Why Far-UV Output Matters: How Sterilray Stands Apart in Real-Time Disinfection and Cost

Excitement surrounding Far-UV technology and its applications has generated a host of competing companies that aim to prove their products represent the best germicidal innovations on the market. Far-UV at 222nm has very shallow penetration in biological tissue, which makes it demonstratively safer for occupied spaces than traditional 254nm UV (Bme, 2020). Evidence such as the National Library of Medicine’s 36-month ocular observation study in 2025 found no clinically significant eye hazards or delayed side effects from prolonged 222nm exposure under real-world conditions (Sugihara et al, 2025). As a result, many early adopters are using novel Far-UV technology in their own facilities. Dr. Curtis Donskey from the Louis Stokes Cleveland VA Medical Center explains how “a dental office in Ohio installed Far-UV lamps in 5 patient treatment rooms in 2020 and has operated the technology for thousands of hours with no reports of adverse effects” (Stewart, 2024). Studies like this bolster Far-UV and ignite its emergence as a leading continuous decontamination technology. But these same studies show how certain Far-UV companies such as Sterilray Inc., Visium, and Bioabundance differ.  

System output matters

As Far-UV adoption increases, manufacturers are differentiating themselves through system design, output, and application strategy. While many commercial systems utilize the same 222nm wavelength, they vary significantly in total optical output, irradiance, lamp life, and the amount of germicidal energy delivered to pathogens. Here is a comparison chart for three separate products utilizing Far-UV from the 2026 OSLUV Reports: 

(Data reproduced from the 2026 OSLUV Reports and Krypton-11 Specifications site (Haith, 2025)).  

The Sterilray GermBuster Sabre, like all Sterilray products, is built to stand apart. The high-output design with a radiant flux of 484.4 mW is engineered to deliver a much higher dose in that critical, short exposure window. The following graphic visually emphasizes the massive difference between the three products. It is strikingly clear that the Bioabundance and Visium ranges are much smaller than Sterilray’s much higher total radiant flux. 

(Graph units in meters, https://illuminate.osluv.org/ )

In practical terms, that means the more energy reaching pathogens in motion, the greater likelihood of inactivation in real-time, and the more effective interception of airborne contaminants. This is because airborne particles don’t stay still. They move quickly through a space, often passing through a UV field in fractions of a second. Pathogens moving through air may only be exposed for milliseconds, so higher intensity and photon density improve the likelihood of effective inactivation. Microorganisms need to absorb enough UV energy within a very short period to be inactivated. That means the system must deliver sufficient intensity instantly and not gradually.

For example, in a case study done by Visium at Pig Hill Farms, it took 24 units of their Far-UV product more than 4 hours to complete pathogen inactivation of a 3400 square foot space (Mogler’s Pig Hill Farms Case Study - Visium, 2025). In contrast, a Sterilray product can inactivate the same pathogens in the same space within seconds and with only 4 units! These numbers prove Sterilray products deliver up to 25 times more total Far-UV output and 25 times more peak irradiance at one meter than most competitors and are ultimately the better products for surface disinfection (OSLUV Reports, 2026).

Sterilray’s higher-output Far-UV platform therefore offers stronger practical performance than lower-output competitors like Bioabundance’s Ushio B2, and particularly the Visium 1, in healthcare and infection-control applications. This practical implication is straightforward: greater delivered energy increases the likelihood of meaningful reductions in airborne and surface microbial contamination during normal room occupancy. Additionally, Sterilray’s 30,000 hour warrantied lamp life versus 8750 hours for Visium and Bioabundance’s Ushio B2 versions means that the higher output disinfection irradiance lasts longer and stronger. 

Cost investment differences

Cost Comparison Differences Over 30,000 Hours

The cost comparison chart above shows that Sterilray’s GermBuster Sabre system has the lowest total cost of ownership over a 30,000-hour operating period. With an initial installed cost of $3,975 and no lamp replacements required during the warranty period, Sabre's total lifetime cost remains the same at $3,975. In comparison, the Bioabundance Ushio B2 system has a total cost of ownership of $56,292, while the Vision system totals $55,437 due to significantly higher initial installation costs and multiple lamp replacements over time. Overall, both competing systems cost approximately 17.5 times more than the Sterilray Sabre system over their operating lifetimes, highlighting the substantial long-term savings achieved through Sabre's longer lamp life and lower maintenance requirements.

Other Far-UV products just can’t compete 

As more manufacturers enter the market, competitive differentiation will depend less on producing 222nm light and more on delivering sufficient germicidal energy to achieve meaningful pathogen reduction. From that standpoint, Sterilray's emphasis on higher output, greater irradiance, and practical dose delivery positions the company as one of the strongest Far-UV options currently available. In infection prevention, the critical question is no longer who produces 222nm light; it is who delivers enough of it to make a measurable difference. Furthermore, Sterilray’s GermBuster cost, greater lamp life, and superior warranty make it a less costly over time and a more worthwhile investment than its competitors. 

Thus, Sterilray’s Far-UV technology is not only vastly less expensive over time, but it also offers higher performance and stronger practical disinfection capability in infection-control environments than lower-output competitors. When it comes to air and surface disinfection, intensity, output, and delivery strategy are not just technical details, they are the difference between passive exposure and active pathogen reduction. And in environments where transmission risk matters, that difference becomes critical.

Works Cited

Bme. (2020). Far-UVC Applications in Healthcare. https://bmedesign.engr.wisc.edu/projects/f20/far_uvc/file/view/c24605df-6c51-4204-905988140abf1f5f/light_legends-final_report.pdf.

Haith, J. (2025, July 11). Krypton-11 - Ceiling Mounted UVC Lamp by Far UV Technologies. Far UV Technologies https://faruv.com/new-krypton-11/#features

Mogler’s Pig Hill Farms Case Study - Visium. (2025, November 4). Visium. https://visium.one/casestudies/moglers-pig-hill-farms-case-study/.

OSLUV Reports. (2026). Osluv.Org. https://reports.osluv.org/.

Stewart, L. (2024). New ultraviolet light air disinfection technology could help protect against healthcare infections and even the next pandemic. The Microbiologist. https://www.the-microbiologist.com/news/newultraviolet-light-air-disinfection-technology-could-help-protect-against-healthcare-infections-and-even-thenext-pandemic/3018.article.

Sugihara K, Kaidzu S, Sasaki M, Ichioka S, Sano I, Hara K, Tanito M. Ocular safety of 222-nm far-ultraviolet-c fullroom germicidal irradiation: A 36-month clinical observation. Photochemistry and Photobiology. 2025 Sep Oct;101(5):1343-1349. doi: 10.1111/php.14052. Epub 2024 Dec 10. PMID: 39659140; PMCID:PMC12466086.