Posts Tagged ‘full-spectrum’

Last Full-Spectrum Post, I Promise

Monday, June 29th, 2009

I have just a couple more points to make about full-spectrum lamps.

  • They are more expensive. Since “full-spectrum” lighting is a marketing term, you should expect it to be an attempt to get you to pay more for a light bulb. There are reasons to pay more for a light bulb, such as increased efficiency or better color rendition, but paying more for a “full-spectrum” lamp should be approached with caution. You can sometimes get the exact same spectral distribution with greater efficiency from a non-full-spectrum source.
  • They are only worth it if they make you feel better. Some people will just like them. If that is you, and you don’t mind the cost, go ahead and use them. The increased UV isn’t too bad (remember: 8 hours of full-spectrum lighting to equal UVB of 1 minute of sunlight).
  • (A follow-up claim) Full-spectrum can make your whites whiter and paper brighter: This is slightly true, as you can increase the luminance about 1.7 to 2.3% of a piece of white paper or white cloth treated with whitening agents, but at the cost of 30 to 40% less efficacy.
  • Generally speaking, full-spectrum sources are less efficient than the standard version of the same thing. When making a choice, I recommend using the more energy efficient lamp.

Full-Spectrum Lighting Health Claims

Friday, June 26th, 2009

I realized there are a couple of other things to mention, but so much of what I’ve been hearing relates to the health claims that I want to address that today and let the other things spill over into next week.

When the full-spectrum term was coined in the 1960′s it referred to both visible light and the invisible ultraviolet (UV) light. The health claims of full-spectrum lighting mostly revolve around the UV end of the range. All fluorescent light emits UV radiation, since it is the UV rays created by the mercury vapor striking the phosphor coating which makes a fluorescent light work. Full-spectrum lamps just emit more UV radiation than normal lamps.

The typical recommendation is to avoid as much UV exposure as possible. UV exposure has been linked to sunburn and skin cancers as well as cataracts in the eye. UV exposure also cause the degradation of textiles, paints, and architectural materials. Museums typically require all wavelengths shorter than 400nm to be filtered out of artificial lights.

  • Technical info, you may ignore: Visible light is 760 nm to 380 nm, UVA is light wavelengths between 400 nm and 315 nm, UVB is light wavelengths between 315 nm and 280 nm, UVC is light wavelengths between 280 nm and 100 nm. Visible light is broken down as red from 760 to 610 nm, orange from 610 to 591 nm, yellow from 591 to 570 nm, green from 570 to 500 nm, blue from 500 to 450 nm, and purple from 450 to 360 nm. These are defined by the International Organization for Standardization in ISO 21348:2007.

Full-spectrum lighting to treat SAD (seasonal affective disorder): Using full-spectrum lighting does not fit into the standard treatment of SAD, which involves exposure of the eye to a white light source in a light box. The light box typically generates 10,000 lux and it is used for about 30 minutes. Lower intensities might be used for longer periods. At 10,000 lux, any light source will be effective to treat SAD. Most importantly, these light boxes shield out UV rays, which is the opposite of using full-spectrum lighting. Using full-spectrum lamps in normal overhead lighting will have no effect upon SAD treatment.

Full-spectrum lighting and vitamin D production: Vitamin D is important, but the production is stimulated by the UVB band (315 to 280 nm) of light. Full-spectrum lamps typically use phosphors to generate UVA radiation (400 to 315 nm), and they typically peak around 355 nm. You are better off eating fish and dairy products and–if you’re really worried–taking supplements. Various studies have been done showing exposure to full-spectrum lighting for vitamin D production is impractical. For example, to spike vitamin D production in your body you may need 30 hours continuous exposure to a full-spectrum lamp to get the same affect as 22 minutes of mid-day sunlight. Or, 8 hours of full-spectrum office lighting has about the same UVB exposure as 1 minute of direct sunlight.

Also, the UVB rays that are generated by full-spectrum lamps often don’t bounce off surfaces. That means that if you are hoping to increase your UVB exposure you will only get it when in direct line of sight from the lamp to your skin. Everything else is absorbed by the materials and clothing around you. That also increases the deterioration of those materials.

In summary, there really are no serious health benefits to using full-spectrum lighting.

Full-Spectrum Lighting

Thursday, June 25th, 2009

I’ve been running into people, Tweets, and marketing articles about full-spectrum lighting recently and I want to set some things straight. Full-spectrum lighting is a marketing term used by people selling you lighting products; it does not have any technical meaning in the lighting industry. Full-spectrum sources often cost much more than a standard product, sometimes more than 10 times the cost, and the overall benefits have not been proven.

Common claims:

  • It is closer to “natural” daylight, which is its own benefit: This claim is more or less meaningless. Daylight changes throughout the day due to atmospheric conditions (is it cloudy or clear) and time of day (mid-day sun or morning sunrise). All artificial lighting sources are static in their output, what you get at 3:00 PM on a cloudy day is that same as 2:00 AM at night. Some LED sources are collections of LEDs that can be programmed to change color, but that has nothing to do with mimicking daylight. Trying to hash out the meaning of this claim gets you mired in spectral distribution curves which is a huge topic, so for now just keep in mind that “full-spectrum” sources are just modifications of existing fluorescents. Except GE Reveal and the like, which are modified incandescents.
  • You get better color from full-spectrum sources: This is sort-of true. Full-spectrum fluorescents use a different phosphor mix that can sometimes have a higher CRI (color rendering index) than a typical fluorescent. The increase in CRI is often accompanied by an decrease in efficiency. You can also get non-full-spectrum fluorescents with higher CRI ratings than standard for slightly more cost than a standard lamp but still less than a full-spectrum lamp. The stand-out exception to this is the incandescent full-spectrum sources, which decrease the CRI of their bulbs.
  • You get increased worker productivity with full-spectrum: There are two parts to this: the first is just based on the ability to see tasks well. In most circumstances productivity for visual tasks is linked to monochromatic tasks, such as reading black ink on white paper. For these tasks it is the amount of light that determines good visibility, not the color or quality of the light. In this regard full-spectrum offers no benefits. There is some research suggesting that since the rods–which are blue-green sensitive–control the size of the pupil, light to the cool, bluish side causes the pupil to constrict and thereby increase acuity and you can get equal acuity with less power by using bluish light. I think it is unreasonable to get into this kind of detail when you just want to buy a lightbulb, so the simple answer is “no.” However, if your work is very color sensitive, such as fine art or clothing production, you want to maximize the CRI of your sources to affect productivity.
  • It has psychological benefits: This is the second part of the “increased productivity” claim. By definition, a psychological benefit is “all in your head,” so in terms of the benefit claim it is true. If you like full-spectrum lighting and don’t mind the disadvantages then you are getting a psychological benefit. Does everyone feel better equally, there’s no way to say, which is why it makes a good marketing claim. I have never found any research that shows a physiological link that leads to a psychological benefit. This is also often linked to the “natural” daylight claim. It is true that most people feel better working and living under daylight than artificial light. However, daylight changes throughout the day and with the weather, and I think the change over time is one of the main reasons people like daylight.

This post is getting longer than I like for a daily reading, so I’ll deal with the health concerns tomorrow. That will give you a chance to rest up and stay with me.