Warning over ‘dangerous and ineffective’ ultraviolet anti-virus cleaning products

A string of UV cleaning products that claim to kill viruses and bacteria may be ineffective and dangerous, a leading consumer group has warned

UVC light - the most harmful form of UV radiation - is commonly used in locations such as hospitals, factories and water treatment plants.

But the coronavirus pandemic has created a growing market for UVC devices such as lamps, wands and sterilisation boxes for use in the home.

UV light was among the therapies suggested by former US President Donald Trump - alongside the direct application of bleach - as a remedy for the virus. Both claims were strongly refuted by scientists and the medical community.

And as the UK emerges from lockdown government advice continues to recommend allowing good ventilation as well as cleaning surfaces and washing hands as effective means of mitigating the virus’ spread.

However a survey by regulatory body the Office for Product Safety and Standards found one in 20 people had recently bought a UVC device.

One lighting industry body told consumer group Which? It had found devices failed to emit any or enough UVC to serve as a disinfectant, offering consumers a false sense of security about their own hygiene.

The Lighting Industry Association (LIA) also found many UVC-emitting devices lacked the safety mechanisms necessary to stop damaging skin and eye exposure.

While UVC wands are both widely available and affordable, Which? Has warned many do not have an enclosed light to prevent users looking directly at them, potentially damaging their eyes.

And while the LIA says some products do produce enough UVC to effectively kill germs, they added the stated disinfection times on products are often not long enough to be effective.

There is also no proper data on the amount of UVC exposure needed to kill bacteria, the LIA said - while Professor Clive Beggs from Leeds Beckett University warned UVC light can not get into every corner or around furniture.

Which? concluded many UVC products are at best unnecessary and even potentially dangerous, and urged the public to rely on traditional cleaning methods like bleach, detergent or soap.

Harry Rose, Which? Magazine editor, said: “Which? believes some of these devices are likely to be ineffective at disinfecting your home or could pose safety risks due to unclear instructions or emitting UVC light in an unsafe manner.

“The benefits of these products are often psychological and you could be better off cleaning surfaces and items the traditional way.”

Additional reporting by PA