2018
DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2018.05.021
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Impact of UVA pre-radiation on UVC disinfection performance: Inactivation, repair and mechanism study

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

4
37
1

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
3

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 68 publications
(42 citation statements)
references
References 40 publications
4
37
1
Order By: Relevance
“…While, 310 nm is still found to produce lesions in DNA that damage microorganisms. These findings are consistent with the other studies in literature [71,73]. Just open this same document with Adobe Reader.…”
Section: E Coli Inactivation Efficiencysupporting
confidence: 92%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…While, 310 nm is still found to produce lesions in DNA that damage microorganisms. These findings are consistent with the other studies in literature [71,73]. Just open this same document with Adobe Reader.…”
Section: E Coli Inactivation Efficiencysupporting
confidence: 92%
“…Similarly, lower log inactivation of 0.92, 0.90 and 0.63 was also obtained in sequential irradiation of 267, 275 and 310 nm followed by the 370 nm UV-LED, respectively ( Figure 5). These results indicate that the 370 nm UV-LED irradiation could have functioned in repairing the already UV damaged DNA, rather than further damaging it [70,71]. This assumption could be possible since the 370 nm is within the range of photo-repair light, 300-480 nm [13,14].…”
Section: E Coli Inactivation Efficiencymentioning
confidence: 82%
“…[29]. Our previous data were supported by Xiao Y., et al [30] and Song K., et al [31] who showed some synergistic inactivation effects on E. coli by the suppression of DNA repair using combined 265/365 nm UV-LED irradiations. However, some reports showed that the combination of 265/280 nm UV-LEDs had no synergistic effect on E. coli [17,31].…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 63%
“…It is difficult to precisely compare UV disinfection constants because the strains of E. coli, the source of the UV lamps (low-pressure or medium-pressure mercury lamps or UV-LED), and the irradiation apparatus are different among reports. The DUV-LED WW disinfection method described here offers a unique apparatus configuration, and this apparatus is different from other previously reported UV disinfection procedures, in which contaminated suspensions were placed in Petri dishes containing magnetic spin bars and rotated during UV exposure [18][19][20][21][22][23]32,33]. However, the disinfection constant obtained in this study, K EC = 0.37 (cm 2 /mJ), almost coincides with the most frequently reported values, such as 0.29 cm 2 /mJ by using a 260 nm LED [20], 0.37 cm 2 /mJ by using a 265 nm LED [34], and 0.303 cm 2 /mJ by using a 253.7 nm mercury vapor lamp [35].…”
Section: Theoretical Analysis Of the Disinfection Ratesmentioning
confidence: 99%