Received: 21 April 2020 Revised: 29 August 2020
DOI: 10.1111/1541-4337.12645
COMPREH ENSIVE REVIEWS IN FOOD SCIENCE AND FOOD SAFETY
Recent advances on the application of UV-LED technology
for microbial inactivation: Progress and mechanism
Yasmine Kebbi1 Aliyu Idris Muhammad1,2
Leonardo do Prado-Silva4
1College of Biosystems Engineering and
Food Science, National-Local Joint
Engineering Laboratory of Intelligent
Food Technology and Equipment,
Zhejiang Key Laboratory for Agro-Food
Processing, Zhejiang University,
Hangzhou, China
2 Department of Agricultural and
Environmental Engineering, Faculty of
Engineering, Bayero University, Kano,
Nigeria
3Department of Food Science, Faculty of
Food Engineering, University of
Campinas, Campinas, SP, Brazil
4Ningbo Research Institute,Zhejiang
University, Ningbo, China
Correspondence
Tian Ding, College of Biosystems Engi-
neering and Food Science, National-Local
Joint Engineering Laboratory of Intelligent
Food Technology and Equipment, Zhe-
jiang Key Laboratory for Agro-Food Pro-
cessing, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou,
China.
Email: tding@zju.edu.cn
Funding information
Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento
Científico e Tecnológico, Grant/Award
Numbers: #302763/2014-7, #305804/2017-
0; Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de
Pessoal de Nível Superior, Grant/Award
Number: Code 001
1 INTRODUCTION
Nowadays, consumers’ high demand for microbiologically
safe food with high nutritional and organoleptic quality
has pushed food researchers and manufacturers to devel-
oped novel nonthermal technologies, such as high hydro-
static pressure, ultrasound (US), ionizing radiations, cold
Compr Rev Food Sci Food Saf. 2020;19:3501–3527.
Accepted: 16 September 2020
Anderson S. Sant’Ana3
Donghong Liu1,4 Tian Ding1,4
Abstract
Conventional technologies for the inactivation of microorganisms in food prod-
ucts have their limitations, especially changes in quality attributes that have led
to quality deterioration, low consumer acceptance, impact on the environment,
and potential health hazards (carcinogens). Ultraviolet (UV) light is an emerg-
ing promising nonthermal technology employed for microbial inactivation in
water, liquid, and solid food products to curtail the limitations above. This review
provides an insight into UV light-emitting diodes (UV-LEDs)’ potential as an
alternative to the traditional UV lamps for microbial inactivation in liquid and
solid media. Also, the mechanisms of inactivation of lone and combined UVA-,
UVB-, and UVC-LEDs were discussed. The strategies utilized to improve the effi-
cacy between the UV-LED treatments at various wavelengths were summarized.
Combining different UV-LEDs treatments at different wavelengths have a syn-
ergistic effect and suppression of microbial cell reactivation. The UV-LED-based
advanced oxidation processes (AOPs) also have high germicidal action against
numerous microorganisms and are efficient for the degradation of micropol-
lutants. Among the UV-LEDs discussed, UVC-LED has the most antimicrobial
effect with the most efficient micropollutants decomposition with regards to UV-
LED-based AOPs. This review has provided vital information for future applica-
tion, development, and customization of UV-LED systems that can meet the food
and water safety requirements and energy efficiency.
KEYWORDS
advanced oxidation processes, food safety, microbial decontamination mechanism, nonther-
mal technology, synergistic effect, UV-LEDs
plasma, and pulsed electric field, as alternative treatments
to the traditional heat-based treatment (Fan et al., 2019;
Hertwig, Meneses, & Mathys, 2018; Liu, Zhang, Zhao,
Wang, & Liao, 2016; Muhammad et al., 2018; Muham-
mad, Xiang, Liao, Liu, & Ding, 2018; Petruzzi et al., 2017).
In past years, the interest in light treatment, especially
UV light treatment, has considerably increased. UV light
wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/crf3 © 2020 Institute of Food Technologists
R 3501
3502
technology is widely applied in the food industry due to
its decontamination efficacy with limited changes in food
quality attributes. The UV light is categorized into three
based on its wavelength as UVA (320 to 400 nm), UVB
(280 to 320 nm), and UVC (200 to 280 nm). The wavelength
range of 200 to 280 nm for UVC is considered as the germi-
cidal range due to its direct damage to the DNA of micro-
bial cells. The UVC light treatment is applied for the decon-
tamination of various food products including chicken,
raw salmon, hazelnut, tiger nut milk, and tomato (Basaran,
2009; Holck, Liland, Carlehög, & Heir, 2018; Lim & Har-
rison, 2016; Yang, Sadekuzzaman, & Ha, 2017). It has also
been used for water disinfection and surface decontamina-
tion of various fruits and vegetables (Bintsis, Litopoulou-
Tzanetaki, & Robinson, 2000). Even though UVA and UVB
are less germicidal than UVC, they have been utilized for
decontaminating and improving fruits and vegetable qual-
ity such as peach, blueberries, and spinach (Nguyen &
Mittal, 2007; Santin et al., 2018). Moreover, it has been
proved that UVA has a higher penetrability than UVC
light. Thus, making it more suitable for the treatment of
opaque liquids and biomaterials with a high absorptivity
coefficient (Koutchma, Forney, & Moraru, 2009; Lian et al.,
2010).
In recent years, with the development of light technol-
ogy, more sophisticated, environmentally friendly, energy-
efficient, and low-cost, light-emitting diodes (LEDs) were
introduced as new UV light sources. LEDs are consid-
ered potential competitors of the traditional UV light
sources, including low and medium mercury pressure
(Mori et al., 2007; Tayade, Natarajan, & Bajaj, 2009). The
fundamental structure of the LEDs is based on the junc-
tion of two-terminal semiconductors, called p-n junction
that converts direct current into radiation (Figure 1). Vari-
ous semiconductor materials are utilized in designing this
device. The prominent semiconductor materials reported
by Hinds, Donnell, Akhter, and Brijesh (2019) were alu-
FIGURE 1 Schematic diagram of UV-LEDs arrangement
APPLICATION OF UV LEDS FOR INACTIVATION. . .
minum nitride/aluminum gallium nitride (AlN/AlGaN),
gallium arsenide (GaAs), gallium arsenide phosphide
(GaAsP), gallium phosphide (GaP), or indium gallium
nitride (InGaN). Due to the variation of these semicon-
ductors material properties, LEDs can emit light at dif-
ferent wavelengths that target a specific pathogen of con-
cern. In addition, they have a specific characteristic to
simultaneously emit light at various wavelengths at the
same time (Jo & Tayade, 2014). This flexibility opens the
possibility to combine different LEDs wavelength that
could lead to a probable synergistic effect for bacterial
inactivation (Beck et al., 2017; Green et al., 2018; Naka-
hashi et al., 2014; Taghipour, 2018). Besides, combining
UV light treatment of different wavelengths has enhanced
microbial inactivation by repressing the repair of damaged
DNA (Oguma, Katayama, & Ohgaki, 2002; Poepping, Beck,
Wright, & Linden, 2014). Previous studies have demon-
strated the advantages and effects of UV-LED treatments,
whether using a single wavelength or combined wave-
lengths of UVA-, UVB-, and UVC-LEDs. However, most
of the studies are limited to its application on water treat-
ment with the exact inactivation mechanism, and syner-
gistic effects of the combined UV-LEDs wavelength still
unclear.
In addition to the combination of different UV-LED
wavelengths in improving the disinfection effectiveness,
a combined UV-LED with photocatalysts (e.g., TiO2 , O3 ,
H2 O2 , and Cl2 ) has received considerable attention. Such
treatments are known as advanced oxidation processes
(AOPs). Recently, the UV-LED-based AOPs have shown
the potential for water and wastewater disinfection and
pollutant degradation (Matafonova & Batoev, 2018; Wang
et al., 2017). This combined treatment has caused a syner-
gistic effect on one hand by the direct exposure to UV light,
and on the other hand, by the generation of free radicals
such as hydroxyl radical (OH⋅ ) from the UV light (Li, Huo,
Wu, Lu, & Hu, 2018; Nyangaresi et al., 2019b; Wang, Hu,
Wang, & Hu, 2012). The generation of OH. due to UV light
exposure is considered as the vital element of AOPs. These
oxidation processes have resulted in cell membrane disrup-
tion, damaged DNA, and eventual cell death (Dalrymple,
Stefanakos, Trotz, & Goswami, 2010). However, the appli-
cation of UV-LED/AOPs for decontamination of microor-
ganisms is scarce compared to its application for microp-
ollutant removal.
This review aims to give an overview of UV-LEDs
progress in the past years and their advantage over conven-
tional mercury lamps in terms of inactivation efficacy and
energy demand. The review further discussed the mecha-
nisms of individual UVA-, UVB-, and UVC-LEDs, the use
of coupled LEDs at various wavelengths, and their combi-
nations with photocatalysts for microbial inactivation and
micropollutants decomposition.
APPLICATION OF UV LEDS FOR INACTIVATION. . .
FIGURE 2 Mechanism of inactivation of combined UV-LEDs wavelength on microorganisms
2 MECHANISMS OF MICROBIAL
INACTIVATION BY UV LIGHT
Some physical nonthermal techniques do not inactivate
microorganisms completely, thus resulted in sublethal
injured microbial cells that can pose safety concerns due
to the ability of the microbes to regrow during storage or
transportation when a conducive environment is favorable
(Wu et al., 2020). UV light as a physical nonthermal tech-
nique has numerous mechanisms of action on living cells
depending on its type and wavelength that target a specific
cellular component, thus causing some biological effects
(Yeo & Liong, 2012). As shown in Figure 2, DNA dam-
age is the primary biological effect observed in microbial
cells after UV light exposure. Likewise, other biomolecules
such as proteins and lipids experienced some form of bio-
logical defects due to the intense UV light. Proteins and
lipids are viewed as the primary targets of reactive oxygen
species (ROS) produced by UV light, and this contributed
to the indirect effect (Visser, Poos, Scheper, Boelen, & Duyl,
2002).
2.1 DNA damage
Among UV light-induced alteration in microorganisms,
the DNA damage brought on by UVC is the most signif-
icant one. The UVC alteration involved the reactions of
adjacent thymines to form thymine dimers that result in
changes in bioactive cell properties (Figure 2a). It is worth
noting that UV radiations (UVC and UVB) further gener-
ate cyclobutane–pyrimidine dimers (CPDs) and 6–4 pho-
3503
toproducts, which are the two major DNA photoproducts
(Lindahl & Wood, 1999; Mitchell &Karentz, 1993; Yeo &
Liong, 2012). CPDs are the dominant by-products and have
caused the highest cytotoxic effects in microbial cells. On
the other hand, the 6–4 photoproducts exerted more lethal
and mutagenic effects (Mitchell & Karentz, 1993).
Meanwhile, UV light within the range of UVA wave-
length has the least influence on DNA due to its low
absorptivity in the DNA. Thus, it produced a negligible
amount of CPDs (Jiang et al., 2009). However, UVA can
still indirectly alter DNA by triggering photoreactions via
the generation of singlet oxygen (1 O2 ) (Alscher, Donahue,
& Cramer, 1997; Sinha & Häder, 2002). Nakahashi et al.
(2014) revealed important changes in the DNA, including
the production of 8-hydroxy-2′-deoxyguanosine (8-OHdG)
and CPDs as a result of lone UVA-LED and UVC irra-
diations, respectively. Similarly, Hamamoto et al. (2007)
in their study reported the higher formation of 8-OHdG
in UVA-LED irradiated Salmonella enteritidis than that
recorded in UVC-irradiated bacteria at the same inactiva-
tion level. The formation of these photoproducts inhibited
the normal replication and transcription of DNA, and thus
led to a mutation that resulted in the inactivation of the
cells (Friedberb et al., 2006).
2.2 Lipid oxidation
UVA light is associated with ROS production and targets
mostly the cellular membrane owing to its biomolecu-
lar composition, mostly lipids. Besides the biomolecular
composition, the presence of a large percentage of iron
3504
catalyzes the production of ROS generation. As depicted
in Figure 2b, the generated ROS has led to oxidation of
fatty acids at lipid bilayer and pores formation, rearrange-
ment of the phospholipid bilayer, and change of transmem-
brane ion gradients (Kohen et al., 1995; Smith et al., 2009).
The oxidative damage of the fatty acids also resulted in
the disruption of the cell membrane. The probable mod-
ifications that occurred at the lipid bilayer level after the
UV radiations were a significant decline in membrane cov-
erage with intact thickness and formation of hydrophilic
channels in the membrane. Other notable modifications
observed were loss of some lipid biomolecules and reor-
ganization of the remaining lipids to form hemimicellar
edges of the hydrophilic channels (Smith et al., 2009).
These findings showed that unsaturated fatty acids are
more sensitive to UV light due to their structure (contains
double bonds) than the saturated lipids.
2.3 Protein alteration
In addition to DNA damage and lipid oxidation, protein
alteration also contributes to the inactivation of microor-
ganisms by UV radiation (Visser et al., 2002). The appli-
cation of high UV light dose has detrimental effects on
protein, such as the inhibition of critical cellular enzymes
function that lead to cellular dysfunction (Hoerter et al.,
2005). It has been demonstrated that UVA caused slacken-
ing protein synthesis as a result of tRNAs photo-damage
(Oppezzo & Pizaorro, 2001). Meanwhile, the limited pen-
etration capacity and protein-induced damage of UVB is
small compared to UVC (Horikawa-miura et al., 2007).
Despite this limited penetration, it results in extensive pro-
tein damage and subsequent cell death. Santos et al. (2013)
assessed the UV light effect on protein conformational
and compositional changes in Acinetobacter sp. and Pseu-
domonas sp. using mid-infrared spectroscopy and sodium
dodecyl sulfate-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (SDS-
PAGE). The results revealed critical changes in the protein
profiles of the two bacteria. Such changes were attributed
to the oxidation of amino acids and other modifications on
biochemical processes such as propionylation, glycosyla-
tion, and phosphorylation.
3 UV-LED ADVANCEMENT FOR
MICROBIAL INACTIVATION
The performance of the UV-LEDs has improved over the
past decade with impressive performance regarding wall-
plug efficiency, LED input power, LED life, UV output
power, and cost (Ibrahim, Macadam, Autin, & Jefferson,
2014; Taghipour, 2018). High cost was reported to be one
APPLICATION OF UV LEDS FOR INACTIVATION. . .
of the constraints related to UV-LEDs application. Some
studies were conducted to analyze the cost and forecast
the economic viability of UV-LEDs systems compared
to conventional mercury lamps. Crook, Jefferson, Autin,
MacAdam, and Nocker (2015) assessed the future eco-
nomic cost of UV-LEDs systems in comparison to con-
ventional UV lamps. Their cost analysis was achieved by
applying total expenditure (TOTEX) at two different disin-
fection levels of graywater. In both cases, the TOTEX cal-
culated over 15 years revealed that the UV-LEDs could not
be qualified as an alternative to the traditional UV lamps
due to their high economic cost. Nevertheless, it was pre-
dicted that UV-LEDs would compete with conventional
UV lamps in terms of cost by the year 2020. The economic
viability of the UV-LED systems based on the whole life
cost is expected to fall in 2020 (Ibrahim et al., 2014). Despite
their high cost in that period, UV-LED systems were pre-
ferred owing to their tremendous advantages, mainly being
environmentally friendly. The economic viability of LEDs
as a UV source for the application in AOPs was evalu-
ated by Autin et al. (2013). The study highlighted the eco-
nomic potential of the LEDs over the mercury lamps for
the AOPs such as UV/TiO2 and UV/H2 O2 . This is because
the price of the LEDs might drop from 210 to 0.05 £/bulb
in a period extending from 2007 to 2020 (Ibrahim, 2012).
Recently, Taghipour (2018) reported that from 2019 to 2020,
UV-LEDs had dominated the disinfection and purification
market due to their cost reduction.
To achieve the predicted cost-effectiveness, various tech-
nological parameters were developed by UV-LED man-
ufacturers, including power input, wall-plug efficiency,
power output, and LEDs lifetime. The emergence of UV-
LED systems dated back to the 2000s; in the beginning, the
UV-LEDs were operating at lower power in the range of
few milliwatts (Zhang et al., 2002). In the following years,
the UV-LEDs input power was remarkably improved, and
the output power was predicted to rise from 0.18 to 675 mW
from 2007 to 2020 (Ibrahim, 2012). Also, the wall-plug
efficiency was anticipated to reach 75% by 2020 (Song,
Mohseni, & Taghipour, 2016).
Currently, more advanced, energy, and cost-effective
UV-LEDs are developed. Song, Taghipour, and Mohseni
(2019) used three different LEDs of 265, 285, and 365 nm
wavelengths with a relatively high output power of 10, 30,
and 2,350 mW, respectively. Biancullo et al. (2019) used
LEDs with a higher wavelength of 381 nm that possessed
a longer life span and intensity exceeding 70% after 10,000
hr of work. Similarly, 365-nm LEDs with a high power out-
put of 1,613 mW and an efficiency of 12% were also reported
(Lui, Roser, Corkish, Ashbolt, & Stuetz, 2016). Kim, Kim,
and Kang (2017) utilized a UV-LED system made of four
modules, and each one contained five LEDs of 279 nm
wavelength and a total of 200 mW power output. Other
APPLICATION OF UV LEDS FOR INACTIVATION. . .
types of UV-LEDs in the range of 265, 275, 310, and 365 nm
wavelength, and power output of 1.1, 2.2, 1.3, and 6.8 mW,
respectively, were utilized with a current of 20 mA (Nyan-
garesi et al., 2019a). According to the data reported, the
longer the LED wavelengths, the more energy-efficient
they are compared to the shorter wavelength LEDs. This is
also similar to the lifespan, where 365- and 250-nm LEDs
have a lifetime of 26,000 and 2,000 hr, respectively (Chen
et al., 2017).
4 COMPARISON OF UV-LEDS AND
CONVENTIONAL UV SYSTEMS FOR
MICROBIAL INACTIVATION
Given the development of the UV-LED systems over the
last decades and their progressive domination in the dis-
infection markets, UV-LEDs are considered as poten-
tial competitors and alternative to the UV lamps. It is
well established that UV-LEDs possessed more advan-
tages over conventional lamps, including the low pres-
sure (LP) and medium mercury (MP) lamps, being envi-
ronmentally friendly, and mercury-free. In terms of ger-
micidal efficiency, numerous studies were conducted to
compare the efficacy of UV-LEDs emission at different
wavelengths with conventional lamps (Bowker, Sain, Shat-
alov, & Ducoste, 2011).
Li, Wang, Huo, Lu, and Hu (2017) compared both dis-
infection efficiency and repair repression of E. coli using
two UVC-LEDs emitting at 265 and 280 nm with LP lamp
(254 nm). The results showed that 265-nm UVC-LED had
the best inactivation efficacy against E. coli compared to
280-nm UVC-LED and LP lamp. However, concerning
photoreactivation and dark repair repression, the 280-nm
UVC-LED treatment had a better effect than 265-nm UVC-
LED and LP lamp as indicated by plate count and endonu-
clease sensitive site (ESS) assays. Green et al. (2018) also
reported that at an equivalent dose of 7 mJ/cm2 for 259,
268, and 275 nm, UVC-LEDs recorded the same level of
inactivation or higher than LP lamps (253.7 nm) for E. coli,
Listeria, and Salmonella. Their selection of the wavelength
for achieving optimal treatment was based on the compari-
son of the different parameters of the LED wavelengths and
LP lamp, including the irradiance and germicidal efficacy.
These parameters were assumed to affect the treatment
time, lifetime, and treatment cost. The study concluded
that the 268-nm UVC-LED wavelength was the most effec-
tive. Therefore, it confirmed that the nearer the LED wave-
length to 280 nm, the better the choice for effective UV-
LED performance.
On the other hand, Beck et al. (2017) compared 260 and
280-nm UVC-LEDs with LP and MP UV mercury vapor
lamps (254 nm) for E. coli, MS2 coliphage, human aden-
3505
ovirus type 2 (HAdV2), and Bacillus pumilus spores. All
the UV sources performed almost similar inactivation of
the microorganisms. The electrical efficiency of all the UV
sources for microbial inactivation was estimated by eval-
uating the electrical energy per order for E. coli and MS2
coliphage (EE0 ) (which is equivalent to the energy required
to decrease the concentration of the microorganism by
one order) and the energy required for 2-log reduction of
HAdV2 (EEL.2 ). Contrary to other studies, the LP and MP
possessed the least EE0 of E. coli and MS2, compared to
260- and 280-nm UVC-LEDs. The LP and MP lamps also
had the lowest EEL.2 for the inactivation of HAdV2. In this
regard, it was suggested that in order to match the electrical
efficiencies (energy per log reduction) of conventional LP
UV sources, UVC LEDs must reach efficiencies of 25% to
39%.
In a later study, Rattanakul and Oguma (2018) also
investigated the electrical energy efficiency of 265, 280
UVC-LEDs and 300 UVB-LEDs by evaluating the elec-
trical energy required to inactivate 3 logs (EE,3 ) of all
the tested microorganisms, including E. coli, Bacillus sub-
tilis spores, Bacteriophage Qb, Legionella pneumophila, and
Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Similar to the previous find-
ings by Beck et al. (2017), LP UV showed a better per-
formance regarding electrical efficiency than all UV-LED
wavelengths based on the estimated EE,3 , which was the
lowest (0.006 to 0.064 kWh/m3 ). The variation in the EE,3 is
related to the difference in wall-plug efficiency. Hence, the
energy consumption needed for bacterial inactivation at a
specific level might be considered as an essential param-
eter for a more reliable comparison between different UV
light sources.
Recently, a first full-scale UV-LED reactor, emitting light
at 275 nm, was utilized for the disinfection of drinking
water. This reactor was tested for bacteriophage (MS2)
inactivation and then compared its effectiveness to con-
ventional mercury UV reactors. The full-scale UV-LED
and conventional mercury UV reactors had similar inac-
tivation performance. In order to improve the efficiency
of the UV-LED reactors for a large-scale drinking water
disinfection, the power output, and the hydraulic profile
must be improved (Jarvis, Autin, Goslan, & Hassard, 2019).
5 INFLUENCE OF INDIVIDUAL
UV-LEDS ON MICROBIAL INACTIVATION
LEDs have been proposed as alternative sources for the
generation of UV light and may substitute conventional
mercury lamps in the future (Kessler, 2013). The use of
LEDs provides a safe and efficient application of UV treat-
ment for water disinfection and food decontamination
without the risk of mercury contamination. LEDs are
3506
characterized by their ability to generate different ranges
of UV light, namely, UVA, UVB, and UVC. Consequently,
UV-LED treatment can exert various effects, depending
on the wavelength, bacteria strain, and disinfection media
used. Based on the available literature, UVC is the most
used for UV-LED treatment, as it was established to have
the highest germicidal action. The influence and germici-
dal actions of UVA-, UVB-, and UVC-LEDs are discussed
in the subsequent sections.
5.1 UVA-LED
It has been established that UVA in the range of 365 nm
wavelength posed a bactericidal effect with high penetra-
tion ability among the UV spectrum (Koutchma & Popović,
2019). Due to these essential characteristics of the UVA
range, new UVA-LED setups were developed for water and
food disinfection (Mori et al., 2007). However, few stud-
ies were carried out to assess the bactericidal action and
effectiveness of this UVA-LED, as presented in Table 1.
Yagi et al. (2007) evaluated the effects of the application of
UVA-LED treatment at a wavelength of 365 nm. The study
proved the effectiveness of 365 nm wavelength of the UVA-
LED to cause significant inactivation of both pathogenic
and nonpathogenic bacteria in phosphate-buffered saline
(PBS). The irradiation at UV doses of 9 × 106 and 27 ×
106 mJ/cm2 led to complete inactivation of Vibrio para-
haemolyticus and E. coli, respectively. Whereas, the reduc-
tion rate of Salmonella reached 85% at 27 × 106 mJ/cm2 .
This indicated that sensitivity to UVA-LED varied based
on the type of microorganism. Another study conducted
by Hamamoto et al. (2007) showed that UVA-LED at a
wavelength of 365 nm exerted a bactericidal effect on V.
parahaemolyticus, E. coli, S. enteritidis, and Staphylococ-
cus aureus in water. The treatment resulted in a reduc-
tion higher than 5 log CFU/mL for all bacteria in less than
75 min at 315 × 103 mJ/cm2 (excluding S. enteritidis with
log reduction >4 log CFU/mL within 160 min at 672 ×
103 mJ/cm2 ) which was less sensitive to UVA-LED treat-
ment. A recent study by Ahmed Malik et al. (2019) eval-
uated the effectiveness of 385-nm UVA-LED against three
pathogens, including S. aureus, P. aeruginosa, and E. coli
through measurement of inhibition zone after UVA-LED
exposure at various times (1 to 60 min). Based on the
inhibition zone diameters measurement, P. aeruginosa was
the most sensitive bacteria given its large inhibition zone
diameter (67 mm) followed by E. coli (55 mm) and S. aureus
(45 mm) as the most resistant bacteria to the UVA-LED
irradiation after 60 min exposure.
The effectiveness of UVA-LED treatment on surface
decontamination of solid food was investigated. Irradiation
of cabbage tissues at 365 nm wavelength for 90 min led to
APPLICATION OF UV LEDS FOR INACTIVATION. . .
the inactivation of E. coli DH5, reaching a log survival ratio
of −3.23. Moreover, the study demonstrated that UVA-LED
is appropriate for the treatment of fresh produce due to the
nonalteration in the quality attributes of the cabbage, such
as weight loss and vitamin C content (Aihara et al., 2014).
Meanwhile, Haughton et al. (2012) investigated the appli-
cation of a near UV/visible 395 ± 5-nm LED for the decon-
tamination of raw chicken. Their results revealed reduc-
tions of 2.21 and 2.62 log CFU/g in C. jejuni after 1 and 5 min
of treatment. In addition, the treatment did not affect the
color of the meat. Lian et al. (2010) employed 365-nm UVA-
LED for the inactivation of E. coli DH5α in colored bev-
erage, made from artificial pigments at different concen-
trations. The aim was to assess the influence of the edible
pigments on the bactericidal action of the UVA-LED treat-
ment. At UV dose of 126 × 103 mJ/cm2 , the reduction of
E. coli varied from 0.2 to 2 log CFU/mL depending on the
type of the pigment and the concentrations used. The inac-
tivation of E. coli diminished at a higher concentration of
the edible pigments (the inactivation of E. coli was greater
in less concentrated solution). This could be explained by
the possibility of reflection that scattered the radiation.
Therefore, it is recommended to combine UV-LED treat-
ment with other sterilization methods to improve the inac-
tivation efficacy in liquid with a high absorption coef-
ficient. UVA-LEDs have been recently employed for the
decontamination of low moisture foods. Pasard, Gänzle,
and Roopesh (2019) studied the potential of 365- and 395-
nm pulsed LEDs (UV dose: 0 to 834.4 × 103 mJ/cm2 and UV
intensity: 0.05, 0.23, 0.114, and 0.55 W/cm2 ) to inactivate
E. coli and S. enterica in both high (PBS) and low (dry bacte-
ria) water activity (aw ) (aw = 0.75) media and dry pet foods.
UVA pulsed-LED treatment at both wavelengths had a bet-
ter performance in the inactivation of bacteria suspended
in PBS (around 8 log CFU/g) than in dry bacteria (1 to 2 log
CFU/g). A 365-nm pulsed-LED treatment was more effi-
cient than 395-nm pulsed LED in terms of energy input
because 395-nm pulsed LED needed much higher dosage
than that of 365-nm pulsed LED to achieve the same inac-
tivation level. Meanwhile, 395-nm pulsed LED at a dosage
of 658 × 103 mJ/cm2 was more efficient in the inactivation
of E. coli and S. enterica in pet foods (0.75%) compared to
365-nm pulsed LED. Du, Prasad, Gänzle, and Roopesh
(2019) demonstrated in their study the potential of 395-
nm UVA-LED in pulsed mode to inactivate Salmonella
ssp. in wheat flour in two different systems: open and
semiclosed system. Wheat flour exposed to 395-nm UVA-
LEDs for 60 min led to a reduction of Salmonella by 2.42
and 2.91 log CFU/g in the open system and semiclosed
system, respectively. Moreover, the functional and struc-
tural changes of gluten have been also studied. The results
showed that exposure to 395-nm UVA-LED for 30 and
60 min triggered oxidation via generation of ROS that led to
TA B L E 1 Influence of UVA LED treatment on microbial inactivation in various media
Microorganisms Treatment media Treatment conditions Major findings References
V. parahaemolyticus, E. coli, S. Water λ: 365 nm ∙ 5 log CFU/mL reduction was obtained in V. (Hamamoto et al., 2007)
enteritidis, and S. aureus I: 70 mW/cm2 parahaemolyticus, E. coli, S. aureus, and E. coli DH5α.
D: 0 to 315 × 103 mJ/cm2 ∙ Inactivation of about 4 log CFU/mL was recorded in S.
APPLICATION OF UV LEDS FOR INACTIVATION. . .

t: 0 to 75 min enteritidis.

Candida albicans and E. coli
biofilms
phosphate-buffered Pulsed and continuous ∙ Pulsed irradiation had a greater germicidal effect than the (Li et al., 2010)
saline (PBS) exposure continuous irradiation mode.
λ: 365 nm.
I: 0.28 mW/cm2
pulses: 0 to 1,000 Hz
Duty rate: 25% to 75%

E. coli DH5α Colored beverage, λ: 365 nm ∙ UVA LED bacterial efficacy decreased with an increase in (Lian et al., 2010)
Orange juice I: 70 mW/cm2 the concentration of the pigments.
D: 126 × 103 mJ/cm2
t: 30 min

E. coli DH5α Cabbage, Lettuce λ: 365 nm ∙ Inactivation increases with the increase in exposure time. (Aihara et al., 2014)
I: 12.5 × 104 ∙ 90 min of the exposure led to 3.23 log CFU/g reduction.
mW/cm2
t: 0 to 90 min

Campylobacter jejuni and Raw chicken λ: 395 ± 5 nm ∙ Increase in inactivation with longer exposure times and (Haughton et al., 2012)
Campylobacter coli D: (0.06 to18) × 103 mJ/cm2 shorter distances from the UV source.
t: 30 s to 10 min ∙ No effect on the color of raw chicken.

(Continues)
3507
 3508

TA B L E 1 (Continued)
Microorganisms Treatment media Treatment conditions Major findings References
S. aureus, P. aeruginosa, and Nutrient agar dish λ: 385 nm ∙ Pseudomonas aeruginosa was more sensitive to the UVA. (Ahmed Malik et al., 2019)
E. coli (solid media) t: 1 to 60 min ∙ The reduction rate of bacteria increased with the increase
in exposure time.

Salmonella spp. Wheat flour Pulsed UVA LEDs: ∙ An exposure time of 60 min induced reduction of (Du et al., 2019)
λ: 395 nm Salmonella by 2.42 and 2.91 log CFU/g in the open and
I: 0.45 W/cm2 semiclosed systems, respectively.
t: 0, 10, 30, 60 min ∙ The color of the flour was affected.
D: (270 to 1,620) × 103 mJ/cm2 ∙ No effect on rheological properties.
T◦ : 24 ◦ C (Open system) and
25 ◦ C (Semiclosed system).
RH: 42% (Open system) and
75% (Semiclosed system).

E. coli and S. enterica
PBS Pulsed UVA-LEDs ∙ The inactivation efficacy depended on the dose, exposure (Pasard et al., 2019)
Pet foods λ: 365 and 395 nm time, aw, and bacterial strain.
I: 0.05, 0.23, 0.114, 0.55 W/cm2 ∙ Dry bacteria were more resistant to the treatment than
D: 0 to 834.4 × 103 J/cm2 the bacteria suspended in PBS.
High and low-aw conditions ∙ 365-nm LED was more effective than 395-nm LED for
inactivation of the pathogens suspended in PBS and dried
cells.
∙ 395-nm LED had a better performance than 365-nm LED
to inactivate the pathogens in pet foods.

Note. λ, wavelength; I, UV intensity; D, UV dose; t, treatment time; T, temperature.

APPLICATION OF UV LEDS FOR INACTIVATION. . .
APPLICATION OF UV LEDS FOR INACTIVATION. . . 3509

TA B L E 2 Effect of UVB-LED treatment on microbial inactivation

Treatment Treatment
Microorganisms media conditions Major findings References
P. aeruginosa, L. Water λ: 300 nm ∙ E. coli was the most sensitive (Rattanakul &
pneumophila, E. coli, B. I: 1.01 mW/cm2 microorganism compared to the Oguma, 2018)
subtilis spores, and pathogenic bacteria and B. subtilis
bacteriophage Qb spores.

E. coli and Enterococcus Water λ: 310 nm ∙ UVB LEDs achieved about 5 log (Lui et al., 2016)
faecalis CFU/mL reduction within 3 hr of
treatment.

S. mutans, Streptococcus PBS λ: 310 nm ∙ UVB LED irradiation has a weak (Takada et al., 2017)
sauguinis, Porphyromonas I: 1.75 mW/cm2 bactericidal effect on oral bacteria.
gingivalis, and D: 17.5 to 265 mJ/cm2
Fusobacterium nucleatum
Pseudomonas aeruginosa Solid media λ: 296 nm ∙ UVB irradiation was effective for P. (Argyraki et al.,
biofilm D: 720 to 2 × 105 aeruginosa biofilms inactivation. 2016)
mJ/cm2 ∙ Higher resistance of mature P.
I: 1, 8, and 14 W/m2 aeruginosa biofilms
less than 15 min

Note. λ, wavelength; I, UV intensity; D, UV dose; t, treatment time; T, temperature.

bleaching of the wheat flour and polymerization of gluten
proteins through disulphide linkage. In addition, the con-
tent of the secondary conformation of gluten was modified
by the increase of contents of intermolecular β-sheet and
β-turn structures. These modifications of gluten proteins
structure treatment might enhance the stability of gluten
network, therefore in terms of dough and bread making
it might be beneficial for the mixing process and promot-
ing the quality of the baking products. More studies are
required to explore the industrial feasibility UVA-LED sys-
tems and their application for decontamination at different
levels of food processing.
5.2 UVB-LED
UVB is another form of UV light utilized for medical
purposes such as the treatment of infectious diseases
and sterilization of medical equipment (Argyraki et al.,
2016; Takada, Matsushita, Horioka, Furuichi, & Sumi,
2017). Table 2 outlined the key findings of UVB-LED stud-
ies related to microorganism inactivation. Argyraki et al.
(2016) compared the germicidal effect of 296-nm UVB-
LED and 266-nm UVC-LED on P. aeruginosa biofilms.
The study revealed that the UVB-LED was more efficient
than the UVC-LED in the inactivation of the biofilms. The
UVB-LED irradiation completely inactivated the P. aerug-
inosa biofilms grown for 24 hr at a dosage of 105 mJ/cm2
against a 1 log CFU/mL reduction for UVC LED irradia-
tion at the same dose. Meanwhile, for the fully matured
biofilms (grown for 72 hr), only 3.9 log CFU/mL reduc-
tion was obtained at a UVB dosage of 2 × 105 mJ/cm2 .
In contrast to the above study, Lui et al. (2016) men-
tioned that 310-nm UVB-LED was less effective than other
LED wavelengths used in the study (270 to 720 nm). The
irradiation by UVB-LED has only caused a reduction of
1 log CFU/mL of E. coli and a negligible log reduction
of Enterococcus faecalis. The weak bactericidal effect of
UVB-LED was attributed to the low LED output power
and the low sensitivity of the microorganisms. In related
studies, Takada et al. (2017) observed that 310-nm UVB-
LED slightly inactivated oral bacteria, including Strep-
tococcus mutans, Streptococcus sauguinis, Porphyromonas
gingivalis, and Fusobacterium nucleatum in PBS (less effi-
cient than UVC-LED treatment). The reduction rate of P.
gingivalis reached 47% to 58% in a time exceeding 30 s at
a UV dose of 52.5 mJ/cm2 . The F. nucleatum was reduced
to 53.5% after irradiation at 52.5 mJ/cm2 dose for 30 s, S.
sanguinis was reduced to 36% to 50% after 17.5 mJ/cm2
dose irradiation for 10 s, and S. mutans reduced to 52%
to 58% following a dose treatment of 17.5 to 420 mJ/cm2
for 10 to 120 s. Rattanakul and Oguma (2018) compared
three different LED wavelengths (265, 280, and 300 nm) for
the inactivation of different microorganisms that included
vegetative cells of P. aeruginosa, L. pneumophila, and E.
coli, B. subtilis spores, and Bacteriophage Qb in water. The
results demonstrated that K values (maximum inactiva-
tion rate constant, cm2 /mJ) at 300 nm wavelength for veg-
etative bacteria, spores, and bacteriophage QB were low-
est among other wavelengths. The low K values indicated
the low sensitivity of these microorganisms to the 300-nm
LED, and hence, depicted inadequacy of the wavelength
3510
for such microorganisms’ inactivation. Further studies are
needed to assess the applicability of UVB-LEDs for food
decontamination.
5.3 UVC-LED
UVC range is the most used among other UV-LED cat-
egories for decontamination due to its high germicidal
action. Table 3 highlights some applications of UVC-LED
treatments in various media. UVC-LEDs are mainly used
for the disinfection and purification of drinking water and
wastewater to substitute chlorination. This is to ensure
consumers’ safety and prevent environmental contamina-
tion by harmful chemical components (Chevremont, Far-
net, Coulomb, & Boudenne, 2012; Gross, Stangl, Hoenes,
Sift, & Hessling, 2015; Vilhunen, Särkkä, & Sillanpää, 2009;
Würtele et al., 2011). Chatterley and Linden (2010) eval-
uated the germicidal effect of 265-nm LED wavelength
for the inactivation of E. coli in water. The irradiance of
20 mJ/cm2 led to 3.3 log CFU/mL reduction of E. coli.
Crook et al. (2015) employed a 255-nm UV-LED source
with varying doses of 0 to 120 mJ/cm2 for graywater treat-
ment. At UV dose of 41 mJ/cm2 , the irradiation resulted
in a total inactivation of E. coli and Enterococci, whereas
120 mJ/cm2 dose achieved a reduction of 5 log CFU/mL
for total coliforms. In this study, the presence of particles
has affected the disinfection efficacy. The treatment was
more efficient in the graywater with smaller particles than
that with large ones. This could be attributed to the parti-
cles shielding effect on the microbial cells during the UV
radiation. Similarly, Nelson, McMartin, Yost, Runtz, and
Ono (2013) reported that UV radiation was less effective
in reducing coliform bacteria in wastewater because of the
high turbidity.
Shin, Kim, Kim, and Kang (2016) used UVC-LED to
inactivate various microorganisms on solid media, includ-
ing E. coli, Salmonella typhimurium, and Listeria mono-
cytogenes. They found that the exposure to the 275-nm
LED at a dose of 1.61 mJ/cm2 led to a 5 to 6 log CFU/mL
reduction for E. coli and S. typhimiurium, while over 5 log
CFU/mL reduction was observed for L. monocytogenes at
the same dose. The inactivation rate of the bacteria was
increased with the increase in temperature and UV-LED
dosage. In this type of treatment, the potency of the UVC
can be enhanced by pulse mode application. A recent study
by Zou et al. (2019) buttressed this point. The researchers
compared the efficacy of 265- and 280-nm LEDs in a contin-
uous and pulsed mode for E. coli inactivation. The results
revealed that the pulsed treatment achieved a better inac-
tivation. A decrease in the duty cycle from 100% to 5%
(an essential parameter in pulsed UV-LED treatment) led
to the decrease of E. coli inactivation under both wave-
APPLICATION OF UV LEDS FOR INACTIVATION. . .
lengths. Also, when energy efficiency is taken into consid-
eration, still the pulsed mode resulted in a better perfor-
mance compared to the continuous mode. Zhou, Li, Lan,
Yan, and Zhu (2017) reported that the US pretreatment
has positively affected UV-LED inactivation on E. coli in
deionized water (DI), DI containing kaoline suspension
(DIK), and secondary effluent (SE) of municipal wastew-
ater treatment plant. A better inactivation rate constant
was observed when the samples were pretreated with US
(40 s, 66 W/L) followed by UVC-LED radiation (254 nm,
0 to 30 mJ/cm2 ). An improved inactivation from 0.24 to
1.07 log CFU/mL for each dose was recorded in DIK, while
an increase of 0.07 to 0.55 log CFU/mL was noticed for
each dose in SE. It was hypothesized that the US pretreat-
ment attenuated the shielding effects caused by the pres-
ence of suspended particles in turbid liquids. US pretreat-
ment reduced photoreactivation, thus promoted disinfec-
tion efficiency (Zhou et al., 2017). UVC-LEDs have been
employed to control microbial contamination in the food
industry to address food safety concerns. Murashita, Kawa-
mura, and Koseki (2017) studied the potential of UVC-
LED (270 to 280 nm) to reduce nonpathogenic E. coli
ATCC 25922, E. coli O157: H7, S. enterica Typhimurium,
and L. monocytogenes in ice cubes. The results revealed
that UVC-LED at a dosage of 15.2 mJ/cm2 led to a 4.45
log CFU/mL reduction of E. coli ATCC 25922. L. monocy-
togenes was the most sensitive among the pathogen as it
was completely inactivated at 40 mJ/cm2 . However, E. coli
O157: H7 and S. enterica Typhimurium required a higher
dose of 160 mJ/cm2 to achieve 6 to 7 log cycles reduc-
tion. Kim and Kang (2020a) applied the UVC-LED at a
wavelength of 280 nm at doses varying from 0 to 21.6
mJ/cm2 for inactivation of E. coli O157: H7 S. Typhimurium,
and L. monocytogenes in different media surfaces includ-
ing selective media, deli meat, and spinach. Their results
demonstrated that UVC-LED was more effective on E. coli
inactivation in selective media surface. It required 1.35 s
(2.2 mJ/cm2 ) and 3.60 s (5.9 mJ/cm2 ) to reach 3 log reduc-
tions of E. coli and S. Typhimurium, respectively, whereas
L. monocytogenes required more than 4.5 s (9.3 mJ/cm2 ).
For sliced meat, a dose of 21.6 mJ/cm2 achieved 1.0 to 1.6 log
reductions of the three pathogens. Similar to the selective
media, L. monocytogenes was the most resistant among the
pathogens. For spinach, a dosage of 21.6 mJ/cm2 recorded
2.4 to 2.6 log reductions of the three pathogens. In another
study, UVC LED treatment was applied to decontaminate
low water activity foods such as wheat flour. A 275-nm
pulsed LED at a dose of 60.1 mJ/cm2 and an intensity of
16.7 µW/cm2 for 60 min achieved 1.07 log/CFU reduction
of Salmonella with no color changes in the treated wheat
flour (Subedi, Du, Prasad, Yadav, & Roopesh, 2020). UVC-
LED treatments have also been utilized for the decontam-
ination of various contact surfaces during food processing.
TA B L E 3 Influence of different UVC-LED treatments on microbial inactivation
Microorganism Treatment media Treatment conditions Major findings References
Escherichia coli O157: H7, Solid media and water λ: 275 nm ∙ Increased irradiation dosage and temperature resulted in 5 to 6 (Shin et al., 2016)
Salmonella Typhimurium, and I: 5.57 µW/cm2 log CFU/mL reductions of E. coli O157: H7 and S.
Listeria monocytogenes. T: 0 to 5 min Typhimurium.
T: 0 to 37 ◦ C ∙ A 5 log CFU/mL for L. monocytogenes was recorded at a dose of
1.67 mJ/cm2 .

E. coli, bacteriophages MS-2, and PBS λ: 255 and 275 nm
T7 I: 0.046 to 0.11 µW/cm2
t: 0 to 1,577 s
∙ The wavelength of 275-nm LEDs had a better bactericidal effect (Bowker et al., 2011)
than 255 nm for T7 and E. coli.
∙ The wavelengths of 255- and 275-nm UV-LEDs produced
comparable microbial inactivation for MS-2.
APPLICATION OF UV LEDS FOR INACTIVATION. . .

E. coli water λ: 265 nm ∙ An irradiance of 20 mJ/cm2 led to 3.3 log CFU/mL reduction of (Chatterley & Linden,
D: 0 to 20 mJ/cm2 E. coli. 2010)

E. coli Water λ: 265 and 280 nm in continuous ∙ High current pulsed irradiation of 280 nm LEDs wavelength (Zou et al., 2019)
and pulsed mode achieved better inactivation than 265 nm wavelength.
t: 1 to 20 min
D: 8.4 mJ/cm2

E. coli water λ: 250, 265, and 280 nm ∙ 1.0 and 2.5 log CFU/mL E. coli reductions in water following 20 (Nelson et al., 2013)
t: 20 to 50 min and 50 min of UV-LED exposure, respectively.
∙ UV was less effective in reducing coliform bacteria in
wastewater.

E. coli Deionized water (DI), DI λ: 254 nm ∙ U.S. pretreatment significantly improved the UVC LED (Zhou et al., 2017)
water with kaoline D: 0 to 30 mJ/cm2 irradiation efficacy.
suspension (DIK), and US pretreatment: 40 s, 66 W/L
secondary effluent (SE)
E. coli, Enterococci, and Graywater λ: 255 nm ∙ UVC LED efficiently inactivated all bacteria. (Crook et al., 2015)
Total coliforms D: 0 to 120 mJ/cm2 ∙ Suspended particle sizes influenced disinfection efficiency.

E. coli, S. aureus, L. Peptone water λ: 266 to 279 nm ∙ Inactivation rate was enhanced with an increase in the UV (Kim et al., 2017)
monocytogenes, Saccharomyces D: 0.1 to 0.6 mJ/cm2 dose.
pastorianus, and Pichia ∙ Distinct microorganisms showed different sensitivities to the
membranaefaciens UV-LED treatments.

E. coli O157: H, S. enterica serovar Sliced cheese λ: 266 to 279 nm ∙ Short peak LED wavelengths (266, 270 nm) had better (Kim, Kim, & Kang,
Typhimurium, and L. D: 1 to 3 mJ/cm2 inactivation compared to the long peak wavelengths (275 to 2016)
monocytogenes 279 nm).
∙ No changes in the color of the cheese.

(Continues)
3511
TA B L E 3 (Continued)
3512

Microorganism Treatment media Treatment conditions Major findings References

E. coli ATCC 25922, E. coli O157: Ice cubes λ: 270 to 280 nm ∙ UVC-LED efficiently inactivated nonpathogenic E. coli. (Murashita et al., 2017)
H7, S. Typhimurium, and L. T◦ : -30 ◦ C ∙ L. monocytogenes was the most sensitive among all pathogens.
monocytogenes. I: 0.005 to 0.0085 mW/cm2 ∙ L. monocytogenes required a lower dose for the total
D: 0 to 160 mJ/cm2 inactivation compared to E. coli O157: H7 and S. Typhimurium.

E. coli O157: H7, S. Typhimurium, Selective media λ: 280 nm ∙ E. coli was the most sensitive to the treatment in selective (Kim & Kang, 2020a)
and L. monocytogenes. Sliced deli meat D: 0 to 21.6 mJ/cm2 media.
Spinach ∙ E. coli was completely inactivated at an exposure time of 1.35 s,
while S. Typhimurium and L. monocytogenes required much
longer treatment times.
∙ UVC- LED treatment was less effective in the inactivation of
pathogens in sliced deli meat and spinach surfaces compared
to selective media.

E. coli O157: H7 S. Typhimurium, Food contact surfaces:
and L. monocytogenes Glass, PVC, Stainless
steel (SUS), Teflon, and
silicon.
UVC LED: ∙ UVC-LED fulfilled 0.5 to 1 log reductions of foodborne (Kim & Kang, 2020b)
λ: 280 nm pathogens depending on the surface characteristics.
D: 0.5 to 3 mJ/cm2 ∙ The bactericidal effect decreased in this order: glass, PVC, SUS,
UVC LED + mild heat: Teflon, and silicon.
λ: 280 nm ∙ UVC-LED + mild heat resulted in an additive or synergistic
T◦ : 60 ◦ C effect on the inactivation of the three microorganisms.
D: 0.5 to 3 mJ/cm2

Salmonella and E. coli
Coriander UVC LED:
λ: 280 nm
I: 80, 160, 240 µW/cm2
Slightly acidic electrolyzed water
(SAEW)/UVC-LED:
ACC (SAEW): 20, 40, 60 ppm
T (SAEW): 1, 3, 5 min
I: 80, 160, and 240 µW/cm2
t (UVC LED): 5, 15, and 30 min
∙ The UVC-LED treatment resulted in 0.4 to 1.3 log CFU/g (Jiang, Ai, Liao, Liu, &
Salmonella and E. coli reductions, varying with the exposure Ding, 2020)
time and the irradiation intensity.
∙ E. coli was more resistant to UVC-LED treatment than
Salmonella.
∙ SAEW/UVC-LED combined treatment could improve the
bactericidal efficiency of microorganisms on the surface of
coriander leaves.
∙ SAEW/UVC-LED treatment did not alter overall coriander
quality.
∙ SAEW/UVC extended the shelf-life of coriander.

Salmonella Wheat flour Pulsed UVC LED: ∙ Reductions in Salmonella cell counts of 1.07 after 60 min at 25 (Subedi et al., 2020)
◦
λ: 275 nm C and an RH of 75%.
I: 16.7 µW/cm2 ∙ No color changes in the wheat flour.
D: 60.1 mJ/cm2
Relative humidity (RH): 40%,
75%, and 90%.

Note. λ, wavelength; I, UV intensity; D, UV dose; t, treatment time; T, temperature.

APPLICATION OF UV LEDS FOR INACTIVATION. . .
APPLICATION OF UV LEDS FOR INACTIVATION. . .
FIGURE 3 Main effects of combined different UV light wavelengths treatment
Kim and Kang (2020b) reported in their study that UVC-
LED at a wavelength of 280 nm at a varying dose of 0.5 to
3 mJ/cm2 .The treatment led to 0.9 to 1.44, 0.5 to 1.66,
and 0.5 to 0.91 log reductions of E. coli O157: H7, S.
Typhimurium, and L. monocytogenes, respectively, on var-
ious food contact surfaces: glass, PVC, stainless steel,
Teflon, and silicon. The inactivation efficacy depended
on the surface characteristics such as hydrophobicity and
roughness. UVC-LED had the greatest performance when
applied on glass, and the inactivation efficacy decreased
in PVC followed by stainless steel, Teflon, and silicon. To
enhance the UVC-LED performance, UVC-LED treatment
was simultaneously combined to 60 ◦ C mild heat. A syn-
ergistic bactericidal effect was observed on L. monocyto-
genes (̴ 2 log reductions). Whereas, an additive effect was
observed for E. coli O157: H7 and S. Typhimurium (Kim &
Kang, 2020b). In a recent study conducted by Jiang et al.
(2009), UVC-LED treatment was combined with slightly
acidic electrolyzed water (SAEW) to enhance the decon-
tamination efficacy of Salmonella ssp. and E. coli in corian-
der. The SAEW pretreatment of coriander at various ACC
(20, 40, 60 ppm) followed by 280-nm UVC-LED at a UV
intensity of 80, 160, 240 µW/cm2 for 5, 15, 30 min. The
results revealed that the combined SAEW/UVC-LED treat-
ment at UV dosage of 240 µW/cm2 for 30 and 5 min
washing in SAEW (ACC of 60 ppm) induced 2.72 log
CFU/g Salmonella reduction and 2.42 log 7 2 CFU/g E.
3513
coli reduction. Moreover, sensory evaluation and storage
tests demonstrated that UVC-LED/SAEW contributed to
the quality preservation (color, texture, and smell) and
extension of shelf life of the coriander. This contradicted
the study of Martin et al. (2016) in which UV LED treat-
ment negatively influenced sensory quality of fluid milk
after 4 h of exposure. In general, UV LED has shown
its effectiveness against the proliferation of some impor-
tant food pathogens of great concern in the food sector.
However, some sensory quality changes reported in some
food products such as liquid milk require the attention of
food researchers and processors. Therefore, more in-depth
investigation of food quality toward consumer perception
should be prioritized since consumer liking is affected.
6 COMBINATION OF DIFFERENT
UV-LEDS AT VARIOUS WAVELENGTHS
FOR TREATMENT OF MICROORGANISMS
6.1 Effect of combined UV-LEDs
wavelength on microbial inactivation
A combination of different UV-LED wavelengths has been
suggested as a hurdle approach for enhancing microbial
decontamination efficacy (Figure 3a) (Chevremont et al.,
2012; Nakahashi et al., 2014b). In this context, such treat-
3514
ment applied either simultaneously and/or sequentially
has resulted in additive, antagonistic, or synergistic effects
(Berdejo, Pagán, García-Gonzalo, & Pagán, 2019). Recent
studies conducted on the effect of combined UV-LEDs
wavelength for the treatment of microorganisms are sum-
marized in Table 4.
Recent findings by Green et al. (2018) revealed that the
simultaneous application of combined 259/289-nm UV-
LEDs treatment at a UV dose of 14 mJ/cm2 synergistically
reduced E. coli and Listeria seeligeri count by 2.42 and 4.87
log CFU/mL reduction, respectively. Xiao, Chu, He, Liu,
and Hu (2018) demonstrated that the sequential applica-
tion of UVA-LEDs and UVC-LEDs amplified the inactiva-
tion of E. coli ATCC 11229, E. coli ATCC 15597, and E. coli
ATCC 700891 by 1.3, 0.9, and 0.5 logs CFU/mL, respec-
tively. According to the researchers, the preradiation with
UVA made the three strains less resistant to UVC-LEDs.
The inactivation of E. coli ATCC 25922 by UVC-LEDs was
decreased after UVA exposure. Even though UVA radi-
ation did not cause a direct effect, its introduction has
either negatively or positively affected the UVC resistance
of the four strains. In another study, a synergistic effect
was observed when 254/365-nm UV-LEDs were applied on
V. parahaemolyticus compared to the effect of the indi-
vidual LEDs (Nakahashi et al., 2014). Also, the combined
treatment of 254/365-nm UV-LEDs at UV dose 4.9 mJ/cm2
and 280/365-nm UV-LEDs at 5.59 mJ/cm2 on mesophilic
bacteria in wastewater resulted in 2.1 and 3.5 log CFU/mL
reduction after 30 min. The inactivation result was higher
than that obtained with the individual UV-LEDs treat-
ments at the same doses (Chevremont et al., 2012). Qiao,
Chen, and Wen (2018) found that a combined 280/350-nm
UV-LEDs induced synergistic bactericidal effect on sapro-
phytic bacteria at UV fluence of 51 µW/cm2 . Rantalankila,
Koivistoinen, Sarvasidze, and Sillanpää (2016) reported
the UV treatment under sequential 274 + 278-nm UV-
LEDs resulted in the greatest inactivation of Asterionellop-
sis glacialis.
Based on these reports, not all multiple UV-LEDs wave-
lengths combination result in synergistic effects. Simul-
taneous and sequential exposures to 265-nm UVC-LED
(4.2 mJ/cm2 ) and 285-nm UVB-LED (15.3 mJ/cm2 ) did
not induce any synergistic effect. Instead, the treatment
resulted in an additive effect of 4.6 log CFU/mL inacti-
vation of E. coli irrespective of the succession order of
UVC-LEDs and UVB-LEDs application. This could be
attributed to the similar damage effects caused by UVB
and UVC radiations (photochemical reaction) at the DNA
level of the microorganisms. Likewise, the application of
UVA-LEDs (365 nm) followed by UVB-LEDs (285 nm) or
UVC-LEDs (265 nm) showed a synergistic effect on the
inactivation of E. coli. However, an additive effect was
noticed when similar wavelengths were used for MS2 col-
APPLICATION OF UV LEDS FOR INACTIVATION. . .
iphage inactivation, without consideration of simultane-
ous or sequential exposures or UVA exposure time (Song
et al., 2019). Multiple wavelengths combination of 260/280-
nm LEDs (simultaneous application) did not have synergy
on HAdV2, MS2 coliphage, and B. pumilus spores inac-
tivation nor for genetic material alteration (DNA level).
However, the treatment had synergy for E. coli inactiva-
tion (Beck et al., 2017). Nyangaresi et al. (2018) established
no synergistic effect from the application of UVC/UVC
(267/275 nm), UVC/UVA (267/310 nm), and UVC/UVA
(275/310 nm) LEDs combinations on E. coli inactivation
during water disinfection. Akgün and Ünlütürk (2017)
observed no synergistic effect on the reduction of E. coli
during a combined treatment of different UV-LEDs wave-
lengths in two types of apple juices. The UV-LED irradi-
ation exerted a better inactivation on the clear apple juice
than the cloudy one. This was linked to the low penetration
capacity of UV radiation in liquid food with a high absorp-
tion coefficient. The combination of UVA and UVC LEDs
exhibited better preservation of the color of the cloudy
apple juice compared to the individual UVC LED and
thermal treatments. The combined treatment also raised
polyphenol oxidase inactivation to 67.42% and 65.62%
for 280/365 and 280/405-nm LEDs’ wavelengths, respec-
tively. However, more studies are needed to understand
the synergistic effects on both microbial inactivation and
quality.
6.2 Effect of combined UV-LED
wavelengths on bacterial reactivation:
photo and dark repair
Many researchers have claimed the ability of some
microorganisms, particularly bacteria, to reactivate via
repairing their DNA damage after exposure to UV light. To
counteract the destructive effects of DNA lesions, a mech-
anism of DNA repair is mainly photoreactivation and exci-
sion repair (dark repair) taking place within the microbial
cells. This phenomenon is considered one of the significant
drawbacks of UV treatment as it decreases its efficiency. To
overcome this problem, multiple UV wavelength combina-
tions were suggested and have been tested on numerous
microorganisms (Chevremont, Farnet, Sergent, Coulomb,
& Boudenne, 2012).
6.2.1 Photoreactivation
Photoreactivation is regarded as one of the most straight-
forward repair paths. An enzyme called photolyase
catalyzes this process, and the mechanism of action of
this enzyme consisted of binding the main photoproducts
TA B L E 4 Effects of combined UV-LED wavelengths treatment on microorganisms
Disinfection
Wavelengths (nm) Microorganism media Treatment condition Major findings References
UVC-LEDs: 259, 268, and E. coli, Salmonella, Listeria Saline solution UV dose: 7 mJ/cm2 ∙ Inactivation above 3 and 4 log CFU/mL depending on (Nyangaresi et al.,
275 nm seeligeri UV dose (259/289): 14 the UV dose and wavelength. 2018)
UVB: 289 nm mJ/cm2 ∙ 267 nm had the highest inactivation efficiency.
◦
UVA: 370 nm UVC/UVB: T : 4 ◦ C and 25 ◦ C ∙ Photoeffect was the dominant mechanism of
259/289 nm, reactivation.
UVC/UVA: 259/370 nm. ∙ No synergistic effect for combined wavelengths
APPLICATION OF UV LEDS FOR INACTIVATION. . .

Low pressure mercury (UVB/UVC).

lamp (LPM): 253.7 nm ∙ Electrical energy consumption was lower for the 275-nm
UV-LED

UVC: 267 & 275 nm E. coli Water UV dose: 8.78 to 23.04 ∙ 268 and 259 nm achieved the highest log count (Green et al., 2018)
UVA: 310 nm mJ/cm2 reduction on all strains
UVC/UVC: 267/275 nm ∙ 259/289 had a synergistic effect on reduction of E. coli
UVC/UVA: 267/310 (2,42 ± 0,31) and λ Listeria (4,87 ± 0,07) yielding 1.6 to
UVC/UVA: 275/310 0.6 log higher reduction
∙ UV-LEDS in the 259 to 275 have shown more effective
than LPM
∙ UV-LED treatment was effective at refrigeration
temperatures

UVA LED pretreatment E. coli ATCC 11229, E. coli
followed by UVC-LED: ATCC 15597, E. coli
365 + 265 ATCC700891, E. coli
ATCC 25922
Water Sequential radiation of ∙ 20 min UVA preradiation resulted in the inactivation of (Xiao et al., 2018)
365 UVA (20 to E. coli ATCC 11229, E. coli ATCC 15597, E. coli
30 min) 265 and UVC ATCC700891 by 1.2, 1.4, and 1.2 times, respectively.
(5 to 16 min). ∙ 20 min UVA radiation had higher inactivation rates on
Light intensity three strains than the sum of inactivation rates by UVA
I(UVA) = 6 mW/cm2 alone and UVC alone.
I(UVC) = ∙ Enhancement of CPD induced by UVC radiation after
0.127 mW/cm2 UVA preradiation.
∙ Inhibition of dark repair capacity.
∙ No changes in the photo repair capabilities for all
strains.
(Continues)
3515
 3516

TA B L E 4 (Continued)
Disinfection
Wavelengths (nm) Microorganism media Treatment condition Major findings References
E. coli K12 (ATCC 25253) Clear apple juice 2 (Akgün &
UVC: 254 UV dose: 707.2 mJ/cm ∙ Highest inactivation (2 log reduction) of E. coli K12 for
UVC: 280 Cloudy apple Exposure time: 20 to CAJ when treated for 40 min at 280 and 280/365 nm. Ünlütürk, 2017)
UVC/UVA: 254/365 juice 40 min. ∙ AJ achieved a 4.4 when exposed to 280-nm LED for
UVC/UVA: 254/405 40 min.
UVC/UVA: 280/365 ∙ In cloudy apple juice at 280 to 365 nm at 40 min of
UVB/UVA:280/405 exposure time resulted in 3.9 and 2 log CFU/mL in clear
UVC/UVB/UVA/UVA: and cloudy apple juices.
254/280/365/405 ∙ UVC/UVA LEDs combination had a synergistic effect on
the reduction of PPO activity (to 32.8% CAJ).

LEDs: E. coli Water UV dose (mJ/cm2 : ∙ 265 nm was more effective than 280-nm LEDs and LP (Li et al., 2017)
UVC: 265, UVB: 280, UVC: 10.91 UV lamps.
UVC/UVB: 265/280 UVB:15.35 ∙ No synergistic effect for disinfection from the
(50%), UVC/UVB: (50%): 12.57 combination of 265 and 280 nm.
UVC/UVB: 265/280(75%) UVC/UVB (75%): 13.78 ∙ 280 nm could repress photoreactivation and dark repair.
Low pressure (LP) UV LP UV lamp: 13.03
lamp: 265

LEDs E. coli Water T◦ : 22 ◦ C ∙ UVC/UVB had an additive effect on microorganism (Song et al., 2019)
UVC: 265, UVB: 285, UVA: Coliphage MS2 UV exposure time: 40 s inactivation for both microorganisms.
365 for E. coli and 3 min ∙ UVA pretreatment followed by UVC improved E. coli
UVC/UVB: 265/285 for MS2 inactivation.
UVB/UVA: 285/365 UV dose: ∙ Additive effect on MS2 was observed under various
UVC/UVA: 265/365 UVC-LED: 4.2 mJ/cm2 wavelength combinations.
UVB-LED: 15.3 mJ/cm2
UVA-LED: 1,160
mJ/cm2

LEDs: Saprophytic bacteria, Iron Subsea oil-field UV fluence:51µW/cm2 ∙ Combined 280 and 350 nm induced synergistic (Qiao et al., 2018)
UVC: 255 bacteria, injection bactericidal effects on saprophytic bacteria.
UVB: 280 Sulfate-reducing bacteria water ∙ 280 nm resulted in high performance in both energy
UVC/UVA: 255/350 efficiency and reactivation suppression
UVB/UVA: 280/350
(Continues)
APPLICATION OF UV LEDS FOR INACTIVATION. . .
TA B L E 4 (Continued)
Disinfection
Wavelengths (nm) Microorganism media Treatment condition Major findings References
LEDs: ∙ E. coli K12 (ATCC29425) Water Irradiance ∙ E. coli: all five sources attained over 3 -log reduction at (Beck et al., 2017)
UVC: 260, UVB: 280 ∙ MS2 coliphage (ATCC 0.19 to 0.55 mW/cm2 UV doses of 12 mJ/cm2 .
UVC/UVB: 260/280 15597-B1) UVC LED ∙ MS2 coliphage: 260 nm 280-nm LEDs achieved 2- log
MP ∙ Human adenovirus type 0.35 to1.17 mW/cm2 for inactivation at a UV dose of 30.3 and 38.5 mJ/cm2 ,
LP 2 HAdV2 the MP UV respectively, and 32.8 mJ/cm2 for the combined
∙ B. pumilus spores 0.3 to 0.75 mW/cm2 for 260/280 nm LEDs.
the LP UV ∙ Adenovirus: 4-log reduction at 122, 89, and 105 mJ/cm2
for the 260, 280, and 260 to 280-nm LEDs, respectively.
APPLICATION OF UV LEDS FOR INACTIVATION. . .

∙ B. pumilus spores: 260 and 260/280-nm UV irradiation

were more effective than the 280-nm UV irradiation for
2-log reduction.
∙ No dual-wavelength synergies were detected for
bacterial and viral inactivation nor DNA and RNA
damage.

LEDs: Asterionellopsis glacialis Seawater Dose-based treatment ∙ Dose-based efficiency evaluation did not present any (Rantalankila et al.,
UVC: 265, 262, 268, (100 to 2,000 mJ/cm2 ) clear distinction between different wavelength LEDs. 2016)
274, 278 Time-based ∙ The best time-based performance in the inactivation
UVC/UVC: 256 + 262, treatment(1/min) rate was observed using 274 and 278-nm LED with an
262 + 268, 268 + 274, 274 + inactivation rate constant of 0.1296 1/min.
278

LEDs:
UVA: 365, UVC: 254
UVA/UVC: 365/254
Vibrio parahaemolyticus Water UV intensity: 700 ∙ Increase of DNA product 8-hydroxy-2′-deoxyguanosine (Nakahashi et al.,
RIMD2210633 W/m2 (8-OHdG) after UVA irradiation alone and cyclobutane 2014b)
pyrimidine dimers (CPDs) after UVC irradiation alone.
∙ Additional effect induced by sequential irradiation with
UVA-LED and UVC-LED.
∙ Simultaneous irradiation with UVA-LED and
UVC-induced bactericidal synergistic effects due to
suppression of CPDs repair.

LEDs: E. coli (ATCC 11303, ATCC Wastewater pH: 6 and 8 ∙ The 280/365 or 280/405 nm coupled wavelengths, had (Chevremont et al.,
280, 365, 405 15597, and CIP 6224) Exposure time: 60, 120, the most important bactericidal effect. 2012)
254/365,254/405, 280/365, Enterococcus faecalis and 180 s ∙ Absence of bacterial reactivation after 60 s of exposure
280/405 (ATCC 19433 and ATCC to UV.
33186)
3517
3518
(CPD photolyase or 6–4 photolyase) that are at the ori-
gin of DNA damage. This process occurs during exposure
to the visible/blue light (330 to 480 nm) via reversing the
alteration caused by UV light at the DNA level (Essen &
Klar, 2006; Kim, Heelis, & Sanear, 1992). A recent study
demonstrated that photoreactivation is the most important
mechanism of reactivation that occurred during UV-LED
treatment of E. coli in water treatment. After processing
with different dual combination of different wavelengths
of UVA/UVC-LEDs (310/275 nm) and UVC/UVC-LEDs
(267/275 nm) treatment, the photoreactivation was signif-
icantly repressed compared to those of 267-nm UV-LED.
The single treatment resulted in the highest inactivation as
against the combinations of 310/275 nm (UVA/UVC-LEDs)
and 267/275 nm (UVC/UVC-LEDs). This might be due to
the crucial role of the wavelength of 275 nm in repress-
ing photoreactivation through protein damage (Nyan-
garesi et al., 2018). Qiao et al. (2018) reported that simul-
taneous combined UV-LED wavelengths of 280/365 nm
(UVC/UVA-LEDs) suppressed the reactivation of sapro-
phytic bacteria. This was due to the inclusion of 280 nm
wavelength or wavelengths close to 275 nm that helped to
repress photoreactivation. A similar assertion was made in
the inactivation of E. coli when a wavelength of 280 nm
repressed the photoreactivation of the bacteria (Li, Wang,
Huo, Lu, & Hu, 2017). However, the photo repair capac-
ity of E. coli ATCC 11229, ATCC 15597, ATCC 700891,
and ATCC 25922 remained stable after the application
of a sequential combination of UVA (365 nm) and UVC
(265 nm) LEDs. This was probably related to the UVA dose
utilized (108 × 106 J/cm2 ) used for the treatment that only
induced sublethal damage (Xiao et al., 2018). According to
Webb (1977), UVA preradiation required UV doses exceed-
ing 750 × 106 J/cm2 in order to achieve the reduction of
the photo repair process by means of the ROS generation.
In other words, DNA damage as a result of exposure to
high doses of UV light has caused an irreversible DNA
deterioration as the photons generated by UV acts rapidly
within the irradiated cells (Beggs, 2002) due to the inhi-
bition of crucial enzyme photolyase as demonstrated in
Figure 3b. Therefore, to minimize the photoreactivation,
it is suggested that the UV dose should be increased to
counter such an effect.
6.2.2 Dark repair
In contrast to photoreactivation, excision repair is com-
prised of multiple steps. First is the dark repair pathway,
which is further divided into two subpathways, namely,
base excision repair (BER) and nucleotide excision repair
(NER) (Rastogi, Kumar, Tyagi, & Sinha, 2010). BER is the
principal DNA repair pathway originated by the indirect
APPLICATION OF UV LEDS FOR INACTIVATION. . .
UV by generating ROS (Almeida & Sobol, 2007). Simi-
lar to photoreactivation, the inhibitory effect of the dark
repair of E. coli was highest at wavelength 280 nm (Li et al.,
2017). Nyangaresi et al. (2018) found that 275-nm UV-LEDs
wavelength exerted the lowest dark repair compared to the
combinations of 265 nm (UVC-LED), 275/310 nm (UVC/
UVA-LEDs), and 265/275 nm (UVC/UVC-LEDs). This
emphasized the vital role of 275 nm wavelength on pro-
tein damage. It has been suggested that combining UVC
treatment with UVA reduced the occurrence of dark
repair (Figure 3b). This suggestion was supported by Xiao
et al. (2018), in which it was revealed that the UVA
(pretreatment)-UVC system inhibited dark repair capac-
ity for four E. coli strains. The simultaneous application of
UVA-LED (365 nm) and UVC/UVB LEDs (265/285 nm) or
sequential combination of UVA (365 nm) and UVC/UVB
LEDs (265/285 nm) reduced the inactivation of E. coli
due to persistence of photoreactivation and dark repair.
However, extending the UVA-LED pretreatment followed
by UVC-LED improved the E. coli inactivation efficacy
by suppressing the dark repair process (Song et al.,
2019).
7 UV-LEDS AND AOPs
To promote UV treatment efficacy, many researchers sug-
gested the combination of UV light with a wide range of
catalysts including H2 O2 , TiO2 , O3 , Fe (VI), ZnO2 , and
ZnS to accelerate the generation of reactive radicals when
exposed to the adequate wavelength, this process is known
as AOPs (Fang et al., 2014; Jung, Oh, & Kang, 2008; Wu
et al., 2017). AOPs have been used as alternatives to conven-
tional treatment of drinking water and wastewater, such as
chlorination and ozonation advanced filtration processes
and germicidal ultraviolet (UV) radiation (Bhatkhande,
Pangarkar, & Beenackers, 2002). Conventionally, AOPs are
performed using low or medium pressure mercury lamps
as UV light source. However, these sources have their dis-
advantages (Wang et al., 2012). Recently, UV-LED technol-
ogy was introduced to perform the AOPs due to its advan-
tages. Several studies have explored the applicability of
UV-LED-based AOPs and the effects on both photocatal-
ysis inactivation of bacteria and micropollutants removal
(Eskandarian, Choi, Fazli, & Rasoulifard, 2016; Kuipers,
Bruning, Yntema, & Rijnaarts, 2015). AOPs have proved to
be useful for both microbial disinfection (bacteria spores
and viruses) and degradation of micropollutants such as
dye, pharmaceuticals, and phenol (Benabbou, Derriche,
Felix, Lejeune, & Guillard, 2007; Kabra, Chaudhary, &
Sawhney, 2004; Mamane, Shemer, & Linden, 2007; Pablos,
Marugán, van Grieken, & Serrano, 2013; Vilhunen & Sil-
lanpää, 2009).
APPLICATION OF UV LEDS FOR INACTIVATION. . .
FIGURE 4 Principle and effect AOPs microbial inactivation and degradation of organic pollutants
The mechanism of photocatalytic bacterial inactivation
induced by AOPs has been discussed by Dalrymple et al.
(2010). It can be observed that ROS generated during the
AOPs target different cell components, mainly cell mem-
branes, cell walls, and peroxidation of proteins, polysac-
charides, lipopolysaccharides, peptidoglycan, and phos-
pholipid as shown in Figure 4. Other effects of AOPs were
the oxidation of nucleic acids and the destruction of the
enzymes and coenzymes. Upon attack by AOPs, the cells
undergo lysis leading to cell death. Likewise, the mech-
anism of micropollutants degradation was proposed in
Figure 4, and involved the complete breakdown of the pol-
lutants to harmless components such as carbon dioxide or
ions such as nitrates, sulfate, and chloride. The mineral-
ization of the pollutants, depending on their nature and
composition to harmless substances, were also established
(Carrier et al., 2006; Jo & Tayade, 2014).
7.1 Effects of UV-LEDs-based AOPs on
microorganism inactivation
In order to select an effective UV-LED-based AOPs for
decontamination, the inactivation efficiency, reactivation,
ability to repair suppression, and the economic aspect
related to energy consumption are considered. One of the
3519
most explored AOPs is UVA-LED/TiO2 because of their
chemical stability, nontoxicity of TiO2 , and its effectiveness
under near-ultraviolet light (300 to 400 nm) (Markowska-
Szczupak, Ulfig, & Morawski, 2011; Wu, Xie, Imlay, &
Shang, 2009). This range of wavelength is less expensive
than the UVC range and requires small energy, and there-
fore, has a longer lifetime. In AOPs, longer UV wavelengths
are preferred than the short ones due to their ability to
excite the photocatalysts and produce ROS (Province et al.,
2011). Table 5 summarized related studies of UV-LEDs-
based AOPs for microorganisms inactivation. Province
et al. (2011) used two UVA-LED wavelengths of 370 and
377 nm combined with 0.01% of TiO2 for the inactivation
of B. subtilis in PBS. It was found that 370-nm LED/TiO2
was more efficient than the extended treatment using a
wavelength of 377-nm LED. It required less than 100 min
at UV-LED power of 3 mW for complete inactivation of B.
subtilis, whereas 377 nm wavelength reduced B. subtilis to
less than 1 log CFU/mL at the same exposure and UV-LED
power. In another study, Biancullo et al. (2019) showed that
the addition of TiO2 at a concentration of 100 g/L during
the UV-LED treatment at 381 nm led to a decrease of 2 log
CFU/mL for heterotrophs, enterococci, and E. coli in urban
wastewater. Some bacteria might exhibit some resistance
to such treatment. Province et al. (2011) reported regrowth
TA B L E 5 Summary of the studies that have been conducted on UV-LED-based AOPs for disinfection and micropollutant removal in water
3520

Microorganisms/Micropollutants Disinfection media Treatment conditions Major findings References

E. coli ATCC 700891 Water UVA LED/TiO2 ∙ Enhancement of the inactivation of E. coli with the (Xiong & Hu,
λ: 365 nm increase of UV light intensity 2013)
I: 6 to 8 mW/cm2
TiO2 film (73 ± 0.5 mg)

Bacillus subtilis PBS UVA LED/TiO2 ∙ The time required for complete inactivation of B (Province et al.,
λ: 370 and 377 nm .subtilis by UV-LED/TiO2 is 2011)
C (TiO2 ): 0.01% wavelength-dependent.
∙ 370-nm LED was more efficient than a longer
wavelength of 377-nm LED.

E. coli, heterotrophs, and enterococci Urban wastewater UVA LED/TiO2 ∙ Decrease of the bacterial load by 2 log-units. (Biancullo et al.,
λ: 381 nm 2019)
C (TiO2 ): 100 g/L

B. subtilis spores Water UVC LED/Chlorine ∙ Combined UV-LED with chlorine induced (Li et al., 2018)
λ: 265 and 280 nm synergistic effect on B. subtilis spores inactivation.
D: 125 mJ/cm2 ∙ The efficiency of the treatment depended on the
C (Cl2 ): 4 mg/L UV-LED wavelength and the pH of chlorine.

E. coli Urban wastewater Photocatalytic ozonation ∙ Photocatalytic ozonation was efficient for (Moreira et al.,
Enterobacter cloacae Drinking water O3 /UVA LED/TiO2 microorganisms and antibiotic resistant genes 2016)
Achromobacter sp. λ: 382 nm (ARGs) removal.
Enterococcus faecalis

Escherichia, Citrobacter, Enterobacter, and Raw river water UVA LED/TiO2 ∙ The combination of UVA LED with different (Claro et al., 2016)
Klebsiella UVA LED/SiZnO, N-SiZnO, photocatalysts performed a high inactivation
and F-N-SiZnO. efficiency exceeding 95%.
I: 580 mW/cm2
λ:385 nm
t = 0 to 60 min
concentration of the
photocatalyst: 0.5 g/L

E. coli Water UV-LEDs/TiO2 : ∙ Increasing the irradiance enhanced the (Nyangaresi et al.,
λ: 265, 275, 310, and 365 nm inactivation of E. coli in both photolysis (UV-LED) 2019b)
I: 0.49 mW/cm2 and photocatalysis (UV-LED/TiO2 ).
C(TiO2 ): 0 to 0.1 g/L ∙ 275 nm combined with TiO2 was more effective for
both inactivation and repair suppression and
required lower energy consumption.

Note. λ, wavelength; I, UV intensity; D, UV dose; t, treatment time; T, Temperature; C, concentration of the photocatalyst.
APPLICATION OF UV LEDS FOR INACTIVATION. . .
APPLICATION OF UV LEDS FOR INACTIVATION. . .
of heterotrophic bacteria following after storage at room
temperature in the dark for 3 days.
Claro, Bidoia, and de Moraes (2016) assessed the hetero-
geneous photocatalysis using a UVA-LED as a source of
UV light in the presence of three synthesized photocata-
lysts SiZnO, N-SiZnO, and F-N-SiZnO. The photocatalytic
inactivation efficiency of the three catalysts was then com-
pared to TiO2 added at a concentration of 0.5 g/L. The
combined treatment of the UVA-LED and the three pho-
tocatalysts were effective against coliforms yielding 95% of
inactivation. This corresponded to the efficiency of the
UVA-LED/TiO2 . Nyangaresi et al. (2019b) employed four
different LED wavelengths (265, 275, 310, and 365 nm) com-
bined with TiO2 for the inactivation of E. coli in water. They
found that an increase in irradiance positively affected the
efficiency of photocatalysis. Meanwhile, 275-nm LED com-
bined with 1 g/L of TiO2 was preferred among the other
UV-LED-based AOPs in terms of inactivation efficiency,
suppression of repair, and energy consumption. Li et al.
(2018) investigated the inactivation of B. subtilis spores in
water, using a combination of UV-LEDs emitting at 265
and 280 nm at a UV dose of 125 mJ/cm2 and chlorine
(Cl2 ) of 4 mg/L concentration. The combined treatment
resulted in a synergetic effect with log reductions of 1.8
and 1.5 log CFU/mL for UV265 /cl2 and UV280 /cl2 , respec-
tively. These log reductions were two times higher than
those obtained during lone treatments of UV 265 and 280-
nm LEDs and Cl2 . The study further emphasized the con-
tribution of ROS such as OH⋅ in the inactivation of the
spores. Xiong and Hu (2013) submitted water to combined
UVA-LED (365 nm) and TiO2 biofilm at UV fluence ranged
from 6 to 8 mW/cm2 to assess the inactivation and reac-
tivation of antibiotic resistance E. coli ATCC 700891. The
treatment was effective against the E. coli, with a reduction
of 3 log CFU/mL observed after the combined treatment.
The study further analyzed the residual disinfection effect
at different periodic time of 30, 60, and 90 min. The resid-
ual disinfecting effect was significant with periodic illumi-
nation of 30 min, while residual disinfecting effect could
inactivate almost all the total bacteria after 90 min UV peri-
odic illumination.
Moreira et al. (2016) focused on the effect of photo-
catalytic ozonation (O3 /UVA-LED/TiO2 ) on enterococci,
enterobacteria, fungi, and antibiotic-resistant bacteria
(ARB) and their resistant genes (ARGs) in treatment of
urban wastewater and surface drinking water. The photo-
catalytic ozonation exhibited an intense germicidal action,
thus reduced the ARGs to very low levels in the urban
wastewater and surface water. Moreover, the microbial
regrowth of the ARGs after treatment remained stable
during 3 days of storage at room temperature. Another
study conducted by Biancullo et al. (2019) demonstrated
that UV-LEDs at wavelength 381 nm combined with TiO2
3521
at a concentration of 1 g/L reduced the bacterial load
of E. coli, enterococci, and heterotrophs and their antibi-
otics resistant group to about 2 log CFU/100 mL. The bac-
terial regrowth was observed for total heterotrophs and
their antibiotics groups, after the storage of photocatalytic
treated wastewater. Some of the microorganisms remained
viable and regrew during the storage. Hence, the evalua-
tion of the probable regrowth after AOPs treatment or the
residual disinfecting effect could be beneficial for an ade-
quate selection of UV dose and wavelength to avoid the
reactivation. This aspect should be considered in the future
design of energy-efficient setups for AOPs.
7.2 Degradation of micropollutants by
UV-LEDs-based AOPs
The presence of organic contaminants in water or wastew-
ater and their degradation is considered as a major
challenge, due to the high resistance of the organic
pollutants to treatments such as ozonation, chlorination,
filtration, coagulation and, UV light treatment (Legrini,
Oliveros, & Braun, 1993; Vieno, Härkki, Tuhkanen, &
Kronberg, 2007). To overcome this limitation, UV-based
AOPs were exploited as a novel strategies to degrade these
pollutants (Pablos et al., 2013; Qin et al., 2014; Xiang, Fang,
& Shang, 2016). Likewise, UV-LEDs have been used to
substitute conventional mercury lamps as a source of UV
radiation (Autin et al., 2013; Kuipers et al., 2015). Many
studies have demonstrated the potential of UV-LEDs-
based AOPs for the degradation of a wide range of organic
pollutants. The recent advances in the application of LEDs
for the degradation of organic contaminants based on
AOPs have been studied elsewhere (Matafonova & Batoev,
2018). Among UV-LEDs-based AOPs that are utilized, UV-
LEDs/chlorine and UV-LEDs/TiO2 for the degradation of
pharmaceutical residues such as carbamazepine (CBZ),
acetaminophen (ACT), diclofenac (DCF), ibuprofen
(IBP), sulfamethoxazole (SMX), azithromycin, trimetho-
prim, and ofloxacin (Biancullo et al., 2019; Eskandarian
et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2017). The UV-LEDs/TiO2 treat-
ment of urban wastewater has reduced azithromycin,
trimethoprim, ofloxacin, and SMX antibiotics to values
below the detection limits and to decrease the bacte-
rial count by 2 log CFU/mL after 1 hr. Although the
antibiotics were effectively oxidized by UV-LEDs/TiO2
photocatalysis, microbial regrowth was observed after
storing the treated wastewater for 3 days (Biancullo
et al., 2019). Similarly, UV-LEDs/TiO2 photocatalysis
was responsible for the decomposition of ACT, DCF,
IBP, and SMX in wastewater. The degradation followed
the order SMX > DCF > IBP > ACT, and shorter UV
wavelength in the sequence UVC- > UVB- > UVA-LED
3522
was more potent during the degradation. The mineral-
ization of these pharmaceuticals also corresponded to
the trends observed for their disappearance (Eskandarian
et al., 2016). The degradation of CBZ in wastewater by UV-
LED/chlorine oxidation was studied. At 280- and 310-nm
UV-LED/chlorine irradiation, efficient degradation of CBZ
was achieved, and the degradation rate was onefold higher
in magnitude than that obtained with UV-LED/H2 O2
treatment. The generated ROS such as OH and Cl radicals
accounted for more than 80% of the CBZ decomposition at
neutral conditions during the UV-LED/chlorine treatment
(Wang et al., 2017). UV/H2 O2 system for the photodegra-
dation of aqueous phenol using different wavelengths of
255, 265, and 280 nm, viewing angle and H2 O2 concen-
trations were investigated. The degradation of the phenol
was observed to be most efficient with 280-nm UV-LED
wavelength due to its highest optical power (Vilhunen &
Sillanpää, 2009).
On the other hand, UV-LEDs/Photo-Fenton process was
tested for the removal of pesticide acetamiprid. High-
intensity UV-LED system effectively degraded acetamiprid
pesticide after 20 min at natural pH with sequential addi-
tion of 1 + 1 + 1 mg Fe/L (iron dosage) and 12 mg H2 O2 /L.
It was hypothesized that both H2 O2 and Fe have equal
contribution to the formation of ROS radicals in the UV-
LED system (Carra et al., 2015). Further applications of
AOPs in the treatment of wastewater from food process-
ing industries such as olive mill, winery, meat, poultry, and
dairy have been extensively reviewed elsewhere (Amor,
Marchão, Lucas, & Peres, 2019; Krzemińska, Neczaj, &
Borowski, 2015). Based on these studies, UV-LEDs-based
AOPs have potentials in the treatment of water utilized
in the processing of foods and wastewater generated from
the processing chain to simultaneously achieve microbial
inactivation and degradation of the organic pollutants.
The effectiveness of the UV-LEDs-based AOPs depends
on the intensity, wavelength, UV-LED type, chemical con-
centration of oxidizers, and molecular structures. There-
fore, the development of higher intensity UV-LEDs could
lead to more feasible economically viable technological
options capable of satisfying the microbial and pollu-
tant elimination requirements concerning food and water
safety.
8 CONCLUSION
UV-LED treatment is a potential nonthermal technology
utilized over the past decade for water disinfection and
food decontamination. UVA-, UVB-, and UVC-LEDs have
successfully reduced microbial loads, mainly in water, liq-
uid, and solid foods. Over the years, UV-LED reactors have
undergone significant changes regarding wall-plug effi-
ciency, input and output power, and a lifetime of the LEDs,
APPLICATION OF UV LEDS FOR INACTIVATION. . .
which have drastically reduced the economic cost. This
progression has made UV-LEDs at the forefront concern-
ing the disinfection, purification, and decontamination
in environmental (wastewater and municipal drinking
water) and food industries as an alternative for the tradi-
tional UV lamps. The combination of different UV-LED
wavelengths as hurdle strategies due to their synergistic
effects on microbial inactivation and reactivation suppres-
sion has exponentially advanced. These hurdle approaches
depended on the treatment conditions, including wave-
lengths and the order of application (sequential or simulta-
neous), disinfection media, UV dose, type of microorgan-
isms used (vegetative and spores forming bacteria or virus),
and the strain. The probable synergism of the various com-
bined UV-LEDs wavelengths concerning microbial inacti-
vation, reducing treatment time, and energy consumption
were elucidated. Moreover, the application of UV-LEDs
for AOPs for photocatalysis inactivation of bacteria and
degradation of micropollutants in water were discussed.
The UV-LEDs-based AOPs depended on several factors,
including intensity, wavelength, UV-LED type, the concen-
tration of chemical oxidizers, and molecular structures of
micropollutants.
More investigations are needed for both combined UV-
LEDs for food preservation to elucidate their influence
on the food quality attributes, interaction with bioactive
food components, and consumer acceptance. UV light was
reported to trigger flavor deterioration, which might result
in the formation of secondary metabolites, thus leading to
negative consumer liking. Such an assertion should be fur-
ther investigated to ascertain the safety of UV LED-treated
foods. UV-LED-based AOPs for microbial inactivation in
agricultural food products need to be further exploited.
Also, UV-LEDs hurdled with other physical nonthermal
technologies, or natural antimicrobials should be exploited
at food safety level.
AC K N OW L E D G M E N T S
The authors acknowledge Conselho Nacional de Desen-
volvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq, Grants
#302763/2014-7 and #305804/2017-0) and the Coordenação
de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - Brasil
(CAPES) - Finance Code 001 for the financial support.
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
AU T H O R CO N T R I B U T I O N S
Yasmine Kebbi and Aliyu Idris Muhammad drafted the
manuscript. Tian Ding and Anderson S. Sant’Ana crit-
ically revised the article. Leonardo do Prado-Silva and
Donghong Liu conceptualized the idea and drafted the
outline.
APPLICATION OF UV LEDS FOR INACTIVATION. . .
ORCID
Aliyu Idris Muhammad https://orcid.org/0000-0002-
1788-3482
Donghong Liu https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0028-232X
Tian Ding https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8403-5344
REFERENCES
Ahmed Malik, S., Tian Swee, T., Ahmad, N., Nik, N., Yahya, A.,
Akutagawa, M., . . . Hiik, C. (2019). Effectiveness of visible and
ultraviolet light emitting diodes for inactivation of Staphylococcus
aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Escherichia coli: A compar-
ative study. Malaysian Journal of Fundamental and Applied Sci-
ences, 15, 572–576.
Aihara, M., Lian, X., Shimohata, T., Uebanso, T., Mawatari, K.,
Harada, Y., & Takahashi, A. (2014). Vegetable surface sterilization
system using UVA light-emitting diodes. Journal of Medical Inves-
tigation, 61, 286–290. https://doi.org/10.2152/jmi.61.285
Akgün, M. P., & Ünlütürk, S. (2017). Effects of ultraviolet light emit-
ting diodes (LEDs) on microbial and enzyme inactivation of apple
juice. International Journal of Food Microbiology, 260(July), 65–74.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2017.08.007
Almeida, K. H., & Sobol, R. W. (2007). A unified view of base excision
repair: Lesion-dependent protein complexes regulated by post-
translational modification. DNA Repair (Amst), 6, 695–711.
Alscher, R. G., Donahue, J. L., & Cramer, C. L. (1997). Reactive oxygen
species and antioxidants : Relationships in green cells. Physiologia
Plantarum, 100, 224–233.
Amor, C., Marchão, L., Lucas, M. S., & Peres, J. A. (2019). Application
of advanced oxidation processes for the treatment of recalcitrant
agro-industrial wastewater: A review. Water (Switzerland), 11(2),
205:1–205:31. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11020205
Argyraki, A., Markvart, M., Nielsen, A., Bjarnsholt, T., Bjørndal, L.,
& Petersen, P. M. (2016). Comparison of UVB and UVC irradiation
disinfection efficacies on Pseudomonas Aeruginosa biofilm. Pro-
ceedings of SPIE, 9887, 988730. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2225597
Autin, O., Romelot, C., Rust, L., Hart, J., Jarvis, P., Macadam, J.,
. . . Jefferson, B. (2013). Evaluation of a UV-light emitting diodes
unit for the removal of micropollutants in water for low energy
advanced oxidation processes. Chemosphere, 92(6), 745–751.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2013.04.028
Basaran, P. (2009). Reduction of Aspergillus parasiticus on hazel-
nut surface by UV-C treatment. International Journal of Food
Science &Technology, 44, 1857–1863. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-
2621.2009.02011.x
Beck, S. E., Ryu, H., Boczek, L. A., Cashdollar, J. L., Jeanis, K.
M., Rosenblum, J. S., . . . Linden, K. G. (2017). Evaluating UV-C
LED disinfection performance and investigating potential dual-
wavelength synergy. Water Research, 109, 207–216. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.watres.2016.11.024
Beggs, C. B. (2002). A quantitative method for evaluating the photore-
activation of ultraviolet damaged microorganisms. Photochemi-
cal & Photobiological Sciences, 1, 431–437. https://doi.org/10.1039/
b202801h
Benabbou, A. K., Derriche, Z., Felix, C., Lejeune, P., & Guillard, C.
(2007). Photocatalytic inactivation of Escherichia coli: Effect of
concentration of TiO2 and microorganism, nature, and intensity
of UV irradiation. Applied Catalysis B: Environmental, 76, 257–263.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apcatb.2007.05.026
3523
Berdejo, D., Pagán, E., García-Gonzalo, D., & Pagán, R. (2019).
Exploiting the synergism among physical and chemical processes
for improving food safety. Current Opinion in Food Science, 30, 14–
20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cofs.2018.08.004
Bhatkhande, D. S., Pangarkar, V. G., & Beenackers, A. A. C. M. (2002).
Photocatalytic degradation for environmental applications—A
review. Journal of Chemical Technology and Biotechnology, 77(1),
102–116. https://doi.org/10.1002/jctb.532
Biancullo, F., Moreira, N. F. F., Ribeiro, A. R., Manaia, C. M., Faria,
J. L., Nunes, O. C., . . . Silva, A. M. T. (2019). Heterogeneous
photocatalysis using UVA-LEDs for the removal of antibiotics
and antibiotic resistant bacteria from urban wastewater treat-
ment plant effluents. Chemical Engineering Journal, 367(Febru-
ary), 304–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2019.02.012
Bintsis, T., Litopoulou-Tzanetaki, E., & Robinson, R. K. (2000). Exist-
ing and potential applications of ultraviolet light in the food
industry—A critical review. Journal of the Science of Food and
Agriculture, 80(6), 637–645. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-
0010(20000501)80:6⟨637::AID-JSFA603⟩3.0.CO;2-1
Bowker, C., Sain, A., Shatalov, M., & Ducoste, J. (2011). Microbial UV
fluence-response assessment using a novel UV-LED collimated
beam system. Water Research, 45(5), 2011–2019. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.watres.2010.12.005
Carra, I., Sánchez Pérez, J. A., Malato, S., Autin, O., Jefferson, B., &
Jarvis, P. (2015). Application of high intensity UVC-LED for the
removal of acetamiprid with the photo-Fenton process. Chemi-
cal Engineering Journal, 264, 690–696. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.
2014.11.142
Carrier, M., Perol, N., Herrmann, J.-M., Claire, B., Horikoshi, S.,
Paisse, J. O., . . . Guillard, C. (2006). Kinetics and reactional
pathway of Imazapyr photocatalytic degradation Influence of
pH and metallic ions. Applied Catalysis B: Enviromental, 65,
11–20.
Chatterley, C., & Linden, K. (2010). Demonstration and evaluation
of germicidal UV-LEDs for point-of-use water disinfection. Jour-
nal of Water and Health, 8(3), 479–486. https://doi.org/10.2166/wh.
2010.124
Chen, J., Loeb, S., & Kim, J.-H. (2017). LED revolution: Fundamentals
and prospects for UV disinfection applications. Environmental Sci-
ence: Water Research & Technology, 3(2), 188–202. https://doi.org/
10.1039/C6EW00241B
Chevremont, A., Farnet, A., Coulomb, B., & Boudenne, J. (2012).
Effect of coupled UV-A and UV-C LEDs on both microbio-
logical and chemical pollution of urban wastewaters. Science
of the Total Environment, 426, 304–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2012.03.043
Chevremont, A., Farnet, A., Sergent, M., Coulomb, B., & Boudenne,
J. (2012). Multivariate optimization of fecal bioindicator inactiva-
tion by coupling UV-A and UV-C LEDs. Desalination, 285, 219–
225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2011.10.006
Claro, E. M. T., Bidoia, E. D., & de Moraes, P. B. (2016). A high-
performance doped photocatalysts for inactivation of total col-
iforms in superficial waters using different sources of radiation.
Journal of Environmental Management, 177, 264–270. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.04.033
Crook, M. J., Jefferson, B., Autin, O., MacAdam, J., & Nocker, A.
(2015). Comparison of ultraviolet light emitting diodes with tra-
ditional UV for greywater disinfection. Journal of Water Reuse
3524
and Desalination, 5(1), 17–27. https://doi.org/10.2166/wrd.2014.
022
Dalrymple, O. K., Stefanakos, E., Trotz, M. A., & Goswami, D. Y.
(2010). A review of the mechanisms and modeling of photocat-
alytic disinfection. Applied Catalysis B: Environmental, 98(1–2),
27–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apcatb.2010.05.001
Du, L., Prasad, A. J., Gänzle, M., & Roopesh, M. S. (2019). Inactiva-
tion of Salmonella spp. in wheat flour by 395 nm pulsed light emit-
ting diode (LED) treatment and the related functional and struc-
tural changes of gluten. Food Research International, 127, 108716.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2019.108716
Eskandarian, M. R., Choi, H., Fazli, M., & Rasoulifard, M. H. (2016).
Effect of UV-LED wavelengths on direct photolytic and TiO2 pho-
tocatalytic degradation of emerging contaminants in water. Chem-
ical Engineering Journal, 300, 414–422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cej.2016.05.049
Essen, L. O., & Klar, T. (2006). Light-driven DNA repair by pho-
tolyases. Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences, 63, 1266–1277.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00018-005-5447-y
Fan, L., Ismail, B. B., Hou, F., Muhammad, A. I., Ding, T., & Liu, D.
(2019). Ultrasound pretreatment enhances the inhibitory effects
of nisin/carvacrol against germination, outgrowth and vegeta-
tive growth of spores of Bacillus subtilis ATCC6633 in laboratory
medium and milk: Population and single-cell analysis. Interna-
tional Journal of Food Microbiology, 311, 108329. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2019.108329
Fang, J., Liu, H., Shang, C., Zeng, M., Ni, M., & Liu, W. (2014). E. coli
and bacteriophage MS2 disinfection by UV, ozone and the com-
bined UV and ozone processes. Frontiers of Environmental Science
and Engineering, 8(4), 547–552. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11783-013-
0620-2
Friedberb, E. C., Walker, G. C., Siede, W., Wood, R. D., Schultz, R. A.,
& Ellenberger, T. (2006). DNA repair and mutagenesis (2nd ed).
Washington, DC: ASM Press.
Green, A., Popovi, V., Pierscianowski, J., Biancaniello, M., Warriner,
K., & Koutchma, T. (2018). Inactivation of Escherichia coli, Liste-
ria and Salmonella by single and multiple wavelength ultraviolet-
light emitting diodes. Innovative Food Science and Emerg-
ing Technologies, 47, 353–361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifset.2018.
03.019
Gross, A., Stangl, F., Hoenes, K., Sift, M., & Hessling, M.
(2015). Improved drinking water disinfection with UVC-LEDs
for Escherichia coli and Bacillus subtilis utilizing quartz tubes as
light guide. Water (Switzerland), 7(9), 4605–4621. https://doi.org/
10.3390/w7094605
Hamamoto, A., Mori, M., Takahashi, A., Nakano, M., Wakikawa,
N., Akutagawa, M., . . . Kinouchi, Y. (2007). New water disinfec-
tion system using UVA light-emitting diodes. Journal of Applied
Microbiology, 103, 2291–2298. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2672.
2007.03464.x
Haughton, P. N., Grau, E. G., Lyng, J., Cronin, D., Fanning, S., &
Whyte, P. (2012). Susceptibility of Campylobacter to high intensity
near ultraviolet/visible 395 ± 5 nm light and its effectiveness for
the decontamination of raw chicken and contact surfaces. Inter-
national Journal of Food Microbiology, 159(3), 267–273. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2012.09.006
Hertwig, C., Meneses, N., & Mathys, A. (2018). Cold atmospheric
pressure plasma and low energy electron beam as alternative
nonthermal decontamination technologies for dry food surfaces:
APPLICATION OF UV LEDS FOR INACTIVATION. . .
A review. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 77, 131–142.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2018.05.011
Hinds, L., Donnell, C. P. O., Akhter, M., & Brijesh, K. (2019). Princi-
ples and mechanisms of ultraviolet light emitting diode technol-
ogy for food industry applications. Innovative Food Science and
Emerging Technologies, 56, 102153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifset.
2019.04.006
Hoerter, J. D., Arnold, A. A., Kuczynska, D. A., Shibuya, A., Ward,
C. S., Sauer, M. G., . . . Johnson, S. (2005). Effects of sublethal
UVA irradiation on activity levels of oxidative defense enzymes
and protein oxidation in Escherichia coli. Journal of Photochem-
istry and Photobiology B: Biology, 81, 171–180. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jphotobiol.2005.07.005
Holck, A., Liland, K. H., Carlehög, M., & Heir, E. (2018). Reductions
of Listeria monocytogenes on cold-smoked and raw salmon fillets
by UV-C and pulsed UV light. Innovative Food Science and Emerg-
ing Technologies, 50, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifset.2018.10.
007
Horikawa-Miura, M., Matsuda, N., Yoshida, M., Okumura, Y., Mori,
T., & Watanabe, M. (2007). The greater lethality of UVB radia-
tion to cultured human cells is associated with the specific activa-
tion of a DNA damage-independent signaling pathway. Radiation
Research, 167, 655–662.
Ibrahim, M. A. S. (2012). Commercial evaluation of UV-LED in water
treatment applications. UK: Cranfiald University.
Ibrahim, M. A. S., Macadam, J., Autin, O., & Jefferson, B. (2014).
Evaluating the impact of LED bulb development on the economic
viability of ultraviolet technology for disinfection. Environmental
Technology (United Kingdom), 35(4), 400–406. https://doi.org/10.
1080/09593330.2013.829858
Jarvis, P., Autin, O., Goslan, E. H., & Hassard, F. (2019). Application of
ultraviolet light-emitting diodes (UV-LED) to full-scale drinking-
water disinfection. Water, 11, 1894.
Jiang, Y., Ai, C., Liao, X., Liu, D., & Ding, T. (2020). Effect of
slightly acidic electrolyzed water (SAEW) and ultraviolet light
illumination pretreatment on microflora inactivation of coriander.
LWT, 132, 109898. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2020.109898
Jiang, Y., Rabbi, M., Kim, M., Ke, C., Lee, W., Clark, R. L., . . .
Marszalek, P. E. (2009). UVA generates pyrimidine dimers in DNA
directly. Biophysical Journal, 96, 1151–1158.
Jo, W. K., & Tayade, R. J. (2014). New generation energy-efficient light
source for photocatalysis: LEDs for environmental applications.
Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Research, 53(6), 2073–2084.
https://doi.org/10.1021/ie404176g
Jung, Y. J., Oh, B. S., & Kang, J. W. (2008). Synergistic effect of sequen-
tial or combined use of ozone and UV radiation for the disinfec-
tion of Bacillus subtilis spores. Water Research, 42(6–7), 1613–1621.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2007.10.008
Kabra, K., Chaudhary, R., & Sawhney, R. L. (2004). Treatment of
hazardous organic and inorganic compounds through aqueous-
phase photocatalysis: A review. Industrial and Engineering
Chemistry Research, 43(24), 7683–7696. https://doi.org/10.1021/
ie0498551
Kessler, R. (2013). The Minamata Convention on mercury: A first step
toward protecting future generations. Environmental Health Per-
spectives, 121(10), 304–309.
Kim, D.-K., & Kang, D. H. (2020a). Inactivation efficacy of a six-
teen UVC LED module to control foodborne pathogens on selec-
tive media and sliced deli meat and spinach surfaces. LWT - Food
APPLICATION OF UV LEDS FOR INACTIVATION. . .
Science and Technology, 130, 109422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.
2020.109422
Kim, D.-K., & Kang, D. H. (2020b). Effect of surface characteristics on
the bactericidal efficacy of UVC LEDs. Food Control, 108, 106869.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2019.106869
Kim, D.-K., Kim, S., & Kang, D. (2017). Bactericidal effect of 266
to 279 nm wavelength UVC-LEDs for inactivation of Gram posi-
tive and Gram negative foodborne pathogenic bacteria and yeasts.
Food Research International, 97, 280–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.foodres.2017.04.009
Kim, S. J., Kim, D. K., & Kang, D. H. (2016). Using UVC light-
emitting diodes at wavelengths of 266 to 279 nanometers to
inactivate foodborne pathogens and pasteurize sliced cheese.
Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 82, 11–17. https://doi.
org/10.1128/AEM.02092-15>
Kim, S. T., Heelis, P. F., & Sanear, A. (1992). Energy transfer
(deazaflavin → FADH2 ) and electron transfer (FADH2 →T< >T)
kinetics in Anacystis nidulans photolyase. Biochemistry, 31, 11244–
11248. https://doi.org/10.1021/bi00160a040
Kohen, E., Santus, R., & Hirschberg, J. G. (1995). Photochemistry of
Biological Molecules. Photobiology (pp. 97–116). San Diego: Aca-
demic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012417755-0/50006-2
Koutchma, T., & Popović, V. (2019). UV light-emitting diodes (LEDs)
and food safety. In T. Koutchma (Ed.), Ultraviolet LED technol-
ogy for food applications (pp. 91–117). London: Elsevier. https://doi.
org/10.1016/b978-0-12-817794-5.00005-4
Koutchma, T. N., Forney, L. J., & Moraru, C. I. (2009). Ultraviolet light
in food technology: Principle and Applications (1st ed.). Boca Raton:
CRC Press.
Krzemińska, D., Neczaj, E., & Borowski, G. (2015). Advanced oxi-
dation processes for food industrial wastewater decontamination.
Journal of Ecological Engineering, 16(2), 61–71. https://doi.org/10.
12911/22998993/1858
Kuipers, J., Bruning, H., Yntema, D., & Rijnaarts, H. (2015). Wire-
lessly powered ultraviolet light emitting diodes for photocat-
alytic oxidation. Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology A:
Chemistry, 299, 25–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jphotochem.2014.
10.017
Legrini, O., Oliveros, E., & Braun, A. M. (1993). Photochemical
processes for water treatment. Chemical Reviews, 93(2), 671–698.
https://doi.org/10.1021/cr00018a003
Li, G. Q., Huo, Z. Y., Wu, Q. Y., Lu, Y., & Hu, H. Y. (2018). Synergis-
tic effect of combined UV-LED and chlorine treatment on Bacillus
subtilis spore inactivation. Science of the Total Environment, 639,
1233–1240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.05.240
Li, G. Q., Wang, W., Huo, Z., Lu, Y., & Hu, H. (2017). Comparison of
UV-LED and low pressure UV for water disinfection: Photoreac-
tivation and dark repair of Escherichia coli. Water Research, 126,
134–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2017.09.030
Li, J., Hirota, K., Yumoto, H., Matsuo, T., Miyake, Y., & Ichikawa,
T. (2010). Enhanced germicidal effects of pulsed UV-LED irradi-
ation on biofilms. Journal of Applied Microbiology, 109(6), 2183–
2190. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2672.2010.04850.x
Lian, X., Tetsutani, K., Katayama, M., Nakano, M., Mawatari, K.,
Harada, N., . . . Takahashi, A. (2010). A new colored beverage dis-
infection system using UV-A light-emitting diodes. Biocontrol Sci-
ence, 15, 33–37.
Lim, W., & Harrison, M. A. (2016). Effectiveness of UV light as
a means to reduce Salmonella contamination on tomatoes and
3525
food contact surfaces. Food Control, 66, 166–173. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.foodcont.2016.01.043
Lindahl, T., & Wood, R. D. (1999). Quality control by DNA repair. Sci-
ence, 286, 1897–1905. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.286.5446.1897
Liu, F., Zhang, X., Zhao, L., Wang, Y., & Liao, X. (2016). Potential of
high-pressure processing and high-temperature/short-time ther-
mal processing on microbial, physicochemical and sensory assur-
ance of clear cucumber juice. Innovative Food Science and Emerg-
ing Technologies, 34, 51–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifset.2015.12.
030
Lui, G. Y., Roser, D., Corkish, R., Ashbolt, N. J., & Stuetz, R. (2016).
Point-of-use water disinfection using ultraviolet and visible light-
emitting diodes. Science of the Total Environment, 553, 626–635.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.02.039
Mamane, H., Shemer, H., & Linden, K. G. (2007). Inactivation of E.
coli, B. subtilis spores, and MS2, T4, and T7 phage using UV/H2 O2
advanced oxidation. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 146(3), 479–
486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2007.04.050
Markowska-Szczupak, A., Ulfig, K., & Morawski, A. W. (2011). The
application of titanium dioxide for deactivation of bioparticulates:
An overview. Catalysis Today, 169(1), 249–257. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.cattod.2010.11.055
Martin, N., Carey, N., Murphy, S., Kent, D., Bang, J., Stubbs, T., . . .
Dando, R. (2016). Exposure of fluid milk to LED light negatively
affects consumer perception and alters underlying sensory prop-
erties. Journal of Dairy Science, 99(6), 4309–4324. https://doi.org/
10.3168/jds.2015-9603
Matafonova, G., & Batoev, V. (2018). Recent advances in applica-
tion of UV light-emitting diodes for degrading organic pollutants
in water through advanced oxidation processes: A review. Water
Research, 132, 177–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2017.12.079
Mitchell, D., & Karentz, D. (1993). The induction and repair of DNA
photodamage in the environment. Boston, MA: Springer US.
Moreira, N. F. F., Sousa, J. M., Macedo, G., Ribeiro, A. R., Barreiros,
L., Pedrosa, M., . . . Silva, A. M. T. (2016). Photocatalytic ozonation
of urban wastewater and surface water using immobilized TiO2
with LEDs: Micropollutants, antibiotic resistance genes and estro-
genic activity. Water Research, 94, 10–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
watres.2016.02.003
Mori, M., Hamamoto, A., Takahashi, A., Nakano, M., Wakikawa, N.,
Tachibana, S., . . . Kinouchi, Y. (2007). Development of a new water
sterilization device with a 365 nm UV-LED. Medical and Biologi-
cal Engineering and Computing, 45, 1237–1241. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s11517-007-0263-1
Muhammad, A. I., Liao, X., Cullen, P. J., Liu, D., Xiang, Q., Wang,
J., . . . Ding, T. (2018). Effects of nonthermal plasma technology
on functional food components. Comprehensive Reviews in Food
Science and Food Safety, 17, 1379–1394. https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-
4337.12379
Muhammad, A. I., Xiang, Q., Liao, X., Liu, D., & Ding, T.
(2018). Understanding the impact of nonthermal plasma on food
constituents and microstructure—A review. Food and Biopro-
cess Technology, 11(3), 463–486. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11947-017-
2042-9
Murashita, S., Kawamura, S., & Koseki, S. (2017). Inactivation of non-
pathogenic Escherichia coli, Escherichia coli O157: H7, Salmonella
enterica typhimurium, and Listeria monocytogenes in ice using a
UVC light-emitting diode. Journal of Food Protection, 80(7), 1198–
1203. https://doi.org/10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-17-036
3526
Nakahashi, M., Mawatari, K., Hirata, A., Maetani, M., Shimohata,
T., Uebanso, T., . . . Takahashi, A. (2014a). Simultaneous irradi-
ation with different wavelengths of ultraviolet light has syner-
gistic bactericidal effect on Vibrio parahaemolyticus. Photochem-
istry and Photobiology, 90, 1397–1403. https://doi.org/10.1111/php.
12309
Nakahashi, M., Mawatari, K., Hirata, A., Maetani, M., Shimohata,
T., Uebanso, T., . . . Takahashi, A. (2014b). Simultaneous irradia-
tion with different wavelengths of ultraviolet light has synergis-
tic bactericidal effect on Vibrio parahaemolyticus, Photochemistry
and Photobiology, 90, 1397–1403. https://doi.org/10.1111/php.12309
Nelson, K. Y., McMartin, D. W., Yost, C. K., Runtz, K. J., & Ono,
T. (2013). Point-of-use water disinfection using UV light-emitting
diodes to reduce bacterial contamination. Environmental Science
and Pollution Research, 20(8), 5441–5448. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11356-013-1564-6
Nguyen, P., & Mittal, G. S. (2007). Inactivation of naturally occurring
microorganisms in tomato juice using pulsed electric field (PEF)
with and without antimicrobials. Chemical Engineering and Pro-
cessing: Process Intensification, 46(4), 360–365. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.cep.2006.07.010
Nyangaresi, P. O., Qin, Y., Chen, G., Zhang, B., Lu, Y., & Shen, L.
(2018). Effects of single and combined UV-LEDs on inactivation
and subsequent reactivation of E. coli in water disinfection. Water
Research, 147, 331–341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2018.10.014
Nyangaresi, P. O., Qin, Y., Chen, G., Zhang, B., Lu, Y., & Shen,
L. (2019a). Comparison of the performance of pulsed and con-
tinuous UVC-LED irradiation in the inactivation of bacteria.
Water Research, 157, 218–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2019.
03.080
Nyangaresi, P. O., Qin, Y., Chen, G., Zhang, B., Lu, Y., & Shen, L.
(2019b). Comparison of UV-LED photolytic and UV-LED/TiO2
photocatalytic disinfection for Escherichia coli in water. Catalysis
Today, 335, 200–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cattod.2018.11.015
Oguma, K., Katayama, H., & Ohgaki, S. (2002). Photoreactivation of
Escherichia coli after low- or medium-pressure UV disinfection
determined by an endonuclease sensitive site assay. Applied and
Environmental Microbiology, 68(12), 6029–6035. https://doi.org/10.
1128/AEM.68.12.6029-6035.2002
Oppezzo, O. J., & Pizaorro, R. A. (2001). Sublethal effects of ultraviolet
A radiation on Enterobacter cloacae. Journal of Photochemistry and
Photobiology B: Biology, 62, 158–165.
Pablos, C., Marugán, J., van Grieken, R., & Serrano, E. (2013). Emerg-
ing micropollutant oxidation during disinfection processes using
UV-C, UV-C/H2O2, UV-A/TiO2 and UV-A/TiO2/H2O2. Water
Research, 47(3), 1237–1245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2012.11.
041
Pasard, A., Gänzle, M., & Roopesh, M. (2019). Inactivation of
Escherichia coli and Salmonella using 365 and 395 nm high inten-
sity pulsed light emitting diodes. Foods, 8, 679.
Petruzzi, L., Campaniello, D., Speranza, B., Corbo, M. R., Sinigaglia,
M., & Bevilacqua, A. (2017). Thermal treatments for fruit and
vegetable juices and beverages: A literature overview. Compre-
hensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, 16(4), 668–691.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-4337.12270
Poepping, C., Beck, S. E., Wright, H., & Linden, K. G. (2014). Evalu-
ation of DNA damage reversal during medium-pressure UV dis-
infection. Water Research, 56, 181–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
watres.2014.02.043
APPLICATION OF UV LEDS FOR INACTIVATION. . .
Province, D. W., O’Neil, S., Higgins, K., Smith, P. J., Dooley, K.,
Curtis, J., . . . Allen, S. D. (2011). Disinfection of B. subtilis cells
in suspension using ultraviolet light emitting diodes (LEDs) in
the presence of TiO2 . AIP Conference Proceedings, 1326, 170–176.
https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3587474
Qiao, Y., Chen, D., & Wen, D. (2018). Use of coupled wavelength
ultraviolet light-emitting diodes for inactivation of bacteria in
subsea oil-field injection water. Science of the Total Environ-
ment, 640–641, 757–763. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.05.
283
Qin, L., Lin, Y. L., Xu, B., Hu, C. Y., Tian, F. X., Zhang, T. Y., . . . Gao, N.
Y. (2014). Kinetic models and pathways of ronidazole degradation
by chlorination, UV irradiation and UV/chlorine processes. Water
Research, 65, 271–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2014.07.041
Rantalankila, M., Koivistoinen, H., Sarvasidze, L., & Sillanpää, M. E.
T. (2016). Inactivation of Asterionellopsis glacialis in seawater using
combinations of deep ultraviolet light emitting diodes. Separation
and Purification Technology, 169, 247–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.seppur.2016.05.045
Rastogi, R. P., Kumar, A., Tyagi, M. B., & Sinha, R. P. (2010). Molec-
ular mechanisms of ultraviolet radiation-induced DNA damage
and repair. Journal of Nucleic Acids, 2010, https://doi.org/10.4061/
2010/592980
Rattanakul, S., & Oguma, K. (2018). Inactivation kinetics and effi-
ciencies of UV-LEDs against Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Legionella
pneumophila, and surrogate microorganisms. Water Research, 130,
31–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2017.11.047
Santin, M., Lucini, L., Castagna, A., Chiodelli, G., Hauser, M. T., &
Ranieri, A. (2018). Post-harvest UV-B radiation modulates metabo-
lite profile in peach fruit. Postharvest Biology and Technology, 139,
127–134.
Santos, A. L., Moreirinha, C., Lopes, D., Esteves, A. C., Henriques,
I., Almeida, A., . . . Delgadillo, I. (2013). Effects of UV radiation
on the lipids and proteins of bacteria studied by mid-infrared
spectroscopy. Environmental Science & Technology, 47, 6306−6315.
https://doi.org/10.1021/es400660g
Shin, J., Kim, S., Kim, D., & Kang, D. (2016). Fundamental charac-
teristics of deep-UV light-emitting diodes and their application to
control foodborne pathogens. Applied and Environmental Micro-
biology, 82, 2–10. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.01186-15
Sinha, R. P., & Häder, D. (2002). UV-induced DNA damage and
repair : A review. Photochemical & Photobiological Sciences, 1, 225–
236. https://doi.org/10.1039/b201230h
Smith, H. L., Howland, M. C., Szmodis, A. W., Li, Q., Daemen, L.
L., Parikh, A. N., & Majewski, J. (2009). Early stages of oxidative
stress-induced membrane permeabilization: A neutron reflectom-
etry study. Journal of the American Chemical Society, 131(10), 3631–
3638. https://doi.org/10.1021/ja807680m
Song, K., Mohseni, M., & Taghipour, F. (2016). Application of ultra-
violet light-emitting diodes (UV-LEDs) for water disinfection:
A review. Water Research, 94, 341–349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
watres.2016.03.003
Song, K., Taghipour, F., & Mohseni, M. (2019). Microorganisms inac-
tivation by wavelength combinations of ultraviolet light-emitting
diodes (UV-LEDs). Science of the Total Environment, 665, 1103–
1110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.041
Subedi, S., Du, L., Prasad, A., Yadav, B., & Roopesh, M. S. (2020).
Inactivation of Salmonella and quality changes in wheat flour
after pulsed light-emitting diode (LED) treatments. Food and
APPLICATION OF UV LEDS FOR INACTIVATION. . .
Bioproducts Processing, 121, 166–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fbp.
2020.02.004
Taghipour, F. (2018). UV LED technology: The times they are A-
Changin’. IUVA News, 20(1), 14–17.
Takada, A., Matsushita, K., Horioka, S., Furuichi, Y., & Sumi, Y.
(2017). Bactericidal effects of 310 nm ultraviolet light-emitting
diode irradiation on oral bacteria. BMC Oral Health, 17(1), 1–10.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-017-0382-5
Tayade, R. J., Natarajan, T. S., & Bajaj, H. C. (2009). Photocatalytic
degradation of methylene blue dye using ultraviolet light emitting
diodes. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 48, 10262–
10267.
Vieno, N. M., Härkki, H., Tuhkanen, T., & Kronberg, L. (2007). Occur-
rence of pharmaceuticals in river water and their elimination in
a pilot-scale drinking water treatment plant. Environmental Sci-
ence and Technology, 41(14), 5077–5084. https://doi.org/10.1021/
es062720x
Vilhunen, S., Särkkä, H., & Sillanpää, M. (2009). Ultraviolet light-
emitting diodes in water disinfection. Environmental Science and
Pollution Research, 16(4), 439–442. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-
009-0103-y
Vilhunen, S. H., & Sillanpää, M. E. T. (2009). Ultraviolet light emitting
diodes and hydrogen peroxide in the photodegradation of aque-
ous phenol. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 161(2–3), 1530–1534.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2008.05.010
Visser, P. M., Poos, J. J., Scheper, B. B., Boelen, P., & van Duyl, F. C.
(2002). Diurnal variations in depth profiles of UV-induced DNA
damage and inhibition of bacterioplankton production in tropical
coastal waters. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 228, 25–33.
Wang, W. L., Wu, Q. Y., Li, Z. M., Lu, Y., Du, Y., Wang, T., . . . Hu,
H. Y. (2017). Light-emitting diodes as an emerging UV source for
UV/chlorine oxidation: Carbamazepine degradation and toxicity
changes. Chemical Engineering Journal, 310, 148–156. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.cej.2016.10.097
Wang, X., Hu, X., Wang, H., & Hu, C. (2012). Synergistic effect of
the sequential use of UV irradiation and chlorine to disinfect
reclaimed water. Water Research, 46(4), 1225–1232. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.watres.2011.12.027
Webb, R. B. (1977). Lethal and mutagenic effects of near-ultraviolet
radiation. In K. C.Smith (Ed.) Photochemical and photobiological
reviews, (pp. 169–261). Boston: Springer. Retrieved from https://
link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4684-2577-2_4#citeas.
Wu, D., Forghani, F., Daliri, E. B. M., Li, J., Liao, X., Liu, D., . . .
Ding, T. (2020). Microbial response to some nonthermal physical
technologies. Trends in Food Science and Technology, 95, 107–117.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2019.11.012
Wu, P., Xie, R., Imlay, J. A., & Shang, J. K. (2009). Visible-light-
induced photocatalytic inactivation of bacteria by composite pho-
tocatalysts of palladium oxide and nitrogen-doped titanium oxide.
Applied Catalysis B Environmental, 88, 576–581. https://doi.org/10.
1038/jid.2014.371
Wu, Z., Guo, K., Fang, J., Yang, X., Xiao, H., Hou, S., & Chen, L. (2017).
Factors affecting the roles of reactive species in the degradation of
micropollutants by the UV/chlorine process. Water Research, 126,
351–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2017.09.028
3527
Würtele, M. A., Kolbe, T., Lipsz, M., Külberg, A., Weyers, M., Kneissl,
M., & Jekel, M. (2011). Application of GaN-based ultraviolet-C light
emitting diodes - UV LEDs - for water disinfection. Water Research,
45(3), 1481–1489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2010.11.015
Xiang, Y., Fang, J., & Shang, C. (2016). Kinetics and pathways of
ibuprofen degradation by the UV/chlorine advanced oxidation
process. Water Research, 90, 301–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
watres.2015.11.069
Xiao, Y., Chu, X. N., He, M., Liu, X. C., & Hu, J. Y. (2018). Impact
of UVA pre-radiation on UVC disinfection performance: Inactiva-
tion, repair and mechanism study. Water Research, 141, 279–288.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2018.05.021
Xiong, P., & Hu, J. (2013). Inactivation/reactivation of antibiotic-
resistant bacteria by a novel UVA/LED/TiO2 system. Water
Research, 47(13), 4547–4555. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2013.
04.056
Yagi, N., Mori, M., Hamamoto, A., Nakano, M., Akutagawa, M.,
Tachibana, S., . . . Kinouchi, Y. (2007). Sterilization using 365 nm
UV-LED. Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineer-
ing in Medicine and Biology Society, pp. 5842–5845. https://doi.org/
10.1109/IEMBS.2007.4353676
Yang, S., Sadekuzzaman, M., & Ha, S. (2017). Reduction of Listeria
monocytogenes on chicken breasts by combined treatment with
UV-C light and bacteriophage ListShield. LWT - Food Science
and Technology, 86, 193–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2017.07.
060
Yeo, S., & Liong, M. (2012). Effects and applications of sub-lethal
ultrasound, electroporation and UV radiations in bioprocess-
ing. Annals of Microbiology, 63, 813–824. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s13213-012-0559-8
Zhang, J. P., Chitnis, A., Adivarahan, V., Wu, S., Mandavilli, V.,
Pachipulusu, R., . . . Asif Khan, M. (2002). Milliwatt power deep
ultraviolet light-emitting diodes over sapphire with emission at 278
nm. Applied Physics Letters, 81(26), 4910–4912. https://doi.org/10.
1063/1.1531835
Zhou, X., Li, Z., Lan, J., Yan, Y., & Zhu, N. (2017). Kinetics
of inactivation and photoreactivation of Escherichia coli using
ultrasound-enhanced UV-C light-emitting diodes disinfection.
Ultrasonics - Sonochemistry, 35, 471–477. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ultsonch.2016.10.028
Zou, X., Lin, Y., Xu, B., Cao, T., Tang, Y., Pan, Y., . . . Gao, N. (2019).
Enhanced inactivation of E. coli by pulsed UV-LED irradiation
during water disinfection. Science of the Total Environment, 650,
210–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.08.367
How to cite this article: Kebbi Y, Muhammad
AI, Sant’Ana AS, do Prado-Silva L, Liu D, Ding T.
Recent advances on the application of UV-LED
technology for microbial inactivation: Progress and
mechanism. Compr Rev Food Sci Food Saf.
2020;19:3501–3527.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-4337.12645