$30 UV-C Sanitizer*

I needed to be able to clean* some medical devices, but balked at spending $200-$300 for a light-tight box with a UV-C light source. A little 3mm plywood & acrylic, aluminium foil, 30 minutes, and a $25 UV-C (non-ozonating) lamp later, I had the following. Just for fun, I used the Noun Project add-in for the GUI to add a quick safety warning (yeah, I know this is the laser symbol).

Just realized I didn’t include the ventilated acrylic heat shield that fit around the lamp in this photo. It’s there, really…

* To head off the inevitable, for my purposes, “clean” means sanitizing, not sterilizing. I make no guarantee as to the effectiveness or not-causing-cancer-or-blindness qualities of this device. Do not try this at home. If you’ve already looked at the image, wash your hands with soap and water for at least 20 seconds, then rinse your eyes.


I know where you’re coming from. My wife bought me one of the phone soap devices for father’s day. $80! I was appalled but I didn’t say anything & I use it so she knows I appreciate it but sheesh! My resin printer UV light would be fine if I really thought it was necessary (vs. just the occasional wipe with a clorox or antiseptic wipe). She’s a good one though so I’m not complaining - just can’t believe what they’re charging for this stuff out there.


Awesome :slight_smile: I wonder if the foil was not in the box if it would bleach the wood over time.

I was dreading seeing some “LED UV” wand in there or similar. Was glad to see “the real deal…”

I hate scammers, but those selling that BS these days are the lowest…


My eyes! :confounded:

1 Like

That was my first thought, but decided to go as cheaply as possible. I was amazed how many lamps use 185nm bulbs and crank out ozone the entire time. Sure, it kills microbes, but don’t want to add any to my indoor environment. Had to be sure I was getting 254nm doped bulbs. Don’t have a spectrometer to really be sure, but I’m not smelling any ozone after use.


Nice project!

Curious how it isn’t ozone generating. Isn’t that wavelength is ionizing? :thinking:
(leaves to rinse eyes…)

Dangerous EM radiation is dangerous EM radiation!


Great question! 154nm generates a lot of O3. 254nm generates much less O3 and disassociates even more, so the net effect is zero. Kind of like plants using a little bit of O2 but generating massive quantities.


Thanks for the explanation. :sunglasses: