FEP - UV Transmission Data
Comparison of UVA Transmission of FEP
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 EFKs (electronic fly killers) and sterilising plants 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 be resistant to the UV, but also 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 so that they receive discolouring, and worse, become brittle. The most successful have been found to be the fluoropolymers containing high amounts of the -CF2- and -CF3 in the molecule chain, and the 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 impossible 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.
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 in 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 positions.
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.
- 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:
- Sample 2 & 7 Adtech FEP 0.25mm
- Sample 3 Adtech FEP 0.5mm
- Sample 4 & 8 Competitive coating 1 0.22mm
- Sample 5 Adtech development product XP 05 0.3mm
- Sample 6 Adtech development product XM 04 0.2mm
Results are in millijoules/cm2/minute
|Batch 1||Test 1||Test 2||Test 3||Test 4||Test 5||Test 6||Total||%loss of UV-A|
|Batch 2||Test 1||Test 2||Test 3||Test 4||Test 5||Test 6||Total||%loss of UV-A|
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 EFKs, 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