Blueprint Biosecurity is seeking proposals across three technical areas to examine the mechanisms and clinical significance of far-UVC induced eye irritation
Expression of Interest Deadline
September 18, 2026
All technical areas in this group share this deadline. Submit to safe-uvc@blueprintbiosecurity.org by 11:59 PM ET.
Far-UVC, which is typically emitted at 222 nm, is a promising tool for reducing concentrations of infectious airborne pathogens in occupied indoor spaces. When ventilation and filtration alone cannot achieve the desired levels of infectious aerosol reduction, far-UVC may serve as a complementary air treatment technology.
Research to date has demonstrated its ability to inactivate a wide range of pathogens, while its limited penetration into the outermost layers of the skin and eyes suggest it may be suitable for use in occupied indoor spaces. However, additional research is needed to better understand the safety of continuous exposure in the built environment.
Recent evidence suggests that the tear film may provide less protection from far-UVC than previously assumed, raising important questions about how far-UVC affects the ocular surface. These three Technical Areas focus on conjunctival effects, the mechanisms underlying transient eye irritation, and whether dry eye or other ocular surface conditions alter the response to far-UVC exposure.
We invite Expressions of Interest (EOIs) from groups to investigate the following Eye Safety Technical Areas:
We welcome submissions from teams with expertise in ophthalmology, optometry, vision science, ocular toxicology, occupational health, photobiology, dosimetry, and related fields, no matter your level of prior experience with far-UVC.
For applicants interested in advancing this work but without prior experience in far-UVC, we will make reasonable efforts to arrange relevant expert support if they are selected for an award.
Most far-UVC eye safety research to date has primarily focused on the cornea, the clear front surface of the eye. The conjunctiva, which covers the white of the eye, has received far less attention, even though both tissues are sensitive to other forms of UV radiation. This gap has become more important in light of recent evidence that the tear film may provide less protection than previously assumed. Kleiman, Folkerts and colleagues reported at ARVO 2025 that a 5–10 μm human tear film transmits 85–92% of 222 nm light, while cell viability assays suggested that tears offer little protection. As a result, conjunctival and corneal epithelial cells may receive nearly the full incident dose at the ocular surface.
For the corneal epithelium, this exposure is likely mitigated by rapid cell turnover. Surface cells are shed within ~24–48 hours, a process that can limit the presence of far-UVC-damaged cells. The conjunctival epithelium cells, goblet cells, and resident immunomodulatory cells turnover on different schedules. Damage to these cells could potentially exacerbate dry eye symptoms or destabilize tear film function over time. To date, the effects of far-UVC on the conjunctival epithelium, including goblet cells and resident immunomodulatory cells, remain largely unstudied.
Expected funds available for the entire Technical Area: $750,000
In a simulated office environment with ceiling-mounted KrCl* lamps, Kousha et al. (2024) observed no clinically significant eye discomfort. This is consistent with the hypothesis that the eye exposure from real-world installations is significantly lower than is currently modeled. By contrast, Sugihara et al. (2024), observed that when subjects’ eyes were intentionally exposed directly to 222 nm at 22, 50, and 75 mJ/cm², they reported a transient foreign-body sensation, epiphora (tearing), and conjunctival hyperemia (redness) that resolved within hours.
The underlying mechanism for this observed eye effect has not yet been evaluated. Hypotheses include disruption of the tear film, stimulation of corneal nerve endings, photo-oxidative reactions in tear film constituents, or some combination of those factors. If far-UVC-associated discomfort is minor and fully reversible, its implications for exposure limits would differ substantially from those of discomfort that signals lasting tissue damage. Resolving this distinction will be critical to informing any future revisions to ocular exposure guidelines.
Expected funds available for entire Technical Area: $750,000
Until recently, a common assumption was that an intact tear film provides significant protection against far-UVC by absorbing a substantial fraction of incident light before it reaches the cornea. Under this assumption, individuals with dry eye or other ocular surface diseases, which can disrupt tear-film coverage or stability, might be expected to face greater risk from far-UVC exposure.
However, recent findings presented by Kleiman, Folkerts, and colleagues at ARVO 2025 suggest that the tear film transmits a substantial portion of far-UVC light, challenging the assumption that it provides significant protection through absorption. These findings shift the focus from the tear film’s ability to block far-UVC to whether differences in tear-film stability, coverage, lubrication, inflammation, or ocular-surface integrity influence how the eye responds to exposure.
Dry eye affects an estimated 5–50% of adults, with prevalence exceeding 30% in some populations over age 65 (Stapleton et al. 2017). Risk factors for dry eye, including age, female sex, contact lens use, screen time, and common medications such as antihistamines and antidepressants, may make the condition especially relevant in settings where far-UVC deployment could be valuable, including hospitals, nursing homes, and offices.
Further research is needed to examine whether tear-film properties, including thickness and uniformity, breakup patterns between blinks, lubrication, and associated ocular surface inflammation, influence the response to far-UVC exposure. The extent to which these factors affect biological or clinical outcomes has not been systematically studied.
Expected funds available for entire Technical Area: $750,000
Applicants interested in this work are required to submit an EOI summarizing their proposed approach. We encourage applicants to propose creative, rigorous methods for achieving the study objectives and to clearly explain how their approach will generate decision-relevant results. We prefer proposals that can reasonably achieve their stated deliverables within 24 months or less. Technical Area 1, which involves a multi-year human exposure study, is an explicit exception, as a longer timeline is inherent to the work.
All EOI submissions should be emailed to safe-uvc@blueprintbiosecurity.org.
Submissions will be reviewed on a rolling basis until the stated deadline.
Format and length:
Whether or not you use the provided template, your Expression of Interest must include:
Following the review of EOIs, selected applicants will receive a Notice of Recommendation and be invited to submit a Full Proposal within three weeks of notification.
A Full Proposal will consist of a technical section and a cost section. Templates and additional guidance will be provided to selected applicants.
Please email all administrative, technical, and contractual questions to safe-uvc@blueprintbiosecurity.org. Questions about this program that are not sent to this email may not be replied to. All questions must be in English, and must include the name, email address, and telephone number of a point of contact.
When we determine that a response would be helpful to all parties interested in the RFP, we may post the question and answer in a public FAQ on our website. Questions may be paraphrased as needed to protect applicant information.