4.4 Article

Re-Evaluation of Rat Corneal Damage by Short-Wavelength UV Revealed Extremely Less Hazardous Property of Far-UV-C†

Journal

PHOTOCHEMISTRY AND PHOTOBIOLOGY
Volume 97, Issue 3, Pages 505-516

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/php.13419

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Ushio Inc.
  2. Shimane University

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Short-wavelength UV-C (207 and 222 nm) is less hazardous to the cornea compared to longer UV wavelengths, as this radiation only penetrates to the outermost layer of the corneal epithelium, where the cells typically peel off within 24 hours. Therefore, short-wavelength UV-C may be less harmful to the cornea than previously thought.
Corneal damage-induced various wavelength UV (311, 254, 235, 222 and 207 nm) was evaluated in rats. For 207 and 222-UV-C, the threshold radiant exposure was between 10 000 and 15 000 mJ cm(-2) at 207 nm and between 3500 and 5000 mJ cm(-2) at 222 nm. Penetrate depth to the cornea indicated by cyclobutene pyrimidine dimer (CPD) localization immediately after irradiation was dependent on the wavelength. 311 and 254 nm UV penetrate to corneal endothelium, 235 nm UVC to the intermediate part of corneal stroma, 222 and 207 nm UVC only to the most outer layer of corneal epithelium. CPD observed in corneal epithelium irradiated by 222 nm UVC disappeared until 12 h after. The minimum dose to induce corneal damage of short-wavelength UV-C was considerably higher than the threshold limit value (TLV(R)) promulgated by American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH). The property that explains why UV-C radiation at 207 and 222 nm is extremely less hazardous than longer UV wavelengths is the fact that this radiation only penetrates to the outermost layer of the corneal epithelium. These cells typically peel off within 24 h during the physiological turnover cycle. Hence, short-wavelength UV-C might be less hazardous to the cornea than previously considered until today.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available