Could UV-C Technology Help Reduce Preventable Illnesses?
Summary
At a recent conference, Sabine Matysik, a Senior Consultant at d-fine, shared her journey leading a groundbreaking research project on using UV-C light to reduce airborne disease transmission. Her insights offered a glimpse into the challenges of balancing innovation, ethics, and collaboration in the fight against preventable illnesses.
Harnessing Light for Health
Sabine kicked off by talking about the potential of UV-C light—specifically Far UV-C—in reducing the spread of diseases through the air. The idea is simple yet powerful: use UV-C light to sanitize the air in public spaces, making them safer for everyone.
“Far UV-C doesn’t kill the virus but inactivates it by damaging its surface proteins or genetic material. What’s amazing is that because human skin has protective layers, we’re not affected the same way pathogens are.”
Her team converted small-scale lab data into models for larger spaces, showing how this technology could work in real-world settings. Schools, hospitals, and other crowded areas could benefit the most.
“It’s like increasing air exchanges without the need for extra ventilation. It’s a cost-effective and scalable way to make indoor spaces healthier.”
The Human Side of Science
Sabine’s team faced tough decisions along the way, especially when it came to ethical considerations. For example, they opted not to include schools in their modeling, feeling it wasn’t right to test the technology on children at this stage.
“We wanted to be cautious. The science is exciting, but we need to approach it responsibly. Safety and ethics come first, especially when it comes to vulnerable groups.”
She also stressed the importance of staying grounded in the real-world impact of the work:
“It’s easy to get caught up in the technical side, but at the end of the day, it’s about improving people’s lives. That’s what motivates me and my team.”
Collaboration and Community
A key takeaway from Sabine’s experience was the power of collaboration. Her project brought together researchers, consultants, and even skeptics who challenged assumptions along the way.
“We didn’t work in a bubble. Having diverse perspectives—scientists, policy experts, even critics—helped us refine our approach. It’s so important to stay open to feedback.”
She encouraged others with bold ideas to find like-minded people and take the first step:
“If you have an idea, don’t sit on it. Reach out, share it, and start building. Conferences like this are a great way to meet collaborators who can help make your vision a reality.”
Looking Ahead: Balancing of Hope and Caution
Sabine’s work has already caught the attention of manufacturers and policymakers, and she’s keen to keep the momentum going. While the project has wrapped up, there’s still much to do in terms of refining the technology, addressing logistical challenges, and scaling up its application.
“We’ve proven the concept works, but now it’s about taking it further. The dream is to see this technology in everyday use—helping reduce sick days, improving public health, and making spaces safer.”
As she moves forward, Sabine’s focus remains on balancing ambition with responsibility:
“This isn’t about rushing to market or making a name for ourselves. It’s about delivering something meaningful and safe, step by step.”
To summarise:
Sabine’s journey offers valuable lessons for anyone tackling big challenges in science or public health:
Innovation with intention: New technologies, like Far UV-C, hold incredible promise, but they need to be developed responsibly.
Power of teamwork: Collaboration and open feedback can make all the difference in tackling complex problems.
Prioritising real-world impact: Grounding projects in practical applications ensures the work benefits those who need it most.
-
Moderator (00:00:00):
I think we should be ready to start now. Let me introduce our speaker. Previously, Sabine was a computational chemist at the University of Cambridge, where she earned a PhD studying molecular interactions. She now works as a management consultant but still stays involved in the field of chemistry and quantum computing. However, today she’s going to talk about far UVC and its potential benefits in preventing infection. I’m excited to hear about it! Feel free to ask any questions via Slido, and I will take those at the end. Thank you very much. Now, I’ll hand the floor to Sabine. Cool, thanks.
Sabine (00:00:38):
Thank you for your interest! Yes, today I’m talking about far UVC, which I hope will shed some light on dark diseases. But first, I want to give you a brief story about myself and the project. So, I’m Sabine. I grew up in a Christian family, and my background is in science. For example, my grandma has always given 10% of her income to her church and continues to do so. I guess this environment is why I’m here today.I then went on to study chemistry in Germany and did an Erasmus exchange term here in the UK at Cambridge, where I first got in contact with EA through a very active local EA group in Cambridge. After returning to Germany, I pursued a PhD in computational chemistry in the same group, and we reconnected with some old friends from this EA group. I quickly joined the committee and became very active in the space during that time.
Sabine (00:01:48):
Afterwards, I joined d-fine, which is a tech consultancy in Germany. I’m really happy with my job there, especially because of the EA work I’m able to do. When I started, I realized there were a few other EAs in the company who I didn’t know about when I first joined, so that was really lucky! We try to spread the word about EA and convince our colleagues to give it a try, to learn about different cause areas. It’s all about spreading the word and getting more people involved.Within that EA group, I had the idea that we could use our training budget, which is one day per month for self-development or research projects. I thought this could be a great opportunity for us to work on an EA-related topic. With this idea, I went to EA Global in Berlin last year and talked to a few people. That actually led to a collaboration with a think tank in Switzerland called P. They had already done a cost-benefit analysis on a different topic and had the idea to study far UVC technology. We thought, "Yes, this fits with our profile and the time we have, let’s do it."
I went back to d-fine, pitched the idea to my colleagues, and we actually found a group of eight people who were interested and helped with the project. Then, there was Loal B from P and a working student named Ellie, who’s a medical doctor in Australia. She provided really valuable insights from the medical perspective. That’s how we founded the Soal project, in collaboration with a company called Elab 5C Lamps.
Sabine (00:03:44):
So, the main area we work in is the fact that disease transmission is a major problem, as we have all seen during the COVID-19 pandemic. We need to find different solutions to tackle the problem from multiple angles. One solution that has recently been proposed by scientists is far UVC light.We are familiar with different types of light—there’s infrared (IR) light from the sun, and UV light. You probably know about UVA and UVB rays, which you protect yourself from using sunscreen. Then there’s UVC, which is much farther away from the visible spectrum. Within UVC, you have far UVC, which is even further, and it's typically referred to as 222 nm (nanometers).
Scientists have discovered that this specific wavelength of light can rapidly disinfect air without causing harm to humans. Normally, UV light can cause skin cancer, deterioration in skin, and is harmful to the eyes. However, this 222 nm wavelength appears to not cause harm to humans, which is a huge potential breakthrough, if true.
So, we decided that while we wouldn’t explore the experimental side of things (since that’s not our expertise), we could focus on conducting a cost-benefit analysis to determine if this technology is both useful and cost-effective, and whether it should be further researched.
Sabine (00:05:01):
Here’s a schematic of how the disinfection works: in one case, people are exposed to pathogens, and those who are under the light cone are much less exposed. The reason why UVC light is considered safe at this wavelength is that, unlike normal UV radiation—which can penetrate the skin layers, affect living cells, and potentially cause tumors—222 nm light does not penetrate beyond the first layer of skin, which is made up of dead cells.Sabine (00:05:43):
There’s no risk of cancer with this type of light, and the same goes for the eyes. It doesn’t penetrate deeply into the eye, causing damage. Instead, it’s absorbed by the tear layer, the water on top of your eye.Now, I want to tell you a bit more about our study and methodology. When studying disease transmission, you need to focus on a set of scenarios where people are likely to get infected. In reality, the possibilities are vast and varied, so we decided to focus on a few key environments:
First, restaurants—because people can’t wear masks while eating, and they often sit together for long periods of time, talking and eating. Then, we looked at offices—because people spend a lot of time in offices. Finally, we focused on healthcare settings, like hospitals, where there are many susceptible individuals, so we might be able to protect vulnerable groups.
For each of these environments, we had to establish a set of parameters—lots of assumptions. While we didn’t have much data before COVID-19, now we have a lot of relevant data, including information on influenza, and general assumptions about how large a typical restaurant is in Europe, how many people it accommodates, how long people stay, and so on.
We input all of these parameters into a model called K, which was developed by the particle accelerator at Inland. They created this model during COVID to protect their own employees, but it turned out to be a really effective piece of software. In fact, it’s still in use today, and even the World Health Organization (WHO) has written their own version of this tool, called Area.
So, it’s a really reliable software that’s come out of this. In addition to all these parameters for the environments, we also had to consider the kinds of diseases we were modeling. For instance, we looked at how many people would be infected depending on the severity of the disease.
We focused on typical winter scenarios, where people get cold or the flu. For most people, these are minor nuisances, but for the elderly and vulnerable, they can still pose a serious threat. We also modeled more severe cases, such as a COVID-like wave, where many people are infected over a four-week period.
Sabine (00:08:17):
We modeled diseases similar to COVID in terms of mortality and hospitalization rates. Thirdly, we wanted to study something even more severe than COVID, as potential pandemics might be worse—lasting longer with higher mortality and hospitalization rates. Something like non-COVID diseases could be more likely to occur.Finally, we had to find a way to model the lamps, since they aren’t yet properly on the market. We translated their effectiveness into air changes per hour, which is typically what a ventilation or HEPA filtration system would provide. Based on scientific studies, this is the approach we used in the CH tool.
If you download the tool and use it on your computer, the interface will allow you to input details like the size of the room, whether people are wearing masks, and the ventilation rate. From there, we added the lamp data and other variables, such as how many people are in the space, how many are infected, and how long they will be there. The tool then calculates the likelihood of infections occurring in that particular scenario.
After applying all of our assumptions, we used the tool to calculate the number of infections, both with and without the lamps. By comparing these results, we could determine the number of infections that would be avoided if the lamps were present in these scenarios.
Once we had this data, we scaled it up—how often do these scenarios occur? For instance, how frequently does the wave or winter season bring such risks? Based on assumptions for specialization, mortality rates for COVID, and other factors, we could then calculate the cost savings for the healthcare system, as well as economic productivity gains from people not getting sick and missing work.
Lastly, we considered intangible benefits in terms of quality of life. Of course, it’s always nice not to get sick, and this can be quantified in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). If people die, the benefits are much larger, but avoiding illness still contributes significantly to the overall benefits.
Once we summed everything up, it became clear that the solution is definitely cost-effective. There are, of course, a lot of assumptions involved, but the results were promising.
Sabine (00:10:53):
So, we could be wrong here, but I doubt that we're so far off that it wouldn't be cost-effective. These lamps are not very expensive to manufacture, and they don't consume much energy. Given our initial assumption that they aren't harmful to humans, this seems to be a very promising technology, both during a normal winter and in pandemic scenarios. I think this is quite a significant finding. Even now, this winter, we could see extremely positive results if we had these lamps in our restaurants or offices.For example, in a normal winter, we calculated that every person in Switzerland would avoid 2.46 days of sickness if all restaurants, offices, and waiting rooms had these lamps. Even if only some of the restaurants and offices had them, any person visiting those places would still avoid 2.46 days of illness. To me, that's a substantial benefit. I'd much prefer avoiding sickness, lying in bed with a headache, or feeling miserable. Of course, during a COVID-like pandemic, the benefits would be even greater. The net benefits, as we calculated, would be around 19 billion Swiss Francs, which is significant.
That being said, we didn't account for more complex infection models, like the SIR models, where we track how many susceptible people are there and how many are infected. So, these figures should be taken with some caution, but I believe the results are still reasonable.
Finally, we also compared these lamps to HEPA filtration, which is already available for use today. There's not much negative policy concern about HEPA filtration; it's something you can just implement. However, we found that the lamps are similarly effective, if not more so. HEPA filters tend to be quite noisy, especially when used at high throughput, and that’s something you might not want in your office. The lamps also use less energy, which makes them a better option from a sustainability perspective, if you care about the environment.
Sabine (00:13:43):
Alright, so finally, I want to tell you about the way forward. We've now completed our study, which includes cost-benefit analysis, but we still need more real-world trials, visibility studies, and safety evaluations. I believe this technology has great potential, but I'm not 100% certain yet. It seems that the cancer risk is quite low, but there are other concerns, such as potential allergies and how continuous exposure to the light may affect people. There's also a lack of research on how it impacts vulnerable groups, like children, the elderly, or individuals who are especially susceptible to UV radiation. This needs further study, and it could also be tested on animals. For example, if you have a farm with pigs or chickens, this technology might be used to protect them from diseases, and that could be another avenue of research.Another thing we advocate for is better monitoring of indoor air quality. In our literature research, we found that it’s very difficult to get data on how well-ventilated UK restaurants are. This isn't something that is readily documented, nor is there consistent information on the CO2 levels in average office spaces. There are some suggestions, but it's not concrete data.
Sabine (00:14:56):
So, we should definitely study that further and identify problem areas where UVC could help, or even explore other forms of protecting against viruses and improving air quality. We also see a lot of potential in the state—if the state or federal governments acted as role models by implementing far UVC in their buildings or improving air quality monitoring, that would be an excellent example for others. They're in a great position to set the standard. If we want to change policy, we need them to adapt and consider modifying the exposure limits to acknowledge that this might not be as harmful as other UV radiation.Sabine (00:15:41):
Finally, we would like to see critical infrastructure equipped with far UVC lamps if it proves to be harmless. This is particularly important for pandemic preparedness, as it's likely that we will face another severe pandemic in the next 25 years. It would be wise to be well-prepared, and in my opinion, far UVC provides a solution that is independent of other supply chains. It’s a completely different technology compared to vaccines or masks, and it’s important to diversify your response portfolio. That way, if something goes wrong in one supply chain, you can rely on another.Sabine (00:16:20):
We also mapped this out in the theory of change schematic, which is something you might be familiar with in the EA community. Our input consists of research and information. The study we conducted feeds into that flow. From there, we aim for outputs such as increased monitoring and public administration considering this technology. Next, we hope to see people actually implementing UV and investing in far UVC lamps. Ultimately, the impact would be healthier, more resilient communities, with individuals protected from infectious diseases and better preparedness for future pandemics.Sabine (00:17:01):
That was a quick overview of the topic. If you'd like to learn more about our methodology and results, we published a white paper on the P website, as well as teasers on both the P and D-fine websites. You can scan this QR code to find the study.Sabine (00:17:44):
Lastly, I want to acknowledge the many external advisors who helped us with this study. As a chemist, I don't have a proper biology background, and many of my colleagues had different areas of expertise as well. We also worked with some people who focused more on the policy side, and they didn’t have a biological background either. These advisors were absolutely crucial, offering insights on pandemics, virus transmission, how UVC can tackle pathogens, and even the reality of healthcare environments, like hospitals. We also had connections with some EA organizations, such as the International Center for Future Generations and Fire Security, who were extremely helpful in guiding us.Sabine (00:18:26):
It's been really great that they agreed to help. That said, I have a slight impression that the EA community is a bit of a bubble, and policymakers also view that as a challenge. Some of them have even called us a “bubble,” which shows there's potential for growth. We definitely need more studies from diverse sources and input from a variety of people to get this off the ground.Sabine (00:19:05):
With that, I want to thank my team. Here are the people from D-fine who worked together on this project. I also want to thank you for your attention, and I'm happy to answer any questions. [Applause]Moderator (00:19:20):
I did actually have a question on that. How do you convert this into air changes? That seems like it might have a big effect on your results. So, you say your model increases the number of air changes—I’m just curious how you do that.Sabine (00:19:49):
Yes, that was the most mathematical part of the study. So, there was experimental evidence where they had a small chamber with a constant inflow of virus material and constant irradiation. They measured the changes in virus concentration per volume unit. Then, this was extrapolated to larger volumes. You could then estimate the area, or the volume, where viruses were killed. Instead of removing the virus, we focused on inactivating it. It’s essentially the same result—killing the virus, but inactivation is the key.Moderator (00:20:31):
That makes sense. So, air changes are just about that volume? And it doesn't change other parameters like the removal of ozone or anything?Sabine (00:20:50):
Yes, exactly. It doesn't change other parameters like the removal of ozone. It’s just focused on the pathogens and their inactivation through exposure to the light.Moderator (00:21:00):
Got it, thanks. I have various other questions. One of them is about the mechanism. Why does it kill the virus but not harm humans? I think you touched on that earlier.Sabine (00:21:11):
Yes, I went into why it doesn’t harm humans, but for pathogens, there are two main ways it inactivates them. First, it destroys the surface proteins, which are essential for their ability to infect. Without these surface proteins, the virus can’t dock with host cells and becomes non-infectious. The virus isn’t technically dead, but it’s rendered harmless. The second method is that it can damage the DNA and RNA of the virus. The reason this doesn’t happen with humans is that we have protective layers—especially the outer dead layers of skin.Moderator (00:21:52):
Right, that makes sense.Moderator (00:22:00):
Another question regarding the 2.4 sick days—it seems quite high. How many sick days does the average person take? I guess it could depend on several factors.Sabine (00:22:55):
Yes, so in Switzerland, we found that the average number of sick days is around X days per person. How many of these days are due to infections—like colds or flu—depends on various factors. Some of them might be from children or older adults who don’t work. Our assumption was that this applies to the entire population, and the statistical institute in Switzerland provided the data. However, it doesn’t specify how many of these sick days were directly caused by viral infections, so that’s something we can’t be sure of.Moderator (00:23:31):
I see. It sounds like most of those days are probably due to illnesses, but you’re right—there may be variations based on age.Sabine (00:23:55):
Exactly. The majority of sick days in younger adults might come from airborne diseases, but for people aged 50 and older, the reasons for sick days could be very different. It's likely that age group would have different contributing factors to their sick days.Sabine (00:23:27):
So, I think the exact numbers maybe don't matter too much. It does seem like it's hard to put exact numbers on, but it’s something to be taken with caution.Moderator (00:23:50):
There are a lot of questions about personal use. I don’t know if that’s available, but do you think the cost-benefit analysis justifies using it in your own home, or do you think that's not worth it?Sabine (00:24:06):
Well, a lamp would cost about $1,500, depending on the size of the room. You would likely need more than one. There’s also a long wait time—apparently, there's only one manufacturer for the actual lamp component in Japan, and then other distributors sell the casing and the circuitry. We considered buying one, but we didn’t, mostly because of the wait time.Moderator (00:24:43):
So, are there places already using these lamps, or is it just a theory for now?Sabine (00:24:43):
No, everything I’ve shown is already approved in the EU, and in the UK as well. In the US, they even allow for higher exposure limits, so more lamps could be used. There are manufacturers who are selling these lamps, and they’ve done some showcases. For example, there’s a cafe in Copenhagen where they’ve installed these lamps. There’s also a hospital waiting room in Copenhagen where the lamps are being used to protect patients and those accompanying them. Apparently, they’ve also sold a lot of lamps to countries in the East for use in schools. So, while regulations are in place, you just need to convince those in charge. But yes, these lamps are already in use, especially in the US by various companies.Sabine (00:25:18):
Yes, it’s more of a manufacturing issue at the moment. And the question is also how hospitals would handle it. There’s still a lot of exploration to be done.Moderator (00:26:26):
I would imagine that commensals on our skin are presumably UV-resistant because we go outside. But, that's something that hasn’t been well studied yet.Sabine (00:26:26):
Yes, that’s not well-studied, but I wouldn’t use it in a way that is harmful. The intensity would be much higher than sunlight. Just like how we protect ourselves from sunlight—by going into the shade or using sunscreen—there are measures you would take to protect yourself.Moderator (00:27:00):
Kind of a personal question now—what advice would you give to people who are interested in doing a project like this, or following your example, even if they don’t know where to start?Sabine (00:27:29):
Definitely come to conferences like this, so you’ve already made a good start. We found our collaboration partner at an EA conference. The EA community is very open to collaboration. So, speaking to others and sharing your ideas with organizations is a great first step.Sabine (00:28:01):
That’s what worked for me. I was the project manager, so I had to maintain a certain degree of motivation and push others to keep going. Sometimes that’s necessary. It wasn't just me; we had other people involved, which helped a lot.Sabine (00:28:42):
We had a tricky period between January and March of this year. We started in November and finished by August or September. But in March, one of the team members gained additional momentum, which really helped us finish the project. Having external advisors was also really important. They kept me on track and motivated me to deliver a good product. So, having external accountability helps a lot. I’d say—tell people about your project, get them involved, and that will help you stay motivated and push it forward.Moderator (00:29:17):
Let me just take a look... yeah, there are plenty of questions. One thing I’m curious about: What are the dangers of this? For example, how does it not harm humans?Sabine (00:30:01):
So, there are quite a few studies now on how UV-C light affects skin. They mostly use artificial skin, which is supposedly a good model. I think there are also some models on pig skin, which is apparently quite similar to human skin, and then shaved mice. There were also some researchers who exposed themselves to UV-C light directly, so they didn’t have to go through an ethics review. They really exposed themselves for long periods and didn’t see any redness, rash, or other reactions. But, yeah, there haven’t been any large-scale trials on humans being directly exposed to the lamps yet. If the lamps cause serious issues, we’ll likely know that quite quickly, even if that’s not the most scientific approach. UV-C light is part of sunlight, so it’s not something completely new—it's just more intense in these lamps.Sabine (00:30:37):
As for HEPA filters, they’re quite well known. I mean, they’re a bit of an investment, but you can easily buy them online. A good unit might cost around $600, maybe less if it doesn’t have a very high filtration rate. You do sometimes need to change the filter, but as I mentioned, they make some noise, and typical filtration systems are also okay. The issue with older buildings is that most don’t have these systems installed—apart from maybe windows or something. I imagine it would be easier to install a UV-C lamp rather than a full HEPA filtration system, so that could be quite useful.Moderator (00:31:50):
Now that you’ve completed this project, do you have any plans for future work or projects? Any extra plans? Just curious about what you’re thinking next.Sabine (00:32:08):
One thing I’ll definitely do is follow up on any questions or emails I receive. We’ve already had some outcomes from the study. For example, a US manufacturer of handheld devices has expressed interest in having us do another study of their device. I’m not sure if we’ll pursue that, but we can certainly help them find a European partner. I’m also considering applying for an LB Fellowship from John Hopkins University, which is focused on leadership in biosecurity. I think this would connect me to a lot of people in the biosecurity space, though I’m not sure I have much of a chance because my background is somewhat different. But, I’m going to try!Moderator (00:32:59):
I was curious—what do you do with the report once it’s finished? How do you let people know about it, or what’s the publication process like?Sabine (00:33:19):
We did a LinkedIn post about it. We also published it internally and announced it through the newsletter at our organization. The newsletter goes out to our partners. We presented it at EA (Effective Altruism) for this year’s conference. We also submitted it to an academic journal—whether it gets accepted or not, we’ll see. I think we will continue applying to present it at academic conferences, and P, who focuses more on policy, will approach policymakers and government officials with the study. I believe they’re already doing that, but they will continue these efforts.
Key Takeaways on Impact in Preventing Treatable Diseases:
Using the UVC lamp, every person in Switzerland in Winter would avoid 2.46 days of illness.
The net benefit of using the lamp is calculated to be 19 billion Swiss Francs.
Cost-benefit analyses for this lamp prove positive, but more real-world trials, visibility studies, and safety evaluation need to be conducted.
It’s likely that we will face another severe pandemic in the next 25 years, and so it is vital that critical infrastructure is equipped with UVC lamps.
