SOA formation is estimated from the consumption of individual VOCs and SOA mass yields from the literature (Table S4). Significant SOA production (∼8 μg m–3 at low ventilation) occurs even without GUV irradiation, through limonene ozonolysis, as this reaction has a high SOA yield (20%). In the GUV254 cases, both limonene ozonolysis and VOC oxidation by OH contribute to SOA. The overall SOA mass yield from total VOC is of the order of 0.1%, because a large fraction of total organic molecules present are too small to form SOA through oxidation (e.g., ethanol or acetone). Given that 1.5 mg m–3 of total VOCs (excluding limonene) are present, that leads to ∼1.2 μg m–3 due to GUV254. The enhancement of SOA formation by OH oxidation relative to the no-UV cases decreases with increasing ventilation, as VOC concentrations are lowered by ventilation (Figure 2). The SOA precursors and mechanism used in this work are likely incomplete, given the incomplete scientific understanding of this topic. (48)
Due to the fast air exchange between the GUV254 irradiated and unirradiated spaces, the concentrations of stable species are similar between these two spaces (Table S3). In contrast, radicals are more rapidly consumed in the unirradiated space than supplied by the transport from the irradiated space, and thus have much lower concentrations (up to >1 order of magnitude for highly reactive ones such as OH and acylperoxy) in the unirradiated space.
The GUV222 cases assume irradiation of the entire room volume (Figure 1b). 222 nm photons can photolyze O2 and produce O3, albeit at a small rate, leading to higher O3 in all cases relative to GUV254. The amounts of organic products formed in the medium- and high-ventilation (low-ventilation) cases are lower (higher) than in the unirradiated zone in the GUV254 cases (Figure 2).
At medium and high ventilation rates, the main O3 source in the GUV222 cases is still outdoor O3 through ventilation. Despite some O3 production, the product enhancement is much smaller than in the corresponding GUV254 cases (Figure 2). These results indicate a weak OH-initiated VOC oxidation on top of the VOC ozonolysis chemistry that is active in the no-UV cases.
This difference from the active photochemistry in the GUV254 cases can be attributed to several factors. First, the UV irradiance of the 222 nm fixture is significantly lower, even in terms of the number of photons emitted per unit time. 222 nm photons are ∼40% more efficient in inactivating SARS-CoV-2 than 254 nm photons. (6) In addition the latter cannot be used in the most efficient fashion. Due to the need to protect humans from irradiation, all photons are concentrated in the small irradiated zone (15% of the room volume). Because of the limited rate of transport of virus-containing aerosol to the irradiated zone, the steady-state infectious virus concentration is ∼70% lower than in the unirradiated zone, where the infector and the susceptible individuals are present (Table S3). Even if the per-photon virus-inactivation efficiency was the same, GUV254 would need about 3 times the photons for GUV222 to reach the same effective GUV virus-removal rate for the occupied unirradiated space. Furthermore, the first step of OH photochemical production is O3 photolysis, whose corresponding absorption at 222 nm is about ∼5 times lower than at 254 nm (Figure 1c). Simple carbonyl compounds, the most abundant OVOCs in this study, also absorb much less efficiently at 222 nm than at 254 nm (Figure 1c), further reducing radical production. Although other products, such as peroxides and conjugated carbonyl species, can have stronger absorption at 222 nm, their relatively low concentrations (∼1 ppb or lower vs hundreds of ppb of ketones) limit their relative contributions to the radical budget.
Because of the small direct production of O3 by the GUV222 lights, O3 in the GUV222 low-ventilation case is substantially less depleted by limonene ozonolysis than for GUV254. As a result, compared to GUV254 SOA formation through limonene ozonolysis is substantially stronger and OH concentration is also higher (Figure 2). Other gas-phase stable organic products have comparable concentrations to those in the GUV254 case.

Implications

We have shown that GUV disinfection can induce active photochemistry producing OVOCs and SOA in typical indoor environments. Under the conditions simulated here, these products do not necessarily have significant negative effects on human health because of their relatively low concentrations. Among the VOCs (including OVOCs) modeled in this study, only formaldehyde has a concentration exceeding the minimal risk level (MRL) recommended by the CDC (49) due to strong indoor emissions. However, only a very limited number of species were explicitly modeled in this study, particularly aldehydes, whose toxicity is generally high. Future studies with higher chemical speciation are needed to better assess the toxicity of gas-phase products. In polluted indoor spaces and/or polluted outdoor air transported indoors, the concentrations of the VOCs of interest can be much higher, (28) while the GUV-induced photochemistry can still be active (Sections S5 and S6). In this case, OVOC products might exceed the MRLs and SOA formation might reach tens of μg m–3.
The risk of GUV254 due to secondary photochemical products is not negligible but also not dominant under typical indoor conditions. The risk for GUV222 appears to be substantially lower when ventilation is not poor, but comparable or slightly higher in case of poor ventilation. We note that many indoor environments, in particular homes and schools, have ventilation rates similar to the definition of “poor” in this paper, even in high-income countries. If GUV222 is confirmed to be safe for direct human exposure, it would have an advantage over GUV254 at mid-to-high ventilation rates in terms of indoor chemistry, in addition to more efficient air disinfection. When GUV254 is used, a strong air exchange between the irradiated and unirradiated zones (e.g., by fans) is preferable, as recommended by the CDC/NIOSH. (50) It can lower the UV irradiance needed for a given virus inactivation rate, (51) and hence limit the induced photochemistry. Good ventilation can not only remove airborne pathogens, but also limit the production of secondary indoor pollutants, and is thus also recommended when outdoor air is relatively clean. (19,52) Similarly, particulate air filtration is also recommended as it removes virus-containing aerosol, indoor-formed SOA, and particulate pollution from other indoor and outdoor sources. Gas filtration with sorbent materials such as activated carbon is also useful for reducing VOC, NOx, and ozone levels indoors. (53,54) The findings of this study are limited due to modeling assumptions, e.g., the simplified chemical mechanism, limited data on photolysis parameters in the UVC range, the assumed indoor and outdoor air pollutant compositions, uncertainties over precursors and yields of SOA formation, and surface reactions. Experimental studies in both simplified laboratory settings and real indoor conditions are needed to fully constrain the impacts of GUV in indoor chemistry.

Supporting Information

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

The Supporting Information is available free of charge at https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.estlett.2c00599.

  • Details about the model setup (reaction scheme, species lumping, indoor emission, outdoor air composition, initial conditions, effective virus-removal rates of GUV), RO2 fates in the GUV254 cases, concentrations in the irradiated and unirradiated zones in the GUV254 cases, and sensitivity cases for highly polluted conditions (PDF)

Terms & Conditions

Most electronic Supporting Information files are available without a subscription to ACS Web Editions. Such files may be downloaded by article for research use (if there is a public use license linked to the relevant article, that license may permit other uses). Permission may be obtained from ACS for other uses through requests via the RightsLink permission system: http://pubs.acs.org/page/copyright/permissions.html.

Author Information

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

  • Corresponding Authors
  • Author
  • Notes
    The authors declare no competing financial interest.

    This paper has been previously submitted to medRxiv, a preprint server for health sciences. The preprint can be cited as Peng, Z.; Miller, S. L.; Jimenez, J. L. Model Evaluation of Secondary Chemistry due to Disinfection of Indoor Air with Germicidal Ultraviolet Lamps. 2022. medRxiv 10.1101/2022.08.25.22279238 (accessed November 23, 2022).

Acknowledgments

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

Z.P. and J.L.J. were supported by the CIRES Innovative Research Program and the Balvi Filantropic Fund. We thank Vito Ilacqua, Zachary Finewax, Donald Milton, and Edward Nardell for valuable discussions.

References

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

This article references 54 other publications.

  1. 1
    Wells, W. F.; Wells, M. W.; Wilder, T. S. The Environmental Control of Epidemic Contagion. I An epidemiologic study of radiant disinfection of air in day schools Am. J. Hyg 1942, 35, 97121,  DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a118789
  2. 2
    Riley, R. L.; Mills, C. C.; O’grady, F.; Sultan, L. U.; Wittstadt, F.; Shivpuri, D. N. Infectiousness of Air from a Tuberculosis Ward. Ultraviolet Irradiation of Infected Air: Comparative Infectiousness of Different Patients. Am. Rev. Respir. Dis. 1962, 85, 511525,  DOI: 10.1164/arrd.1962.85.4.511
  3. 3
    Nardell, E. A. Air Disinfection for Airborne Infection Control with a Focus on COVID-19: Why Germicidal UV Is Essential. Photochem. Photobiol. 2021, 97 (3), 493497,  DOI: 10.1111/php.13421
  4. 4
    Riley, R. L.; Nardell, E. A. Clearing the Air: The Theory and Application of Ultraviolet Air Disinfection. Am. Rev. Respir. Dis. 1989, 140, 18321832,  DOI: 10.1164/ajrccm/140.6.1832b
  5. 5
    Zaffina, S.; Camisa, V.; Lembo, M.; Vinci, M. R.; Tucci, M. G.; Borra, M.; Napolitano, A.; Cannatà, V. Accidental Exposure to UV Radiation Produced by Germicidal Lamp: Case Report and Risk Assessment. Photochem. Photobiol. 2012, 88 (4), 10011004,  DOI: 10.1111/j.1751-1097.2012.01151.x
  6. 6
    Ma, B.; Gundy, P. M.; Gerba, C. P.; Sobsey, M. D.; Linden, K. G. UV Inactivation of SARS-CoV-2 across the UVC Spectrum: KrCl* Excimer, Mercury-Vapor, and Light-Emitting-Diode (LED) Sources. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2021, 87 (22), e0153221  DOI: 10.1128/AEM.01532-21
  7. 7
    Buonanno, M.; Welch, D.; Shuryak, I.; Brenner, D. J. Far-UVC Light (222 Nm) Efficiently and Safely Inactivates Airborne Human Coronaviruses. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10 (1), 10285,  DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-67211-2
  8. 8
    Ong, Q.; Wee, W.; Dela Cruz, J.; Teo, J. W. R.; Han, W. 222-Nanometer Far-UVC Exposure Results in DNA Damage and Transcriptional Changes to Mammalian Cells. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23 (16), 9112,  DOI: 10.3390/ijms23169112
  9. 9
    Kujundzic, E.; Matalkah, F.; Howard, C. J.; Hernandez, M.; Miller, S. L. UV Air Cleaners and Upper-Room Air Ultraviolet Germicidal Irradiation for Controlling Airborne Bacteria and Fungal Spores. J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 2006, 3 (10), 536546,  DOI: 10.1080/15459620600909799
  10. 10
    Wang, C. C.; Prather, K. A.; Sznitman, J.; Jimenez, J. L.; Lakdawala, S. S.; Tufekci, Z.; Marr, L. C. Airborne Transmission of Respiratory Viruses. Science 2021, 373 (6558), eabd9149  DOI: 10.1126/science.abd9149
  11. 11
    Greenhalgh, T.; Jimenez, J. L.; Prather, K. A.; Tufekci, Z.; Fisman, D.; Schooley, R. Ten Scientific Reasons in Support of Airborne Transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Lancet 2021, 397, 1603,  DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00869-2
  12. 12
    Klompas, M.; Milton, D. K.; Rhee, C.; Baker, M. A.; Leekha, S. Current Insights Into Respiratory Virus Transmission and Potential Implications for Infection Control Programs: A Narrative Review. Ann. Int. Med. 2021, 174 (12), 17101718,  DOI: 10.7326/M21-2780
  13. 13
    Qian, H.; Miao, T.; Liu, L.; Zheng, X.; Luo, D.; Li, Y. Indoor Transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Indoor Air 2021, 31 (3), 639645,  DOI: 10.1111/ina.12766
  14. 14
    Adam, D. C.; Wu, P.; Wong, J. Y.; Lau, E. H. Y.; Tsang, T. K.; Cauchemez, S.; Leung, G. M.; Cowling, B. J. Clustering and Superspreading Potential of SARS-CoV-2 Infections in Hong Kong. Nat. Med. 2020, 26 (11), 17141719,  DOI: 10.1038/s41591-020-1092-0
  15. 15
    Peng, Z.; Rojas, A. L. P.; Kropff, E.; Bahnfleth, W.; Buonanno, G.; Dancer, S. J.; Kurnitski, J.; Li, Y.; Loomans, M. G. L. C.; Marr, L. C.; Morawska, L.; Nazaroff, W.; Noakes, C.; Querol, X.; Sekhar, C.; Tellier, R.; Greenhalgh, T.; Bourouiba, L.; Boerstra, A.; Tang, J. W.; Miller, S. L.; Jimenez, J. L. Practical Indicators for Risk of Airborne Transmission in Shared Indoor Environments and Their Application to COVID-19 Outbreaks. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2022, 56 (2), 11251137,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.1c06531
  16. 16
    Li, Y.; Cheng, P.; Jia, W. Poor Ventilation Worsens Short-Range Airborne Transmission of Respiratory Infection. Indoor Air 2022, 32 (1), e12946  DOI: 10.1111/ina.12946
  17. 17
    Jimenez, J. L.; Peng, Z.; Pagonis, D. Systematic Way to Understand and Classify the Shared-Room Airborne Transmission Risk of Indoor Spaces. Indoor Air 2022, 32 (5), e13025  DOI: 10.1111/ina.13025
  18. 18
    Morawska, L.; Allen, J.; Bahnfleth, W.; Bluyssen, P. M.; Boerstra, A.; Buonanno, G.; Cao, J.; Dancer, S. J.; Floto, A.; Franchimon, F.; Greenhalgh, T.; Haworth, C.; Hogeling, J.; Isaxon, C.; Jimenez, J. L.; Kurnitski, J.; Li, Y.; Loomans, M.; Marks, G.; Marr, L. C.; Mazzarella, L.; Melikov, A. K.; Miller, S.; Milton, D. K.; Nazaroff, W.; Nielsen, P. V.; Noakes, C.; Peccia, J.; Prather, K.; Querol, X.; Sekhar, C.; Seppänen, O.; Tanabe, S.-I.; Tang, J. W.; Tellier, R.; Tham, K. W.; Wargocki, P.; Wierzbicka, A.; Yao, M. A Paradigm Shift to Combat Indoor Respiratory Infection. Science 2021, 372 (6543), 689691,  DOI: 10.1126/science.abg2025
  19. 19
    ASHRAE. Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality: ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 62.1-2019; ANSI/ASHRAE, 2019.
  20. 20
    Peng, Z.; Jimenez, J. L. Radical Chemistry in Oxidation Flow Reactors for Atmospheric Chemistry Research. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2020, 49 (9), 25702616,  DOI: 10.1039/C9CS00766K
  21. 21
    Atkinson, R.; Arey, J. Atmospheric Degradation of Volatile Organic Compounds. Chem. Rev. 2003, 103 (12), 46054638,  DOI: 10.1021/cr0206420
  22. 22
    Ziemann, P. J.; Atkinson, R. Kinetics, Products, and Mechanisms of Secondary Organic Aerosol Formation. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2012, 41 (19), 65826605,  DOI: 10.1039/c2cs35122f
  23. 23
    Blitz, M. A.; Heard, D. E.; Pilling, M. J. Wavelength Dependent Photodissociation of CH3OOH: Quantum Yields for CH3O and OH, and Measurement of the OH+ CH3OOH Rate Coefficient. J. Photochem. Photobiol. A Chem. 2005, 176 (1–3), 107113,  DOI: 10.1016/j.jphotochem.2005.09.017
  24. 24
    Vaghjiani, G. L.; Ravishankara, A. R. Photodissociation of H2O2 and CH3OOH at 248 Nm and 298 K: Quantum Yields for OH, O(3P) and H(2S). J. Chem. Phys. 1990, 92 (2), 9961003,  DOI: 10.1063/1.458081
  25. 25
    Link, M. F.; Farmer, D. K.; Berg, T.; Flocke, F.; Ravishankara, A. R. Measuring Photodissociation Product Quantum Yields Using Chemical Ionization Mass Spectrometry: A Case Study with Ketones. J. Phys. Chem. A 2021, 125 (31), 68366844,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpca.1c03140
  26. 26
    Rajakumar, B.; Gierczak, T.; Flad, J. E.; Ravishankara, A. R.; Burkholder, J. B. The CH3CO Quantum Yield in the 248 Nm Photolysis of Acetone, Methyl Ethyl Ketone, and Biacetyl. J. Photochem. Photobiol. A Chem. 2008, 199 (2–3), 336344,  DOI: 10.1016/j.jphotochem.2008.06.015
  27. 27
    Collins, D. B.; Farmer, D. K. Unintended Consequences of Air Cleaning Chemistry. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2021, 55, 12172,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.1c02582
  28. 28
    Logue, J. M.; McKone, T. E.; Sherman, M. H.; Singer, B. C. Hazard Assessment of Chemical Air Contaminants Measured in Residences. Indoor Air 2011, 21 (2), 92109,  DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0668.2010.00683.x
  29. 29
    Mattila, J. M.; Arata, C.; Abeleira, A.; Zhou, Y.; Wang, C.; Katz, E. F.; Goldstein, A. H.; Abbatt, J. P. D.; DeCarlo, P. F.; Vance, M. E.; Farmer, D. K. Contrasting Chemical Complexity and the Reactive Organic Carbon Budget of Indoor and Outdoor Air. Environmental Science & Technology. 2022, 56, 109118,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.1c03915
  30. 30
    Price, D. J.; Day, D. A.; Pagonis, D.; Stark, H.; Algrim, L. B.; Handschy, A. V.; Liu, S.; Krechmer, J. E.; Miller, S. L.; Hunter, J. F.; de Gouw, J. A.; Ziemann, P. J.; Jimenez, J. L. Budgets of Organic Carbon Composition and Oxidation in Indoor Air. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2019, 53, 13053,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.9b04689
  31. 31
    Ye, Q.; Krechmer, J. E.; Shutter, J. D.; Barber, V. P.; Li, Y.; Helstrom, E.; Franco, L. J.; Cox, J. L.; Hrdina, A. I. H.; Goss, M. B.; Tahsini, N.; Canagaratna, M.; Keutsch, F. N.; Kroll, J. H. Real-Time Laboratory Measurements of VOC Emissions, Removal Rates, and Byproduct Formation from Consumer-Grade Oxidation-Based Air Cleaners. Environmental Science & Technology Letters 2021, 8, 1020,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.estlett.1c00773
  32. 32
    Joo, T.; Rivera-Rios, J. C.; Alvarado-Velez, D.; Westgate, S.; Ng, N. L. Formation of Oxidized Gases and Secondary Organic Aerosol from a Commercial Oxidant-Generating Electronic Air Cleaner. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. 2021, 8, 691,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.estlett.1c00416
  33. 33
    Peng, Z.; Day, D. A.; Stark, H.; Li, R.; Lee-Taylor, J.; Palm, B. B.; Brune, W. H.; Jimenez, J. L. HOx Radical Chemistry in Oxidation Flow Reactors with Low-Pressure Mercury Lamps Systematically Examined by Modeling. Atmospheric Measurement Techniques 2015, 8 (11), 48634890,  DOI: 10.5194/amt-8-4863-2015
  34. 34
    Peng, Z.; Jimenez, J. L. Modeling of the Chemistry in Oxidation Flow Reactors with High Initial NO. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2017, 17 (19), 1199112010,  DOI: 10.5194/acp-17-11991-2017
  35. 35
    Stockwell, W. R.; Kirchner, F.; Kuhn, M.; Seefeld, S. A New Mechanism for Regional Atmospheric Chemistry Modeling. J. Geophys. Res. 1997, 102 (D22), 2584725879,  DOI: 10.1029/97JD00849
  36. 36
    Peng, Z.; Jimenez, J. L. KinSim: A Research-Grade, User-Friendly, Visual Kinetics Simulator for Chemical-Kinetics and Environmental-Chemistry Teaching. J. Chem. Educ. 2019, 96 (4), 806811,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b00033
  37. 37
    McDonald, B. C.; de Gouw, J. A.; Gilman, J. B.; Jathar, S. H.; Akherati, A.; Cappa, C. D.; Jimenez, J. L.; Lee-Taylor, J.; Hayes, P. L.; McKeen, S. A.; Cui, Y. Y.; Kim, S.-W.; Gentner, D. R.; Isaacman-VanWertz, G.; Goldstein, A. H.; Harley, R. A.; Frost, G. J.; Roberts, J. M.; Ryerson, T. B.; Trainer, M. Volatile Chemical Products Emerging as Largest Petrochemical Source of Urban Organic Emissions. Science 2018, 359 (6377), 760764,  DOI: 10.1126/science.aaq0524
  38. 38
    Upper room germicidal ultraviolet fixtures. AeroMed Technologies. https://aeromed.com/product/upper-room-guv-fixtures/ (accessed 2022-02-21).
  39. 39
    Xu, P.; Kujundzic, E.; Peccia, J.; Schafer, M. P.; Moss, G.; Hernandez, M.; Miller, S. L. Impact of Environmental Factors on Efficacy of Upper-Room Air Ultraviolet Germicidal Irradiation for Inactivating Airborne Mycobacteria. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2005, 39 (24), 96569664,  DOI: 10.1021/es0504892
  40. 40
    Xu, P.; Peccia, J.; Fabian, P.; Martyny, J. W.; Fennelly, K. P.; Hernandez, M.; Miller, S. L. Efficacy of Ultraviolet Germicidal Irradiation of Upper-Room Air in Inactivating Airborne Bacterial Spores and Mycobacteria in Full-Scale Studies. Atmos. Environ. 2003, 37 (3), 405419,  DOI: 10.1016/S1352-2310(02)00825-7
  41. 41
    Daisey, J. M.; Angell, W. J.; Apte, M. G. Indoor Air Quality, Ventilation and Health Symptoms in Schools: An Analysis of Existing Information. Indoor Air 2003, 13 (1), 5364,  DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0668.2003.00153.x
  42. 42
    Buonanno, G.; Morawska, L.; Stabile, L. Quantitative Assessment of the Risk of Airborne Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 Infection: Prospective and Retrospective Applications. Environ. Int. 2020, 145, 106112,  DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2020.106112
  43. 43
    Riley, E. C.; Murphy, G.; Riley, R. L. Airborne Spread of Measles in a Suburban Elementary School. Am. J. Epidemiol. 1978, 107 (5), 421432,  DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a112560
  44. 44
    EPA. Chapter 6─Inhalation Rates. In Exposure Factors Handbook; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2011.
  45. 45
    Peng, Z.; Jimenez, J. L. Exhaled CO 2 as a COVID-19 Infection Risk Proxy for Different Indoor Environments and Activities. Environmental Science & Technology Letters 2021, 8 (5), 392397,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.estlett.1c00183
  46. 46
    Ren, X.; Olson, J. R.; Crawford, J. H.; Brune, W. H.; Mao, J.; Long, R. B.; Chen, Z.; Chen, G.; Avery, M. A.; Sachse, G. W.; Barrick, J. D.; Diskin, G. S.; Huey, L. G.; Fried, A.; Cohen, R. C.; Heikes, B.; Wennberg, P. O.; Singh, H. B.; Blake, D. R.; Shetter, R. E. HOx chemistry during INTEX-A 2004: Observation, Model Calculation, and Comparison with Previous Studies. J. Geophys. Res. 2008, 113 (D5). D05310 DOI: 10.1029/2007JD009166 .
  47. 47
    Peng, Z.; Lee-Taylor, J.; Orlando, J. J.; Tyndall, G. S.; Jimenez, J. L. Organic Peroxy Radical Chemistry in Oxidation Flow Reactors and Environmental Chambers and Their Atmospheric Relevance. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2019, 19 (2), 813834,  DOI: 10.5194/acp-19-813-2019
  48. 48
    Shrivastava, M.; Cappa, C. D.; Fan, J.; Goldstein, A. H.; Guenther, A. B.; Jimenez, J. L.; Kuang, C.; Laskin, A.; Martin, S. T.; Ng, N. L.; Petaja, T.; Pierce, J. R.; Rasch, P. J.; Roldin, P.; Seinfeld, J. H.; Shilling, J.; Smith, J. N.; Thornton, J. A.; Volkamer, R.; Wang, J.; Worsnop, D. R.; Zaveri, R. A.; Zelenyuk, A.; Zhang, Q. Recent Advances in Understanding Secondary Organic Aerosol: Implications for Global Climate Forcing. Rev. Geophys. 2017, 55 (2), 509559,  DOI: 10.1002/2016RG000540
  49. 49
    U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Minimal Risk Levels, 2018. https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/about/index.html (accessed 2022-01-21).
  50. 50
    Whalen, J. J. Environmental Control for Tuberculosis; Basic Upper-Room Ultraviolet Germicidal Irradiation Guidelines for Healthcare Settings Guide; 2009-105; NIOSH, 2009.
  51. 51
    Riley, R. L.; Permutt, S. Room Air Disinfection by Ultraviolet Irradiation of Upper Air. Air Mixing and Germicidal Effectiveness. Arch. Environ. Health 1971, 22 (2), 208219,  DOI: 10.1080/00039896.1971.10665834
  52. 52
    Morawska, L.; Tang, J. W.; Bahnfleth, W.; Bluyssen, P. M.; Boerstra, A.; Buonanno, G.; Cao, J.; Dancer, S.; Floto, A.; Franchimon, F.; Haworth, C.; Hogeling, J.; Isaxon, C.; Jimenez, J. L.; Kurnitski, J.; Li, Y.; Loomans, M.; Marks, G.; Marr, L. C.; Mazzarella, L.; Melikov, A. K.; Miller, S.; Milton, D. K.; Nazaroff, W.; Nielsen, P. V.; Noakes, C.; Peccia, J.; Querol, X.; Sekhar, C.; Seppänen, O.; Tanabe, S.-I.; Tellier, R.; Tham, K. W.; Wargocki, P.; Wierzbicka, A.; Yao, M. How Can Airborne Transmission of COVID-19 Indoors Be Minimised?. Environ. Int. 2020, 142, 105832,  DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2020.105832
  53. 53
    Lee, P.; Davidson, J. Evaluation of Activated Carbon Filters for Removal of Ozone at the PPB Level. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 1999, 60 (5), 589600,  DOI: 10.1080/00028899908984478
  54. 54
    Mochida, I.; Korai, Y.; Shirahama, M.; Kawano, S.; Hada, T.; Seo, Y.; Yoshikawa, M.; Yasutake, A. Removal of SOx and NOx over Activated Carbon Fibers. Carbon N. Y. 2000, 38 (2), 227239,  DOI: 10.1016/S0008-6223(99)00179-7

Cited By

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!
Citation Statements
Explore this article's citation statements on scite.ai

This article is cited by 29 publications.

  1. Sara Bjerre Sørensen, Kasper Kristensen. Indoor Surface Emissions of Volatile Organic Compounds Induced by Germicidal UV (222 and 254 nm) Illumination. ACS ES&T Air 2025, Article ASAP.
  2. Katherine M. Ratliff, Lukas Oudejans, M. Worth Calfee, John Archer, Jerome U. Gilberry, David Adam Hook, William E. Schoppman, Robert W. Yaga. Factors Affecting Reduction of Infectious Aerosols by Far-UVC and Portable HEPA Air Cleaners. ACS ES&T Air 2025, 2 (3) , 368-377. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsestair.4c00247
  3. Sara Bjerre Sørensen, Frederik Rask Dalby, Søren Kristian Olsen, Kasper Kristensen. Influence of Germicidal UV (222 nm) Lamps on Ozone, Ultrafine Particles, and Volatile Organic Compounds in Indoor Office Spaces. Environmental Science & Technology 2024, 58 (45) , 20073-20080. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.4c03903
  4. Olivia J. Jenks, Zhe Peng, Melinda K. Schueneman, Madison Rutherford, Anne V. Handschy, Douglas A. Day, Jose L. Jimenez, Joost A. de Gouw. Effects of 222 nm Germicidal Ultraviolet Light on Aerosol and VOC Formation from Limonene. ACS ES&T Air 2024, 1 (7) , 725-733. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsestair.4c00065
  5. Seongjun Park, Youngbo Won, Donghyun Rim. Formation and Transport of Secondary Contaminants Associated with Germicidal Ultraviolet Light Systems in an Occupied Classroom. Environmental Science & Technology 2024, 58 (27) , 12051-12061. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.4c00575
  6. Michael F. Link, Rileigh Robertson, Megan S. Claflin, Dustin Poppendieck. Quantification of Byproduct Formation from Portable Air Cleaners Using a Proposed Standard Test Method. Environmental Science & Technology 2024, 58 (18) , 7916-7923. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.3c09331
  7. Victoria P. Barber, Matthew B. Goss, Lesly J. Franco Deloya, Lexy N. LeMar, Yaowei Li, Erik Helstrom, Manjula Canagaratna, Frank N. Keutsch, Jesse H. Kroll. Indoor Air Quality Implications of Germicidal 222 nm Light. Environmental Science & Technology 2023, 57 (42) , 15990-15998. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.3c05680
  8. Zilin Zhou, Leigh R. Crilley, Jenna C. Ditto, Trevor C. VandenBoer, Jonathan P. D. Abbatt. Chemical Fate of Oils on Indoor Surfaces: Ozonolysis and Peroxidation. Environmental Science & Technology 2023, 57 (41) , 15546-15557. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.3c04009
  9. Zhe Peng, Douglas A. Day, Guy A. Symonds, Olivia J. Jenks, Harald Stark, Anne V. Handschy, Joost A. de Gouw, Jose L. Jimenez. Significant Production of Ozone from Germicidal UV Lights at 222 nm. Environmental Science & Technology Letters 2023, 10 (8) , 668-674. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.3c00314
  10. Michael F. Link, Andrew Shore, Behrang H. Hamadani, Dustin Poppendieck. Ozone Generation from a Germicidal Ultraviolet Lamp with Peak Emission at 222 nm. Environmental Science & Technology Letters 2023, 10 (8) , 675-679. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.3c00318
  11. Alexandra M. Deal, Veronica Vaida. Oxygen Effect on the Ultraviolet-C Photochemistry of Lactic Acid. The Journal of Physical Chemistry A 2023, 127 (13) , 2936-2945. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpca.3c00992
  12. Peipei Lin, Yingdong Li, Min Zhao, Félix Manuel Rosado-García, Bangxiao Zheng, Yamila Puig Peña, Lei Wang. Comparison of E. coli inactivation by UV222-ADPs and UV254-ADPs in water. Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering 2025, 19 (5) https://doi.org/10.1007/s11783-025-1980-0
  13. Qingchun Yuan, Bo Xiao, Renaud de Richter, Wei Li, Raul Quesada-Cabrera, Tingzhen Ming. Tropospheric methane remediation by enhancing chlorine sinks. RSC Sustainability 2025, 3 (3) , 1524-1538. https://doi.org/10.1039/D4SU00716F
  14. Rishikesh Bajagain, Pil-Gon Kim, Jung-Hwan Kwon, Yongseok Hong. The release of volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds from polyvinyl chloride consumer products under simulated solar light: Implications for indoor air quality. Journal of Hazardous Materials 2025, 485 , 136846. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2024.136846
  15. Vamsi Bankapalli, Narsing K. Jha, Jay Dhariwal, Saran Raj K, Seshan Srirangarajan. Implications of the spatiotemporal distribution of CO2 on indoor air quality: A field study with reduced-order modeling. Building and Environment 2025, 269 , 112451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2024.112451
  16. Matthew B. Goss, Jesse H. Kroll. Organic aerosol formation from 222 nm germicidal light: ozone-initiated vs. non-ozone pathways. Environmental Science: Processes & Impacts 2025, 8 https://doi.org/10.1039/D4EM00384E
  17. Seongjun Park, Donghyun Rim. Human exposure to air contaminants under the far-UVC system operation in an office: effects of lamp position and ventilation condition. Scientific Reports 2024, 14 (1) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-75245-z
  18. Lucas Rocha-Melogno, Jinying Xi, Marc A. Deshusses. Experimental evaluation of a full-scale in-duct UV germicidal irradiation system for bioaerosols inactivation. Science of The Total Environment 2024, 947 , 174432. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.174432
  19. David J. Brenner. The public‐health significance of far‐UVC‐induced indoor ozone and its associated secondary chemistry. Photochemistry and Photobiology 2024, 100 (5) , 1186-1190. https://doi.org/10.1111/php.13892
  20. Shafa Muhammad, Furqan Muhammad, Eason Liao. Study of UV-C LED Technology on In-door Air Disinfection: An Effective Mercury-free and Ozone-free Method to Irradicate Airborne Microorganisms. 2024, 859-863. https://doi.org/10.1145/3706890.3707037
  21. Michael F. Link, Rileigh L. Robertson, Andrew Shore, Behrang H. Hamadani, Christina E. Cecelski, Dustin G. Poppendieck. Ozone generation and chemistry from 222 nm germicidal ultraviolet light in a fragrant restroom. Environmental Science: Processes & Impacts 2024, 26 (6) , 1090-1106. https://doi.org/10.1039/D4EM00144C
  22. Cary A. Faulkner, Timothy I. Salsbury, Belal Abboushi, Cerrina Mouchref, Brett C. Singer, Michael D. Sohn, Gabe Arnold. Comparison of effectiveness and energy use of airborne pathogen mitigation measures to meet clean air targets in a prototypical office building. Building and Environment 2024, 257 , 111466. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2024.111466
  23. Maximilian Görlitz, Lennart Justen, Patrick J. Rochette, Manuela Buonanno, David Welch, Norman J. Kleiman, Ewan Eadie, Sachiko Kaidzu, William J. Bradshaw, Emilia Javorsky, Nigel Cridland, Anat Galor, Martin Guttmann, Martina C. Meinke, Johannes Schleusener, Paul Jensen, Per Söderberg, Nozomi Yamano, Chikako Nishigori, Paul O'Mahoney, Dieter Manstein, Rodney Croft, Curtis Cole, Frank R. de Gruijl, Paul Donald Forbes, Stephen Trokel, John Marshall, David J. Brenner, David Sliney, Kevin Esvelt. Assessing the safety of new germicidal far‐UVC technologies. Photochemistry and Photobiology 2024, 100 (3) , 501-520. https://doi.org/10.1111/php.13866
  24. Linsey C. Marr, Jonathan M. Samet. Reducing Transmission of Airborne Respiratory Pathogens: A New Beginning as the COVID-19 Emergency Ends. Environmental Health Perspectives 2024, 132 (5) https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP13878
  25. Devabhaktuni Srikrishna. Pentagon Found Daily, Metagenomic Detection of Novel Bioaerosol Threats to Be Cost-Prohibitive: Can Virtualization and AI Make It Cost-Effective?. Health Security 2024, 22 (2) , 108-129. https://doi.org/10.1089/hs.2023.0048
  26. P. Jacob Bueno de Mesquita, Rosemary K. Sokas, Mary B. Rice, Edward A. Nardell. Far-UVC: Technology Update with an Untapped Potential to Mitigate Airborne Infections. Annals of the American Thoracic Society 2023, 20 (12) , 1700-1702. https://doi.org/10.1513/AnnalsATS.202305-460VP
  27. Kangqi Guo, Yue Pan, Hoi Fung Ronaldo Chan, Kin-Fai Ho, Chun Chen. Far-UVC disinfection of airborne and surface virus in indoor environments: Laboratory experiments and numerical simulations. Building and Environment 2023, 245 , 110900. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2023.110900
  28. Adrian F. Tuck. Actinic Radiation, Viruses, Bacteria, the Open Air Factor (OAF) and Indoor Sterilization with UV-C Radiation. Processes 2023, 11 (10) , 2882. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr11102882
  29. Zhancong Liang, Tim Yiu Cheung, Wing Lam Chan, Chee Kent Lim, Alvin. C. K. Lai, Patrick. K. H. Lee, Chak K. Chan. Negligible increase in indoor endotoxin activity by 222 nm far-UVC illumination on bioaerosols. Environmental Science: Atmospheres 2023, 3 (8) , 1212-1220. https://doi.org/10.1039/D3EA00059A

Environmental Science & Technology Letters

Cite this: Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. 2023, 10, 1, 6–13
Click to copy citationCitation copied!
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.2c00599
Published December 2, 2022

Copyright © 2022 American Chemical Society. This publication is licensed under

CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 .

Article Views

7545

Altmetric

-

Citations

Learn about these metrics

Article Views are the COUNTER-compliant sum of full text article downloads since November 2008 (both PDF and HTML) across all institutions and individuals. These metrics are regularly updated to reflect usage leading up to the last few days.

Citations are the number of other articles citing this article, calculated by Crossref and updated daily. Find more information about Crossref citation counts.

The Altmetric Attention Score is a quantitative measure of the attention that a research article has received online. Clicking on the donut icon will load a page at altmetric.com with additional details about the score and the social media presence for the given article. Find more information on the Altmetric Attention Score and how the score is calculated.

  • Abstract

    Figure 1

    Figure 1. Schematics of a germicidal ultraviolet air disinfection system at (a) 254 nm and at (b) 222 nm in a room; (c) absorption cross sections of several important gas-phase species relevant to this study (a discontinuity in the spectrum of methacrolein is due to lack of data).

    Figure 2

    Figure 2. Final quantity/concentration of the main (types of) species of interest in this study under different GUV and ventilation conditions. In the GUV254 cases, the volume-weighted average concentrations for the whole room are shown. The stable chemical species concentrations are similar between the irradiated and unirradiated zones, while the radical and SARS-CoV-2 concentrations in the unirradiated zone can be significantly lower and higher, respectively (Table S3). Note that some panels use a log scale for concentrations while other panels use a linear scale. SOA is assumed to have a molar weight of 200 g mol–1.

  • References


    This article references 54 other publications.

    1. 1
      Wells, W. F.; Wells, M. W.; Wilder, T. S. The Environmental Control of Epidemic Contagion. I An epidemiologic study of radiant disinfection of air in day schools Am. J. Hyg 1942, 35, 97121,  DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a118789
    2. 2
      Riley, R. L.; Mills, C. C.; O’grady, F.; Sultan, L. U.; Wittstadt, F.; Shivpuri, D. N. Infectiousness of Air from a Tuberculosis Ward. Ultraviolet Irradiation of Infected Air: Comparative Infectiousness of Different Patients. Am. Rev. Respir. Dis. 1962, 85, 511525,  DOI: 10.1164/arrd.1962.85.4.511
    3. 3
      Nardell, E. A. Air Disinfection for Airborne Infection Control with a Focus on COVID-19: Why Germicidal UV Is Essential. Photochem. Photobiol. 2021, 97 (3), 493497,  DOI: 10.1111/php.13421
    4. 4
      Riley, R. L.; Nardell, E. A. Clearing the Air: The Theory and Application of Ultraviolet Air Disinfection. Am. Rev. Respir. Dis. 1989, 140, 18321832,  DOI: 10.1164/ajrccm/140.6.1832b
    5. 5
      Zaffina, S.; Camisa, V.; Lembo, M.; Vinci, M. R.; Tucci, M. G.; Borra, M.; Napolitano, A.; Cannatà, V. Accidental Exposure to UV Radiation Produced by Germicidal Lamp: Case Report and Risk Assessment. Photochem. Photobiol. 2012, 88 (4), 10011004,  DOI: 10.1111/j.1751-1097.2012.01151.x
    6. 6
      Ma, B.; Gundy, P. M.; Gerba, C. P.; Sobsey, M. D.; Linden, K. G. UV Inactivation of SARS-CoV-2 across the UVC Spectrum: KrCl* Excimer, Mercury-Vapor, and Light-Emitting-Diode (LED) Sources. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2021, 87 (22), e0153221  DOI: 10.1128/AEM.01532-21
    7. 7
      Buonanno, M.; Welch, D.; Shuryak, I.; Brenner, D. J. Far-UVC Light (222 Nm) Efficiently and Safely Inactivates Airborne Human Coronaviruses. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10 (1), 10285,  DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-67211-2
    8. 8
      Ong, Q.; Wee, W.; Dela Cruz, J.; Teo, J. W. R.; Han, W. 222-Nanometer Far-UVC Exposure Results in DNA Damage and Transcriptional Changes to Mammalian Cells. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23 (16), 9112,  DOI: 10.3390/ijms23169112
    9. 9
      Kujundzic, E.; Matalkah, F.; Howard, C. J.; Hernandez, M.; Miller, S. L. UV Air Cleaners and Upper-Room Air Ultraviolet Germicidal Irradiation for Controlling Airborne Bacteria and Fungal Spores. J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 2006, 3 (10), 536546,  DOI: 10.1080/15459620600909799
    10. 10
      Wang, C. C.; Prather, K. A.; Sznitman, J.; Jimenez, J. L.; Lakdawala, S. S.; Tufekci, Z.; Marr, L. C. Airborne Transmission of Respiratory Viruses. Science 2021, 373 (6558), eabd9149  DOI: 10.1126/science.abd9149
    11. 11
      Greenhalgh, T.; Jimenez, J. L.; Prather, K. A.; Tufekci, Z.; Fisman, D.; Schooley, R. Ten Scientific Reasons in Support of Airborne Transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Lancet 2021, 397, 1603,  DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00869-2
    12. 12
      Klompas, M.; Milton, D. K.; Rhee, C.; Baker, M. A.; Leekha, S. Current Insights Into Respiratory Virus Transmission and Potential Implications for Infection Control Programs: A Narrative Review. Ann. Int. Med. 2021, 174 (12), 17101718,  DOI: 10.7326/M21-2780
    13. 13
      Qian, H.; Miao, T.; Liu, L.; Zheng, X.; Luo, D.; Li, Y. Indoor Transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Indoor Air 2021, 31 (3), 639645,  DOI: 10.1111/ina.12766
    14. 14
      Adam, D. C.; Wu, P.; Wong, J. Y.; Lau, E. H. Y.; Tsang, T. K.; Cauchemez, S.; Leung, G. M.; Cowling, B. J. Clustering and Superspreading Potential of SARS-CoV-2 Infections in Hong Kong. Nat. Med. 2020, 26 (11), 17141719,  DOI: 10.1038/s41591-020-1092-0
    15. 15
      Peng, Z.; Rojas, A. L. P.; Kropff, E.; Bahnfleth, W.; Buonanno, G.; Dancer, S. J.; Kurnitski, J.; Li, Y.; Loomans, M. G. L. C.; Marr, L. C.; Morawska, L.; Nazaroff, W.; Noakes, C.; Querol, X.; Sekhar, C.; Tellier, R.; Greenhalgh, T.; Bourouiba, L.; Boerstra, A.; Tang, J. W.; Miller, S. L.; Jimenez, J. L. Practical Indicators for Risk of Airborne Transmission in Shared Indoor Environments and Their Application to COVID-19 Outbreaks. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2022, 56 (2), 11251137,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.1c06531
    16. 16
      Li, Y.; Cheng, P.; Jia, W. Poor Ventilation Worsens Short-Range Airborne Transmission of Respiratory Infection. Indoor Air 2022, 32 (1), e12946  DOI: 10.1111/ina.12946
    17. 17
      Jimenez, J. L.; Peng, Z.; Pagonis, D. Systematic Way to Understand and Classify the Shared-Room Airborne Transmission Risk of Indoor Spaces. Indoor Air 2022, 32 (5), e13025  DOI: 10.1111/ina.13025
    18. 18
      Morawska, L.; Allen, J.; Bahnfleth, W.; Bluyssen, P. M.; Boerstra, A.; Buonanno, G.; Cao, J.; Dancer, S. J.; Floto, A.; Franchimon, F.; Greenhalgh, T.; Haworth, C.; Hogeling, J.; Isaxon, C.; Jimenez, J. L.; Kurnitski, J.; Li, Y.; Loomans, M.; Marks, G.; Marr, L. C.; Mazzarella, L.; Melikov, A. K.; Miller, S.; Milton, D. K.; Nazaroff, W.; Nielsen, P. V.; Noakes, C.; Peccia, J.; Prather, K.; Querol, X.; Sekhar, C.; Seppänen, O.; Tanabe, S.-I.; Tang, J. W.; Tellier, R.; Tham, K. W.; Wargocki, P.; Wierzbicka, A.; Yao, M. A Paradigm Shift to Combat Indoor Respiratory Infection. Science 2021, 372 (6543), 689691,  DOI: 10.1126/science.abg2025
    19. 19
      ASHRAE. Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality: ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 62.1-2019; ANSI/ASHRAE, 2019.
    20. 20
      Peng, Z.; Jimenez, J. L. Radical Chemistry in Oxidation Flow Reactors for Atmospheric Chemistry Research. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2020, 49 (9), 25702616,  DOI: 10.1039/C9CS00766K
    21. 21
      Atkinson, R.; Arey, J. Atmospheric Degradation of Volatile Organic Compounds. Chem. Rev. 2003, 103 (12), 46054638,  DOI: 10.1021/cr0206420
    22. 22
      Ziemann, P. J.; Atkinson, R. Kinetics, Products, and Mechanisms of Secondary Organic Aerosol Formation. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2012, 41 (19), 65826605,  DOI: 10.1039/c2cs35122f
    23. 23
      Blitz, M. A.; Heard, D. E.; Pilling, M. J. Wavelength Dependent Photodissociation of CH3OOH: Quantum Yields for CH3O and OH, and Measurement of the OH+ CH3OOH Rate Coefficient. J. Photochem. Photobiol. A Chem. 2005, 176 (1–3), 107113,  DOI: 10.1016/j.jphotochem.2005.09.017
    24. 24
      Vaghjiani, G. L.; Ravishankara, A. R. Photodissociation of H2O2 and CH3OOH at 248 Nm and 298 K: Quantum Yields for OH, O(3P) and H(2S). J. Chem. Phys. 1990, 92 (2), 9961003,  DOI: 10.1063/1.458081
    25. 25
      Link, M. F.; Farmer, D. K.; Berg, T.; Flocke, F.; Ravishankara, A. R. Measuring Photodissociation Product Quantum Yields Using Chemical Ionization Mass Spectrometry: A Case Study with Ketones. J. Phys. Chem. A 2021, 125 (31), 68366844,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpca.1c03140
    26. 26
      Rajakumar, B.; Gierczak, T.; Flad, J. E.; Ravishankara, A. R.; Burkholder, J. B. The CH3CO Quantum Yield in the 248 Nm Photolysis of Acetone, Methyl Ethyl Ketone, and Biacetyl. J. Photochem. Photobiol. A Chem. 2008, 199 (2–3), 336344,  DOI: 10.1016/j.jphotochem.2008.06.015
    27. 27
      Collins, D. B.; Farmer, D. K. Unintended Consequences of Air Cleaning Chemistry. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2021, 55, 12172,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.1c02582
    28. 28
      Logue, J. M.; McKone, T. E.; Sherman, M. H.; Singer, B. C. Hazard Assessment of Chemical Air Contaminants Measured in Residences. Indoor Air 2011, 21 (2), 92109,  DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0668.2010.00683.x
    29. 29
      Mattila, J. M.; Arata, C.; Abeleira, A.; Zhou, Y.; Wang, C.; Katz, E. F.; Goldstein, A. H.; Abbatt, J. P. D.; DeCarlo, P. F.; Vance, M. E.; Farmer, D. K. Contrasting Chemical Complexity and the Reactive Organic Carbon Budget of Indoor and Outdoor Air. Environmental Science & Technology. 2022, 56, 109118,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.1c03915
    30. 30
      Price, D. J.; Day, D. A.; Pagonis, D.; Stark, H.; Algrim, L. B.; Handschy, A. V.; Liu, S.; Krechmer, J. E.; Miller, S. L.; Hunter, J. F.; de Gouw, J. A.; Ziemann, P. J.; Jimenez, J. L. Budgets of Organic Carbon Composition and Oxidation in Indoor Air. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2019, 53, 13053,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.9b04689
    31. 31
      Ye, Q.; Krechmer, J. E.; Shutter, J. D.; Barber, V. P.; Li, Y.; Helstrom, E.; Franco, L. J.; Cox, J. L.; Hrdina, A. I. H.; Goss, M. B.; Tahsini, N.; Canagaratna, M.; Keutsch, F. N.; Kroll, J. H. Real-Time Laboratory Measurements of VOC Emissions, Removal Rates, and Byproduct Formation from Consumer-Grade Oxidation-Based Air Cleaners. Environmental Science & Technology Letters 2021, 8, 1020,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.estlett.1c00773
    32. 32
      Joo, T.; Rivera-Rios, J. C.; Alvarado-Velez, D.; Westgate, S.; Ng, N. L. Formation of Oxidized Gases and Secondary Organic Aerosol from a Commercial Oxidant-Generating Electronic Air Cleaner. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. 2021, 8, 691,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.estlett.1c00416
    33. 33
      Peng, Z.; Day, D. A.; Stark, H.; Li, R.; Lee-Taylor, J.; Palm, B. B.; Brune, W. H.; Jimenez, J. L. HOx Radical Chemistry in Oxidation Flow Reactors with Low-Pressure Mercury Lamps Systematically Examined by Modeling. Atmospheric Measurement Techniques 2015, 8 (11), 48634890,  DOI: 10.5194/amt-8-4863-2015
    34. 34
      Peng, Z.; Jimenez, J. L. Modeling of the Chemistry in Oxidation Flow Reactors with High Initial NO. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2017, 17 (19), 1199112010,  DOI: 10.5194/acp-17-11991-2017
    35. 35
      Stockwell, W. R.; Kirchner, F.; Kuhn, M.; Seefeld, S. A New Mechanism for Regional Atmospheric Chemistry Modeling. J. Geophys. Res. 1997, 102 (D22), 2584725879,  DOI: 10.1029/97JD00849
    36. 36
      Peng, Z.; Jimenez, J. L. KinSim: A Research-Grade, User-Friendly, Visual Kinetics Simulator for Chemical-Kinetics and Environmental-Chemistry Teaching. J. Chem. Educ. 2019, 96 (4), 806811,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b00033
    37. 37
      McDonald, B. C.; de Gouw, J. A.; Gilman, J. B.; Jathar, S. H.; Akherati, A.; Cappa, C. D.; Jimenez, J. L.; Lee-Taylor, J.; Hayes, P. L.; McKeen, S. A.; Cui, Y. Y.; Kim, S.-W.; Gentner, D. R.; Isaacman-VanWertz, G.; Goldstein, A. H.; Harley, R. A.; Frost, G. J.; Roberts, J. M.; Ryerson, T. B.; Trainer, M. Volatile Chemical Products Emerging as Largest Petrochemical Source of Urban Organic Emissions. Science 2018, 359 (6377), 760764,  DOI: 10.1126/science.aaq0524
    38. 38
      Upper room germicidal ultraviolet fixtures. AeroMed Technologies. https://aeromed.com/product/upper-room-guv-fixtures/ (accessed 2022-02-21).
    39. 39
      Xu, P.; Kujundzic, E.; Peccia, J.; Schafer, M. P.; Moss, G.; Hernandez, M.; Miller, S. L. Impact of Environmental Factors on Efficacy of Upper-Room Air Ultraviolet Germicidal Irradiation for Inactivating Airborne Mycobacteria. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2005, 39 (24), 96569664,  DOI: 10.1021/es0504892
    40. 40
      Xu, P.; Peccia, J.; Fabian, P.; Martyny, J. W.; Fennelly, K. P.; Hernandez, M.; Miller, S. L. Efficacy of Ultraviolet Germicidal Irradiation of Upper-Room Air in Inactivating Airborne Bacterial Spores and Mycobacteria in Full-Scale Studies. Atmos. Environ. 2003, 37 (3), 405419,  DOI: 10.1016/S1352-2310(02)00825-7
    41. 41
      Daisey, J. M.; Angell, W. J.; Apte, M. G. Indoor Air Quality, Ventilation and Health Symptoms in Schools: An Analysis of Existing Information. Indoor Air 2003, 13 (1), 5364,  DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0668.2003.00153.x
    42. 42
      Buonanno, G.; Morawska, L.; Stabile, L. Quantitative Assessment of the Risk of Airborne Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 Infection: Prospective and Retrospective Applications. Environ. Int. 2020, 145, 106112,  DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2020.106112
    43. 43
      Riley, E. C.; Murphy, G.; Riley, R. L. Airborne Spread of Measles in a Suburban Elementary School. Am. J. Epidemiol. 1978, 107 (5), 421432,  DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a112560
    44. 44
      EPA. Chapter 6─Inhalation Rates. In Exposure Factors Handbook; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2011.
    45. 45
      Peng, Z.; Jimenez, J. L. Exhaled CO 2 as a COVID-19 Infection Risk Proxy for Different Indoor Environments and Activities. Environmental Science & Technology Letters 2021, 8 (5), 392397,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.estlett.1c00183
    46. 46
      Ren, X.; Olson, J. R.; Crawford, J. H.; Brune, W. H.; Mao, J.; Long, R. B.; Chen, Z.; Chen, G.; Avery, M. A.; Sachse, G. W.; Barrick, J. D.; Diskin, G. S.; Huey, L. G.; Fried, A.; Cohen, R. C.; Heikes, B.; Wennberg, P. O.; Singh, H. B.; Blake, D. R.; Shetter, R. E. HOx chemistry during INTEX-A 2004: Observation, Model Calculation, and Comparison with Previous Studies. J. Geophys. Res. 2008, 113 (D5). D05310 DOI: 10.1029/2007JD009166 .
    47. 47
      Peng, Z.; Lee-Taylor, J.; Orlando, J. J.; Tyndall, G. S.; Jimenez, J. L. Organic Peroxy Radical Chemistry in Oxidation Flow Reactors and Environmental Chambers and Their Atmospheric Relevance. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2019, 19 (2), 813834,  DOI: 10.5194/acp-19-813-2019
    48. 48
      Shrivastava, M.; Cappa, C. D.; Fan, J.; Goldstein, A. H.; Guenther, A. B.; Jimenez, J. L.; Kuang, C.; Laskin, A.; Martin, S. T.; Ng, N. L.; Petaja, T.; Pierce, J. R.; Rasch, P. J.; Roldin, P.; Seinfeld, J. H.; Shilling, J.; Smith, J. N.; Thornton, J. A.; Volkamer, R.; Wang, J.; Worsnop, D. R.; Zaveri, R. A.; Zelenyuk, A.; Zhang, Q. Recent Advances in Understanding Secondary Organic Aerosol: Implications for Global Climate Forcing. Rev. Geophys. 2017, 55 (2), 509559,  DOI: 10.1002/2016RG000540
    49. 49
      U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Minimal Risk Levels, 2018. https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/about/index.html (accessed 2022-01-21).
    50. 50
      Whalen, J. J. Environmental Control for Tuberculosis; Basic Upper-Room Ultraviolet Germicidal Irradiation Guidelines for Healthcare Settings Guide; 2009-105; NIOSH, 2009.
    51. 51
      Riley, R. L.; Permutt, S. Room Air Disinfection by Ultraviolet Irradiation of Upper Air. Air Mixing and Germicidal Effectiveness. Arch. Environ. Health 1971, 22 (2), 208219,  DOI: 10.1080/00039896.1971.10665834
    52. 52
      Morawska, L.; Tang, J. W.; Bahnfleth, W.; Bluyssen, P. M.; Boerstra, A.; Buonanno, G.; Cao, J.; Dancer, S.; Floto, A.; Franchimon, F.; Haworth, C.; Hogeling, J.; Isaxon, C.; Jimenez, J. L.; Kurnitski, J.; Li, Y.; Loomans, M.; Marks, G.; Marr, L. C.; Mazzarella, L.; Melikov, A. K.; Miller, S.; Milton, D. K.; Nazaroff, W.; Nielsen, P. V.; Noakes, C.; Peccia, J.; Querol, X.; Sekhar, C.; Seppänen, O.; Tanabe, S.-I.; Tellier, R.; Tham, K. W.; Wargocki, P.; Wierzbicka, A.; Yao, M. How Can Airborne Transmission of COVID-19 Indoors Be Minimised?. Environ. Int. 2020, 142, 105832,  DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2020.105832
    53. 53
      Lee, P.; Davidson, J. Evaluation of Activated Carbon Filters for Removal of Ozone at the PPB Level. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 1999, 60 (5), 589600,  DOI: 10.1080/00028899908984478
    54. 54
      Mochida, I.; Korai, Y.; Shirahama, M.; Kawano, S.; Hada, T.; Seo, Y.; Yoshikawa, M.; Yasutake, A. Removal of SOx and NOx over Activated Carbon Fibers. Carbon N. Y. 2000, 38 (2), 227239,  DOI: 10.1016/S0008-6223(99)00179-7
  • Supporting Information

    Supporting Information


    The Supporting Information is available free of charge at https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.estlett.2c00599.

    • Details about the model setup (reaction scheme, species lumping, indoor emission, outdoor air composition, initial conditions, effective virus-removal rates of GUV), RO2 fates in the GUV254 cases, concentrations in the irradiated and unirradiated zones in the GUV254 cases, and sensitivity cases for highly polluted conditions (PDF)


    Terms & Conditions

    Most electronic Supporting Information files are available without a subscription to ACS Web Editions. Such files may be downloaded by article for research use (if there is a public use license linked to the relevant article, that license may permit other uses). Permission may be obtained from ACS for other uses through requests via the RightsLink permission system: http://pubs.acs.org/page/copyright/permissions.html.