top of page

Is the A.I.R. device user exposed to UV light?

Updated: Sep 30, 2020

Answer: No


Testing has shown that the person wearing the AIR Device (aka AIR Solo) is not exposed to any detectable level of UV exposure while using the device. Tests conducted include using an ultraviolet sensor to measure any UV light reflected or directed back into the direction of the user. The results showed no measurable amount of UV light was detected by the sensor when positioned in the face opening of the prototype model.

___________________________________________________


Update:

Tests conducted include using a UV sensor to measure any UV reflected back to the user. Tests conducted include using an ultraviolet sensor to measure any UV light reflected or directed back into the direction of the user. The results showed no measurable amount of UV irradiation was detected by the sensor when positioned in the face opening of a test head analog.


___________________________________________________


Additional Testing:

Using a UVC Radiometer placed the the airway opening of the device, the sensor is positioned to detect any UVC directed towards the user. As with the previous tests, the results showed no measurable amount of UV irradiation was directed towards the user.


___________________________________________________


Additional Testing: Update #3

Using more sensitive equipment which measures peak UVC output you can see that the device puts out a total of 40,000.0uW/cm2 - 45,000.0uW/cm2 UVC exposure. The sensor reading peak exposure from the user side of the device receives 0000.4uW/cm2 or 0.000001% of the irradiation.

___________________________________________________


Additional Notes:

As demonstrated the Solo irradiates approximately 40,000.0uW/cm2 - 45,000.0uW/cm2 UVC forward dosage but it should be noted that this forward irradiation does not expose others to UVC light. This is because the diffuser lens and user's mask both disperse and absorb the UVC irradiation as designed. The photo below demonstrates this.


1,254 views3 comments

Recent Posts

See All

3 Comments


The interpretation of the LS125 UVC meter’s readings appears to be incorrect.


Most importantly, in the photo supposedly demonstrating a safe UVC dose on the user side of the mask, the only thing being measured is the real-time power value of the light source: .4 microwatts per centimeter squared per second.


You are not measuring the cumulative dose over time, which is what matters for the purposes of safety evaluation, and this value is given in joules.


Even the relatively low intensity of .4 microwatts/cm2 will reach the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists recommended exposure limit of 3.40 millijoules/cm2 for eyes in less than 2 ½ hours, a plausible period of time for someone to be wearing a mask.…


Like

Barry Brumitt
Barry Brumitt
Sep 21, 2020

I am highly skeptical of the UVC emission tests you have performed to ensure no 280nm light is reflecting off of the back of the inside of the mask and onto the wearers face.


You show two images of tests. In the first, the blue meter shown has a detection range of 254 +/-8nm, while the General brand meter is in UVA/UVB mode, which has a near -zero responsiveness at 280nm, the bottom of its range. Even if it were in UVC mode, that range tops out at 275nm. Thus, neither test provides any meaningful information about 280nm emissions. This seems deceptive.


Can you explain?


Like
Abdel Khan
Abdel Khan
Jul 22, 2021
Replying to

Please can we have a response to this concern

Like
bottom of page