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.

Evaluation of Ultra Violet Emissions Radiated from Compact Fluorescent Lamps of Iranian Current Brands

“…The CFLs were marked as 11, 18, 40 and 60 Watt and all of the lamps contained integral electronic ballasts. All the CFLs are used for one hundred hours (12) in the laboratory conditions using a stabilized 220 V DC power supply. The UV irradiance of various types of CFLs is measured on a three-meter long optical bench, and measurement was done in 10, 25, 50, 100, 150 and 200 cm using a calibrated UV-meter.…”

“…UVA (315 nm-400 nm), UVB (280 nm-315 nm), and UVC (100 nm-280 nm) (12). Because of their mercury content, CFLs, emitted significant quantities of UVA, epically at 365 nm.…”

Energy-saving lamps and their impact on photosensitive and normal individuals

“…7 One patient with SU did show immediate urticarial responses to LED exposure. 7 One patient with SU did show immediate urticarial responses to LED exposure.…”

“…This classification system places lamps from A through to G, with A being the most energy efficient and G being the least. 6,7 Examples of single-envelope and double-envelope CFLs are shown in Figure 1. However, these will remain available only until 2016 by which time all lamps must be in energy class A or B.…”

Impact assessment of energy-efficient lighting in patients with lupus erythematosus: a pilot study

“…In 1982, photosensitivity was included as a discriminating factor in the revised criteria of the American Rheumatism Association for the classification of systemic LE. [10][11][12] CFLs emit peak wavelengths due to mercury vapour discharge, which occurs throughout the UV spectrum. It has been highlighted that it is not clear how best to counsel patients with regards to indoor lighting as, although UV levels may be low, exposure can last for hours and be on a daily basis.…”