Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Treating fungus with UV stunning finding
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Equipment Care and Repairs
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sat Dec 10, 2011 8:43 pm    Post subject: Treating fungus with UV stunning finding Reply with quote
I recently bought an old lens which had the small traces of fungus in a middle lens element at the periphery. Thre fungus was minor but was completely around the element and in one place has encroached 1/3 of the way to the element's centre. Being fanatical I stuck the lens in a sunbed for 10 minutes to ensure death of the fungus.

What I now now see has stunned me.

The tiny fungal filaments noted before seemed to have 90% dissapeared (possible vapourised) as I can see only traces around 20% of the edge . It is so small now as to be 99.99% insignificant and is almost impossible to see.
It seems that the UV has somehow vapourised most of the hyphae. I have no idea if this has been seen before but it could be a non invasive way of treating mild fugus if it is a reproduceable effect.

May I postulate a mechanism ::

UV first kills fungus. Then the UV ionises the (organic) constituents in the hyphae and they react with other gases in the air and slowly (it has taken 10 days here) the elements vapourise without a trace.

Has anyone lesy come across this?

It could save a lot of legacy lenses from the tip if reproduceable !

Malcolm


PostPosted: Sat Dec 10, 2011 8:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Did you left the lens out in the air for 10 days?

Sounds to me that the fungus was simply burned and turned into ashes. Ashes have very little structural integrity, couldn't they just be blown away by breezes? Effectively burning organic materials results into very little ashes, couldn't they have simply rolled down to the borders off the element?

Anyway, that's cool. I would repeat the procedure with the lens on different positions to make sure the fungus is all dead.


PostPosted: Sat Dec 10, 2011 9:26 pm    Post subject: 10 days Reply with quote
Over the last 10 days I have used the lens - the pumping action of focusing would have provided enough aiflow. I have now checked and checked over and over to make sure I am not deluding myself and I am not.
I will repeat this again on another lens, do before and after macro pics and post the results here in due course.
Malcolm


PostPosted: Sat Dec 10, 2011 9:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
show us the UV light contraption Wink


PostPosted: Sat Dec 10, 2011 9:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
On TV recently there was a programme about decay, and that mold/fungii etc are very important for the world's recycle mechanism, anyway it was mentioned that there are 500 spores/cubic metre of air in the average home. Sad Mind you I would have thought it would vary for the time of year.


PostPosted: Sat Dec 10, 2011 10:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Excalibur wrote:
On TV recently there was a programme about decay, and that mold/fungii etc are very important for the world's recycle mechanism, anyway it was mentioned that there are 500 spores/cubic metre of air in the average home. Sad Mind you I would have thought it would vary for the time of year.


Concentration does vary by time of year. Perhaps 500/m^3 is a minimum! Mycologists say "when it rains it spores." In Oregon there are sometimes 'clouds' of spores from toxic mushrooms that make people and animals quite ill.


PostPosted: Sat Dec 10, 2011 10:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Good results, so please document that when you treat a 2nd lens, that would be great!
I'm happy for you that it worked that well!!


PostPosted: Sat Dec 10, 2011 10:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
kds315* wrote:
Good results, so please document that when you treat a 2nd lens, that would be great!
I'm happy for you that it worked that well!!

+1


PostPosted: Sat Dec 10, 2011 11:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Stolen from Wikipedia -

Ultraviolet Radiation (UVR) from the sun and in tanning beds

The sun emits UVR in the form of A, B, and C waves. They are named according to the length of the wave and are associated with various health events. The ozone affects UVR from the sun and different amounts reach the earth's surface depending on the wavelength. Sunbeds can have the same health effects as UVR from the sun.[29]
UVA wavelengths (315-400 nm) are the longest wavelengths, and are only slightly affected by ozone levels. Most UVA radiation is able to reach Earth's surface and can contribute to skin aging, eye damage, and can suppress the immune system.[29]
Most of the UV radiation in tanning beds is UVA, but may be 10 to 15 times more intense than midday sun.[25]
UVA penetrates the skin more deeply and does not cause a burn
UVA does not damage DNA directly like UVB and UVC, but it can generate highly reactive chemical intermediates, such as hydroxyl and oxygen radicals, which in turn damage DNA.
The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer Working Group on artificial UV light and skin cancer positively associates the use of sunbeds with cutaneous malignant melanomas.[12]
UVB wavelengths (280-315 nm) are strongly affected by ozone levels. Decreases in stratospheric ozone mean that more UVB radiation can reach Earth's surface.[29]


UVB causes burns, snow blindness, immune system suppression, and a variety of skin problems including skin cancer and premature aging.[29]
Short-wavelength UVB has been recognized for some time as carcinogenic in experimental animals.[64]
UVC wavelengths (180-280 nm) have the shortest wavelengths, and are very strongly affected by ozone levels. Virtually all UVC radiation is absorbed by ozone, water vapor, oxygen and carbon dioxide before reaching Earth’s surface.[29]
Tanning lamps do not emit UVC

Would something like this wired up inside a storage cabinet be enough ?

http://www.maplin.co.uk/uvlight-source-4848

Or is the wattage / frequency different, and enough to make a cheap small UV lamp such as these worthless for what we might need ?


PostPosted: Sun Dec 11, 2011 2:03 am    Post subject: Confirmation of Effect and Theory Reply with quote
The device was a simple tanning sunbed I hired in a gymnasium for 10 dollars - I gave it 10 minutes. Its equivalent to several hours intense sunshine without the heat .
After having decided to try a sunbed for this use I did a quick Google on the idea. Apparently a small flourescent tube UV like the Maplins device just does not have the power to fry the fungus. Suggest sinbed hire a good one. I have had an independent observer examine my lens andhe confirms that the fungus now occupies only about 10% of the circumference. Before treatment it was all the way round.
There is a lot of energy in these sunbeds but immediately after treatment there was no difference in the appearance of the hyphae. There is clearly a profound chemical change in the hyphae that allow it to dissintegrate after trteament and blow away as a fine dust. It could be an ozone / free radical effect.
If this is the case then if there was a heavy infestation the dust created after treatment may still leave a residue in the lens.
The total weight of the hyphae in my lens could only have been a fraction of a microgram - easy to oxidise with ozone and disperse without a trace.
I intend to do some reaseach and do a proper controlled, photographed experiment in due course.
Cheers


Malcolm


PostPosted: Sun Dec 11, 2011 7:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Interesting, and cheap if you hire the bed by the hour, or get someone to take your lens in with them. Wink

Did the lens you tried have any etching on the glass ? I'd be very interested to see what the results were on a heavily infested lens, obviously it wouldn't 'correct' any etching, but if it removed the fungus so completely that the pitting was clean it might still save a lens ?


PostPosted: Sun Dec 11, 2011 7:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Lloydy wrote:


Would something like this wired up inside a storage cabinet be enough ?

http://www.maplin.co.uk/uvlight-source-4848

Or is the wattage / frequency different, and enough to make a cheap small UV lamp such as these worthless for what we might need ?


That would do for those lenses that have thorium in the glass and have turned yellow over the years.

I can see it now - one of us walking into a tanning salon with a box of fungus infested and yellowed lenses... Laughing


PostPosted: Sun Dec 11, 2011 8:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have used one of these http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/36W-Tunnel-Style-UV-Lamp-Dryer-Gel-Nail-Curing-Art-/220807310010?pt=UK_Health_Beauty_Nails_Manicure_Pedicure_CA&hash=item3369242aba to successfully de-yellow a zeiss pancolar and also to kill fungus on a konica by removing the element and placing it under the UV.
mine cost me 99p on an auction and £3.50 postage


PostPosted: Mon Dec 12, 2011 5:53 pm    Post subject: Update Reply with quote
Done some closer inspection of above mentioned lens. Thre fungus that was in the middle of the lens was 100% vapourised. The fungus still visible is behind the front elementand and is untouched by the process.
Comment
The UV would be at its greatest intensity in the middle / back of the lens where the light is more focused.
Link on ozone as an industrial cleaning agent ::

http://www.ozmoticsinsider.com/clean-in-place-cip-use-of-ozone-in-industrial-cleaning-applications/

AND:: quote""Advanced Oxidation

Advanced chemical oxidation processes make use of (chemical) oxidants to reduce COD/BOD levels, and to remove both organic and oxidisable inorganic components. The processes can completely oxidise organic materials to carbon dioxide and water, although it is often not necessary to operate the processes to this level of treatment

A wide variety of advanced oxidation processes are available:

chemical oxidation processes using hydrogen peroxide, ozone " (my bold) unquote at ::


http://www.lenntech.com/index.htm

Complete oxidation to water and CO2 sounds about right. Clearly need enough ozone to complete all reactions.

Need to find a way to get up the ozone levels behind the front element. ((The whole sunbed area stinks of ozozne)).
Malcolm


PostPosted: Tue Jan 03, 2012 5:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hello Malcolm,

any news on a second attempt? I'm very curious about the results....

Filip


PostPosted: Tue Jan 03, 2012 5:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
visualopsins wrote:
Excalibur wrote:
On TV recently there was a programme about decay, and that mold/fungii etc are very important for the world's recycle mechanism, anyway it was mentioned that there are 500 spores/cubic metre of air in the average home. Sad Mind you I would have thought it would vary for the time of year.


Concentration does vary by time of year. Perhaps 500/m^3 is a minimum! Mycologists say "when it rains it spores." In Oregon there are sometimes 'clouds' of spores from toxic mushrooms that make people and animals quite ill.



Nice place for asthmatics then? Embarassed Crying or Very sad


PostPosted: Tue Jan 03, 2012 6:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
tikkathree wrote:
visualopsins wrote:
Excalibur wrote:
On TV recently there was a programme about decay, and that mold/fungii etc are very important for the world's recycle mechanism, anyway it was mentioned that there are 500 spores/cubic metre of air in the average home. Sad Mind you I would have thought it would vary for the time of year.


Concentration does vary by time of year. Perhaps 500/m^3 is a minimum! Mycologists say "when it rains it spores." In Oregon there are sometimes 'clouds' of spores from toxic mushrooms that make people and animals quite ill.



Nice place for asthmatics then? Embarassed Crying or Very sad


The programme was on again over xmas:-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b012w66t
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00kjrg4

The bit for us shows how fungus is in the air waiting to attack our gear like it does food.


PostPosted: Wed Jan 11, 2012 5:46 am    Post subject: UV, Ozone, and fungus Reply with quote
I'm very curious as to what mechanism may have been at work in removing the fungus.

UVA is all that typical lens glass lets pass in any quantity, and UVA is believed to kill fungus (or at least render it dormant), but not remove it. It seems to be the UVA that fixes radioactively-yellowed lenses... and nobody else has reported disappearing fungus from such treatments.

UVC is the only one that can create ozone from air, but tanning beds are mostly UVA with a little UVB -- no UVC. Even if there was UVC output, it wouldn't make it through the glass in most lenses.

The comment that the tanning bed smelled of ozone leads me to think that ozone is the real answer. A tanning bed shouldn't generate ozone, but electrical arcing easily can, so I'm betting there was a defective contact somewhere causing this. Certainly, high ozone levels are known to have very dramatic sterilization effects, and could reduce fungus to basic components that would disintegrate over a short period.

In summary, I'm guessing that forced exposure to ozone might be the fungus-cleaning mechanism that wouldn't require opening the lens. I have an ozone-generating air cleaner... I'm thinking I might try sticking a fungus-infected lens in that environment for a week. After all, if the fungus could get in and get moisture, the area can't be that well sealed, and ozone should be able to get in. Now to find an fugus-infected lens.... Out of 100 lenses from eBay, I don't have one with an obvious infection (the only one I got that had it, I returned long ago).

Has anybody else ever tried an ozone exposure cleaning of fungus?


PostPosted: Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Interesting finding on the UV thing. I wonder how long 10 minutes of sunbed is equivalent to under the hot sun? One thing I am worry is will hot sun bathing dry up the grease or will it harm the coating of the lens.

ProfHankD wrote:

Has anybody else ever tried an ozone exposure cleaning of fungus?


Interesting thoughts, ProfHankD. Let me be the first to welcome you to the the forum. Perhaps you can introduce yourself a bit in the Cafe section?


PostPosted: Wed Jan 11, 2012 12:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
It is a widely known fact that UV-light will harm fungus.
The problem is to get that UV-light to the fungus.
Glass as such stops most of the UV beams. (That's why you won't quickly get a sunburn when sitting inside a car.)
And coated glass is perhaps even more effective.

You have those UV-filters that you can screw into the filter ring. Those really prevent UV light from coming through.

But a high intensity UV light might get through to a certain extend. Hard to say.

I do have a UV-lamp in my cabinet. One of those that are used inside a reptilarium normally. Those are pretty strong and you have to be careful when handling them. Don't have them shine into your face/eyes directly for longer.

But my intention is not to kill possible fungus inside the lenses but rather cleanse the environment inside the cabinet from "free" fungus spawn. And then again, I have read that fungus spawn doesn't give a damn about UV light and that they coul survive on Mars!

But my lamp doesn't harm, so I use it every now and then...


PostPosted: Wed Jan 11, 2012 2:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
my_photography wrote:
Interesting finding on the UV thing. I wonder how long 10 minutes of sunbed is equivalent to under the hot sun? One thing I am worry is will hot sun bathing dry up the grease or will it harm the coating of the lens.

ProfHankD wrote:

Has anybody else ever tried an ozone exposure cleaning of fungus?


Interesting thoughts, ProfHankD. Let me be the first to welcome you to the the forum. Perhaps you can introduce yourself a bit in the Cafe section?


Welcome ProfHankD! I wonder the effect of ozone on iron parts? (rust)

my_photography, I've used a mask to expose only the glass, a hole in a piece of backing board -- that keeps the heating low. Other people have wrapped the lens body in (reflective) aluminum foil with reported heat shielding effect.


PostPosted: Thu Jan 12, 2012 5:35 am    Post subject: UV treatment for radioactive yellowing Reply with quote
visualopsins wrote:
my_photography, I've used a mask to expose only the glass, a hole in a piece of backing board -- that keeps the heating low. Other people have wrapped the lens body in (reflective) aluminum foil with reported heat shielding effect.


I bleached all the radioactively yellowed lenses I have using various UV sources and aluminum foil to reflect the UV back into the lens. One of the most effective UV sources I found was actually a halogen lamp, which did throw a lot of heat as well. Not a problem. As best I can tell, the only issue with reasonable levels of heating (never getting too hot to hold) is that certain types of lubricants within the lens can flow to places they shouldn't be in. For example, I don't think I'd let a Helios bake, because the grease they used drips oil even without heating.

Incidentally, UV cleaning is definitely needed for yellowed lenses. One of my 50mm f/1.4 Takumars in particular was not at all sharp until after UV treatment. There was a similar issue with my 28mm f/2.5 Rokkor, which was quite mediocre after sitting unused yellowing for a decade, but was my sharpest lens in the 1970s and is again among the best after UV treatment. There also can be huge variation in the time to UV clean -- at least 10X even between two copies of the same lens model (e.g., my two 50mm f/1.4 Taks).


PostPosted: Thu Jan 12, 2012 10:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
visualopsins wrote:

Welcome ProfHankD! I wonder the effect of ozone on iron parts? (rust)


If it should have an effect, you have other things to worry about, like installing a air drier or pumping out your basement... There is no direct (dry) oxidation of iron (or indeed of any metals that can be used in bare state) at room temperature.

In any case, I rather doubt the ozone hypothesis. For one, there would have to be a ozone source - and that will hardly be the arcing from a poor contact. Grid voltage is much too low for corona discharges - the ozone output would be negligible. And even if a UVC leaking lamp or some oddly arcing transformer component should create suitable amounts of ozone, these won't reach the inside of the (generally pretty well sealed) lens all on their own.

My most likely suspect for the observation is that the mould simply dried up - hyphae may lose significant volume upon drying (and could roll up in a edge), and many types of mould will fructify, i.e. dissolve into spores, while they dry.


PostPosted: Wed Jan 25, 2012 6:23 pm    Post subject: Second attempt coming Reply with quote
I now have a large jar that was seeded with a trace of butter (to emulate lens grease) and left in a dark cupboard for a month. There is a typical lens type fungal growth from one point spreading ot several cm. I am going to do a series of macro photographs before and after UV treatment to see in a very controlled way, how real and how much this UV effect is. I will publish the results here (and maybe officially as an original paper) once I have the results.
Malcolm


PostPosted: Tue Jan 31, 2012 4:02 am    Post subject: Second attempt fails Reply with quote
My lovely Mycelium in my jar was exposed to sunbed UV 5 days ago and the visual appearnce has not changed at all. I cannot reproduce the results I had in my lens. (My lens I eventually sold free of fungus - I tried to show it to the purchaser but neither of us could see any).
Possible explanations:;
1) The conditions inside a lens are different from inside a jar so the physical environment oin the jar was less conducive to frying the fungus
2) THe fungal species were different and had different UV senitivities to destruction
3) We were visually mistaken on viewing the fungus in the lens and so drew erroneous conclusions.

Well that just about wraps that up for me.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Equipment Care and Repairs
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2