Do UV phone cleaners work???

แชร์
ฝัง
  • เผยแพร่เมื่อ 25 พ.ย. 2024

ความคิดเห็น • 590

  • @arcflashed
    @arcflashed 4 ปีที่แล้ว +354

    Very interesting. Glad to see a real experiment with one of these. My wife has been using one of these for her phone, badge, pens etc after each shift at the hospital. Glad to see it's fairly effective.

    • @Charok1
      @Charok1 4 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      she'd still get covid though

    • @SnareMan
      @SnareMan  4 ปีที่แล้ว +53

      yeah, obviously not 100% effective but does seem to be an improvement at least. I would be curious to see what the $60,000 thing that we use in our patient rooms does.

    • @arcflashed
      @arcflashed 4 ปีที่แล้ว +36

      @@Charok1 True she can get covid. But doing everything you can do is always smart.

    • @Charok1
      @Charok1 4 ปีที่แล้ว +16

      @@arcflashed I hope she does not get it.

    • @Jordanfiend361
      @Jordanfiend361 4 ปีที่แล้ว +6

      We use 70% alcohol wipes we get from my wife’s job and clean the phones thoroughly dialy and it won’t ruin your phone screen like Lysol or Clorox wipes will. I’m not gonna trust a electronic device with my families life.

  • @AtomicSymphonic
    @AtomicSymphonic 4 ปีที่แล้ว +141

    I'm shocked! They actually work! Essentially, you'd just need to run two cycles per device: One cycle with a smartphone front facing upward, and then a second cycle with the back of the phone facing upward. Flipping it like a pancake. This is perfect. Thank you so much for taking a scientific method to testing whether these devices worked!

    • @SnareMan
      @SnareMan  4 ปีที่แล้ว +25

      I know. I was a little surprised too. it was a fun experiment to do.

    • @ismata3274
      @ismata3274 3 ปีที่แล้ว +12

      In between those two, you need to run it empty one cycle to decontaminate the surface the backside was touching, namely the bottom
      Otherwise you just contaminated the recently decontaminated front side of the phone.
      So basically, in about ten minutes and with 3 steps, it's done!
      Edit: w.hen you take the phone out after the first cycle, you put the phone as is on a paper towel etc... and cover the clean upfront with something clean while waiting the device to decontaminate itself.

  • @rachelcaudill1866
    @rachelcaudill1866 3 ปีที่แล้ว +81

    The instructions that came with it recommended flipping over and running a second cycle to get both sides

    • @darleneminor1087
      @darleneminor1087 3 ปีที่แล้ว +9

      Exactly the post I made, my instructions said to flip over for fully clean. I found one on clearance for $10, mine doesn't have the fancy top that does wireless charging. So if people are interested they do work and are down to $10 at Walmart the brand is Phonespa

    • @Johnnygga
      @Johnnygga 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@darleneminor1087 Yes! I just bought the Sharper Image brand one at Walmart for $17. I wonder why all of these dropped so much in prices? 🤔
      Does yours smell like ozone or something after you’re done sanitizing it?

    • @arthurmead5341
      @arthurmead5341 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      @@Johnnygga mine has a burned smell when i open it

    • @Johnnygga
      @Johnnygga 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@arthurmead5341 like an electronic smell? Yeah I read up that that’s ozone it produces and totally normal. It goes away off your phone after a little bit but I was worried at first lol

    • @arthurmead5341
      @arthurmead5341 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@Johnnygga no it's like a burned plastic smell

  • @prime6965
    @prime6965 10 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

    I appreciate the science for this! I do wonder though if leaving the petri dishes in a non-sterile environment could have affected the results. I don't think it's out of the question that some bacteria living in water droplets in the air could have penetrated into the petri dishes. There's a reason in the lab petri dishes are kept in a controlled environment, usually an oven-like device.

    • @SnareMan
      @SnareMan  10 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Could be, but I didn't have a hood or sterile environment at home

  • @minwade5436
    @minwade5436 3 ปีที่แล้ว +14

    Hi I bought a similar unit prior to Christmas & use on both phones, keys, glasses & garage remote. Thank you for confirming they do work.

    • @SnareMan
      @SnareMan  3 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      You're welcome!

    • @lindao7887
      @lindao7887 3 ปีที่แล้ว +5

      The model he is using works as proven but as of lately, there are a lot of FAKE UV-C bulbs being used that do not work at all. Beware, do the research. (here on TH-cam)

    • @lindao7887
      @lindao7887 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      Beware, just because the one SnareMan tested works, it doesn't mean they all work, sorry to be a downer but when your health is counting on it, be sure......

    • @lindao7887
      @lindao7887 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      I'm so sorry to be redundant here, but it's important, some of these are just an empty box with fancy lights!!!

  • @HaloHighlightz
    @HaloHighlightz 3 ปีที่แล้ว +37

    Thanks for this! Doing some last minute Christmas shopping and wanted to check the legitimacy of the claims prior to purchasing

    • @SnareMan
      @SnareMan  3 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      You're welcome!

    • @OGCJ10
      @OGCJ10 3 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      Get an extra one for me

  • @connorroche7971
    @connorroche7971 3 ปีที่แล้ว +15

    Awww I wanted to see him purify the petri dishes in the UVC box.

  • @vrgl101
    @vrgl101 3 ปีที่แล้ว +9

    just a tip! if you wrap the bottom, top and sides inside the phone cleaner with a reflective material, (aluminum foil, steel, foil tape) it would increase the coverage of the UV light because it will bounce back all around the refelctive material thereby increasing disinfection coverage. and another thing is to put some small anti-slip rubbery feet that sticks, you can stick in in the bottom part to elevate the phone and allowing more reflected UV light to penetrate at the back of the phone.

  • @dariusq8894
    @dariusq8894 3 ปีที่แล้ว +8

    I have a similar type of device manufactured by Lumin specifically for CPAP accessory cleaning. The device has a larger chamber which is mirrored on the inside and includes a clear stand which keeps any articles raised up so the UV light can shine all over for the 5min cycle. Admittedly this device is more expensive (about $250CAD) but because of the larger capacity allows for more varied sterilization (around the size of a shoe box). Additionally, because it was sold for CPAP sterilization purposes the cost is partially covered by health insurance.

  • @ginta_san
    @ginta_san 3 ปีที่แล้ว +8

    I think this one is "Near UV"(405 nm) which is enough to inactivate diverse types of bacteria. This is also the type of light present on most "UV Led sanitizers" online.
    Actual UVC bulbs are expensive and uses quartz glass in contrast to plastic where "UVC LEDs" use.

  • @kevina.600
    @kevina.600 3 ปีที่แล้ว +4

    I have one similarly and the instructions says to run it once on one side flip the phone and run again. That could help for sure. Awesome video!

    • @SnareMan
      @SnareMan  3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      It would likely help some, although this one said I didn't have to

  • @mrcolz9373
    @mrcolz9373 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Was expecting it to be a sham, but it actually works! My money wasn't wasted on the little UV device currently sitting next to me. Thanks!

    • @SnareMan
      @SnareMan  3 ปีที่แล้ว

      Yea, it actually seems to work.

  • @gordo3582
    @gordo3582 3 ปีที่แล้ว +12

    Would have been nice if you also had a "control" petri dish that you exposed to the open air for as long as you did with the other plates. Also would have been nice if the swabbing was done in front of a flow hood. But thanks for the effort, seemed like pretty solid evidence that it works at least to some extent.

    • @SnareMan
      @SnareMan  3 ปีที่แล้ว +5

      Yea, I agree. For some reason I didn't think of the control dish until all of the dishes were spoken for. And, I don't have a flow hood at home.

    • @gordo3582
      @gordo3582 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@SnareMan As a reference check out the TH-cam vid "Phone Soap Tested on Discovery Channel" their results were pretty amazing (different phone cleaner though than the one you tested)

  • @terrikenison5726
    @terrikenison5726 3 ปีที่แล้ว +80

    Would love to see how much bacteria after using a Lysol wipes on it or hand sanitizer.

    • @jennifermarea8011
      @jennifermarea8011 3 ปีที่แล้ว +9

      That's really bad for your phone. I did that for a year because of coronavirus and now my phone is broken and I'm so sad about it. That's why I'm buying one of these now for my new phone.

    • @jamesearlcash7725
      @jamesearlcash7725 3 ปีที่แล้ว +8

      @@jennifermarea8011 what if you have a case and a glass screen protector? It shouldn’t harm the phone at all.

    • @jennifermarea8011
      @jennifermarea8011 3 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      @@jamesearlcash7725 I had both of those and after a year of sanitizing my phone every day when I got back from outside, it still broke. Learn from my mistake and just buy Phone Soap. It's expensive but it's still cheaper than buying a new phone.

    • @kaojack8750
      @kaojack8750 3 ปีที่แล้ว +14

      ​@@jennifermarea8011 How can you broke your phone by just sanitizing your phone case and glass screen protector?

    • @mangosorbet2619
      @mangosorbet2619 3 ปีที่แล้ว +14

      Well don’t Clorox wipes have some really strong chemicals? I’ve only heard people recommend 70% isopropyl alcohol wipes to clean tech products. Those don’t harm phones at all. In fact I’ve used the alcohol wipes for years without damaging my phone.

  • @chaeones
    @chaeones 3 ปีที่แล้ว +6

    The uv sanitizer box I bought has 10 minute and 30 minute cycles. So far, I've been using 10 minutes on each side of my items but I'm sure the 30 minute cycle will be more handy when I'm out longer during the day.

  • @SingleMaltSmash
    @SingleMaltSmash 4 ปีที่แล้ว +17

    awesome vid! production quality has improved! love the science

    • @SnareMan
      @SnareMan  4 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      Thanks! I'm trying to put a little more effort in to them

  • @raphaelsalgado8970
    @raphaelsalgado8970 3 ปีที่แล้ว +12

    Thanks for this video. I think many people would agree by now that UV cleaners work in general, but since there are so many of them out on the market now, the bigger questions at this point are - does a particular version work (i.e. does it have the right wavelengths, how strong is the light how much exposure time is effective enough for the device's intensity? Also, the ozone generator is a big plus, which I thought you should've mentioned more, as not too many other UV cleaners include that feature.

    • @ginta_san
      @ginta_san 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      405nm is enough to inactivate bacteria, keyword "Bacteria". Most cheap "UV Sanitizers" have this. Germicidal UV (UVC) on the other hand, can inactivate viruses and are more expensive and requires a quartz glass to work.

  • @ChristiaanRoest79
    @ChristiaanRoest79 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    Great test. Lots of people forgot to sanitize both sides of the phone. With the Samsung uv charger it takes 2x 10 mins. Most of the time i just use a cloth and disinfectant. Especially when i am at the gym i get a stray and cloth.

  • @KOT-Grizzly89
    @KOT-Grizzly89 3 ปีที่แล้ว +4

    Hello I’m still watching your video now and I can tell you that you did strike me as a scientist and even a very intelligent person before you put the lab coat on. I appreciate your review I ran across one of these in a box at the checkout aisle and was unsure if this was even a thing.

    • @SnareMan
      @SnareMan  3 ปีที่แล้ว

      Thanks Robert!

  • @lunameimei
    @lunameimei 4 ปีที่แล้ว +16

    I totally needed this video! Thank you for doing it!

    • @SnareMan
      @SnareMan  4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Glad it helped!

  • @TCnML01
    @TCnML01 4 ปีที่แล้ว +7

    Interesting results. Also, it was great running into you at Skyline. Sorry if I seems star struck LoL

    • @SnareMan
      @SnareMan  4 ปีที่แล้ว +5

      Hey Jimmy!! Some how I missed this comment. It was great meeting you! Not sure I'm worthy of making someone star struck, but thanks for the vote of confidence. :-)

  • @AshleyWade
    @AshleyWade 3 ปีที่แล้ว +5

    I had been interested in seeing how/if these worked. Thanks for sciencing it. :)

    • @SnareMan
      @SnareMan  3 ปีที่แล้ว

      You're welcome!

  • @christinearmington
    @christinearmington 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    Started out whining about why you needed 9+ minutes. But yeah. Well done 👍!
    I’d like to see a swab comparison with ten seconds of alcohol wipe down!

    • @SnareMan
      @SnareMan  3 ปีที่แล้ว

      Thanks Aunt Tina!

  • @sciencewithmrscollins
    @sciencewithmrscollins ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Well done, very educational we used it in our Physics class when discussing UV light.

  • @kristinedelacruz3149
    @kristinedelacruz3149 3 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    Wow! A really very informative review. Thank you for making this video.

    • @SnareMan
      @SnareMan  3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      You're welcome! Thanks for watching!

  • @GDOLCEVITA
    @GDOLCEVITA 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    I've always doubted these products but now I'm quite interested to buy it 🤔 pretty cool review

  • @alexmaclean1
    @alexmaclean1 2 ปีที่แล้ว +34

    I'd be curious to see a test to determine how frequently you'd have to use this to be effective. For example would once daily make a big difference, or is the average phone just as contaminated 5 minutes after you use it again.

    • @soliniv1411
      @soliniv1411 ปีที่แล้ว

      Bacterias will start to multiply as soon as you touch the phone i guess 🤷‍♂️

  • @whitepouch0904
    @whitepouch0904 3 ปีที่แล้ว +7

    This is good for eye glasses.

  • @robboostph6689
    @robboostph6689 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    you like a different version of beakman's world guy.. anybody know that science show back in the 90s? Anyway, subscribed immediately, good balance of fun and knowledge, no complaints on that. BTW, i'm on the UV thing and this is helpful. I got one from a local phone app seller here in asia, pretty much like you Amazon in the US. I'll do my test as well to see if it really works or not. But I really hope it does, and I already think it does, but we need to be certain! heck!

    • @SnareMan
      @SnareMan  2 ปีที่แล้ว

      Thanks!!

  • @Emiliapocalypse
    @Emiliapocalypse 4 ปีที่แล้ว +4

    Glad I got this recommended, I saw this at Home depot and wondered if it was worth the money

    • @SnareMan
      @SnareMan  4 ปีที่แล้ว

      Glad you liked it!

  • @harsha_mnath
    @harsha_mnath 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    Thank you @SnareMan for the detailed video! Im concerned about safety and long term UVC leakage/exposure from the device, since I live in a small studio apartment.

    • @SnareMan
      @SnareMan  2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      I don't really think it would be a problem. Just don't look at it if you're concerned about it.

  • @Ltkaffee
    @Ltkaffee 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    Love an actual experiment based result 💜
    and not some general assumption , or trust me bro sources

    • @SnareMan
      @SnareMan  2 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@Ltkaffee I tried. 🙂

  • @jeffreyholicky4303
    @jeffreyholicky4303 4 ปีที่แล้ว +5

    Thanks for the video. All of them had bacteria remaining. The question though isn't how much can it clean, but how much (left) is enough to cause issues? A single blueberry in a bag that is covered in mold is enough to spread through the whole bag. If I wash my hands with water v. water & soap will water alone be adquate? Many comments say it works - I say it definitely is killing some bacteria (and in the scenario at 7:03 did something really weird) but as per other articles from scientists/professors I have read - the consumer units are inadequate to really do the job properly and that was demonstrated here. IMO (as per Breaking Bad) "Half Measures"/false hope. Thumbs up because you provided empirical evidence instead of a "what's up gang here is my review of something I know nothing about". I bought an S20 FE that comes with the Fit 2 watch or their UV cleaner with charger. The watch is so so and may have limited use. The UV cleaner alone is not compelling but the charger piece does offer a longer life usage.

    • @Progsv10S
      @Progsv10S 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      It's completely normal that some level of bacterial remains. The Phonesoap doesn't make any claims about sterility, hence the "99.99%". The 99.99% is a marketing claim to say that the device kills ALMOST all bacteria. Snareman's micro tests bare this out. Purell hand sanitizer makes the same claim, but we don't let that stop us from using it. What you're paying for in this case are technology and convenience. If you find more peace of mind wiping your phone down with an alcohol wipe instead, go for it. But that won't eliminate 100% of all bacteria on the object you're cleaning. I like the convenience of dropping my phone into a box for 3 - 10 minutes and being done with it. It's nearly impossible to produce a 100% sterile object in an open environment.

  • @luxaholicanonymous2577
    @luxaholicanonymous2577 4 ปีที่แล้ว +55

    I’ll just run alcohol wipes on my phone 😁

    • @Maria20t
      @Maria20t 3 ปีที่แล้ว +10

      It works better and it's faster.

    • @swampsect
      @swampsect 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      lol, same here

    • @SnareMan
      @SnareMan  3 ปีที่แล้ว +27

      It can be bad for the coating on the screen though.

    • @luxaholicanonymous2577
      @luxaholicanonymous2577 3 ปีที่แล้ว +9

      @@SnareMan - I’m pretty sure it’s safe to say most people have tempered glass protection.

    • @SnareMan
      @SnareMan  3 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      @@luxaholicanonymous2577 I don't know. Maybe. I've had it on a few phones, but on my last few I left whatever screen protector Samsung had on the phone until a few month in when it got scratched and then just took it off and the phones have held up surprisingly well.

  • @bentaylor5811
    @bentaylor5811 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Amazing 👏 👏You should now test the Simple Human UV phone cleaner. That one only takes 30 seconds to clean. Those results would really be interesting considering how fast it cleans it.

  • @slow_g275
    @slow_g275 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    Got a free sanitizing box from GameStop has lights on top bottom sides, has a tray to elevate objects to be cleaned as well

  • @catherinepellicer3476
    @catherinepellicer3476 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    I have a uv nail lamp and I'm wondering if that would work instead of buying a box. I realise the uv light from a nail lamp is spread a bit more since it's an open space but it could still be quite close to the phone. Thank you for testing the box it does make me more confident about buying a box if the lamp doesn't work!

    • @SnareMan
      @SnareMan  3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      I don't know. The box also creates ozone which helps with the sterilization and I'm sure the UV nail lamp does not

  • @lifeasyouplanit3240
    @lifeasyouplanit3240 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    I did cell biology and now I am full time photographer. When you did your agar plate I had so many memories come back. Lolz 🤣 now I want to try doing different swabs on soft agar plates. Really missing the lab 🧫 🤣🤣🤣

  • @wzrdinthemaking
    @wzrdinthemaking 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    Finally some REAL science. Unbiased and experimental. Letting the facts decide the truth

  • @ferasgmusic
    @ferasgmusic 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    I’m a Biomedical scientist and have a UVC disinfection box to clean my nail art tools, but I’m so picky that I turn the items and make them go through a cycle on each side because I thought the light couldn’t go through and they would not be disinfected.

  • @linchen8353
    @linchen8353 3 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    To sum up the video: 3min on each side of the phone in the sterilizer works best.

    • @SnareMan
      @SnareMan  3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Seems like it

  • @migjesse20
    @migjesse20 4 ปีที่แล้ว +13

    Very well done and simplified explanation thank you.

  • @snappycattimesten
    @snappycattimesten 4 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    I like alcohol wipes because the physical rubbing removes the oil as well as sanitizes. They are also more portable. Science 🧪 is cool!

    • @SnareMan
      @SnareMan  4 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      And they actually feel a little bit cleaner after the alcohol wipes

    • @Charok1
      @Charok1 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      I once tried carrying wipes in a pocket of my 5.11 strike pants, and later found them dried out in the packaging and useless. haha.

    • @HaohmaruHL
      @HaohmaruHL 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Say byebye to your oleophobic coating on the screen if you use alcohol to wipe it

  • @thestormlscoming
    @thestormlscoming 3 ปีที่แล้ว +7

    Thanks for doing this! It’s so gross to me how people just casually bring their phones and keys everywhere and then eat food and go to bed with all that bacteria

    • @supremecarnage5071
      @supremecarnage5071 ปีที่แล้ว

      Hey, stop it right now. You disgust foul beast

  • @knz9701
    @knz9701 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Ty 4 this.. Luv the clear pietre dish experiment.

    • @SnareMan
      @SnareMan  4 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      You're welcome. Thanks for watching

  • @silentbookeeper
    @silentbookeeper 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    this video was exactly what i was looking for thank you!

    • @SnareMan
      @SnareMan  3 ปีที่แล้ว

      You're welcome! Thanks for watching

  • @hullinstruments
    @hullinstruments 4 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    I’ve got a few articles regarding UVCLED technology advancement that i’ve written geared mostly towards the hobbyist and semiprofessional electronics community… I could paste them below if anyone is interested but they are quite lengthy and boring
    UV LEDs emit an average of 5 -15MW of optical output power per Chip. That’s about 1% the sanitizing and optical power of a small $10 handheld UVC mercury vapor lamp. So not very efficient at all unless you have a large array. BUT!!!... UVC technology is evolving so quickly that higher output powers will be achieved FAST. There are already 50 and 75 mW chips on the market… And most of the professional sanitizers that utilize UVC LEDS will use a large array of those chips. But it won’t be long… And you’ll be able to buy a small handheld flashlight capable of putting out 1000mW of optical power utilizing a UVCLED. Which is honestly pretty scary but also really cool for guys like myself who enjoy UV led and laser technology! And a small flashlight such as that would absolutely destroy anything biological… From germs… Skin… Even eyeballs! But if the proper care was used it would be invaluable!

    • @Daniel-Condurachi
      @Daniel-Condurachi 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      let us know where we could find those to buy when they are available

  • @GpD79
    @GpD79 4 ปีที่แล้ว +10

    _Very_ cool video! I would love to see how the device stacked up to a clean wipe/alcohol wipe.

    • @SnareMan
      @SnareMan  4 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      Thanks! I'm working on trying to get an incubator to be able to perform more experiments.

    • @sapitron
      @sapitron 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@SnareMan also a flame or something because without a bsl 2 containment results are pretty invalid

    • @SnareMan
      @SnareMan  3 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@sapitron A BL-1 is plenty fine for this level of pathogen. We had a BL-2 when I was in grad school for work with HIV

  • @jennyjohnson5428
    @jennyjohnson5428 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    I *love* this sort of content.

  • @nativesunnation8323
    @nativesunnation8323 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    Thank you for sharing! This was very helpful and informative.

  • @saifd1298
    @saifd1298 19 วันที่ผ่านมา

    Thank you. This helped me make a discussion.

  • @jameshbq
    @jameshbq 4 ปีที่แล้ว +10

    You should be cautious about the fact that the first swabbing take has eliminated part of bacteria

    • @SnareMan
      @SnareMan  4 ปีที่แล้ว

      How would you do it differently?

    • @GenIus-zm3qf
      @GenIus-zm3qf 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@SnareMan you should only swab at a specific area, example only right side of the front

    • @SnareMan
      @SnareMan  3 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@GenIus-zm3qf why?

  • @ThePainter2
    @ThePainter2 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Sweet video , 💯 u got a new subscriber now

    • @SnareMan
      @SnareMan  2 ปีที่แล้ว

      Thanks Mark!!

  • @jasonreviews
    @jasonreviews 4 ปีที่แล้ว +10

    your supposed to flip it. so 10min each side.

    • @SnareMan
      @SnareMan  4 ปีที่แล้ว +5

      That's not in the instructions and when I talked to them about the whole thing they said that ozone is what cleans underneath

    • @georgec3821
      @georgec3821 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      I have one of these units, but different manufacturer. Their instructions say to flip it over and run another cycle.

    • @ShamimHafiz
      @ShamimHafiz 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Yes, so does mine. It makes sense to flip it as the reverse side has no scope of any exposure. In fact, after we are done with both side, we should probably do a free run so the inside can sanitize itself.

  • @Malia7455
    @Malia7455 4 ปีที่แล้ว +10

    It says that it works better when you flip the phone after the first 10 minutes and run again for another 10 minutes.

    • @SnareMan
      @SnareMan  4 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      They tell me that because of the ozone it shouldn't matter, but it does make sense

  • @beelzemobabbity
    @beelzemobabbity 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    I mean, if it gets people who wouldn’t normally take the time to clean their phone and other items, then good to it. Some people say “just use alcohol wipes” but people are more likely to use a cool little tanning bed for your phone than rip open an alcohol sheet every day. So even if it’s a little less effective, people would be more likely to use it after they come home, than otherwise. I have alcohol sheets, should I use them on my phone? Probably, do I? No.
    It’s more convenient in a way, plus you can clean anything in it if you want to.

  • @Callsign-Blade_RunnerSG
    @Callsign-Blade_RunnerSG 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    Should do a UV Shoe cabinet review too. 👍🏻☺️

  • @tron3entertainment
    @tron3entertainment 4 ปีที่แล้ว +10

    Because of this video I wiped a couple of phone with alcohol wipes. Done and done.

  • @se7encureton
    @se7encureton 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    Your not only helpful but your fun!
    That’s a big sub from me man.

    • @SnareMan
      @SnareMan  3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Thanks!!!

    • @se7encureton
      @se7encureton 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@SnareMan heck yea sir.

  • @laurabaker8808
    @laurabaker8808 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    I'm more interested in the fact that we are exposed to that amount of bacteria every minute of the day. I'm curious what type of bacteria it may be. If it changes from person to person. Etc.

  • @AdirraBG
    @AdirraBG 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Very cool experiment, thank you!

    • @SnareMan
      @SnareMan  3 ปีที่แล้ว

      You're welcome!

  • @imark7777777
    @imark7777777 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    I think it's a great idea but there's a lot of product claiming to be doing this and only using UV black light bulbs raking in the dough. Then there's the safety aspect of it since bulbs can be acquired by people who don't know what they're doing.

    • @SnareMan
      @SnareMan  3 ปีที่แล้ว

      That's why I did the experiment to see if it actually worked.

  • @TheGelatinousSnake
    @TheGelatinousSnake 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    “10 AMP charging?” Please say you mean 10 watt…. Like 5 volts x 2 amps = 10 watts ?

    • @SnareMan
      @SnareMan  2 ปีที่แล้ว

      Yes, that

  • @FourJaysFour
    @FourJaysFour 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    No mention of ozone effects on health?

  • @HEMDWellness
    @HEMDWellness 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    I've heard part of the problem with those box ones are the lights are not directly in contact because it's on the sides and not directly over the light

    • @SnareMan
      @SnareMan  2 ปีที่แล้ว

      I thought that too, but this one doesn't have lights on all sides and seems to work. They say the ozone is what helps with that.

  • @quasimotto8653
    @quasimotto8653 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Initially, I had NO RESPECT for you and laughed in your general direction!!
    But once you put on the lab coat............you are my scientific GOD!!!!

    • @SnareMan
      @SnareMan  3 ปีที่แล้ว

      Lol, yup, that makes me official

  • @takashi69z
    @takashi69z 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    I own a similar UV box for 2 years, but I was skeptical. I tried to convince myself that it works, but I was really having some doubts. Why was I skeptical? I always believed that the fluorescent tube version was a real working sanitizer, while the 5v powered led version was a gimmicky, try to make you feel good device, but does not actually work. I did not have the ability to test or prove it myself. So, for that past 2 years, I really had not have much faith in this kind of device.

    • @SnareMan
      @SnareMan  3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      I was dubious as well of all of these sorts of things. I'm glad I did the experiment.

  • @looney2nes
    @looney2nes 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    To be fair, when you swabbed the petri dishes, they should have been done in a sterile environment so we can't really discount contamination when you see growth in the post phone sterilizer sections.

  • @tamwilfred
    @tamwilfred 4 ปีที่แล้ว

    The only question now is there are a flood of products out there. Some of them cheaper. I wonder if the cheaper ones on Amazon or other brands do a good job. $50 might seem like a lot and some other products are sold for like $20 to $40. Another thing is that medical UV light seems to best but those cost a lot more. I also read that the UV light needs to emit a certain wavelength to prevent bacteria growth. In particular, the wavelength of 264 nm is incredibly impressive at killing germs, viruses and bacteria. Fortunately, UV-C radiation can pass through air without creating ozone, so UV-C lamps can be used in air to disinfect surfaces.

  • @superdaddy1973
    @superdaddy1973 4 ปีที่แล้ว

    Some boxes would recommend running 10 minutes on both sides. Maybe that's why your back still has growth as not enough light reached the back.

    • @SnareMan
      @SnareMan  4 ปีที่แล้ว

      Perhaps. I imagine more time and flipping over would likely kill more.

    • @superdaddy1973
      @superdaddy1973 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@SnareMan 10 minutes per side should be plenty........

    • @lindao7887
      @lindao7887 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      some phones have different finishes on back as on front, the smooth surface holds less bacteria, the matte/textured finish holds more bacteria, so perhaps SnareMan's phone back is more matte finish or more textured.

  • @ishaui2416
    @ishaui2416 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    There were no control plates, just exposed to room air for the duration of swabbing

    • @SnareMan
      @SnareMan  3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      I know. For some reason I didn't think of that until afterwards

  • @cadcock15
    @cadcock15 4 ปีที่แล้ว

    Not what i expected but great video and it does seem to actually work. Thanks!

    • @SnareMan
      @SnareMan  4 ปีที่แล้ว

      It's not perfect at killing everything but it does definitely seemed to help

    • @SnareMan
      @SnareMan  4 ปีที่แล้ว

      Also, just curious, what did you expect?

    • @nikemaik1
      @nikemaik1 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@SnareMan He sadly don't answer :(

    • @hallow7102
      @hallow7102 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      What did you expect?

  • @alvxarroyo
    @alvxarroyo 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    Wow thanks for doing this!

    • @SnareMan
      @SnareMan  3 ปีที่แล้ว

      No problem. Thanks for watching!

  • @bernahnahmamab8552
    @bernahnahmamab8552 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    Great! Thanks for the tests

    • @SnareMan
      @SnareMan  3 ปีที่แล้ว

      You're welcome! Thanks for watching!

  • @innovativethoughts
    @innovativethoughts 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    Mines had a smell after use. I purchased mines at Home Depot the sharper image for $5.32 today. Mines says turn over after each cycle. It takes 6 minutes per cycle.

  • @SSBMA1994
    @SSBMA1994 4 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    Great now I got to buy these

  • @trscsaeg
    @trscsaeg 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    I wonder if the cue tip is cleaning it somewhat

  • @shadowpapito
    @shadowpapito 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Thank you ...

    • @SnareMan
      @SnareMan  2 ปีที่แล้ว

      You're welcome!

  • @ksworld1232
    @ksworld1232 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    I'm a microbiologist too. Lol these streaking techniques reminds me of my college days

    • @SnareMan
      @SnareMan  3 ปีที่แล้ว

      I didn't say I was an actual microbiologist. I just have a degree and it. I work in the ER

  • @coreaccount4376
    @coreaccount4376 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    I assumed the phone would sit in a transparent cradle with UV bulbs all around

    • @SnareMan
      @SnareMan  3 ปีที่แล้ว

      yea, that would make sense to me as well.

  • @__Carlos_Banks_99_
    @__Carlos_Banks_99_ 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    Thank you sir I appreciate the in depth review got a sub from me!!

    • @SnareMan
      @SnareMan  3 ปีที่แล้ว

      You're welcome and thanks!

  • @film79
    @film79 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Could you please measure these results against just straight up washing your phone with soap? I know a lot of people are too scared to use soap and water on their phone but its pretty easy and I've never had an issue, even with super cheap phones that have gaps or open cracks.

  • @SuperAmazingAnt
    @SuperAmazingAnt 4 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    I have used larger ozone machine and plastic bag to clean my stuff (in different room), buy larger ozone machine and test that against this small one. I think they could make better box.

  • @FishFind3000
    @FishFind3000 4 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    Can you swab a room pre and post UV robot and see how good that fancy pants machine is?

    • @SnareMan
      @SnareMan  4 ปีที่แล้ว

      That would be an interesting test to do

    • @lalew2
      @lalew2 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      or put the phone in the room with the uv robot

    • @SnareMan
      @SnareMan  4 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      @@lalew2 I wanted to reach my arm in there to record some video but they told me I wasn't allowed while it was going. The other problem is you never know when one of these rooms is going to come up so you would just have to have Petri dishes with you all the time. I'd still be curious to try it though

    • @AtomicSymphonic
      @AtomicSymphonic 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      I'm a bit late to say this, but those giant hospital UV robots go through FDA testing and it's really extensive. They definitely work! But yeah, having a TH-cam test video would be great to watch, too. :)

  • @gossumx
    @gossumx 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    Great job. For hour next one, could you give a shot at testing the effectiveness of using hand sanitizer on public toilets? It seems like every public bathroom has a hand sanitizer dispenser nowadays. Is it doing me any good to put it on toilet paper and wipe down the seat ahead of time?

  • @BarryPiper
    @BarryPiper 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    I wonder what the phone makers would say about having their phone bathed in UV-C for ten minutes, since this band of UV degrades polymers pretty rapidly. We also should note that results on bacteria don't necessarily translate to results on virions or mold spores. I think I'll just continue with the occasional wipe-down using glass cleaner since I need to do that anyway to get rid of greasy fingerprints and smudges.

  • @alexzheng9841
    @alexzheng9841 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    I think it may produce a better result if you use it a second time with the phone flipped

    • @SnareMan
      @SnareMan  4 ปีที่แล้ว

      Possibly so

  • @jessynp2851
    @jessynp2851 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Can you do one for Steramin tablets, they are for sanitizing but they said if you use 4 tablets on one gallon it turns into a disinfectant

  • @thebigreviews
    @thebigreviews 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    Wow. Great and interesting video.

  • @robfrancis2195
    @robfrancis2195 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Thank you for posting this. I'm a bit of a germaphobe and my job is very dirty and actually makes me even more paranoid about keeping my phone clean. I usually spray my phone with alcohol before I leave my job and then again once I get home (Overkill, I know). I wonder how alcohol compares to UV light, but according to Phonesoap it's not nearly as effective. I've always considered a Phonesoap but the 10 minutes it takes to clean is very impractical if you clean your phone multiple times per day and need it done relatively quickly.
    One thing I really dislike about some of these UV sterilizers is that manufacturers do not put reflective surfaces inside so that the light reflects all around. Take Casetify, for example. They have a $120 model that they claim sanitizes in 3 minutes and an $80 model that sanitizes in 6 minutes. What they don't tell you is that the $120 model doesn't clean the bottom side of your phone because the light doesn't reach that area, whereas the $80 model has a completely reflective interior and keeps your phone slightly more elevated allowing all sides to be cleaned simultaneously.
    This is really gonna reveal the germaphobe in me, but another consideration for UV sterilizers that don't clean all all sides simultaneously is that simply flipping your phone over and running it for another cycle is insufficient from a cross-contamination standpoint. If my phone is dirty and all sides of my phone get "zapped" except for the bottom, I need to run the UV device on empty for a cycle to get the bottom surface of the actual sterilizer clean before flipping my phone and putting it back inside, or else I would be putting the front face back down onto a contaminated surface.

    • @heavylt3333
      @heavylt3333 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      You have a point about the last part,but for example samsungs uv sterilizer has like plastic nubs so the light will shine on the bottom of the uv sterilizer,but you still will need to do two cicles for the back of the phone to be sterilized properly. Dunno if this helps✌

    • @robfrancis2195
      @robfrancis2195 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@heavylt3333 I bought the new Phonesoap which sanitizes all sides simultaneously in 5 minutes.

  • @RatingARKReviews
    @RatingARKReviews 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Hello! Very informative video!

  • @adjoaaj7593
    @adjoaaj7593 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    HI Snareman thanks for this!!!! i wonder if you could do the same petri dish experiment with just wiping the phone down with hand sanitizer ( thats what i do) :)

  • @a2roland
    @a2roland 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Awesome!.... Thanks for sharing!

    • @SnareMan
      @SnareMan  4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      You're welcome! Thanks for watching!

  • @blainefiasco8225
    @blainefiasco8225 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Very cool.

  • @BlendAndConquer
    @BlendAndConquer 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    I want to use one of these to “disinfect” my mason jar sprouts. Hopefully it works because this sounds like a better option than most solutions on YT. I rather take my chances with getting the runs than poisoning from bleach lol.

    • @SnareMan
      @SnareMan  3 ปีที่แล้ว

      Can you just put them in the dishwasher?

    • @BlendAndConquer
      @BlendAndConquer 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@SnareMan not the actual sprouts or seeds lol.

    • @SnareMan
      @SnareMan  3 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@BlendAndConquer oh, oops. missed that part. I'll have to work on my reading comprehension. 😃

  • @jackie415
    @jackie415 4 ปีที่แล้ว +4

    im like 🤔 buy that or just use a disinfectant wipe?

    • @piotisnaturals
      @piotisnaturals 4 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      The wipes can damage the screen long term because of the chemicals in them

    • @brittneyann8727
      @brittneyann8727 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      I just add isopropyl alcohol to unscented wet wipes and use that and call it a day

    • @noIies
      @noIies 4 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      I usually just clean using rubbing alcohol if i went outside and rewashed it with water

    • @JamButter123
      @JamButter123 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@piotisnaturals proof?

  • @coondogtheman
    @coondogtheman 4 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    Can you please test the safe & healthy UV wands? I have two and they use conventional glass tubes and i'd like to know if they really work or if they are just snake oil. I might see if the inverter inside can power a CFL bulb (inverter in CFL removed)

    • @BarryPiper
      @BarryPiper 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      Search for Big Clive's channel. He does reviews of fake UV-C sterilization products.

    • @coondogtheman
      @coondogtheman 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@BarryPiper LOVE that channel, I watch him every day. I will mention that to him and maybe he will do a video about it.

  • @JustChisoni
    @JustChisoni 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    Thanks!!

  • @muuzikk
    @muuzikk 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    How do you clean devices? Please let me know. Thanks.

  • @johnnysandoval9521
    @johnnysandoval9521 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Respect your review but I would say people save your money. The efficacy of this product is dependent on the cleanness/transparency of the mobile surface. Microbes can still hide behind contaminates and grease. This would be only a last layer of defense. Even water purification systems use uvc in last layer to sanitize purified water. Because any contaminates will shield microbes. So in my opinion why buy if you need to clean first before sanitizing. Soap and water works just fine. Save yourself some money.