Optimizing UV Wavelengths for Germicidal Effects in Water

  • Thread starter Thread starter sbarton
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Uv Wavelength
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the effectiveness of UV light wavelengths for germicidal purposes in water, specifically questioning if adjustments are needed for a UV light source in air. It is suggested that the germicidal effect relies on the frequency of light rather than wavelength, as frequency remains constant across different media. The significant absorption of UV light by water is noted, indicating that the germicidal effect may diminish quickly with depth. Participants express interest in experimenting with UV light sources and emphasize the importance of understanding the relationship between wavelength and frequency. Overall, the conversation highlights the complexities of optimizing UV wavelengths for effective germicidal action in water.
sbarton
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
If the primary germicidal UV wavelength is 270nm and the secondary is 254nm and I have a UV light source in air to provide germicidal effects in water, would the wavelength of the UV light source need to be 360nm and 338nm respectively assuming the index of refraction for water to be 1.33?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Heh- now that's an interesting question! Never thought of that one.

My guess is no- the germicidal properties come from the *frequency* of the light- the energy, as opposed to the wavelength (the momentum). Since frequency does not change in different media, the lamp should still work.

Now, AFAIK, water has a deep absorption band in the UV: http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/images/watopt.gif , so the effect will be attenuated rapidly with depth.

Try it out- I'm curious how well it works.

Can you try it?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That's interesting. All of the UV light source manufacturers that I know of quote wavelength of light rather than frequency but your argument makes sense. I suppose the wavelength of light specified for each light source is actually an indicator of the frequency? I think I will have to look into this more closely and perhaps talk to some of the UV light manufacturers.

BTW, I am going to try it - I just have to make sure my thinking is correct before purchasing the UV light source.
 
I suspect wavelength is quoted rather than frequency for 'ergonomic' purposes only: I understand intuitively what 500, 300, 250 nm wavelength light... ahem.. looks like. The wavelength and frequency are relatable via c= fw (f =frequency, w = wavelength, =speed of light) easily enough.
 
I suspect wavelength is quoted rather than frequency for 'ergonomic' purposes only: I understand intuitively what 500, 300, 250 nm wavelength light... ahem.. looks like. The wavelength and frequency are relatable via c = \lambda\nu, where \nu is the frequency and \lambda is the wavelength. c is the speed of light.

Edit: sorry for the double post... how odd.
 
I think it's easist first to watch a short vidio clip I find these videos very relaxing to watch .. I got to thinking is this being done in the most efficient way? The sand has to be suspended in the water to move it to the outlet ... The faster the water , the more turbulance and the sand stays suspended, so it seems to me the rule of thumb is the hose be aimed towards the outlet at all times .. Many times the workers hit the sand directly which will greatly reduce the water...
Back
Top