6 ms·

Isn't an air exchanger better?

• _Microft 4y ago
  According to the article, it is not: "The efficacy of different approaches to reducing indoor virus levels is usually measured in terms of equivalent air changes per hour. In this study, far-UVC lamps produced the equivalent of 184 equivalent air exchanges per hour. This surpasses any other approach to disinfecting occupied indoor spaces, where five to 20 equivalent air changes per hour is the best that can be achieved practically." For a better understanding, 184 exchanges per hour would mean one exchange per 19 to 20 seconds on average. For a room 5m wide, that would be a windspeed of 0.25m/s if one actually, physically exchanged the air in the room. That would be almost (or maybe already) perceptible.
• solarmist 4y ago
  Not even close. This would dramatically improve air quality (infection wise) in all situations.
  • tormock 4y ago
    I think that they are ignoring other factors.
• angry_octet 4y ago
  It is better, because it doesn't create interesting chemistry. There are all sorts of products produced from normal pollutants and cleaning agents (sodium hypochlorite) with the extra energy from UV.