DESING AND COSTRUCTION OF A CASH UV STERILIZER FOR

COVID 19

Submitted By,
IAN GICHIMU GITHEKO

ADM NO: DMDE/6132/09/019

KABETE NATIONAL POLYTECHNIC

SUPERVISED BY:

PROJECT PROPOSAL SUBMITTED TO KENYA NATIONAL

EXAMINATION COUNCIL IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT FOR THE
AWARD OF DIPLOMA IN MEDICAL ENGINEERING

JULY, 2023
DECLARATION
I declare that this project proposal is my own work and has never been presented in
part or wholly to any institution for the award of any academic qualification.

Name Signature Date

…....................................... .................................
INDEX NO: DMDE/6132/09/019

DECLARATION BY SUPERVISOR (S)

This project proposal has been submitted with my approval at Kabete National
Polytechnic.

Name Signature Date

…....................................... .................................

ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION …......................................................................................................................ii
ABSTRACTION ..........................................................................................................................vii
CHAPTER 1 …..............................................................................................................................1
1.0 Introduction /Background .......................................................................................1
Problem Statement ....................................................................................................................1
Justification ...............................................................................................................................2
Objectives ..................................................................................................................................2
1.1.1 Main objective ......................................................................................................2
1.1.2 Specific objectives …............................................................................................2
Block Diagram ...........................................................................................................................3
Components ...............................................................................................................................3
CHAPTER 2 ..................................................................................................................................4
2.0 Literature Review …................................................................................................................4
CHAPTER 3 …..............................................................................................................................5
3.0 METHODOLOY .....................................................................................................................5
3.0.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................5
3.0.2 Block Diagram (s) of the system …............................................................................5
WORK PLAN …............................................................................................................................6
PROPOSED BUDGET ..................................................................................................................7
REFERENCES ..............................................................................................................................8
APPENDICES…...........................................................................................................................9

iii
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS OR SYMBOLS
LED: Light emitting Diode
LCD: Liquid crystal Display
I: Current
R: Resistor
V: Voltage

iv
LIST OF FIGURES

v
LIST OF TABLES

vi
ABSTRACT
UV light sterilization effectively inactivates microorganisms by damaging the DNA of cells.
DNA is responsible for cell replication, thus damaging the structure of DNA render cells unable
to and unable to spread disease or virus.
The report basically analyses the design and construction of a Uv light cash sterilizer. It will help
sterilize cash and prevent the spread of Covid 19

vii
CHAPTER 1
1.0 Introduction/Background
Demand for protective equipment continues to outstrip production as the number of infectious
diseases increases globally. For day-to-day sterilization purposes, a fast, efficient and reliable
disinfection process is necessary. The use of UV light as a disinfection technique dates to about
1900s. In current practices, UV light of the appropriate wavelength, which is usually 100nm to
400nm, is generated by electrical discharge through low-pressure mercury vapor, enclosed in a
glass tube that transmits UV light. The resulting germicidal lamp produces UV light with a
wavelength that ranges from 200nm to 280nm. This wavelength is within the short wave, or C
band of UV light. UV-C has been shown to deactivate viruses, mycoplasma, bacteria and fungi.
It takes only 2 minutes to kill viruses with a 15W UV-C lamp with the peak germicidal
efficiency being 254nm. While UV-C lighting is good for disinfection, it’s very harmful to
humans. It can damage the skin cells and eyes hence it’s important to build a solution that does
not allow the light to escape and break down your own DNA.
With the UV-C cash disinfection cabinet, we can easily irradiate cash in the cabinet. There are
four things to do while calculating UV-C dosage. That is; distance, UV-C tube power, duration
and shadowing. As per calculations, it takes 2 minutes to kill viruses with a 15W lamp but to be
on the safer side, items should be irradiated for 5 minutes for good measure.

1.1 Problem Statement

We have experienced the destruction of the Coronavirus and its rapid increase. It has killed
millions of people all around the world. UV disinfection techniques are now at the front line in
the fight against infectious diseases. It is accepted and used for water treatment, in medical
facilities, manufacturing, research laboratories, food processing industries and hospitals. In the
fight against highly infectious diseases, there is only one type of UV which is extremely
dangerous and can kill viruses such as Coronavirus. This is UV-C radiation. It is used for
disinfection and it’s most effective at a wavelength of 264nm. It works by disrupting the DNA
structure of bacteria, viruses and preventing their replication.

1
1.2 Justification
UV disinfection cabinets are simple to use and ensure sterility. It is used to kill microorganisms
without the requirement of heat or chemicals. UV-light is non-toxic and environmentally
friendly. The use of UV germicidal irradiation in healthcare settings has been well documented
and is used for decontamination in many institutions and even in biological safety cabinets. UV-
C irradiation is used to inactivate viruses, bacteria and other microorganisms, rendering them
incapable of replication. The effectiveness of viral inactivation by UV-C depends on the
delivered UV-C dose, which is a function of exposure time and irradiance, as well as the UV-C
source wavelength, the ability of the microorganism to resist UV-C degradation, and the surface
structure of the object being decontaminated. Some major advantages of UV-C over other
disinfection methods include rapid throughput, ease of use, low electrical power requirements,
absence of toxic or dangerous chemicals and relatively simple overall device design and
construction. UV-C methods are considered a decontamination process and not a sterilizing
process.

1.3 Objectives

1.3.1 Main Objective

To develop and test a UV-C disinfection cabinet.

1.3.2 Specific Objectives

1. To coat the inside of the cabinet with Aluminum foil for maximum reflection of the light
from the UV light tube.
2. To use an opaque cabinet for the safety of the user against harmful UV-C light.
3. To use Aluminum mesh to ensure the object being sterilized is properly exposed.

2
1.4 Components and materials
 LCD Display
 Buzzer
 Lid Sensor
 UVC Tubes
 Buttons
 Metal Mesh
 LEDs
 ICs
 Resistors
 Capacitors
 Diodes
 Transistors
 Transformer
 Base frame
 Screws and bolts

1.5 Block diagram

3
CHAPTER 2
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW

Germicidal Ultraviolet (GUV, also known as UVGI) uses ultraviolet light in the UV-C

wavelength range (200 nm to 280 nm) to inactivate microorganisms. Most systems use low

pressure mercury lamps which produce a peak emission around 254 nm. The approach is well

recognized as an inactivation technique with application to water treatment, room

decontamination, ventilation/cooling coil treatment and in-room air disinfection. UV-C for

surface and air decontamination has to consider health and safety issues. Human exposure to

UV-C can cause significant eye and skin damage and hence UV lamps must be located within

enclosed or shielded devices, or operated when no occupants are present.

In real use UVc light from these devices rarely passes through single layers of glass and double-

glazed units will usually inhibit its transmission, so most of the exposure risk is likely to be

associated with exposure to the irradiation effects if present in the room when a unit is switched

on. UV inactivation depends on microorganism species, whether the microorganism is in air,

water or on a surface, and environmental conditions such as temperature and humidity. The

majority of laboratory and control experimental studies focus on bacterial pathogens; however, a

number consider viruses. Under laboratory conditions GUV has been shown to be effective

against bacteriophages on surfaces (Tseng and Li, 2007) and in air against influenza (McDevitt

et al 2012), adenovirus serotype 2 and MHV coronavirus (Walker and Ko, 2007). Several studies

show that activation reduces with increased humidity for both bacterial (Ko et al 2000) and viral

aerosols (McDevitt et al 2012). Walker’s study calculated a UV susceptibility constant for MHV

coronavirus of 0.37 m2 /J, which places it as one of the easier microorganisms to inactivate.

Darnell et al. (2004) showed that SARS-CoV-1 could be inactivated by UV-C to enable safe

4
working with virus containing materials. Bedell et al (2016) showed a UV-C decontamination

device was able to inactivate MERS-CoV and MHV coronavirus at 1.22m, with almost a 6-log

reduction for MERS-CoV in 5 minutes. There is no data yet for SARS-CoV-2, but the data for

other coronaviruses suggest it is highly likely that it is susceptible to UV-C. UV-C devices are

widely used for room surface decontamination in healthcare settings. Such devices usually

comprise multiple UV-C lamps located on a portable trolley, usually in a carousel formation to

offer 360o delivery - that can be wheeled into a room and operated remotely to prevent occupant

exposure. Several studies have evaluated these devices in hospital settings and shown they can

inactivate a range of bacterial pathogens (Mahida et al 2013), (Beal et al., 2016). Devices are

shown to be easy to use and can rapidly disinfect rooms. A standard UV-C device showed 3 to 4

log reductions on petri-dish samples ((Mahida et al 2013) while a pulsed UV device was

combined with cleaning of high touch sites to give an overall 90% reduction (Beal et al., 2016).

A study also showed that a UV-C device led to a 1.37 log reduction on textiles inoculated with

Enterococcus faecium in a ward setting (Smolle et al., 2018). Shadowing is however a concern

and a study of ambulance decontamination indicated that some surfaces could be disinfected in

seconds while others took over 15 hours as they didn’t receive enough irradiation (Lindsley et

al., 2018). Several studies are currently exploring the use of UV-C as a viable approach to PPE

decontamination. Application of UV-C devices within building ventilation systems is widely

advocated to both reduce contamination of cooling coils leading to energy efficiency benefits

and to control infection transmission in ventilation systems with recirculation. This approach

may have some benefit in commercial UK buildings; however, UK hospital ventilation systems

(with a small number of specific exceptions) are 100% fresh air and hence UV-C installation will

have no benefit. The majority of work on application of UV-C devices for airborne infection

5
control focuses on upper-room GUV. These are shielded UV-C units that create a band of

ultraviolet light above the heads of occupants. Airflow patterns within the room carry pathogens

from the occupied zone though the upper-room UV zone providing ongoing disinfection while

the room is occupied. The approach cannot achieve 100% disinfection; instead, it acts in a

similar way to increased ventilation by reducing the concentration of pathogens within the room

air and hence reducing transmission risk.

A key advantage of this type of system, compared with mobile UVc carousels, is that the

treatment is designed so that the room can remain occupied. There is good evidence from studies

in TB hospitals that upper-room GUV is an effective control for tuberculosis. Escombe et al

(2009) repeated classic experiments conducted by Wells and Riley in the 1950’s and showed

77% reduction in human to guinea pig transmission. Chamber based studies show the

effectiveness of GUV against a number of bacterial aerosols including Noakes et al 2004, Ko et

al 2000, Kanaan et al., 2015, Yang et al. (2012). There are several studies that have modeled

upper-room GUV (Noakes et al 2004, Sung and Kato 2010, Gilkeson and Noakes 2013, Kanaan

et al., 2015, Yang et al. 2012)) and shown that the effectiveness depends on the placement of the

lamps relative to the ventilation flow, and that the two need to be considered together when

designing a system. Zhu et al. (2014) modeled the application of an upper-room GUV system

combined with a ceiling fan to show that increased mixing in the room enhances the

effectiveness of the GUV. Noakes, Khan and Gilkeson (2015) developed a zonal model coupled

with the Wells-Riley infection model to show the potential impact of upper-room GUV on

infection risk could be comparable to doubling the ventilation rate. Modeling studies also show

that upper room GUV is unlikely to significantly impact the close-range transmission risk within

1-2m of the infected source. GUV can also be applied through enclosed systems located within a

6
room. Larger systems are similar to a wall or ceiling mounted air conditioning unit, while

smaller systems can be portable and plugged in at a convenient location.

There are several such devices on the market and all show good single pass efficiency, however

their effectiveness in a room is dependent on their flow rate relative to the room size; many

devices have an insufficient air flow rate to be as effective in practice as claimed. There is recent

evidence to show that far-UV in the 200-222 nm wavelength range may be effective at

inactivating microorganisms without the risks to human health of conventional 254nm systems.

Several papers show the effectiveness and lack of skin damage in laboratory studies (Buonanno

et al., 2017, Narita et al., 2018, Welch et al., 2018), however there is not yet any evidence of

microbial inactivation from aerosol studies, chamber studies or real-world settings or any

evidence for safety in real-world settings. This is a promising technology that could enable more

effective disinfection than conventional UV-C, but needs substantially more research to prove it

is effective in a real-world setting. Guidelines on GUV systems are given by ASHRAE with

some information provided in CIBSE Guide A. CIE (2020) have also produced a position

statement on GUV which indicates that UV-C has significant potential but can be hazardous and

therefore must be installed with care. They recommend only using properly constructed products

which meet safety regulations and indicate that UV measurements to ensure human exposure

limits are not exceeded are important for any systems that are not fully enclosed. It should also

be noted that the effectiveness of GUV systems depends on the state of the lamps. The output of

UV-C lamps degrades with time and is also affected by dirt on lamp surfaces. Good maintenance

is important to ensure a GUV system operates correctly.

7
CHAPTER 3

3.0 METHODOLOGY

3.0.1 Introduction

With the UV-C disinfection cabinet, we can easily irradiate cash inside the cabinet. According to
research there are four things to consider while calculating UV-C dosage. That is; distance, UV-
C tube power, duration and shadowing. As per calculations it takes 2 minutes to kill viruses with
a 15W lamp.

3.2 BLOCK DIAGRAM

3.3 POWER SUPPLY

The power supply consists of a transformer dropping the voltage up to 12v ac then rectifier to a
Dc voltage using a rectifier diode, and lm05 is to drop the voltage up 5v DC voltage.

8
3.3.1 TRANSFORMER
The aim of the transformer in this project is to step down voltage from 240 volts ac to 12 volts

ac. Therefore, step down laminated core transformer is the one used because it is designed to

work at a low frequency. The laminated core transformer is the one used here. This is because of

the low frequency operation.

3.3.2 RECTIFICATION

The choice of the diode depends on the intended application. In our case, the diodes are required

to convert ac to dc. Therefore, rectifier diodes are the ones ideal for this work. Each of the four

diodes is required to carry the required current of 300mA and withstand a voltage of at least 12

volts. Therefore, the best diode for this is the one rated just above 300mA and above 12 volts.

Therefore, the ideal diode for this is IN4007. It has a current capacity of 1 ampere and peak

inverse voltage capacity of 1000 volts. Four of them will be used to form a four-diode bridge

rectifier.

3.3.4 VOLTAGE REGULATOR

Since our required output is 5 volts to power the microcontroller and 12 volts to power solenoid,

we use 7805 and 7812 voltage regulator IC respectively.

3.3.5 REED SWITCH

The operation of the reed switch is based upon the principle of magnetic induction. When a

magnet, whether permanent or electromagnetic, is in close proximity to a soft iron material the

soft iron magnetizes. Once magnetized there is nothing to distinguish a permanent magnet from

9
an induced magnet. Hence, any other soft iron material in close proximity will also be turned into

an induced magnet and be attracted to the others.

WORK PLAN

MONTH FEBRUARY MARCH APRIL

ACTIVITY WEEK 3 WEEK 4 WEEK 2 WEEK 3 WEEK 1

PROPOSAL WRITING
AND SUBMISSION

COLLECTION OF
MATERIALS

DESIGN OF

DATA COLLECTION
AND ANALYSIS

10
 PROJECT REPORT

=Table 1: work plan

PROPOSED BUDGET
SERIAL NO. COMPONENT QUANTITY ESTIMATED COST
(ksh)

1. Transformer 1 700
2. 1N4007 diode 4 120
3. Switch on/off 1 80
4. Capacitor 4 240
5. 7805 IC 1 85
6. Resistors 10 300
7. LEDs 2 100
8. Reed sensor 1 300
9. 555 timers 1 200
10. UV bulbs 1 3500
11. Photo diode 1 200
12. LM 324 IC 1 300
13. Transistor 1 30
14. Strip board 1 100
15. Solder wire 6 meters 240
16. Connector wires 4 meters 140
17. Casing 1 750
18. PIC16F73 1 1600
19. Crystal 1 150
20. Typing and binding 1100
TOTAL 10085
Table 2: Proposed budget
Source of funding; myself

11
REFERENCES
1. Haque, M.; Sartell, M.; McKimm, J.; Bakar, M.A. Health care-associated infections—An

overview. Infect. Drug

Resist. 2018, 11, 2321–2333. [CrossRef]

2. WHO (World Health Organization). Report on the Burden of Endemic Healthcare-Associated

Infection Worldwide;

WHO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2011; pp. 1–34.

3. FitzGerald, G.; Moore, G.; Wilson, A.P. Hand hygiene after touching a patient’s surroundings:

The opportunities most commonly missed. J. Hosp. Infect. 2013, 84, 27–31. [CrossRef]

4. Weber, D.J.; Rutala, W.A. Self-disinfecting surfaces: Review of current methodologies and

future prospects.

Am. J. Infect. Control. 2013, 41, 31–35. [CrossRef]

5. Saka, K.H.; Akanbi, A.A.; Obasa, T.O.; Raheem, R.A.; Oshodi, A.J.; Kalgo, Z.M. Pathogenic

aerobic bacterial

contaminants on non-critical hospital surfaces within paediatric ward of a nigerian hospital. J.

Med. Microb.

Diagn. 2016, 5, 241. [CrossRef]

12
6. Russotto, V.; Cortegiani, A.; Raineri, S.M.; Giarratano, A. Bacterial contamination of

inanimate surfaces and

equipment in the intensive care unit. J. Intensive Care 2015, 3, 54. [CrossRef]

7. Brady, R.R.; Hunt, A.C.; Visvanathan, A.; Rodrigues, M.A.; Graham, C.; Rae, C.; Gibb, A.P.

Mobile

phone technology and hospitalized patients: A cross-sectional surveillance study of bacterial

colonization,

and patient opinions and behaviours. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2011, 17, 830–835. [CrossRef]

8. Tagoe, D.N.A.; Baidoo, S.E.; Dadzie, I.; Tengey, D.; Agede, C. Potential sources of

transmission of hospital

acquired infections in the volta regional hospital in Ghana. Ghana Med. J. 2011, 45. [CrossRef]

9. Ustun, C.; Cihangiroglu, M. Health care workers mobile phones: A potential cause of

microbial

cross-contamination between hospitals and community. J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 2012, 9, 538–

542. [CrossRef]

10. Adlhart, C.; Verran, J.; Azevedo, N.F.; Olmez, H.; Keinänen-Toivola, M.M.; Gouveia, I.;

Melo, L.F.; Crijns, F.

Surface modifications for antimicrobial effects in the healthcare setting: A critical overview. J.

Hosp. Infect.

2018, 99, 239–249. [CrossRef]

13
11. Rutala, W.A.; Weber, D.J.; Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee.

Guideline for

Disinfection and Sterilization in Healthcare Facilities. 2008. Available online:

https://www.cdc.gov/

infectioncontrol/guidelines/disinfection/index.html (accessed on 2 October 2019).

12. Musuuza, J.S.; Guru, P.K.; O’Horo, J.C.; Bongiorno, C.M.; Korobkin, M.A.; Gangnon, R.E.;

Safdar, N.

The impact of chlorhexidine bathing on hospital-acquired bloodstream infections: A systematic

review and

meta-analysis. BMC Infect. Dis. 2019, 19, 416. [CrossRef]

13. McDonnell, G.; Russell, A.D. Antiseptics and disinfectants: Activity, action, and resistance.

Clin. Microbiol. Rev.

1999, 12, 147–179. [CrossRef]

14