Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Businesses Robotics

Amazon Built a Roving Robot Covered in UV Light Bulbs that Could Kill the Coronavirus in Warehouses and Whole Foods Stores 122

Posted by msmash from the big-tech-getting-bigger dept.
Amazon has built robot that is designed to kill the novel coronavirus with ultraviolet light. From a report: The robot looks a little like a hotel luggage cart, with a tall metal frame attached to a rectangular wheeled bottom. One side of the frame is outfitted with at least 10 ultraviolet tube lights. In a video shared with CBS News' "60 Minutes," the robot rolls down the freezer aisle of a Whole Foods store, aiming UV light at the freezer doors. The robot could be used in warehouses and at Whole Foods stores to kill the virus on surfaces such as food, packaging, and door handles. Amazon spokeswoman Kristen Kish said the company's robotics group has been designing and testing the UV robot.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Amazon Built a Roving Robot Covered in UV Light Bulbs that Could Kill the Coronavirus in Warehouses and Whole Foods Stores More

Amazon Built a Roving Robot Covered in UV Light Bulbs that Could Kill the Coronavirus in Warehouses and Whole Foods Stores

Comments Filter:

  • Isn't that nice (Score:3)

    by Osgeld ( 1900440 ) on Tuesday May 12, 2020 @09:19AM (#60051642)

    Good for them! Yay Amazon!

    • Depending on the surface where it could last for hours or days. I think robots may be overkill, where I would disinfect the input and output Unless the employees are really playing around with all the products. But cleaning material for items coming in and leaving, as well proper safety considerations for the employees who come in contact with such items. Would probably be better than a robot.

      • But cleaning material for items coming in and leaving, as well proper safety considerations for the employees who come in contact with such items. Would probably be better than a robot.

        Why not perform ALL of these precautions? It is not one-or-the-other. Deploying the robot doesn't preclude any other actions.

        • And add to that, that some things shouldn't have liquid sprayed on them. Let the UV light work where it needs to. Let the disinfectant spray work where it needs to.

          Reminds me of in March when people would say they can't find hand sanitizer in stock, and out came the "you just need sOaP aNd WaTeR" folk. Okay, so what water am I supposed to have on me at all times, such as after pumping gas and other locations?
          People, and I'm no way excluded, love being critical and inventing strawmen so that they can chim

          • A longer-term solution may be to modify the handles.

            They could be made with embedded Peltier devices. When the overhead camera detects that a handle has been touched and released, the Peltier device could rapidly heat the handle to 165F, killing the virus.

            The handle could then be left to cool to ambient temperature. But if another customer approaches, reverse current could be applied to the Peltier device, rapidly cooling the handle.

            The heat capacity of the handle could be lowered by using a thin heat-con

            • I would enjoy seeing this malfunction while someone is still holding it. A little lag..

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by HiThere ( 15173 )

      Does it work?

      There have been lots of questions as to how effective which wavelengths of light are against COVID, but I haven't seen many answers. The ones that I have seen indicated that they might have worked by raising the temperature.

      And I've got real questions about how effective UV light could be, even in principle, on a rough surface.

      • A good long dose of intense UVC will kill most things, however that's the problem, it needs to be a strong does, cover every surface, and be applied for a fixed period of time. You can't just wave a wand over things and expect them to be sterilised.

        Also, UVC is extremely destructive, so hitting everything with a strong enough dose to sterilise will also degrade or destroy fibres, plastic, paper, ...

    • Does it do the rear side of the door handles?

      Because that's where the fingers are touching...

      • Does it do the rear side of the door handles?

        I don't think so. The robot pictured and described in TFA is just a box with wheels and lights.

        It shouldn't be hard to make a robot with a wand that can expose the backs of the handles, but the current robot doesn't do that.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by cusco ( 717999 )

          Actually, adding an arm, much less the ability to figure out what needs to be wanded, would be very hard. Here is a group trying to do something like that, which even if they get it to work would still need to be incorporated into the other bot.
          https://spectrum.ieee.org/news... [ieee.org]

          • A back-of-handle sanitizer would not need to be near as sophisticated as the robot in your link.

            The robot in your link has an articulated 6-DOF arm.

            A handle sanitizer would need one DOF, and not even that if the handles are all at the same height.

            Centimeter-level accuracy would be good enough and that could be achieved with some simple nav-marks on the floor or on the handles themselves.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by Strider- ( 39683 )

        What we should really be doing is going back to using the yellow metals (brass or bronze) for door handles and other high-touch surfaces. The copper in these alloys does a pretty good job of sanitizing the surface.

        I can't find the source now, but there was a hospital in Canada that went through and replaced all their railings, door handles, etc... with unvarnished brass hardware. Their incidence of hospital acquired infections went down significantly.

  • Glass (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MrLint ( 519792 ) on Tuesday May 12, 2020 @09:23AM (#60051666) Journal

    It seems to me those glass doors would end up blocking a lot of the UVC of the germicidal bulbs. (shoutout to big clive)

    • I agree, I suspect they want to disinfect the handles more than the items inside of the freezers though.

      I can see a lot of people who might buy a bunch of germicidal UV bulbs and destroy their eyes and skin from this article though.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by bolrgc ( 6857022 )
        Except for the part where one usually grabs the inward part of the handle

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by croftj ( 2359 )

          What the UVC does not kill the Ozone will. My little lamp will kill mice and men in short order with the ozone the lamp generates.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by EvilSS ( 557649 )
            If they are producing ozone. It's easy enough to get bulbs that don't (quartz glass tube is doped to block the UV spectrum that produces it). Using ozone that often is going to start causing issues with things like electrical wiring and rubber gaskets (ozone cracking).

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by wiredog ( 43288 )

      Yeah, but the door handles, which would be most highly contaminated, are on the outside of the doors.

      • Yeah, but the door handles, which would be most highly contaminated, are on the outside of the doors.

        But only one half of the handle is directly exposed to the light. I guess some light would be reflected onto the back side of the handle. It would be good to do some testing to verify that the result is effective.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by HiThere ( 15173 )

          UV light doesn't usually reflect very well from most surfaces.

          • UV light doesn't usually reflect very well from most surfaces.

            How about mirror-like chrome?

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by HiThere ( 15173 )

              I'd need to check the spectrum of polished chrome to know that, but it's pretty much irrelevant. If you want to get to the backside of handles you need to reflect off surfaces that generally aren't polished chrome.

              P.S.: Just because something is shiny in the visual spectrum doesn't mean it's shiny outside of it. UV is sensitive to textures that are blue is totally oblivious to. And, of course, different areas of the UV spectrum react differently, so there's no one proper answer without specifying the UV

              • I spent a few minutes googling to see if i could find reflectivity of chromium to UV-C (the anti-bacterial wavelengths). I didn't find a good answer. Looking at, e.g. freezer doors in the grocery stores around me, almost all of them are chromed (or at least something that looks a lot like chrome... I can't imagine what else it could be), so as the robot moves down the aisle the chrome under and adjacent to the handle could reflect onto the backside, assuming chromium is reflective to UV-C.

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by HiThere ( 15173 )

                  One thing I've commonly seen is brushed steel. White or black paint is also occasionally used.

                  OTOH, I don't know anything about the refrigerators/freezers, cabinets and pick bins used by Amazon. Maybe they *are* chrome.

  • Amazing (Score:3)

    by DontBeAMoran ( 4843879 ) on Tuesday May 12, 2020 @09:25AM (#60051674)

    Nothing says "high-tech" like a warehouse robot base with a 80/20 frame and plywood panels.

    • What is wrong with Plywood?
      It is a strong durable material, that is a good insulator, doesn't warp as much, can handle shocks and flexes. Easily found and purchased, easy to cut and manipulate. Made from mostly scrap wood material from other wood products.

      • You think plywood is "made from mostly scrap wood material from other wood products"? I think you are confusing plywood with particle board or MDF.

        • It depends on the quality of plywood.
          MDF is from sawdust.
          While low grade plywood are from wood chips.
          The higher quality stuff that you may see in furniture is from wood cut in particular to make plywood.

           

  • Researchers at Columbia University are testing the effectiveness of a certain type of UV light â" called far-UVC light â" against the novel coronavirus. This type of UV light can kill viruses without harming humans, according to Columbia University's Center for Radiological Research.

    Uhm, UVC is linked to cancer and rapid eye damage.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by XXongo ( 3986865 )
      Yes, I assume that the reason this is robotic, instead of simply somebody wheeling around a cart, is so that it can be done when nobody is in the room.

      Still, it would be nice to have robust safeguards on the robot to turn the light off if a person is detected.

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • There has been a significant amount of research into how much UVC over how much time is safe. Exposure is reduced by the square of distance.

      You don't want to stand 0.5 meters from the disinfecting lamp all day every day. It's okay to walk past it at a distance of 5 meters.

      • The inverse square law applies directly to point and spherical incoherent sources. For other shapes of emitters it applies to their component points, but the shape may make them combine to produce a different falloff curve.

        For instance: Light from an infinite line source falls off with the FIRST power of distance. A row of light tubes where the ends of the row is farther than the nearest point is a pretty good approximation.

        Similarly, light from an infinite plane source doesn't fall off with distance AT

        • If you're close enough that a single light source resembles an infinite plane (with a few centimeters) you're too close.

          If you confuse point sources which happen to be on the same plane (such as light fixtures on a ceiling) with an infinite plane, you've made a logical oops. Unless the light fixtures are butted up against one another, such that there is no ceiling in between fixtures, the light source isn't a plane. It's round/point/whatever sources plural.

          • Apparently I wasn't clear enough in the descriptions.

            If you're close enough that a single light source resembles an infinite plane (with a few centimeters) you're too close.

            * Obtain a 4'x4' sheet of plywood
            * Also obtain enough 4' dual-lamp fluorescent fixtures to pave it. they're 4' long by about 3" wide so you'll need 16 of them, enough for 32 fluorescent tubes.
            * Mount and wire the fixtures. (At about 40W per tube you're talking 1280W, so you can run it on a 15A circuit - just barely.)
            * At this spacing t

            • > for 32 fluorescent tubes.
              > * Mount and wire the fixtures. (At about 40W per tube you're talking 1280W, so you can run it on a 15A circuit - just barely.)
              > * At 4' from this thing

              Like I said, at 4' from it, if those are UVC disinfecting bulbs, you're too close. By a couple orders of magnitude. Is that clear now?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by cusco ( 717999 )

      Dosage is important, as well as personal toleration. You're not going to get skin cancer because you walked past the UVC robot, just if you stand in front of it several times a day.

    • Apparently there is some evidence that far UVC wavelengths (207-222 nm) are absorbed by the outer layers of skin before the light can do any damage. See for example this February 2018 article in Nature [nature.com]. I'd want to see some pretty solid evidence before trusting this, however. What are the effects on eyes? Mucous membranes?

      It seems that businesses are focusing on preventing COVID-19 transmission via fomites (contaminated surfaces) because that is relatively easy to do. But once good hand hygiene is in plac

      • ... some evidence that far UVC wavelengths (207-222 nm) are absorbed by the outer layers of skin before the light can do any damage. See for example this February 2018 article in Nature. I'd want to see some pretty solid e,vidence before trusting this, however. What are the effects on eyes? Mucous membranes?

        The eyes are apparently protected by the layer of tears - which means dry eyes could be a problem in milliseconds.

        I'd worry about cuts and abrasions, too, where live cells are exposed to light without th

    • ob: "do not look at CORONAbot with remaining eye"

  • Exterminate! Exterminate! (Score:5, Funny)

    by jfdavis668 ( 1414919 ) on Tuesday May 12, 2020 @09:33AM (#60051700)
    It should run around the store yelling this.

  • UVC seems safe in this setting... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Beerismydad ( 1677434 ) on Tuesday May 12, 2020 @09:34AM (#60051702)
    ...but what about the guy in Falls Church, VA who was installing UVC-based sanitation portals in the office space of his company? Seems like this Virginia story is an example of either a knee-jerk reaction, opportunism, or blindly applied "best intentions". Correct me if I'm wrong, but it was my understanding that UVC light is NOT a part of this nutritious breakfast for kids, and that humans should not be deliberately exposing themselves to it. My guess is that this guy is either peddling snake oil to the masses or he is setting himself up for a world of litigation pain in a few years, or both.
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re:Not new (Score:4, Informative)

      by cusco ( 717999 ) <brian@bixby.gmail@com> on Tuesday May 12, 2020 @10:02AM (#60051792)

      **A few** hospitals have had a few similar robots, mostly beta products that they're testing with manufacturers. Some airliners are getting the robotic UVC treatment as well.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by EvilSS ( 557649 )
        Not really beta, not all of them at leasst. Several companies like Tru-D and Xenex have been around for a while now.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by PPH ( 736903 )

        Some airliners

        I think Boeing has a patent on UV illumination of unoccupied restrooms. They may have implemented it on newer models already. Interesting side note: I've had UV fixtures in my home bathrooms for several decades.

  • Because that would really be something, wouldn't it? Just knock it right out, in a minute, right?
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by mark-t ( 151149 )

        I was attempting to be sarcastic.

        I'd think that the bigger issue would be in the blood.

        The respiratory issues that arise from COVID19 are part of the immune system response, not a reflection of where the virus necessarily lives in the body.

        It's not like the virus just finds a particular organ in the body to park itself and doesn't do anything else.

  • Many people who gets this virus will never even know they have had it. Wouldn't a better plan be to get out, get sick, and get over it?

    I mean, the alternative is to spend years living in fear that you might touch something and die. Wouldn't it be better to know that it is a non-issue because you've already been exposed and developed resistance?

    • That's the advice that sent the UK to top fo the European charts for deaths as they initially tried to build herd immunity in order to fend off a second wave. Brilliant advice BoJo!

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Shotgun ( 30919 )

        That's also the method that Sweden is using right now, so I realize how brilliant it is, Karen!

    • What are the odds that you are willing to accept of dying or suffering permanent organ damage to get this happy place?

      Seriously, name the acceptable odd of these two events.

      Remember there are good odds that if you resist the temptation to "just get over it" in a year or so there will be a vaccine that drastically reduces the risk.

      This isn't a flippant question. Everyone does have odds of death they are willing to accept to go about their daily business. For example the highway fatality rate is 1 per 100 mil

      • And add to that, they haven't yet figured out if you can catch it a second time or not. Or if a mutation might mess up your immunity...of course the vaccine might not help either in either case.

        • And add to that, they haven't yet figured out if you can catch it a second time or not.

          Not only that - there is the possibility that the immunity from the first time may make you go straight into the cytokine storm

  • Many materials will degrade under UVC, that light can break carbon double bonds.

  • What UV frequency is it using? I see no mention in the article of 1?? or 2??nm.

    Not all UV kills the virus.

  • " freezer doors. "

    Ultraviolet light doesn't get through freezer doors or we would also get a tan behind windows.

    They would have to be quartz-glass for that.

    • It's meant to disinfect the handles that everyone touches. Usually if someone touches something behind the freezer doors it's to put it into their shopping cart or basket. The people stocking the freezers would be wearing gloves.

  • it takes a bit of time (half life of a virus is 90 minutes in UV).I guess you could maybe dial it up to crazy levels.But what you really want is to flood the place in UV overnight. Trouble is that's expensive (about $100k in lights according to TFA). This seems like an attempt to circumvent that cost, but then you run into the time problem since the robot can only be 1 place at a time.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Anil ( 7001 )

      Assuming that it works, they could just make and deploy as many as they need - and they could concentrate them on the most in-need areas and rely on manual cleaning of other areas.

      Not sure how this would work in a warehouse that is in operation 24/7, but in a store that is closed overnight, you could program a small set of robots to move in 90 minute shifts and cover a Wholefoods.

  • Please tell me (Score:3)

    by argStyopa ( 232550 ) on Tuesday May 12, 2020 @10:27AM (#60051920) Journal

    ....it's shaped like a Dalek?

    I don't know how well it will work but the idea of robots trundling dutifully around dark stores and warehouses, glaring balefully* at trouble-spots :
    1) sounds amazingly cool
    2) setting a parameter of delivering UV "until all life activity at that spot has been eradicated" might be a dangerous slippery slope upon which to set an evolving AI?

    *certainly, a well-designed robot would have the general banks of lights, but then have directed-beam, high intensity 'eyes', perhaps upon a swiveling orb atop its 'torso', so it could focus UV at otherwise difficult-to-reach places.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by hwolfe ( 531 )

      ....it's shaped like a Dalek?

      Unfortunately it's more like a server rack on wheels, with the UV lights mounted on the outside.

      As someone mentioned above, it would be cool if it shouted "Exterminate!" as it worked. I think that a quarter scale Dalek would fit inside of it.

  • Why don't they just irradiate stuff leaving the warehouse? They've been doing that for years for foodstuff.

  • So it's a good idea and probably the right solution, but don't you need a lot of UV light to kill microbes? Doesn't that UV light deteriorate plastic, packaging, and pretty much everything? Does that mean that if you buy something that has been sitting in a warehouse after 6 months of doing this, it's going to fall apart (at least on the outside?)

    Obviously your kids' toys arriving faded and falling apart is better than someone dying from COVID-19...but I am curious as to the impact on non-living things

    • ... Doesn't that UV light deteriorate plastic, packaging, and pretty much everything? Does that mean that if you buy something that has been sitting in a warehouse after 6 months of doing this, it's going to fall apart (at least on the outside?) ...

      The hard UV light splits molecules and ionises atoms. It's not as brutal as gamma rays or x-rays are, but it is a crude radiation effect nevertheless. So yes, it will ruin all organic matter and most anything consisting of molecules if only given enough time. It's known to cause cancer, too, for the same reasons (think of sunlight, skin cancer and why we need sunblocker).

      But to be really effective does it need a lot of hard UV light and more than a swipe. So the robot is going to be rather ineffective. Hos

  • While it's another one of great many ideas people are having in this time am I not quite buying this. It is of course the people who bring the virus in. So unless shops want to bathe customers in hard UV light, which is not only known for killing germs but to cause cancer, too, can a robot only operate outside of opening hours. And if shops decide to start doing this could they install hard UV lamps to flood the entire store over night, similar to how hospitals already do it. The later would be cheaper, mor

  • I'm turning my car's trunk into a UV sterilization chamber... Several low-voltage UV-bulbs — unfortunately, the LED ones being offered aren't quite it yet — and reflective coating so that it bounces back (even if partially) instead of being absorbed by the black lining. Powered by the "cigarette" lighter already in the trunk.

    By the time I'm back from the supermarket, the shopping bags and cartons just handled by strangers, will be sterilized. One hopes...

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by hawk ( 1151 )

      gosh, the possibilites if the mob had had that here in Vegas back in the day . . . might have led to better mummies once we find the rest . . . :_)

      hawk

  • Doesn't it take about 4 minutes of UV light exposure to achieve the desired result? Those robots are doing to have to move incredibly slowly to get the required exposure time to clean things up.

  • A UV robot for a warehouse is an incredibly inefficient and ineffective idea to placate people who don't understand how biological contaminants work anyway. The implementation is worse than the idea. Amazon has starting copying Elon Musk's PR stunts.

  • It only kills where it shines

  • Whole Foods customers are confused as to why the packaging on all their products seems to be heavily faded...

  • CDC (Score:2)

    by reanjr ( 588767 )

    CDC recommends masks, hand washing, and social distancing.

    So far, the CDC is not recommending hand-held UV wands.

    Who should I trust to get information about infectious diseases? Amazon or the CDC? I can't make up my mind.

Slashdot Top Deals

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (10) Sorry, but that's too useful.

Close