Analysis of energy saving lamps for use by photosensitive individuals

L. Fenton, J. Ferguson, H. Moseley

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    13 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    Due to European legislation, the British government has begun the phase out of incandescent bulbs, to be replaced by energy-saving alternatives. The alternatives that are available on the market are Compact Fluorescent Lamps (CFL), Energy-Efficient Halogens (EEH) and Light Emitting Diodes (LED). Whilst previous research has shown that CFLs emit UVC, UVB and UVA, there is conflicting data available on whether double enveloped CFLs are a safer alternative to single enveloped CFLs for individuals suffering from photosensitivity. The emission spectra of 106 single enveloped CFLs and 65 double enveloped CFLs were measured. There were 17 different models of single enveloped CFLs, including lamps from 6 different manufacturers (ranging from 8-20 W) and 9 models of double enveloped CFLs from 6 different manufacturers (7-15 W). In addition, the emission spectra of 53 LEDs and 56 EEHs were also analysed. The LEDs consisted of 8 different models, from 3 manufacturers, spanning between 2.5 and 12 W. There were 11 models of EEH from 6 different manufacturers with wattages ranging from 28-70 W. In order to reduce sample bias, some bulbs were provided by the lighting industry federation and others were purchased randomly from local retailers. The results validate previous research in that considerable variation exists in the UV emitted from CFLs. This variation in UV levels is true, not only within different makes and models but also, surprisingly, within a box of 8 seemingly identical bulbs supplied by a single manufacturer. It was concluded that double enveloped CFLs do reduce the levels of UVC and UVB and therefore are a safer alternative for photosensitive individuals. However, as some double enveloped CFLs and EEHs do emit UVA at levels that provoke a reaction in the skin of UVA sensitive individuals, newly emerging LEDs that have minimal UV levels may provide a safer alternative. This journal is
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)1346-1355
    Number of pages10
    JournalPhotochemical & Photobiological Sciences
    Volume11
    Issue number8
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 2012

    Fingerprint

    Electric lamps
    luminaires
    Energy conservation
    bulbs
    Light emitting diodes
    light emitting diodes
    Halogens
    halogens
    emission spectra
    energy
    federations
    Fluorescent lamps
    Photosensitivity
    photosensitivity
    illuminating
    boxes
    emerging
    Skin
    Lighting
    industries

    Cite this

    Fenton, L. ; Ferguson, J. ; Moseley, H. / Analysis of energy saving lamps for use by photosensitive individuals. In: Photochemical & Photobiological Sciences. 2012 ; Vol. 11, No. 8. pp. 1346-1355.
    @article{b94ffaa1c10445c7a2824f8c29a23d07,
    title = "Analysis of energy saving lamps for use by photosensitive individuals",
    abstract = "Due to European legislation, the British government has begun the phase out of incandescent bulbs, to be replaced by energy-saving alternatives. The alternatives that are available on the market are Compact Fluorescent Lamps (CFL), Energy-Efficient Halogens (EEH) and Light Emitting Diodes (LED). Whilst previous research has shown that CFLs emit UVC, UVB and UVA, there is conflicting data available on whether double enveloped CFLs are a safer alternative to single enveloped CFLs for individuals suffering from photosensitivity. The emission spectra of 106 single enveloped CFLs and 65 double enveloped CFLs were measured. There were 17 different models of single enveloped CFLs, including lamps from 6 different manufacturers (ranging from 8-20 W) and 9 models of double enveloped CFLs from 6 different manufacturers (7-15 W). In addition, the emission spectra of 53 LEDs and 56 EEHs were also analysed. The LEDs consisted of 8 different models, from 3 manufacturers, spanning between 2.5 and 12 W. There were 11 models of EEH from 6 different manufacturers with wattages ranging from 28-70 W. In order to reduce sample bias, some bulbs were provided by the lighting industry federation and others were purchased randomly from local retailers. The results validate previous research in that considerable variation exists in the UV emitted from CFLs. This variation in UV levels is true, not only within different makes and models but also, surprisingly, within a box of 8 seemingly identical bulbs supplied by a single manufacturer. It was concluded that double enveloped CFLs do reduce the levels of UVC and UVB and therefore are a safer alternative for photosensitive individuals. However, as some double enveloped CFLs and EEHs do emit UVA at levels that provoke a reaction in the skin of UVA sensitive individuals, newly emerging LEDs that have minimal UV levels may provide a safer alternative. This journal is",
    author = "L. Fenton and J. Ferguson and H. Moseley",
    note = "Copyright 2012 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.",
    year = "2012",
    doi = "10.1039/c2pp25035g",
    language = "English",
    volume = "11",
    pages = "1346--1355",
    journal = "Photochemical & Photobiological Sciences",
    issn = "1474-905X",
    publisher = "Royal Society of Chemistry",
    number = "8",

    }

    Analysis of energy saving lamps for use by photosensitive individuals. / Fenton, L.; Ferguson, J.; Moseley, H.

    In: Photochemical & Photobiological Sciences, Vol. 11, No. 8, 2012, p. 1346-1355.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Analysis of energy saving lamps for use by photosensitive individuals

    AU - Fenton, L.

    AU - Ferguson, J.

    AU - Moseley, H.

    N1 - Copyright 2012 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.

    PY - 2012

    Y1 - 2012

    N2 - Due to European legislation, the British government has begun the phase out of incandescent bulbs, to be replaced by energy-saving alternatives. The alternatives that are available on the market are Compact Fluorescent Lamps (CFL), Energy-Efficient Halogens (EEH) and Light Emitting Diodes (LED). Whilst previous research has shown that CFLs emit UVC, UVB and UVA, there is conflicting data available on whether double enveloped CFLs are a safer alternative to single enveloped CFLs for individuals suffering from photosensitivity. The emission spectra of 106 single enveloped CFLs and 65 double enveloped CFLs were measured. There were 17 different models of single enveloped CFLs, including lamps from 6 different manufacturers (ranging from 8-20 W) and 9 models of double enveloped CFLs from 6 different manufacturers (7-15 W). In addition, the emission spectra of 53 LEDs and 56 EEHs were also analysed. The LEDs consisted of 8 different models, from 3 manufacturers, spanning between 2.5 and 12 W. There were 11 models of EEH from 6 different manufacturers with wattages ranging from 28-70 W. In order to reduce sample bias, some bulbs were provided by the lighting industry federation and others were purchased randomly from local retailers. The results validate previous research in that considerable variation exists in the UV emitted from CFLs. This variation in UV levels is true, not only within different makes and models but also, surprisingly, within a box of 8 seemingly identical bulbs supplied by a single manufacturer. It was concluded that double enveloped CFLs do reduce the levels of UVC and UVB and therefore are a safer alternative for photosensitive individuals. However, as some double enveloped CFLs and EEHs do emit UVA at levels that provoke a reaction in the skin of UVA sensitive individuals, newly emerging LEDs that have minimal UV levels may provide a safer alternative. This journal is

    AB - Due to European legislation, the British government has begun the phase out of incandescent bulbs, to be replaced by energy-saving alternatives. The alternatives that are available on the market are Compact Fluorescent Lamps (CFL), Energy-Efficient Halogens (EEH) and Light Emitting Diodes (LED). Whilst previous research has shown that CFLs emit UVC, UVB and UVA, there is conflicting data available on whether double enveloped CFLs are a safer alternative to single enveloped CFLs for individuals suffering from photosensitivity. The emission spectra of 106 single enveloped CFLs and 65 double enveloped CFLs were measured. There were 17 different models of single enveloped CFLs, including lamps from 6 different manufacturers (ranging from 8-20 W) and 9 models of double enveloped CFLs from 6 different manufacturers (7-15 W). In addition, the emission spectra of 53 LEDs and 56 EEHs were also analysed. The LEDs consisted of 8 different models, from 3 manufacturers, spanning between 2.5 and 12 W. There were 11 models of EEH from 6 different manufacturers with wattages ranging from 28-70 W. In order to reduce sample bias, some bulbs were provided by the lighting industry federation and others were purchased randomly from local retailers. The results validate previous research in that considerable variation exists in the UV emitted from CFLs. This variation in UV levels is true, not only within different makes and models but also, surprisingly, within a box of 8 seemingly identical bulbs supplied by a single manufacturer. It was concluded that double enveloped CFLs do reduce the levels of UVC and UVB and therefore are a safer alternative for photosensitive individuals. However, as some double enveloped CFLs and EEHs do emit UVA at levels that provoke a reaction in the skin of UVA sensitive individuals, newly emerging LEDs that have minimal UV levels may provide a safer alternative. This journal is

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84863953097&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    U2 - 10.1039/c2pp25035g

    DO - 10.1039/c2pp25035g

    M3 - Article

    VL - 11

    SP - 1346

    EP - 1355

    JO - Photochemical & Photobiological Sciences

    JF - Photochemical & Photobiological Sciences

    SN - 1474-905X

    IS - 8

    ER -