Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 24

Thread: Better Safe than sorry ??

  1. #1

    Default Better Safe than sorry ??

    Hi all,

    Was wondering if exposing the lens to UV light source would be an efficient way to kill fungal spores and cells. Is damage to lens element by UV an issue ? I am sure UV photo-enthusiasts could comment on this.

    I was thinking abt this bcos I have access to UV light source ( laboratory Hood where UV is used to sterilize)

    cheers

  2. #2

    Default Re: Better Safe than sorry ??

    You could try.

    I once did very very high level, repeated bombardment radiograph rays on a lens that started to show signs of fungal infection, and it seemed to retard the growth while I still had the lens.

  3. #3

    Default Re: Better Safe than sorry ??

    Oh really ? cool !!! I was thinking zapping the lens under UV once in a month or two would keep it fungus free.....low dosage uV i mean..

  4. #4
    Senior Member giantcanopy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    SG
    Posts
    6,232

    Default Re: Better Safe than sorry ??

    The last I did an attachment in the labs in NUH years back, they turned on the UV lighting after office hours to inactivate bacterial growth.

    UV light can also be used to inactivate spores in food without generating too much heat.

    Inactivating them in lenses . Interesting ! But I think there are several lenses with innate UV coatings. Wonder if the UV therapy can penetrate sufficiently to reach the deeper infections


    Ryan
    Last edited by giantcanopy; 29th May 2008 at 08:29 AM.

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Lakeside, Singapore
    Posts
    289

    Default Re: Better Safe than sorry ??

    Quote Originally Posted by dappuna View Post
    Hi all,

    Was wondering if exposing the lens to UV light source would be an efficient way to kill fungal spores and cells. Is damage to lens element by UV an issue ? I am sure UV photo-enthusiasts could comment on this.

    I was thinking abt this bcos I have access to UV light source ( laboratory Hood where UV is used to sterilize)

    cheers
    Having, obviously, worked in a biological laboratory environment you will understand the long term effects of UV on various plastics. Most tissue culture hoods that use a UV light source for the sterilisation of equipment and the work space do show side effects. If you look at the pipettes that you keep in the hood you will see that, over time, they accumulate a white film. This is the plastic gradually degrading due to exposure to UV. This is not an issue if you UV your lenses once or twice, but do it too often and you risk seriously damaging the plastic housing and rubber focusing rings etc.

    Also there are a couple of other things you might want to consider. First, the lenses are an "enclosed" environment. UV is not a very effective "reflective" light source, and you will have trouble getting significant quantities (particularly enough to do damage to DNA) into the internal nooks and crannies of the lens where fungal spores are likely to reside. Second, if you have done a lot of tissue culture, you will know that fungal spores are not terribly susceptible to UV damage. In fact, they can be highly resistant. This is why affected cultures usually contain a specific chemical (such as fungizone) in the media to reduce spore growth.

    I've been working in tissue culture for the last 8 years and, while the thought of sterilising my lenses in UV has crossed my mind, I have ultimately come to the conclusion that it isn't worth the hassle or the risk to your equipment. Not to mention the fact that you risk contaminating your equipment by taking it into a BC2 facility in the first place.
    Cameras: Rollei 35, Rolleiflex-T, FinePix F700, Nikon D60, D300
    Pics: Churchwolf's Album.

  6. #6

    Default Re: Better Safe than sorry ??

    I ve heard some pundits say that, you should expose the glass elements to sunlight once in a while. That inhibits fungal growth. Well, maybe that could be because the sun's heat could liq water condensed within the glass.

    Maybe if anyone has lens with fungus, I could try out that experiment. hmmm.....

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Lakeside, Singapore
    Posts
    289

    Default Re: Better Safe than sorry ??

    Quote Originally Posted by dappuna View Post
    I ve heard some pundits say that, you should expose the glass elements to sunlight once in a while. That inhibits fungal growth. Well, maybe that could be because the sun's heat could liq water condensed within the glass.

    Maybe if anyone has lens with fungus, I could try out that experiment. hmmm.....
    Fungus, like anything similar, likes a damp, dark and humid place to grow, where it will not be disturbed much. As with all your photographic equiment (or indeed your car, motorbike, computer), the best way to make sure it stays in good condition is to use it regularly. Things that sit around for ages not being used tend to degrade faster than those that are regularly utilised.
    Cameras: Rollei 35, Rolleiflex-T, FinePix F700, Nikon D60, D300
    Pics: Churchwolf's Album.

  8. #8

    Default Re: Better Safe than sorry ??

    Yeah, I fully agree with your view point reg usage. But how much it affects lens glass, not quite sure though, since most microscopes with objective do stay healthy even after prolonged usage for blue/violet light/laser. And this lens cleaning exercise is just once in two months or so, as a preventive measure.

    Reg it effectiveness in killing spores, you are probably right in that it wont be as effective as direct exposure. Yeah , i probably wouldnt throw my 2k nikon glass into UV, rather let the service centre do it.

  9. #9
    Senior Member giantcanopy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    SG
    Posts
    6,232

    Default Re: Better Safe than sorry ??

    Quote Originally Posted by Churchwolf View Post
    Having, obviously, worked in a biological laboratory environment you will understand the long term effects of UV on various plastics. Most tissue culture hoods that use a UV light source for the sterilisation of equipment and the work space do show side effects. If you look at the pipettes that you keep in the hood you will see that, over time, they accumulate a white film. This is the plastic gradually degrading due to exposure to UV. This is not an issue if you UV your lenses once or twice, but do it too often and you risk seriously damaging the plastic housing and rubber focusing rings etc.

    Also there are a couple of other things you might want to consider. First, the lenses are an "enclosed" environment. UV is not a very effective "reflective" light source, and you will have trouble getting significant quantities (particularly enough to do damage to DNA) into the internal nooks and crannies of the lens where fungal spores are likely to reside. Second, if you have done a lot of tissue culture, you will know that fungal spores are not terribly susceptible to UV damage. In fact, they can be highly resistant. This is why affected cultures usually contain a specific chemical (such as fungizone) in the media to reduce spore growth.

    I've been working in tissue culture for the last 8 years and, while the thought of sterilising my lenses in UV has crossed my mind, I have ultimately come to the conclusion that it isn't worth the hassle or the risk to your equipment. Not to mention the fact that you risk contaminating your equipment by taking it into a BC2 facility in the first place.
    Good refreshing read !
    Thanks for the info

    Ryan

  10. #10

    Default Re: Better Safe than sorry ??

    Does anybody have an "obviously infected" lens to spare for this experiment ???
    'It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.' ~J.K

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Lakeside, Singapore
    Posts
    289

    Default Re: Better Safe than sorry ??

    Quote Originally Posted by dappuna View Post
    Does anybody have an "obviously infected" lens to spare for this experiment ???
    Heh heh. Now that is a suggestion worthy of scientific investigation! Will have to be a lens that someone has thoroughly given up on!
    Cameras: Rollei 35, Rolleiflex-T, FinePix F700, Nikon D60, D300
    Pics: Churchwolf's Album.

  12. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    big tree town
    Posts
    2,389

    Default Re: Better Safe than sorry ??

    just pay some $ to bro fatigue and have a gd job done.

    UV deteriorates plastics. High quality plastics maybe able to last longer, but only longer, how much longer no one knows.

    UV penetrance is another issue. Since most of u here are skilled in this science, i believe u are aware how "good" glass is for UV penetrance.

    Prolonged high doses of UV in air causes the formation of ozone. A health and environmental hazard. If u zap things with UV in the hood (laminar or even class 2 hood) for a long time, ozone forms inside. then when u on the hood, all these ozone blows out into the lab. BTW, ozone in this sphere does not move up to help cover the hole up in the air, it stays here and we breath them in.

    even if this experiment is done, the period will be very long definitely. UV will slow down the growth.but if u use it, bring out and check it once in a while, it will also slow down the fungus growing as the air inside the lens is no longer stagnant for a long time.

    rem, u only need a few surviving ones to have spots growing again. even for those that are killed by the UV, remnants of the fungi cell walls will still be on the glass. unless u start to do viable culture on them, u don't know if it is just idling or dead.

    i am just a student in this science, not a pro. i maybe wrong. these things just comes to my mind when i am thinking of planning an experiment with it.
    cameras are not made of tofu

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Lakeside, Singapore
    Posts
    289

    Default Re: Better Safe than sorry ??

    Quote Originally Posted by Fotophilic View Post
    just pay some $ to bro fatigue and have a gd job done.

    UV deteriorates plastics. High quality plastics maybe able to last longer, but only longer, how much longer no one knows.

    UV penetrance is another issue. Since most of u here are skilled in this science, i believe u are aware how "good" glass is for UV penetrance.

    Prolonged high doses of UV in air causes the formation of ozone. A health and environmental hazard. If u zap things with UV in the hood (laminar or even class 2 hood) for a long time, ozone forms inside. then when u on the hood, all these ozone blows out into the lab. BTW, ozone in this sphere does not move up to help cover the hole up in the air, it stays here and we breath them in.

    even if this experiment is done, the period will be very long definitely. UV will slow down the growth.but if u use it, bring out and check it once in a while, it will also slow down the fungus growing as the air inside the lens is no longer stagnant for a long time.

    rem, u only need a few surviving ones to have spots growing again. even for those that are killed by the UV, remnants of the fungi cell walls will still be on the glass. unless u start to do viable culture on them, u don't know if it is just idling or dead.

    i am just a student in this science, not a pro. i maybe wrong. these things just comes to my mind when i am thinking of planning an experiment with it.
    True enough, though ozone is not really a problem. A BC2 lab is always under negative pressure (due to the fume hoods and sealed doors) which draws away any small amounts of ozone produced during the UV sterilisation. Everything from incubators to biohazard and laminar flow hoods use UV sterilisation (frequently over night). Out tissue culture room, in fact, has UV bulbs in the ceiling that we leave on overnight to sterilise the whole room. You don't produce enough ozone this way for it to be a health problem.
    Cameras: Rollei 35, Rolleiflex-T, FinePix F700, Nikon D60, D300
    Pics: Churchwolf's Album.

  14. #14

    Default Re: Better Safe than sorry ??

    Yeah, I think as of now forget abt spores. If I can get hold of a lens which has fungus inside, I wanna check up if I can salvage the len by UV ..maybe say a cheap lens...for which its not really worthwhile sending t for professional cleaning.....hmmm....anyways as long as the owner of the lens wont mind if he is given a choice of getting his lens back in action.
    'It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.' ~J.K

  15. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    big tree town
    Posts
    2,389

    Default Re: Better Safe than sorry ??

    Quote Originally Posted by Churchwolf View Post
    True enough, though ozone is not really a problem. A BC2 lab is always under negative pressure (due to the fume hoods and sealed doors) which draws away any small amounts of ozone produced during the UV sterilisation. Everything from incubators to biohazard and laminar flow hoods use UV sterilisation (frequently over night). Out tissue culture room, in fact, has UV bulbs in the ceiling that we leave on overnight to sterilise the whole room. You don't produce enough ozone this way for it to be a health problem.
    i do agree with u that most of the time the ozone is not significant to cause health problems. but it is no doubt, still a health hazard.

    u work in a lab, u know the guidelines. even if the materials in the lab are not hazardous enough to cause immediate problems, their nature, possible side effects, environmental effects, control measures, should be highlighted to the operators handling them. i'm sure u know it, since u have been working for sometime. we also need to know that not only ppl skilled in this science are reading these posts, all the more those ppl who are not skilled have to be aware of these if they ever try to do it. i know that many skilled operators do not know about this ozone thing, i only learnt about it from an old researcher.

    what i was trying to tell from the statement, was to "remind" the potential experimenter that ozone can be a health hazard, not only to the one performing the experiment, also to others working in the lab (respiratory disorders like asthma are common in Singapore, diff ppl diff susceptibility). i was trying to share what i knew. objective was just to highlight, not to say that it is a real serious threat to health. i apologize if i wasn't clear in the first place.

    My conclusion: the experimental design might not give objective results. lenses are cheap compared to health. better safe than sorry.
    cameras are not made of tofu

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Lakeside, Singapore
    Posts
    289

    Default Re: Better Safe than sorry ??

    Quote Originally Posted by Fotophilic View Post
    i do agree with u that most of the time the ozone is not significant to cause health problems. but it is no doubt, still a health hazard.

    u work in a lab, u know the guidelines. even if the materials in the lab are not hazardous enough to cause immediate problems, their nature, possible side effects, environmental effects, control measures, should be highlighted to the operators handling them. i'm sure u know it, since u have been working for sometime. we also need to know that not only ppl skilled in this science are reading these posts, all the more those ppl who are not skilled have to be aware of these if they ever try to do it. i know that many skilled operators do not know about this ozone thing, i only learnt about it from an old researcher.

    what i was trying to tell from the statement, was to "remind" the potential experimenter that ozone can be a health hazard, not only to the one performing the experiment, also to others working in the lab (respiratory disorders like asthma are common in Singapore, diff ppl diff susceptibility). i was trying to share what i knew. objective was just to highlight, not to say that it is a real serious threat to health. i apologize if i wasn't clear in the first place.

    My conclusion: the experimental design might not give objective results. lenses are cheap compared to health. better safe than sorry.
    I wasn't trying to patronize you. I'm sorry if I came across that way! I just assumed that anybody who has access to scientific equipment (such as a culture hood with UV) must be working in a lab and will have been trained in the correct use of such equipment. You are absolutely right in saying that there are many things in any given lab that show only long term effects under continuous exposure. Unfortunately this is something that we have to deal with all the time, and while the health and safety of those in the lab is, of course, the priority the is no doubt that we are often exposed to things that can have serious side effects; raidation, mutagens, carcinogens, the list goes on.

    I would like to stress, and no doubt Fotophilic will agree with me, that unless you have been trained in the workings of a lab and, indeed, the particular piece of equipment you are intending to use, you should never even set foot in a BC2 facility. Having a "mate" take you inside to do something like this can be extremely hazardous, not only to you, but to others working the facility. It may seem like fun and games, but please consider that much of the work conducted in these areas does involve viruses, bacteria and chemicals that do represent a severe health hazzard. That's why they are all locked up in tightly regulated facilities. Please be careful.
    Cameras: Rollei 35, Rolleiflex-T, FinePix F700, Nikon D60, D300
    Pics: Churchwolf's Album.

  17. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    big tree town
    Posts
    2,389

    Default Re: Better Safe than sorry ??

    Quote Originally Posted by Churchwolf View Post
    I wasn't trying to patronize you. I'm sorry if I came across that way! I just assumed that anybody who has access to scientific equipment (such as a culture hood with UV) must be working in a lab and will have been trained in the correct use of such equipment. You are absolutely right in saying that there are many things in any given lab that show only long term effects under continuous exposure. Unfortunately this is something that we have to deal with all the time, and while the health and safety of those in the lab is, of course, the priority the is no doubt that we are often exposed to things that can have serious side effects; raidation, mutagens, carcinogens, the list goes on.

    I would like to stress, and no doubt Fotophilic will agree with me, that unless you have been trained in the workings of a lab and, indeed, the particular piece of equipment you are intending to use, you should never even set foot in a BC2 facility. Having a "mate" take you inside to do something like this can be extremely hazardous, not only to you, but to others working the facility. It may seem like fun and games, but please consider that much of the work conducted in these areas does involve viruses, bacteria and chemicals that do represent a severe health hazzard. That's why they are all locked up in tightly regulated facilities. Please be careful.
    No lah, bro. See that's the problem with typing words rather than speaking, the missing tone cannot fill in the communication gap. I was just trying to make it clearer only la, becoz i tot from the way u replied, i think i didn't express myself well where i was coming from, so i guess others may think the same way too. My bad, my poor English.

    Just some kind words of caution to ppl attempting this experiment. No other intentions.
    cameras are not made of tofu

  18. #18

    Default Re: Better Safe than sorry ??

    Quote Originally Posted by Fotophilic View Post
    No lah, bro. See that's the problem with typing words rather than speaking, the missing tone cannot fill in the communication gap. I was just trying to make it clearer only la, becoz i tot from the way u replied, i think i didn't express myself well where i was coming from, so i guess others may think the same way too. My bad, my poor English.

    Just some kind words of caution to ppl attempting this experiment. No other intentions.
    Noted....hehe. I am planning a mutagenisis expt next week....so have to sterilize a lot of plastic plates (for media ) and glass stuff.....would be cool to have lenses sitting along with them...
    'It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.' ~J.K

  19. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Lakeside, Singapore
    Posts
    289

    Default Re: Better Safe than sorry ??

    Quote Originally Posted by Fotophilic View Post
    No lah, bro. See that's the problem with typing words rather than speaking, the missing tone cannot fill in the communication gap. I was just trying to make it clearer only la, becoz i tot from the way u replied, i think i didn't express myself well where i was coming from, so i guess others may think the same way too. My bad, my poor English.

    Just some kind words of caution to ppl attempting this experiment. No other intentions.
    All clear now. None of us end up flaming so its all good!

    Quote Originally Posted by dappuna View Post
    Noted....hehe. I am planning a mutagenisis expt next week....so have to sterilize a lot of plastic plates (for media ) and glass stuff.....would be cool to have lenses sitting along with them...
    Ha ha. True. Just so long as it doesn't get fried. Not to mention, if you have read any of Nikon's retarded manuals, if you use/look at/touch/move your Nikkor lens in any way it may cause a fire!
    Cameras: Rollei 35, Rolleiflex-T, FinePix F700, Nikon D60, D300
    Pics: Churchwolf's Album.

  20. #20

    Default Re: Better Safe than sorry ??

    Quote Originally Posted by dappuna View Post
    Yeah, I think as of now forget abt spores. If I can get hold of a lens which has fungus inside, I wanna check up if I can salvage the len by UV ..maybe say a cheap lens...for which its not really worthwhile sending t for professional cleaning.....hmmm....anyways as long as the owner of the lens wont mind if he is given a choice of getting his lens back in action.
    Remember that only quartz glass allows UV to penetrate. Normal photographic glass blocks UV to a certain extent.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •