PNNL

Abstract

This report analyzes the independently tested performance of 13 germicidal ultraviolet (GUV) products purchased between February and July 2022. The products were of three different types: • Seven portable, consumer-oriented GUV towers designed to be placed on the floor or a desk of an unoccupied room to disinfect air and surfaces. Five of these products used LED sources and two products used low-pressure mercury (LPM) sources. • One non-portable GUV whole-room luminaire designed to be installed on a ceiling to disinfect air when a room is occupied. This product used an LED source. • Five non-portable GUV troffer or high-bay style whole-room luminaires designed to be installed in or suspended from a ceiling to disinfect air and surfaces when a room is unoccupied. All five used LPM sources. Radiometric and electrical performance was evaluated for all 13 products. Photobiological safety was also assessed for two of the products because their documentation included testable claims. The test results were compared across products and to manufacturer or vendor claims. The testing identified many issues related to the accuracy of reported GUV product performance. Claims were often untestable, contradictory, ambiguous, or used incorrect units and/or terminology. And when claims were testable, they often did not match test results. For example, three products that claimed to emit UV-C emitted only UV-A. These product claim issues were more numerous with consumer-oriented tower products, but problems with accurate performance claims were found across all products. The UV-C radiant efficiency of the products varied widely, even among similar products using the same source technologies. For example, the UV-C radiant efficiency of LPM products varied by greater than a factor of three for the same product type, indicating a large potential energy savings opportunity for products that are better designed for efficiency. LED products had orders-of-magnitude lower UV-C radiant efficiency than LPM products. Several testing challenges and limitations were identified. Most significant among these is the capability to accurately test and report the performance of larger GUV products. Integrating spheres require a specialized and costly coating to test UV, and the testing laboratory for this round of products had only a 20-inch diameter hemisphere with this capability. Only 2 of the 10 UV-C emitting products could be tested in this sphere. Goniometer testing had a different size limitation in that mirrors typically used to increase goniometer test distance to the far field are not reflective of UV and therefore could not be used to increase test distance. As a result, 7 of 13 products could not be tested far field. The implication is that electronic files of UV-C intensity data typically imported into design software for designing GUV applications may not be reliable for predicting irradiance at arbitrary far-field distances. It is currently unclear if these are industry-wide testing laboratory limitations, and what solutions may exist to address them. Specifiers and buyers of GUV products will need accurate performance claims and data to safely and effectively deploy GUV technology to reduce the transmission of diseases in buildings. This CALiPER GUV Round 1 report demonstrates the significant education and training that is needed for manufacturers and vendors to accurately test and report the performance of their GUV products. Further standards and guidelines are needed to improve test methods, address testing limitations, and improve reporting of product performance. Additionally, the wide range in UV-C radiant efficiency of GUV products means there is a large energy-savings opportunity for more energy efficient GUV products.