Contra Binder on far-UVC and filtration
A $500 Aerolamp rivals $53 filters, but runs silent and scales better.
Jeff Kaufman reexamines Damon Binder's cost comparison of far-UVC versus air filtration for reducing airborne pathogens. Binder priced far-UVC at $2,500 using the Care222 lamp, but Kaufman highlights the $500 Aerolamp, which provides similar output. In a standard 30m² room with 2.5m ceilings, the Aerolamp delivers a median 11.6 eACH (effective air changes per hour), averaging 9.8 eACH over its 11,000-hour lifespan. This yields a 5-year cost of $53/eACH, matching the cheapest filter, the AirFanta 3Pro. However, filters on high are very noisy—"hard to have a conversation"—and when run at half speed, their cost doubles to $106/eACH while far-UVC remains silent.
Kaufman's analysis reveals far-UVC's advantage in larger spaces. In a 20m x 12m room (8x volume), filters cost 8x more per eACH, but far-UVC scales better because light travels further, achieving 2.2 eACH vs. the expected 1.4. This makes far-UVC 3.7x cheaper than the cheapest filter ($230 vs. $848/eACH). In tall rooms (6m ceilings), far-UVC is 6x cheaper ($316 vs. $2,035/eACH). Kaufman advocates for far-UVC in dance halls and large gatherings, noting that quiet high-volume fans are not commodity items.
- The $500 Aerolamp matches the $53 AirFanta 3Pro filter at $53/eACH in small rooms.
- Filters on high are very noisy; halving speed doubles cost to $106/eACH vs. $53 for silent far-UVC.
- In a 20m x 12m room, far-UVC costs $230/eACH vs. $848 for filters—3.7x cheaper.
Why It Matters
Far-UVC offers silent, scalable pathogen control at lower cost, ideal for large indoor spaces.