Longer description of your proposed project

BLUF: Far-UVC is a promising technology to help reduce biorisk, but ozone generation by the lamps must be addressed first to ensure the technology is safe.

Far-Ultraviolet-C (far-UVC) light, emitted between approximately 200–240 nm, is a promising disinfection technology with the potential to suppress respiratory virus transmission in the built environment. Ultraviolet-C (UVC) light is widely known to be germicidal and has been used since the 1930s to suppress measles and tuberculosis transmission. However, specific wavelengths of UVC light are hazardous to humans, given their ability to damage DNA, so it can only be used in certain configurations where the light does not shine on humans. Far-UVC light, a subset of UVC, is unique in that it is exceptionally well-absorbed by proteins, meaning that when humans are exposed, all the light is absorbed in the top (10s of microns) dead layer of our skin which is full of proteins. Fortunately, viruses and bacteria are much smaller than this distance, and far-UVC can readily damage their DNA (or RNA) and inactivate the pathogens. This provides us with a form of light that can shine on humans in the built environment, providing them with air they breathe as clean as the water they drink.

Early efficacy data for pathogen inactivation, along with robust safety data for human exposure, has increased interest in far-UVC as a tool for pandemic prevention and control of endemic respiratory pathogens. However, outside of surging far-UVC in times of heightened biorisk (as is done for PPE), most benefits will accrue from widespread deployment. For widespread adoption to occur and be net beneficial, it is essential to consider all consequences of implementation. One consequence we believe has not been fully addressed is the generation of ozone and secondary products by far-UVC lights. Ozone generation is likely the most significant bottleneck to the deployment of far-UVC and, if not addressed, could lead to widespread harm if far-UVC is deployed without mitigation. Additionally, our discussions with government agencies and philanthropic funders indicate hesitation on their part to invest in the technology until this uncertainty is addressed. Fortunately, tools exist to remove ozone and we would like to test their ability to mitigate the harms of far-UVC light so that the technology can either be derisked for other funders or demonstrated to be not yet suitable for deployment.

Ozone is known to be a hazard to human health, with the most widely cited epidemiological literature estimating a hazard ratio of all-cause mortality of 1.02 for every 10ppb of outdoor ozone (see: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26680605/),translating into hundreds of thousands of premature deaths globally (see: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6834528/).There are now three separate estimates of the rate at which ozone is generated by commercially available far-UVC lamps. Under realistic real-world conditions, we expect indoor concentrations of ozone under far-UVC illumination at germicidal doses to be in the single digits parts per billion, in the absence of very high levels of ventilation. Uncertainty is high, but the generation of ozone indoors is likely to be significantly worse in terms of the hazard ratio of ozone observed, as the epidemiological estimates are based on outdoor ozone levels.

Fortunately, tools to remove ozone, known as ozone scrubbers exist, and are commercially available and could be integrated with far-UVC lights, possibly addressing the concern. We propose to purchase a number of these available scrubbers and assess their feasibility in reducing the ozone generated by far-UVC sources used at germicidal doses to an acceptable level of hazard. To do this, we plan to partner with Jesse Kroll, an atmospheric chemist at MIT (https://cee.mit.edu/people_individual/jesse-kroll/) who has agreed to conduct the studies using current resources, if ozone scrubbers are provided. Whatever the results, we will publish them in open-source literature. We believe all of the possible outcomes will represent progress:

-if the scrubbers work sufficiently well, this will have derisked a major bottleneck to deployment and further funding of far UVC.

-if the scrubbers work poorly, this should help to slow down deployment and mitigate harms.

-if the scrubbers are ok, but not great, then this could demonstrate where future targeted investments should go and rule this path out as a viable alternative.

We believe that it is important that this work is funded philanthropically and by a group with strong epistemics, since incentives are misaligned for far-UVC companies to address this question and we have heard from other funders that they would not trust data from the companies.

Describe why you think you're qualified to work on this

In terms of the testing itself, the lab we have been speaking to about doing this testing is the Kroll Group at MIT http://krollgroup.mit.edu/.They have extensive experience in taking measurements across a wide variety of atmospheric chemistry endpoints in the labs. The Kroll Group were one of the labs responsible for the initial estimates of the impact of far-UVC on ozone and secondary chemistry byproducts (see Barber et al 2023 https://chemrxiv.org/engage/chemrxiv/article-details/650dffacb927619fe7a2df62)

Blueprint Biosecurity is a new 501(c)(3), founded by Jacob Swett, who has a physical sciences PhD. One of his most significant achievements is writing the Apollo Program for Biodefense Report for the Bipartisan Commission on Biodefense, which former Science Advisor Eric Lander credited for inspiring the American Pandemic Preparedness Plan and the DoD is on the record saying it "formed the basis for our request in the FY23 budget". We are currently writing an extensive report on far UVC and are leading a small interdisciplinary team assessing all aspects of the technology.

Richard Williamsons leads the far-UVC program at Blueprint Bio, and has 10+ years of private sector experience managing complex projects including more recently as Head of Technical Operations at Alvea.bio

Other ways I can learn about you

https://www.linkedin.com/in/jacob-swett/

https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=QSYBoJYAAAAJ&hl=en

https://blueprintbiosecurity.org/team/

How much money do you need?

$25k

Links to any supporting documents or information

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-08462-z

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/php.13866

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.09.29.23296366v1

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.05.17.23290115v1

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/acs.estlett.3c00314

https://iuva.org/resources/covid-19/Far%20UV-C%20Radiation-%20Current%20State-of%20Knowledge.pdf

Estimate your probability of succeeding if you get the amount of money you asked for

We estimate an 85% chance of completing the testing and coming to a conclusive result on the efficacy of ozone scrubbers with far-UVC sources. Additionally, we estimate a 75% chance that the scrubbers are successful at reducing ozone to acceptable levels. We are uncertain about whether the cost of the scrubbers, rate of removal, and other yet unknown factors will be sufficient for them to be integrated with far UVC sources and the solution still be commercially viable.