Tag: germicidal light protection

When LED lighting was new, the US Department of Energy began the CALiPER program. The research provided by this series of investigations (spanning 2007 to 2014) was revelatory. I devoured each of these reports as I prepared information to help people understand this new “highfalutin” technology. These were helpful, straightforward and fair reports to the consumer and industry.

The concept was easy to understand. The DOE went to a retailer and bought a dozen (or so) LED products in a similar category, reviewed the enclosed documentation, website claims and marketing promises. The product was then independently tested. The results were compared with the promise and presented in a series of reports released periodically over the seven years. No vendor names were shared. Product identification was blanketed. The intent was to distribute data on the progress of the technology.

At the time, I was working for a manufacturer and I found the information helpful in combating crazy claims by competitors. It was also comforting to see that the results we were getting, were in-line with the realistic numbers unearthed by CALiPER. As someone who helped educate users about this new technology, I could confidently warn them of irrational claims. As the technology improved, the gap between manufacturer’s claims and actual test results continued to shrink. More realistic promises were made. What LED could and could not do became clearer. Each CALiPER report was immensely helpful. When they discontinued the program, it was time. LED had become a mature product category. I would miss them, but I knew they served the industry well. I said a silent “thank you” for a meaningful bank of data.

CALiPER is now back. This time, doing the same yeoman’s work, but instead concerning Germicidal Ultra Violet (GUV) lighting. The first installment is out and I’m almost as excited! (Go ahead, make fun. “This guy gets excited by a US government data report release.” Just keep in mind. I do this so you don’t have to!!) 13 GUV products were reviewed and like the initial round of LED, product claims were wildly in excess of reality. One line from the summary says it succinctly, “This CALiPER GUV Round 1 report demonstrates the significant education and training manufacturers and vendors still require to accurately test and report the performance of their GUV products.”

The CALiPER testing does not review the germicidal efficacy and cleansing capacity, only the light measurement and performance, plus more importantly, photobiological safety when using potentially hazardous ultraviolet light.

It is important to remember that most of the light within the UV spectral range is harmful to humans. “Some” UV is considered “safe” and those same very specific wavelengths of UV have been found effective in combating germicidal pathogens. Some of the units tested claimed to be safe for use when a human is in the room (other units are intended for use when the room is empty) but those did not deliver the UV as promised, potentially causing harm to skin and eyes. Because they have fallen out of the effective spectral range, they might not be very effective killing pathogens either. (Again, those claims were not part of the testing scope.) Light distribution was also reviewed. The analysis found some had a very poor intensity distribution, so while the spectral characteristics might be correct, the light would not necessarily “hit” or reach the germicidal target unless it fell into a very tiny point in space.

The report provides a number of additional findings, including some of the unexpected testing shortcomings. Equipment needed to test UV product is rare and very specific. The agency admits that it could not adequately test some claims because testing agencies don’t have the required equipment. It does raise the question how the manufacturer can make a claim that cannot be substantiated.

This is the first of what could be hundreds of test. More will be learned and the industry will be stronger for this work. The first group of LED MR16 lamps included a product claiming to be an exact replacement for a 50W halogen version and the test showed it barely equaled a 15W halogen. Fewer and fewer of the blatant lies occurred in each subsequent testing tranche. With the increase of airborne pathogens, such as COVID-19, GUV lighting can be an effective combatant. As users, we simply need good data from reputable sources, just like LED lighting. It’s great to know the same review process is now in place.

If, like me you want to dig into the details, links to the actual reports are included below.

Summary Report

Full Report (for the hard-core data nerd!)