Be aware that they are declaring this 405nm near-UVA sanitizing light is "safe" for skin and eyes, but there is some debate about that and evidence it is not.
Plus, if the LEDs are rated 405nm it merely peaks there, and has some +/- with more harm the lower the nm, unless they have put some sort of filter over them, but even then they claim 405nm, couldn't block enough and still have it kill microorganisms.
See the following graph, it's for 365nm and 395nm but you can see how the range will drifts down into UV territory with a 405nm peak too:
I wouldn't want to have to be near this for long periods of time, though it might be fine only left on overnight to disinfect, except that near-UVA can also degrade some materials like plastics, paints, resins, wood, paper, cloth, leather, bacon, etc.
Comments & Reviews (2)
Plus, if the LEDs are rated 405nm it merely peaks there, and has some +/- with more harm the lower the nm, unless they have put some sort of filter over them, but even then they claim 405nm, couldn't block enough and still have it kill microorganisms.
See the following graph, it's for 365nm and 395nm but you can see how the range will drifts down into UV territory with a 405nm peak too:
https://www.waveformlighting.com/d_waveform/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/365-395-vis.png
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-30738-6
https://www.bluelightdefense.com/publications/importance-of-blocking-shorter-wavelength-light-up-to-420nm-for-long-term-eye-health-study-by-prof-funk/
I wouldn't want to have to be near this for long periods of time, though it might be fine only left on overnight to disinfect, except that near-UVA can also degrade some materials like plastics, paints, resins, wood, paper, cloth, leather, bacon, etc.
Here's a USDA example for wood well into the violet range up to 496nm: https://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/pdf2007/fpl_2007_kataoka001.pdf
Thank you!