TR2024011774A2 - DISINFECTING LAMP USING DAYLIGHT - Google Patents

Abstract

The subject of the invention relates to the use of pulse driving technique in the spectrum of visible light between 435-525nm in order to provide disinfection together with illumination. It relates to a lighting device with disinfection feature to be used in the destruction of pathogenic microorganisms and viruses in individual and/or collective areas such as homes, offices, restaurants, hospitals, factories by using the lethal effect of the pulse effect on microorganisms and viruses in the spectrum of visible light between 435-525nm. The invention provides illumination in the full visible light spectrum (405-770) while at the same time it can perform continuous disinfection with LEDs (122,123) in the visible blue-green light spectrum (425-525nm). As a result of driving the LEDs (122,123) with the pulse method in the blue-green light spectrum, it has the feature of providing much more energy and combining the features of illumination and disinfection. Based on the subject of the invention, it can be produced in different sizes and shapes (square, rectangle, circle, etc.) and continuous disinfection can be provided in public areas (office, factory, hospital, etc.). It has the feature of being converted to types that can work with 12-24V DC in addition to 220V. In this way, the ambulance subject of the invention can be adapted to be used in all types of public transportation such as land-sea-air.

Description

DESCRIPTION DISINFECTING LAMP USING DAYLIGHT Subject of the Invention: It relates to the use of pulse driving technique in the spectrum of visible light between 435-525nm in order to provide disinfection together with illumination. The Invention: It relates to a lighting device with disinfection feature to be used in the destruction of pathogenic microorganisms and viruses in individual and/or public areas such as homes, offices, restaurants, hospitals, factories by utilizing the lethal effect of the pulse effect in the spectrum of visible light between 435-525nm on microorganisms and viruses. State of the Art: Regarding visible light disinfection, the ancient Egyptians reported the health benefits of sun exposure approximately six thousand years ago, while ancient Greek, Roman, and Arab cultures similarly recognized the therapeutic value of sunlight (e.g., Aldahan 2016). The benefits of phototherapy (or more specifically, heliotherapy) were scientifically supported by Downes and Blunt (1877), who reported that bacteria were inactivated by sunlight and that violet-blue light was the most effective. Ward (1894) measured this antibacterial effect by dispersing sunlight with a prism and reflecting it onto an agar plate containing colonies of anthrax bacteria (Bacillus anthracis). Inhibition of colonies clearly demonstrated the spectrum of sunlight, demonstrating that blue light (B) was the most effective. The work of Downes and Blunt encouraged Niels Finsen, a Danish medical researcher, to conduct further research, and after initial experiments with natural light in the early 1890s, he developed an apparatus using electric carbon arcs, which later became known as the “Finsen light” (Grzybowsky and Pietzrak 2012). Finsen began his experiments using common glass lenses to focus the electric arc emission, but he knew from the work of Ward (1894) and others that ultraviolet radiation was germicidal and therefore replaced these lenses with fused quartz. However, Moller et al. (2005), Finsen used methylthioninium chloride ("methylene blue") in solution as a heat-absorbing filter. This dye, likely unbeknownst to Finsen, absorbs ultraviolet radiation with wavelengths shorter than 340 nm. Therefore, the Finsen light produced ultraviolet-A radiation and visible light, but not germicidal ultraviolet-B radiation. However, the use of the Finsen light in the treatment of lupus vulgaris (a painful skin infection caused by Mycobacterium tuberculosis) was an astonishing success. Between 1886 and 1901, the Finsen Institute treated 804 patients, and 83 percent of them recovered. For this work, Finsen received the 1903 Nobel Prize in Medicine or Physiology. The science of phototherapy was (re)born. How the Method Works Germicidal lamps, including low-pressure mercury vapor arc lamps that emit 254-nm UV-C radiation, Kr-Cl* excimer lamps that emit 222-nm UV-C radiation, and LEDs that emit narrow-band UV-B or UV-C radiation, work by disrupting the DNA of bacterial and fungal spores and the DNA or RNA of viruses. This disables the cellular machinery of bacterial and fungal spores, preventing them from multiplying. Visible light differs in that individual photons do not have sufficient energy to damage DNA or RNA. Bacteria, fungi, and protozoa contain intracellular (endogenous) porphyrins that absorb visible light strongly in a region of the spectrum called the Soret band. These photosensitizers ultimately transfer the energy of the photon to an oxygen molecule within the cell, producing a “reactive oxygen species” (ROS) molecule such as singlet oxygen or hydrogen peroxide, which is highly reactive and cytotoxic (e.g., Kumar et al. 2015, Ramakrishnan et al. 2009). It is the ROS that inactivate the cell by disrupting its cellular machinery (e.g., Plavskii et al. 2014). However, it is important to note that this is the prevailing theory; there is evidence for different explanations of how visible light inactivates pathogens; these include different photosensitizers, such as riboflavin, which acts at 450 nm (e.g., Hönes et al. 2018, Tomb et al. 2018) and different cellular inactivation mechanisms (e.g., Tomb et al. 2018, Halstead et al. 2019). Viruses differ from bacteria, fungi, and protozoa in that they do not contain porphyrins and therefore are theoretically insensitive to blue light. However, there is increasing evidence that they may be sensitive. The germicidal effects of visible light have been shown at wavelengths between approximately 380 nm and 740 nm, but the highest efficacy has been demonstrated at approximately 405 nm, the nominal wavelength used by visible light disinfection products (e.g., Rutula). Various photosensitizers (exogenous photosensitizers) are used in photodynamic therapy, where the drugs are absorbed by diseased cells and then activated by exposure to visible light. The resulting ROS then trigger cell inactivation in the diseased tissue. Typical applications include the treatment of acne, macular degeneration, psoriasis, atherosclerosis, and malignant cancers (e.g., Hamblin and Hasan 2004). This issue has been raised by the U.S. Federal Drug Administration (FDA) regarding the use of 405 nm in hospitals, particularly where patients may be receiving drugs with known photosensitizing effects. This is relevant to visible light disinfection because it may be chosen to regulate the use of nm light as a potential photosensitizer. Visible light disinfection has a solid scientific basis for medical applications. However, its utility in disinfecting enclosed architectural spaces, from hospital operating rooms to residential kitchens, is significantly more nuanced. Knowing how visible light disinfection works doesn't answer the question: What radiation intensity and visible light dose are required to achieve satisfactory results? The first step is to define our measurement terms. Irradiance, measured in milliwatts per square centimeter (mW/cm²), is the radiant equivalent of illuminance (measured in lumens per square centimeter). Dose may be a less familiar concept to lighting designers, but it is irradiance multiplied by the exposure time in seconds, giving joules per square centimeter (i.e., watt-seconds) (J/cm²). It is the radiant equivalent of light energy, but we never need to consider this unit in lighting design. The next step is to understand what it means to "inactivate" pathogens in practical terms. When exposed to continuous irradiation, whether visible light or ultraviolet radiation, the inactivation rate is initially exponential. So, if 90 percent of pathogens are inactivated after (say) one hour, 90 percent of the surviving pathogens will be inactivated after another hour. Thus, there will be 90 percent inactivation after one hour, 99 percent after two hours, 99.9 percent after three hours, and so on. It is often more convenient to express these numbers in log 10 ("log-ten") units, where one log unit represents 99.9 percent, and so on. (Another term for log 10 units is "D value.") The degree of disinfection will depend on the application. For example, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requires sterilized surgical instruments to have D values of six or more (99.9999 percent inactivation), assuming that remaining pathogens are too few in number to cause infection. However, it is common to specify 90 percent or one log 10 inactivation for visible light disinfection. While reducing pathogen counts by 90% may not seem particularly beneficial, it is important to remember that visible light disinfection, such as ultraviolet-C disinfection in a hospital, should always be considered an adjunct to terminal cleaning. Its primary purpose is not to destroy existing bacterial colonies but rather to prevent their growth before the next terminal cleaning. Species and Strains Different strains (i.e., genetic variants) of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) can be identified depending on laboratory conditions. may require doses ranging from 13.7 to 1200 J/cm (e.g., Tomb et al. 2018). In general, it can be expected that differences in dose observed for a single species from different laboratory studies can be up to an order of magnitude; fungi and viruses require significantly higher doses than most bacteria (Hessling et al. 2017, Tomb et al. 2018). For testing purposes, pathogens can be grown as colonies in Petri dishes or in solution growth media, or, for airborne species, nebulized (i.e., aerosolized). Their sensitivity to visible light can depend on the irradiation intensity, exposure time, relative humidity, growth medium, oxygen concentration, density (expressed as colony-forming units per milliliter, or CFU/ml), and pathogen strain. Biofilms To complicate matters further, bacteria can form biofilms on surfaces to protect themselves against desiccation, antibiotics, the host immune system, and other environmental factors. Biofilms are common in nature, including hospitals and residences. The films themselves are not living, but they can protect bacteria from inactivation by ultraviolet radiation, particularly 222 nm UV-C. (One argument in favor of far-UV is that shorter wavelengths cannot significantly penetrate corneal and skin cells to cause DNA damage. The same argument is assumed to apply to organic biofilms.) However, McKenzie et al. (2013), Halstead, (201%), and Huang et al. (2022) report that 405 nm visible light is an effective treatment for some bacterial species encapsulated in biofilms. Blue Light Resistance Within any microbial population, there will be a small fraction that is unusually resistant to UV radiation. After 99% of the population has been inactivated, it is not uncommon for the inactivation rate to decrease significantly (e.g., Enwemeka et al. 2008, Kowalski 2009). In other words, higher doses are needed to inactivate surviving pathogens. (The same principle applies to bacteria that develop resistance due to the overuse of antibiotic drugs.) Fortunately, by design, visible light disinfection generally does not aim to eliminate microbial populations, but only to limit their growth or, at best, achieve 90% inactivation. Therefore, pathogens are unlikely to develop blue light resistance because there is little evolutionary pressure to do so. Indeed, studies with sublethal blue light doses (e.g., Amin et al. 2016, Tomb et al. 2017a, Leanse et al. (2018) showed that bacteria do not develop blue light resistance. However, Guffey et al. (2013) reported a counterexample with Staphylococcus aureus. Hessling et al. (2022b) provide a further data point: adding 5600K white light LEDs (with a very prominent peak at approximately 450 nm due to the blue pump LEDs) to 90% reduction of Staphylococcus sp. bacteria on glazed ceramic reduced this to 3.5 hours, but the visual appearance of the illumination was well away from the Planckian locus and was definitely purplish in color. Viruses and Bacteriophages Whether viruses and bacteriophages (viruses that infect bacteria) are sensitive to visible light is an ongoing topic of research. Porphyrins or other endogenous ROS-producing It has been suggested that they should not be susceptible because they do not contain photosensitizers. However, viruses studied in the laboratory may have been suspended in organic-rich growth media such as fetal bovine serum, which can generate ROS (Tomb et al. 2017b, De Santis et al. 2020, Stasko et al. 2021, Hessling et al. 2022a). Additionally, host cells may have endogenous photosensitizers (Tomb et al. 2014, Rathnasinghe et al. 2021). Alternatively, host cells may be inactivated due to increased production of harmful proteins by bacteriophages (Halstead et al. 2019). On the other hand, some studies have examined viruses in phosphate-buffered saline, which also has endogenous However, these studies are mostly limited to enveloped viruses (which include coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV-2). There is evidence that visible light can directly inactivate viruses, but the reasons are still being investigated. Enwemeka et al. (2021a) and Hessling et al. (2022a) provide excellent summaries. Hessling et al. (2022a) particularly note that riboflavin in solution can have a large effect on photoinactivation results and that virus reduction by visible light may require significantly higher doses under other conditions, such as in air. Different Wavelengths Most visible light disinfection studies conducted to date have focused on the spectral region between 385 nm and 420 nm (Hessling et al. 2017, Tomb et al. 2018). However, visible light The bactericidal effects of light have also been shown at wavelengths up to 740 nm (Hessling et al. 2017). These are likely due to the absorption properties around 450 nm of different endogenous photosensitizers, such as riboflavin (Hönes, K., et al. 2018). However, the dose required for inactivation generally increases exponentially with wavelength. Spectral Interactions Most studies to date have also focused on the narrow spectral bands produced by quasimonochromatic LEDs. One study investigated the combination of 405 nm blue light as an antibacterial agent and 880 nm near-infrared radiation as a tissue repair agent, but 880 nm radiation alone was found to promote bacterial growth (Guffey and Wilbom 2006). In another study, A phosphor-coated white LED array with a temperature (CCT) that inactivates SARS-CoV-2 viruses was used (De Santis et al. 2020). Gallagher (2018) noted that Enterococcus bacteria, while resistant to blue light, are sensitive to near- and mid-infrared radiation. Furthermore, the fungus Trichophyton rubrum (responsible for onychomycosis fungal infection) is sensitive to green light. Higher dose requirements may preclude these longer wavelengths from practical whole-room visible light disinfection, but further research is clearly needed. Pulsed Blue Light Several in vitro studies have investigated the effect of pulsed blue light on the effectiveness of visible light disinfection. For example, Gillespie et al. (2017) exposed MSRA bacteria to 116 mW/cm2 of 405 nm radiation. They found that varying the pulse width duty cycle from 25% to 100% had little effect on the dose required to achieve the same degree of inactivation. Pulse width modulation (PWM) frequency provided a 35% energy saving factor. The authors suggested that cell porphyrins become saturated with continuous exposure, and the off period of each cycle allows the absorbed light to unnecessarily absorb fewer photons, producing ROS. Masson-Meyers et al. (2019) similarly found that a duty cycle of 33% and a PWM frequency of 33 kHz were optimal for 450 nm radiation to treat acne vulgaris caused by the bacterium Propionibacterium acnes. The experiments involved microLEDs mounted on flexible plastic sheets applied to infected skin, but notably Thus, the heat required to achieve 100% destruction of bacteria was 40 to 100 times less than previously reported results for in vitro experiments involving MSRA bacteria. However, this involved repeated treatments every four hours, timed to coincide with the growth cycle of P. acnes, as opposed to a single exposure to bacterial cultures in the laboratory. Bumah et al. (2020) showed that 450 nm pulsed blue light suppressed the growth of MSRA and Propionibacterium acnes bacteria in planktonic cultures and bacterial biofilms. Three doses of 3 mW/cm2 and 7.6 J/cm2 were sufficient to completely eliminate MSRA bacteria in solution, while 2 mW/cm2 and 5 J/cm2 were sufficient to eliminate P. acnes bacteria. Assuming that “eradication” means 99.9% inactivation, this means that the doses required for 90% inactivation would be 3.8 J/cm² and 2.5 J/cm², respectively. Pulsed blue has been shown to inactivate various strains of human coronavirus, but efficacy varied by strain. Furthermore, the antiviral effect was more pronounced at higher than lower irradiances. Hospital Settings Most of the above studies were in vitro experiments conducted in laboratories. This is, of course, necessary to isolate specific species and strains and to control or eliminate the influence of environmental conditions such as ambient light and temperature, relative humidity, growth medium, and more. Investigating the in vivo effectiveness of visible light disinfection under real-world conditions is more challenging, even in hospital settings such as operating rooms and inpatient rooms. For example, they reported the use of two 405 nm LED arrays mounted on the ceiling in isolation rooms (Maclean et al. 2010). The authors referred to their visible light disinfection unit as a "High Intensity Narrow Spectrum Light Environmental Decontamination System" (HINS-light EDS). This is useful as Halstead et al. (2019) later described this device as “a ceiling-mounted LED array providing low-irradiance 405 nm light (irradiance intensity, 0.1 to 1000 nm) to continuously decontaminate surfaces in hospital operating rooms.” Bache et al. (2012) reported a significant reduction in the average number of bacterial colonies (27% to 75%) after use of the HINS-light EDS in over 1,000 environmental samples from inpatient isolation rooms and an outpatient clinic with 14-hour daily exposures. Furthermore, assuming an average irradiance of 0.3 mW/cm2, the dose would be 21.6 J/cm2. The study included Staphylococcus aureus and cited Maclean et al. (2008) From this previous laboratory study, the dose required for a 90% reduction was 9.8 J/cm2. While burn unit rooms were noted to have HEPA filters and daily final cleaning to minimize the risk of hospital-acquired wound infections, the results were commensurate with those expected from laboratory dose requirements. Maclean et al. (2013) reported a similar study using EDS units with HINS lights in occupied isolation rooms of intensive care units, but they focused on total bacterial contamination around the room rather than just MSRA bacteria. The units were again operated 14 hours a day, synchronized with hospital lighting. The authors reported an average 50% reduction in contamination levels while the units were in use. Furthermore, this included indirectly illuminated surfaces in the room, and there was a difference in bacterial reduction of approximately 221. Bache et al. (2017) compared these studies to burn unit isolation rooms. and found that there was no correlation between irradiance levels and bacterial inactivation in the range of 0.0023 mW/cm2 to 0.231 mW/cm2, but there was a strong correlation between exposure time (i.e., dose) and bacterial inactivation. The authors attributed this to the fact that bacteria remain suspended in the air almost indefinitely, which would expose them to higher global irradiance levels near the LED arrays due to air movement in the room. Relatedly, Dougall et al. (2018) reported that Staphylococcus epidermidis was three to four times more sensitive to 405 nm irradiation in aerosol form than in liquids or on surfaces. This is similar to the sensitivity of most pathogens to UV-C radiation (e.g., Freeman et al. 2022, Kowalski 2009). This is perhaps the most important factor in the use of ultraviolet radiation for whole-room disinfection. highlights the most significant difference between visible light and UV-C radiation. In most applications, UV-C radiation is used to disinfect the air, so proper airflow is a critical parameter. However, to date, visible light disinfection research has focused on surface disinfection. Maclean et al. (2013) suggest that air disinfection may also be involved, as the relatively modest 2:1 difference in bacterial reduction on shaded surfaces is surprising when, for example, radiation levels on tabletops are likely five or more times less than on exposed surfaces (assuming 20 percent floor reflectance). Rutala et al. (2018) investigated a 2-foot-long (2 ft²) "mixed white light" LED fixture equipped with two 2-foot-long (61 cm² x 61 cm) "blue light" LED fixtures. reported a study involving a 12.5 m2 windowless room. White light fixtures provided both disinfection radiation (probably 405 nm) and radiation intensities of 0.12 mW/cm2 to 0.16 mW/cm2 at the pathogen surface for use in an occupied room in normal clinical practice. It is clear that Whole Room Disinfection disinfection systems are useful as an adjunct to final cleaning in hospital environments. This includes both occupied patient rooms with continuous illumination and unoccupied spaces (such as operating rooms) where higher blue light radiations can be used. Typical radiations would be on the order of 0.1 to 0.44 mW/cm2, and typical exposure times to prevent pathogen proliferation would be 8 to 14 hours. References Aldahan. AS, et al. :896. Amin, RM, et al. 2016. " Antimicrobial Blue Light Inactivation of Pseudomonas aeruginosa by Photoexcitation of Endogenous Porphyrins: In Vitro and In Vivo Studies," Direct Application on a Sloping Surface of Normal and Hemispherical Surfaces. ASTM International. Bache, SE, et al. 2012. " Clinical Studies of a High Intensity Narrow Spectrum Light Environmental Decontamination System (HINS-light EDS) for Continuous Disinfection in Burn Unit Inpatient and Outpatient Environments," Burns 38:68-79. Bache, SE, et al. 2017. " Universal Decontamination of Hospital Surfaces in an Occupied Patient Room with a Continuous 405 nm Light Source," J. Hospital Infection Bumah, VV, et al. 2013. "Wavelength and Bacterial Density Affect the Bactericidal Effect of Blue Light on Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MSRA)", Bumah, VV, et al. 2013. "Wavelength and Bacterial Density Affect the Bactericidal Effect of Blue Light on Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MSRA)", Photomedical and Laser Surgery 31(3):547-553. Bumah, VS, et al. 2020. "Pulsed 450 nm Blue Light Suppresses MRSA and Propionibacterium acnes in Planktonic Cultures and Bacterial Biofilms," I. Photochemistry & Christensen, T., et al. 2021. "Skin Response to Violet-Blue Light Exposure: Is Protection Needed?, Photochemical and Photobiological Sciences 202615-625. Dai, T., et al. 2012. "Blue Light for Infectious Diseases: Propionibacterium acnes , Helicobacter pylori and Beyond?", Drug Resistance Update 15(4):223-236. De Santis, R., et al. 2020. "Rapid Inactivation of SARS-CoV-2 by LED Irradiation of Visible Spectrum Wavelengths," I. Photochemistry and Photobiology. Dougall, L. R., et al. 2018. "Antimicrobial Inactivation of Airborne Bacteria 405 Downes, A. and T. Blunt. 1877. "On the Effect of Light on Bacteria and Other Organisms Research," Proceedings of the Royal Society of London 26:488–5 00. Enwemeka, CS, et al. 2008. "Visible 405 nm SLD Light Photodestructs Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in Vitro," Lasers in Surgery and Medicine Enwemeka, CS, et al. 2020. "Light as a Potential Treatment for Pandemic Coronavirus Infections: A Perspective," I. Photochemistry & Photobiology B: Biology Enwemeka, CS, et al. 2021a. "UV and Blue Light in Photodestruction of Microorganisms Enwemeka, CS, et al. 2021a. "Pulsed Blue Light Inactivates Two Human Coronavirus Strains," I. Photochemistry and Photobiology B: Biology 222:112282. Freeman, S., et al. 2022. "Systematic Evaluation and Modeling of SARS-CoV-2 UVC Disinfection," Scientific Reports (2022)l2:5 869. Gillespie, J. B., et al. 2017. "Effectiveness of Pulsed 405-nm Light-Emitting Diodes for Antimicrobial Photodynamic Inactivation: Effects of Intensity, Frequency, and Duty Cycle," - Founder of Phototherapy in Dermatology," Dermatology Clinics 30:451-455. Guffey, J. S., et al. 2013. "Evidence of Resistance Development of Staphylococcus aureus to In Vitro, Multistage Application of 405 nm Light for a Superluminous Diode Array," Gwynne , PJ, and MP Gallagher. 2018. "As a Broad-Spectrum Antimicrobial Halstead, F. D., et al. 2019. "Violet-Blue Light Arrays at 405 nm Show Enhanced Antimicrobial Activity for Disinfection of Monomicrobial Hospital Biofilms," Hamblin, M. R., and T. Hasan. 2004. "Photodynamic Therapy: A New Antimicrobial Approach to Infectious Diseases?", Photochemistry and Photobiology Sciences 3(5):436–450. Hessling, M., et al. 2017. "Endogenous Photosensitizers and Photoinactivation of Bacteria by Exposure to Visible Light of Different Wavelengths - A Review of Available Data Hessling, M., et al. 2022a. "Virus Inactivation by Visible Light "Investigation", Hessling, M., et al. 2022b. "Surface Disinfection with White-Violet Illumination," Photoinactivation ," European Journal of Microbiology and Immunology 8(4): 142-148. Huang, Y., et al. 2020. "Inactivation Efficacy of 405 nm LED Against Cronobacter sakazakii Biofilm," Frontiers in Microbiology 1 1 :610077. Guidelines on." Health Physics 105(10:74-96. https://WWW. icnirp . org/ cms/upload/publications/ ICNIRPVisible_Infrared20 1 3 .pdf Kowalski, W. 2009. Handbook of Ultraviolet Germicidal Irradiation: Air and Surface UVGI for Disinfection. New York, NY: Springer. Kinetics of Inactivation and the Role of Endogenous Coproporphyrin in Bacterial Susceptibility," J. Lau, B., et al. 2021. "High Intensity Violet Light (405 nm) Inactivates Coronaviruses in Phosphate Saline (PBS) and on Surfaces," Photonics 101(8):414. Leanse, L. G., et al. 2018. "Evaluation of the Potential for Development of Resistance to Antimicrobial Blue Light (at 405 nm) in Gram-Negative Bacteria: In vitro and in vivo Lipovsky, A., et al. 2009. " Response of Staphylococcus aureus Strains to Broadband Visible Light" Maclean, M., et al. 2008. " Staphylococcus aureus," FEMS Microbiology Letters Maclean, M., et al. 2010. "Environmental Decontamination of a Hospital Isolation Room Using High-Intensity Narrow-Spectrum Light," J. Hospital Infection 76:247-251. Maclean, M., et al. 2013. "Continuous Decontamination of an Intensive Care Isolation Room During Patient Occupancy Using 405 nm Light Technology," J. Infection Maclean, M., et al. 2014. "405 nm Light Technology for Inactivation of Pathogens and Its Potential Role in Environmental Disinfection and Infection Control," J. Hospital Infection McKenZie, K., et al. 2013. "405 nm Photoinactivation of Bacteria Attached to Glass and Acrylic Surfaces by Light: Potential Application for Biofilm Decontamination," Photochemistry and Moller, KI, et al. 2005. "How Finsen's Light Cured Lupus vulgaris," Photodermatology, Photoimmunology and Photomedicine 2 1(3): 1 18-124. Murdoch, LE, et al. 2013. "High-Intensity Violet 405-nm Light Inactivates Dormant and Germinating Saccharomyces cereVisiae, Candida albicans, and Aspergillus niger." Murrell, LJ, et al. 2019. "Effect of a Visible Light Continuous Environmental Disinfection System on Microbial Contamination and Surgical Site Infections in an Orthopedic Operating Room," American J. Infection Control 47:804-810. Plavskii, VY, et al. 2018. "Porphyrins and Flavins as Endogenous Acceptors of Optical Radiation of the Blue Spectral Region Determining Photoinactivation of Microbial Cells," J. Photochemistry and Photobiology 183: 172-1 83. Ramakrishnan, P., et al. 2009. "Cytotoxic Responses to 405-nm Light Exposure in Mammalian and Bacterial Cells: Involvement of Reactive Oxygen Species," In Toxicology Rathnasinghe, R., et al. 2021. "Virucidal Effects of 405 nm Visible Light on SARS-CoV-2 and Inluenza A Virus", Scientific Reports 1 1(1 1): 19470. Rutala, W. A., et al. 2018. "Inactivation of a Continuous Visible Light Disinfection System Schuit, M., et al. 2020. "Simulated Sunlight Inhibition of Influenza Virus in Aerosols Stasko, N., et al. 2021. "Visible Blue Light Inhibits SARS-CoV-2 Infection and Replication at Doses Well-Tolerated by Human Respiratory Tissues," Scientific Tomb, R. M., et al. 2014. "Inactivation of Streptomyces phage F C31 by 405 nm Light: Requirements for Exogenous Photosensitizers?," Bacteriophage 1 : 1 -6. Tomb, R. M., et al. 2017a. "Antimicrobial Effects on Staphylococcus aureus Violet-Blue Tomb, RM, et al. 2017b. "New Proof of Concept in Viral Inactivation: Virus 9275-z by 405 nm Light Against Feline Calicivirus as a Model for Norovirus Decontamination. Investigation of the Comparative Sensitivity of Species to Photoinactivation, Photochemistry and Ward, H. M. 1894. "Effect of Light on Bacteria - III," Philosophical Translation. Royal Society of London B: Biology 185:961-986. Technical Problems the Invention Aims to Address Conventional disinfection methods used today cause health risks to humans and are also environmentally unfriendly and unsustainable. UVC radiation and the serious damage it inflicts on workers' eyes and skin are well known. Its degrading effect on materials also makes it unusable for room disinfection. Environmental UVC is problematic because UVC tubes need to be replaced frequently and contain mercury, so they become hazardous waste after their short lifespan. Chemical disinfectants also have various problems. Studies show that healthcare workers who are repeatedly exposed to chemical disinfectants are more susceptible to work-related health problems such as: ° Allergies ° Skin irritation ° Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) Health problems can lead to frequent and prolonged sickness absence as well as early retirement. The resulting staff shortages put an extra burden on the remaining workers, leading to poor quality of care. The environmental risks of chemicals relate to both their production and use; for example, if residues enter sewage, they can harm sensitive aquatic ecosystems. The invention requires a continuous and safe operation such as a lamp. Using a disinfection method can help reduce the use of harmful chemicals in environments. This will have a positive impact on human health and sustainability in the long term. The lamp in question is 100% safe for people and materials, and "Pulsed Broad Spectrum Light" (DGSI), the most sustainable disinfection method, indirectly inactivates microbes by activating light-absorbing compounds found in microbial cells. Human cells do not contain these compounds, and DGSI does not damage human cells or DNA. Therefore, there is no risk to workers' skin. The lamp in question is classified as RG1 (Low risk group, RG1 unlimited) or RG2 (medium risk, very short distances). RG1 means there is no risk to workers during normal use. However, as with any LED light source, bright devices should not be viewed directly. The inventive lamp has lower energy than ultraviolet light and has no detrimental effect on surface materials such as plastic, wood, metal, glass, or paint. Therefore, it will not damage room surfaces or sensitive healthcare or laboratory equipment. From an environmental perspective, the inventive lamp is energy-efficient and has a long service life (50,000 hours). It does not require pipe replacement or produce waste. The devices can be recycled after their service life. Continuous disinfection: The inventive lamp operates continuously and disinfects around the clock. This allows for the transition from episodic and inefficient manual disinfection to 24/7 cleanliness with the inventive lamp. Traditional disinfection methods, such as chemical disinfectants, UV radiation, and hydrogen peroxide misting, cannot be used continuously because they are extremely dangerous to humans and also damage materials. They usually require significant manual effort. Therefore, they are used episodically—once a day or once a week. Unfortunately, the effect of such methods is also short-lived, and recontamination occurs as soon as people re-enter the room. Because the inventive lamp is completely safe for humans and materials, it can be used without exception, even when people are present. It will disinfect the air and surfaces every day with consistent performance, effortlessly. The inventive lamp disinfection devices emit both antimicrobial daylight and visible blue light. While harmful ultraviolet radiation damages DNA in all organisms, the antimicrobial effect of DGSI is completely different. It is based on the activation of light-absorbing compounds found in all microbial cells but not in human cells. Examples of these compounds include porphyrins and flavins. These compounds are activated when illuminated at specific blue-green wavelengths and sufficiently intense light. This initiates a cascade of reactions that leads to the formation of highly reactive oxygen molecules inside microbial cells. These species, called 'Reactive Oxygen Species' (ROS), break down vital cell structures such as DNA and RNA chains, proteins, lipids, and cell membranes. A common example of ROS is hydrogen peroxide. Multiple Wavelength (DGSI) technology can activate several light-absorbing compounds simultaneously. This capability makes it much more efficient and allows it to target a much broader range of microbes than older single-wavelength 405nm applications or blended blue-white light applications. DGSI disinfects rooms in just hours, not days or weeks, and is effective against very resistant microbes. The (DGSI) disinfection technology used in the invention uses Multi-Wavelength, Pulsed (visible light, no ultraviolet light) that is 100% safe for humans and materials. The antimicrobial effect of the invention is based on the activation of light-absorbing compounds found in microbial cells but not in human cells. Sustainability and workplace health: The invention is energy efficient and has a long service life (50,000 hours). They do not contain mercury or require tube replacement. Blue light does not cause allergies or asthma, leave chemical residue, or create ozone. It can reduce the use of harmful chemicals and UV light, making environments more sustainable and healthy. The invention can kill all bacteria, yeasts, and molds, including highly resistant strains such as MRSA and VRE. It can inactivate viruses such as SARS-CoV-2 and Influenza-A. It works on transparent materials and can also penetrate biofilm. It does not promote the development of antimicrobial resistance. Explanation of the figures Figure 1: Disinfecting lamp using pulsed daylight in selected spectrum Perspective view Figure 2: Perspective view of the body separated into components Figure 3: Perspective view of the circuit board containing the control circuit and LEDs Explanation of the references in the figures 100 Disinfecting lamp using pulsed daylight in selected spectrum 120 Aluminum circuit board containing the electronic components and LEDs 121 Daylight LEDs mounted on the circuit board 122 Blue LEDs mounted on the circuit board 123 Green LEDs mounted on the circuit board 124 Pulse control and driver integrated circuit mounted on the circuit board 130 Aluminum heat sink body 140 E27 socket head Description of the invention The invention (100) consists of 4 main parts. The polycarbonate lamp cap (110) distributes the light generated on the circuit board (120) homogeneously throughout the environment and, due to its structure, is unaffected by the heat coming from the circuit board (120). The circuit board (120) is the section where the disinfecting light is produced. The circuit helps distribute the generated heat and enables communication between the conductive paths and the electronic components. The daylight LED lamp (121) on the circuit board produces the light in the visible spectrum (4450-670nm) necessary for ambient illumination. The circuit produces the disinfecting light. The microprocessor and driver integrated circuit (125) located on the circuit board (125) enable both illumination and disinfection processes to be carried out simultaneously by driving it with a pre-programmed amount of current and voltage. The integrated circuit (125) drives the blue and green LEDs (with high current by controlling them while applying constant current. High-current pulsed lighting provides a much more effective and high-energy transfer to the environment compared to constant current. How to apply the invention to industry Conventional disinfection methods used today cause health risks for humans and are also not environmentally friendly and unsustainable. UVC radiation and the serious damage it causes to the eyes and skin of workers are well known. Its degrading effect on materials also makes it unsuitable for room disinfection. From an environmental perspective, UVC is problematic because UVC tubes need to be replaced frequently and the tubes contain mercury, so they become hazardous waste after their short lifespan. Disinfectants also pose various problems. Research shows that healthcare workers repeatedly exposed to chemical disinfectants are more susceptible to work-related health problems such as: ° Allergies ° Skin irritation ° Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Health problems can lead to frequent and prolonged sickness absences, as well as early retirement. The resulting staff shortages place an additional burden on remaining workers, leading to poor quality of care. The environmental risks of chemicals relate to both their production and use; for example, if residues enter sewage, they can harm sensitive aquatic ecosystems. Using a continuous and safe disinfection method, such as the lamp in question, can help reduce the use of harmful chemicals in environments. This will have a positive impact on human health and sustainability in the long term. The lamp is 100% safe for people and materials, and "Pulsed Broad Spectrum Light" (DGSI), the most sustainable disinfection method, indirectly inactivates microbes by activating light-absorbing compounds found in microbial cells. Human cells do not contain these compounds, and DGSI does not damage human cells or DNA. Therefore, there is no risk for workers' skin. The lamp in question is classified as RG1 (Low risk group, RG1 unlimited) or RG2 (medium risk, very short distances). RG1 means that there is no risk for workers in normal use. However, as with any LED light source, bright devices should not be looked at directly. The lamp in question has lower energy than ultraviolet light and does not have a detrimental effect on surface materials such as plastic, wood, metal, glass or paint. Therefore, it is not suitable for use on room surfaces or sensitive surfaces. It does not harm health or laboratory equipment. From an environmental perspective, the inventive lamp is energy-efficient and has a long service life (50,000 hours). It does not require pipe replacement or produce waste. The devices can be recycled after their service life. Continuous disinfection The inventive lamp operates around the clock and provides continuous disinfection. It allows a transition from episodic and inefficient manual disinfection to 24/7 cleanliness with the inventive lamp. Traditional disinfection methods such as chemical disinfectants, UV radiation, and hydrogen peroxide misting cannot be used continuously because they are extremely dangerous to humans and damage materials. They usually require significant manual effort. Therefore, they are used episodically – once a day or once a week. Unfortunately, the effect of such methods is also short-lived, and recontamination occurs as soon as people re-enter the room. Because the lamp is completely safe for humans and materials, it can be used at any time, even in the presence of humans. It will disinfect the air and surfaces every day with consistent performance, effortlessly. The inventive lamp disinfection devices emit both antimicrobial daylight and pulsed visible blue-green light. While harmful ultraviolet radiation damages DNA in all organisms, the antimicrobial effect of DGSI is completely different. It is based on the activation of light-absorbing compounds found in all microbial cells but not in human cells.

Claims (1)

1.