Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 73 replies
  • Subscribers 14 subscribers
  • Views 9777 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

Covid-19: Meeting the challenges through Engineering

Jeremy D Watson
I was president of the IET for 2016-17, and have been asked by government to gather practical and innovative ideas from our Engineering communities. So, please enter any ideas you might have in this thread that might help address and mitigate the Covid-19 crisis. Ideas might include digital tracking / monitoring through therapy equipment and beyond. Even ideas outside your usual expertise domain will be welcome. Now’s the time for Engineering to show we can change the world!
  • 0
    Hello Ian and all. Ian good luck with the ambulance application.


    After online searches, I find many accounts in general of positive results of using Ozone for sterilization. Long standing method by all accounts, nothing new under the sun.

    Another manufacturer - this is for Ozone odour control - could this be extended to mass sterilization? https://www.ozonecleanair.co.uk/product/ozone-cabinet/


    To aid this (IET) cause, I am looking specifically for objective evidence that 1) Ozone can be used successfully to sterilize materiel like masks / small equipment / fabrics to high enough standards, 2) what the standards are, and 3) what the exposure conditions need to be, and importantly, 4) how de-contamination can be checked? ie. how would you know that C-19 has been neutralized at the surface of a material - what's the test? . 


    for 1)  I do find some credible sources with summaries; but two: 

    1) https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12247-017-9308-7
    2) https://www.cdc.gov/infectioncontrol/guidelines/disinfection/sterilization/other-methods.html
    “…….The ozone process is compatible with a wide range of commonly used materials including stainless steel, titanium, anodized aluminum, ceramic, glass, silica, PVC, Teflon, silicone, polypropylene, polyethylene and acrylic. In addition, rigid lumen devices of the following diameter and length can be processed: internal diameter (ID): > 2 mm, length ≤ 25 cm; ID > 3 mm, length ≤ 47 cm; and ID > 4 mm, length ≤ 60 cm.
    The process should be safe for use by the operator because there is no handling of the sterilant, no toxic emissions, no residue to aerate, and low operating temperature means there is no danger of an accidental burn. The cycle is monitored using a self-contained biological indicator and a chemical indicator. The sterilization chamber is small, about 4 ft3 (Written communication, S Dufresne, July 2004)…..”


    Which look encouraging however some issues for me to take further -  many of the papers are only fully accessible by purchase. Plus I have no expertise in this field to comment on the data and info in the documents. I'll continue, perhaps others in the community with access to relevant expertise could expand the evaluation.


    I realise that there are many steps to qualify before you can justify for mass use, but these are what I think are the first key steps.


    In passing, I note from several accounts that ozone can be produced (of course) by corona discharge. What poetry.


    Best Regards


  • 0

    CreativeImpulse:

    Hi Kenneth,


     My concern would be a microwave would destroy the static electric deposits that filter the viral load in the ones I mentioned. I think you'd need specialist knowledge of the mechanisms used to evaluate that with microwaves.


    Regarding the cleaning of other types of mask and other PPE, I see no reason why that shouldn't be appropriate. If it were microwave proof, i.e. not going to shrivel up like a crisp packet... and didn't contain metallic hinge pins. Then in theory it should kill anything biological in pretty short order. That might offer an option for more delicate materials, the static based masks are quite solidly constructed from my brief reading. That's half the problem, you have to penetrate the mask to sterilise it at depth. However, something lighter and less solid, with no EM involvement should be suitable for a microwave. The question will be whether the Covid is heated due to it's own molecular construct/carrier construct being excited by the RF, or whether it is heated by the material it's on being heated. If the material has to reach high temperatures, that could be a problem. If the Covid itself is heated by the RF, then you could blast it quite quickly with an industrial microwave such as you'd probably find in most hospital kitchens.


    Of course, we are in a hospital... we have X-ray generators! Could these be (ab)used?

    I think at this point we need the input of an RF expert with biological expert.


    Cheers


    Rob





    Kenneth Hattersley:

    Good point. Has this ref any validity? https://consteril.com/covid-19-pandemic-disinfection-and-sterilization-of-face-masks-for-viruses/.


    This claims the simple "single use" "mask is not cleanable but that two more complex masks are.


    Does anyone know if a microwave would directly neutralise COVID19 (or other ) viruses held in fabric / plastic mask filters?


    The reference above mentions microwaves in terms of generating heat from a water bath, on which a mask is placed.


    If there was a clinically approved method it could be useful.




     


     




    Msrs Impulse and Hattersley 

           Electromagnetic radiation will only 'heat' things which are larger than one quarter of it wavelength ... can perform as an antennae. A typical microwave oven operating at 2.4GHz has a wavelength of 12cm, so the smallest thing it can heat is about 3cm (Yes, that's right). To heat a virus to a point at which it would be damaged would require exposure to appropriate scale wavelengths. As apparently, viruses vary in size from 20nm - 400nm to damage them by radiation you need adequately high levels of radiation in the nm spectrum. UV-C, X-Ray and Gamma radiation are in the spectrum 10nm down to 0.1nm. And as we know these are dangerous to humans, as they damage the content of our cells.

  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    Hi

    Bear in mind that many masks have an aluminium strip to make the mask fit round the nose

  • 0

    Kenneth Hattersley:

    ...
    The process should be safe for use by the operator because there is no handling of the sterilant, no toxic emissions, no residue to aerate, and low operating temperature means there is no danger of an accidental burn. 




    Keneth. I would have my doubts about this reference. Ozone is potentially harmful to the operator, because it is very irritant to human eyes, skin and airways. There is no net pollution because O3 naturally decomposes to O2 in about 24hr ... but opening a cabinet full of O3 would constitute a toxic emission at that point. O3 can be neutralised by a corona-discharge of the opposite polarity (yes a certain irony here !), and the machines that generate high levels of ozone, have a neutralisation phase to make the atmosphere safe. Ozone is a more powerful oxidant than oxygen, and oxygen itself is difficult to handle because it can cause spontaneous explosive combustion of oils ... So Ozone in levels greater than 10% are an explosive risk. Most applications will not get near to this level, but it needs to be considered when designing a system. Ian

  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    Jeremy, just having thoughts on this nightmare situation we are all in .Many years ago as a railway apprentice and working in one of the large electrical repair/manufacturing shops, on one section we used to assemble uv sterilisers that were used for the African and Indian railway water supplies on coaching stock. They consisted of a large glass tube that the contaminated water passed through , this tube was surrounded by high intensity uv tubes and later mercury vapour .They evidently killed all known bacteria/virus e-coli etc and made the water safe to drink . I seem to remember from our days at the south bank university that mercury vapour lights emit light at about 253 nano metres and max bactericidal efficacy is in the region of 260 nm so should be ideal for the job. 

    I am surprised that we are not investigating if this virus is susceptible to uv and if it is developing a hand held version of these devices or similar to eradicate this virus on all surfaces etc , (may be preferable  than using  chemicals).I seem to remember the parameters for safety Utilising uv is that any wavelength less than 320 nm could cause skin or eye irritation so protective gear might be needed. If a very low level of uv proved effective could this be used medically . 


    Just a thought 


    Trevor






    Sent from my iPad
  • 0
    I sense we are mostly in the same place, that Ozone immersion and / or UV exposure would probably sterilize C-19. There seems reasonable evidence that this could work. Whether the method could in the end achieve a useful cost / benefit is TBD - need more expert evaluation to get to specifics. I - we can offer more engineering support, what is needed now ( as already pointed out) is the virology specialism to look at the ideas and make some adjudication. 


    We have in this forum discussed applications in the re-use of PPE, for cleaning of ambulances. Maybe there could be more widespread use of the methods - perhaps in the future post-pandemic there has to be a greater use to reduce virus propagation?


    I feel - and this has been mentioned - we need to engage the specialist virology practitioners, prefrerably within the domain of the main target users - NHS, who can give the methods due consideration and take forward - or not - as appropriate.


    Who / how to contact?


    I have written an email to the Chief Nursing Officer. england.chiefnursingofficer@nhs.net   Who else to contact?


    Regards,



  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    Just a moment.

    You're aiming for rapid sterilisation so there's no time to unload the van. My memory of ambulances is somewhat sketchy (I do remember a speed check of 93mph!) but IIRC the sides are covered in drawers full of medical kitm and there will be a defibrillator, etc.

    What effect will high levels of ozone have on the stock of drug packages and pre-packed disposable equipment, and the diagnostic electronics and furnishings, to say nothing of the vehicle and its own electronics?

    Quick rain-check!
  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member


    Hi all,

    Just for info on UV. I have worked with this wavelength for many years although in the military domain. If you are in the deep uv area ~265 nm this is ideal for Sterilisation. See charts below. Advancements in LED manufacture means you can now get UV LEDs at this wavelength which means you could conceivably manufacture small portable sterilisation units. Of course any virus which hides in the shadows will not be hit. Also this wavelength is not good for humans so protective clothing must be worn.   


    Best regards



    John Parsons




    Im not sure how effective these are but they retail at about $16!



  • 0
    Since I first uploaded the idea for an alternative oxygen source (remote locations / field hospitals etc.) using SCUBA tanks, industry and volunteered kit. 

    We have created a prototype to allow connection of medical masks to SCUBA tanks and now also welding tanks. Please see attached PDF.


    A number of disciplines have reviewed - in UK we hope we would never need it - there are logistical needs with it - that we'd hope the dive industry would help with. The Israeli Defence Forces have shared on social media that they are doing similar, to reduce drain on the main sources of oxygen.


    In other countries with less medical infrastructure and bigger dive tourism / welding it could be a vital support.




     

    Susan Jones:
    Concept - Portable respiratory support for emergency situations – Can SCUBA diving kit be easily adapted to provide it?

    This is an idea we've been looking at with and Engineer / Scuba Diver. I appreciate that it may not be the first port of call but we see it is as a possible solution should care and mass recovery be moved to non-hospital situations, possibly without impacting existing supply chains.


    Dear Colleague,
    I am looking to see if you, or someone you know may have any ideas, feedback, or support on the attached idea for emergency respiratory support systems.
    Covid-19 is causing unprecedented need for ventilation, even with increased manufacture will demand be met?  If hospitals are at capacity improvised sites may need to be used, without plumbed oxygen. While we may not be at the point to need to think quite this laterally –we may yet reach it. There are 3 levels of respiratory support solution discussed, and while they may not currently be suitable for a hospital, they may be ideas which could prove useful in extreme or mass recovery situations (e.g. use of Stadiums to house patients). It should also not impact existing supply lines. If not for this virus - then the next where solutions that could call in civilian equipment & hold a library of designs for manufacture could prove vital.
    Please take a moment to review the attached summary and supporting information, and respond with your thoughts. Please feel free to share it, as the aim here is to think of possible solutions, and work out if they could feasibly work, then develop them - which is why it’s being shared at such an early thought stage. In the hope that it may be useful to develop – or may trigger some ideas in others which it can help.
    Thank you for your time, and please stay safe.

    Kind Regards,
    Susan Jones MEng CEng MIET MWES




     

  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    Susan - thanks for the update - I can’t see the pdf attachment you mention? One of the issues faced by rapid draw-off from pressurised gas cylinders is reduced flow, dependent on ambient temperature. Best illustrated by the frosting that is often seen on gas bottles when used for patio heaters. My company manufacture flexible heating jackets that have solved this problem for many years in industrial and ATEX(potentially explosive) atmospheres. I’ve read about Health Service now having some similar issues, due to capacity constraints, but haven’t been able to get back to the originators of the stories to offer help. If you (or anyone else) knows of health service staff with this problem, please contact me - mark@drumheating.com. Www.lmkthermosafe.co.uk. Would be very pleased to help.

Community Rules & Guidelines