ADTECH Technical Data
Comparison of UV-A Transmission of Lamp Coating Materials
Background
Current GMP practices in food and pharmaceutical processing plants demand that
production areas are glass free, or that any glass if broken, cannot find its
way into the products. This poses problems in the use of EFK's (electronic fly
killers) and sterilising plant which use ultra violet emitting lamps. This is
because the UV radiation is notoriously harmful to polymers that would be able
to protect the lamps. Any polymers used would not only have to resistant to the
UV but also be transparent to it over the whole life of the lamp.
Various polymers have been tried over the years, and many found to be totally
useless as they mostly age with the dose of UV radiation that they receive
discolouring, and worse becoming brittle. The most successful have been found to
be the fluoropolymers containing high amounts of the -CF2- and -CF3 in the
molecule chain, and very best appear to be the completely fluorinated
polymers.
Manufacturers data on the UV transmission is variable or non-existent, and it
has been found not possible to compare one material with another from their
data. Tests commissioned by Adtech using a UV spectrophotometer to measure the
transmission of flat polymer films showed up a unforeseen problem. It was found
that at UV frequencies the light was scattered by the polymer films, which were
clear to visible light. The parallel beam of light used in the spectrophotometer
was scattered passing through the film and gave a value significantly less than
the total transmittance. The answer to this was to test the films or sleeves in
situ, and measure the loss in output of the UV lamp with the various coatings.
Testing
The following test method was developed. A standard cylindrical UV lamp was
mounted in a holder, and a calibrated UV radiometer mounted with its sensing
head 25mm from the surface of the lamp. As the output of UV lamps varies
significantly over time it was important to use one lamp for all tests, and not
turn off the lamp between testing. Therefore coatings were removed (cut) from
lamps and reapplied to the standard lamp by making a join on the lamp opposite
to the sensor head. The various coatings could be quickly applied and removed
this way, yet the lamp can remain on and the sensor and lamp do not move from
their relative positons
Readings were taken as 1 minute total dose of UV, made alternatively on the
various samples. This was then repeated 6 times including the lamp uncovered as
control..
Technical Details:
Lamp: Sylvania F15 T8 BL 15 watt 25mm diameter.
Sensor : EIT UVIRAD UV integrating radiometer Model UR365CH1
Spectral Response 320-390 nm (UV-A)
Calibrated 27 Jan 1999
Results of Tests
Sample2 & 7 Adtech FEP 0.25mm
Sample3 Adtech FEP
0.5mm
Sample4 & 8 Competitive coating 1 0.22mm
Sample5 Adtech
development product XP 05 0.3mm
Sample6 Adtech
development product XM 04 0.2mm
Results are in millijoules/cm2/minute
Test1 Test2 Test3 Test4 Test5 Test6 Total
%loss of UV-A
Batch 1
No coating 258 257 249
255 255 249 1523
0
Sample2 245 243
243 243 246 237
1378 4.33
Sample3 221 243
226 229 232 227
1378 9.52
Sample4 207 211
205 213 207 207
1250 17.92
Sample5 225 224
220 218 220 218
1325 13.00
Sample6 249 244
244 242 240 239
1458 4.26
Batch 2
No coating 252 253 255
252 253 253 1518
0
Sample7 245 244
245 247 245 242
1468 3.30
Sample8 211 210
214 218 211 214
1278 15.81
Conclusions
The test method is very consistent, easy to do and gives the actual practical
losses shown by lamp coatings as in use. There is a very big difference between
the coatings tested. A loss of 15% or more is unacceptable in EFK's as the
efficiency of the machine attracting and destroying flying insects is
proportional to the UV-A output.
Note- The test apparatus used here is portable and can be demonstrated by
request.
![]()
© Adtech Polymer Engineering Ltd. 1999
UVtest1.lwp 11/02/99