Back

UV inactivation of bacteria and viruses on surfaces: mechanistic insights and testing method comparisons

Ma, B.; Seyedi, S.; Linden, K.

2026-06-24 microbiology
10.64898/2026.06.23.734141 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Germicidal UV devices offer a promising solution to mitigate surface-mediated pathogen transmission, providing effective disinfection without material corrosion. This study evaluated the surface inactivation kinetics of two bacteria and two bacteriophages using a low-pressure (LP) mercury UV lamp (254 nm) and a filtered krypton chloride (KrCl*) excimer lamp (222 nm). Three deposition methods (Spray, Spread, and Pipette) and two extraction methods (Swab and Elute) were compared. The UV dose response on surfaces followed a two-region non-linear model due to shielding from dried deposition constituents, primarily through UV absorption. KrCl* excimer exhibited similar bacterial inactivation but slightly lower viral inactivation than LP UV lamp (maximum inactivation [~] 1 log lower), but its safety profile makes it compelling in occupied spaces. Compared to aqueous conditions, bacteria were more UV sensitive on surfaces, whereas viruses were more resistant. The deposition methods affected the inactivation results, with the Spray method resulting in higher bacteria inactivation. While the extraction methods had limited effect on inactivation efficacy, the Swab method provided higher inactivation detection limits ([~] 2 log higher) and more consistent extraction efficiency. This study provides mechanistic insights into the effects of deposition conditions, UV wavelengths, and microbial characteristics on UV surface disinfection and contributes to standardization of testing methods. TOC Graphic O_FIG O_LINKSMALLFIG WIDTH=200 HEIGHT=104 SRC="FIGDIR/small/734141v1_ufig1.gif" ALT="Figure 1"> View larger version (24K): org.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@11db511org.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@15aa3faorg.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@1c39ac9org.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@e726ed_HPS_FORMAT_FIGEXP M_FIG C_FIG

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 5%
28.8%
2
Photochemistry and Photobiology
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
20.1%
3
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 10%
6.8%
50% of probability mass above
4
Indoor Air
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.7%
5
Applied and Environmental Microbiology
339 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.9%
6
Frontiers in Microbiology
427 papers in training set
Top 4%
2.3%
7
Journal of Hospital Infection
29 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.8%
8
Environmental Science & Technology Letters
21 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.4%
9
Microbiology Spectrum
469 papers in training set
Top 8%
1.2%
10
Journal of Microbiological Methods
13 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.2%
11
mSphere
302 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.2%
12
PeerJ
308 papers in training set
Top 7%
1.2%
13
Environmental Science & Technology
64 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.1%
14
Langmuir
36 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.9%
15
ACS ES&T Water
20 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.9%
16
Environmental Pollution
37 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
17
Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology
32 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.9%
18
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
128 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.7%
19
Access Microbiology
25 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.7%
20
Biophysical Journal
631 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.5%
21
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology
17 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.5%
22
Applied Sciences
25 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.5%
23
Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety
10 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.5%
24
Journal of Visualized Experiments
34 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.5%