Oreck Halo - UV [germ-killing] vacuum cleaner

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Halo Uv Vacuum
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the Oreck Halo vacuum cleaner, which claims to utilize UV-C light to kill microorganisms while vacuuming. Participants explore the effectiveness of this technology, its implications for cleaning, and the potential risks associated with UV exposure. The conversation includes technical aspects, user experiences, and comparisons to traditional vacuuming methods.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants highlight the Oreck Halo's claims of reducing microorganisms with UV-C light, but question the effectiveness given the short exposure time required for significant bacterial reduction.
  • Others argue that vacuuming alone does not significantly lower bacterial levels, suggesting that the sterilizing effect would not be cumulative over time without frequent use.
  • Concerns are raised about the potential risks of UV exposure from the vacuum, including skin cancer and retinal damage, which some participants find unnecessary given the limited benefits.
  • There is a discussion about the effectiveness of normal vacuuming in managing flea populations, with some participants noting that traditional vacuums can be effective without the need for UV technology.
  • Some participants express skepticism about the claims regarding flea egg destruction by UV light, suggesting that while some may be killed, there could be unintended consequences, such as the development of resistant fleas.
  • Anecdotal experiences are shared regarding the effectiveness of topical flea treatments, which some participants believe are more reliable than UV technology for managing flea infestations.
  • One participant shares a humorous perspective on the vacuum cleaner industry, discussing sales tactics and personal experiences in a vacuum cleaner store, which adds a meta-discussion element to the thread.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views regarding the effectiveness and safety of the Oreck Halo vacuum cleaner's UV technology. There is no consensus on its efficacy or necessity, with ongoing debate about the claims made by the manufacturer and the implications for users.

Contextual Notes

Participants note limitations regarding the assumptions made about UV exposure times and the effectiveness of the vacuum on different surfaces, such as carpets versus hard floors. The discussion also reflects varying personal experiences with flea management and vacuum effectiveness.

Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
8,252
Reaction score
2,664
Powerful 2-in-1 cleaning performance.
The new Oreck Halo is a revolution in vacuum cleaner technology. Incredible suction vacuums dirt and debris, while the patented Oreck Halo light chamber kills many microscopic germs, bacteria, viruses, mold, dust mite eggs, and flea eggs using UV-C light. And like all Oreck products, it’s remarkably simple to use – just vacuum as you normally would, and the Oreck Halo vacuum cleaner kills and reduces microorganisms without any extra effort or harsh chemicals.
http://www.oreck.com/upright-vacuum-cleaners/oreck_halo.cfm

With a typical UV exposure time of probably less than a second, does this make sense? In the video below, they make the argument that after six passes, we see signficaint reductions in bacteria levels. So I guess one could consider it more of a separate treatment, rather than a companion technology to standard vacuuming.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMIdy9pyNAk
 
Computer science news on Phys.org


I does seem that the claim that you can "just vacuum as you normally would, and the Oreck Halo vacuum cleaner kills and reduces microorganisms without any extra effort or harsh chemicals", is misleading. Their own video shows that vacuuming as you normally would does not reduce bacterial levels significantly. If you only vacuum once a week, I don't see how the sterilizing effect would be accumulative over six cleanings. You would have to vacuum six times the same day.
 


This is clearly aimed at the germ-phobes. Of course there are germs on floors and surfaces. They are ambient in the atmosphere. That's a standard demo in microbiology courses to swab the floor, shoes, table tops (even the lab benches that get sprayed down with alcohol several times a day) and see all the bacteria and fungus that grows.

Would UV kill bacteria on the floors? Sure, but I'm not sure that I trust the claims of how much bacteria it kills. In labs, UV lights are used to kill bacteria in biosafety cabinets and laminar flow hoods designed for working with microorganisms. Generally, to kill sufficient numbers of bacteria to avoid contamination of whatever you're working with, you need to leave the UV light on for 15 to 20 minutes.

It would kill some bacteria on hardwood or tile floors with a few passes, but on carpet, it would only kill the surface bacteria exposed to light, not those down in the pile that the light doesn't reach. And, then you have to ask, "for how long?" So, you leave behind the 20% of bacteria that are the hardest to kill, and then they continue growing and reproducing, or someone else walks in from outside with dirty shoes.

It's one of those things where it might, under completely ideal conditions, do what is claimed, but is that in any way meaningful, important or necessary? No.

The thing that mostly concerns me is having that UV light exposed under the vacuum. The same reasons that UV-C is effective at being germicidal are the reasons it also causes skin cancer and damage to the retina. This seems like a pretty unnecessary exposure risk for an awfully limited potential benefit.
 


Thanks Moonbear. I was hoping you would chime in. [Moonbear is one of our resident Ph.D. Biologists]

What about flea eggs? That is probably what interests me the most, as I'm sure you can appreciate. :biggrin:
 


Ivan Seeking said:
What about flea eggs? That is probably what interests me the most, as I'm sure you can appreciate. :biggrin:
Apparently just a normal vacuum is very effective http://www.physorg.com/news117115195.html
 


mgb_phys said:
Apparently just a normal vacuum is very effective http://www.physorg.com/news117115195.html

That may explain why we never seem to have a serious flee problem. :biggrin: We used to treat with poisons, but I stopped that some time ago and we haven't had any issues. I just assumed that it was cyclical and eventually we would have a few bad years. Note that we live on rural property with cats coming and going constantly.
 


I don't know if UV light would kill flea eggs. Maybe some, but you might also wind up with a bunch of mutant fleas. :biggrin: Nope, haven't a clue on something that big.

Some of the newer generation topical treatments for cats do a pretty good job of killing flea eggs, though (the ones you apply to the skin between the shoulders once a month during flea season). The one that comes to mind is Revolution. I'm pretty sure that's the one that kills fleas before they bite (by coating the hairs) and also kills eggs carried around on the cats before they hatch. I know that worked for my parents' dog too; they visited me a couple years ago with a flea-infested dog, and they had tried several other treatments already with no luck, so I brought home some free samples I got at work, and they finally got rid of the fleas.

I'd have to re-read about the different flea treatments again...Frontline might work similarly to Revolution. I think the other brands all required that the fleas bite before they die. But, Ember hasn't had any fleas since she was a kitten (the ones she brought home with her from the farm, and then I think a few the former neighbor's dog donated), so I haven't needed them to keep up on what the different brands are currently offering.
 


I find all of the vacuum cleaner gimmicks to be quite amusing. I actually did time [yes, like prison] in a vacuum cleaner store while in college. It is really quite a racket. We used to get complaints about door-to-door salesmen working the area. While we had nothing to do with that, the stories about abusive salesman were amazing. I will never forget one call from an elderly lady who started chewing me up one side and down the other. When I finally got her to explain the problem, she said that a salesman showed up very late at her house, pretty much forced his way through the door, and refused to leave until she bought the $1500 pos that he was selling. He sat in her livingroom until well after midnight! She was in fact quite intimidated by this person. She finally signed the contract so that he would leave. We informed her of the lemon law in this State, which means that she has three days to cancel. So luckily she wasn't out the $1500 that she had signed for.

I have heard of vacuum cleaners selling for over $2000 before! In fact my sister-in-law got suckered into buying a ~$1500 Rainbow brand vacuum cleaner. These use water as a filter. If a salesman ever knocks on your door selling Rainbow vacuum cleaners, tell him you want to knock it over and leave it on its side, while its running. It makes for a rather spectacular fourth of July display.

The classic Oreck, I guess it is called the XL, uses [or used] a motor to create the vacuum, that is the same motor used just for the brush roll in other canister-style cleaners [same part number]. No wonder it's so light! It is probably only about 1/5 the size of a standard vacuum motor - IIRC, it is a 1.5-2 amp motor. Tsu commented that she would like a light vacuum like that. I pointed out that if we used no motor at all, it would be even lighter.

In all fairness I should say that the vacuum store gig was actually a pretty good deal for me. I could work any hours that I wanted and made pretty good money. I could even go in late at night and do piecework. It was the ideal job at the time so I guess I shouldn't knock it. But going from Cat Scanners to vacuum cleaners was a bit hard to take. So goes the life of a college student.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Engineering Using UV-C as an alternative for "barbicide" (antibacterial solution)
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K