ArticlePDF Available

Blue Light Hazard and Risk Group Classification of 8 W LED Tubes, Replacing Fluorescent Tubes, through Optical Radiation Measurements


Abstract and Figures

In this paper, the authors discuss the results of a measurement survey of artificial optical radiation emitted by 8 W LED tubes suitable for the substitution of 18 W fluorescent lamps used for general lighting. For both types of lamps, three different color temperatures were chosen, 3000 K, 4000 K, and 6000 K. These measurements were performed to evaluate the photobiological safety of the sources. The radiance and irradiance values have been measured in a wide range of wavelengths (180-3000 nm). The measurement results obtained for the LED tubes have been compared to those of similar measurements obtained for fluorescent lamps. The analysis has been focused on the range of wavelengths 300-700 nm, the blue light range, which turned out to be defining for the risk groups of the lamps. This classification is a function of the maximum permissible exposure time as indicated in the European Standard EN 62471 on the photobiological safety of lamps and lamp systems.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Sustainability 2015, 7, 13454-13468; doi:10.3390/su71013454
ISSN 2071-1050
Blue Light Hazard and Risk Group Classification of 8 W LED
Tubes, Replacing Fluorescent Tubes, through Optical
Radiation Measurements
Francesco Leccese 1,*, Viola Vandelanotte 2, Giacomo Salvadori 1 and Michele Rocca 1
1 LIghting and Acoustic Laboratory (LIA), Department of Energy engineering, Systems, Territory
and Construction (DESTeC), University of Pisa, Largo Lucio Lazzarino, 56122 Pisa, Italy;
E-Mails: (G.S.); (M.R.)
2 Department of Energy Engineering, Faculty of Engineering Technology, KU Leuven, Technology
Campus-Ghent, 9000 Ghent, Belgium; E-Mail:
* Author to whom correspondence should be addressed; E-Mail:;
Tel.: +39-050-221-7158; Fax: +39-050-221-7150.
Academic Editor: Francesco Asdrubali
Received: 17 July 2015 / Accepted: 24 September 2015 / Published: 30 September 2015
Abstract: In this paper, the authors discuss the results of a measurement survey of
artificial optical radiation emitted by 8 W LED tubes suitable for the substitution of 18 W
fluorescent lamps used for general lighting. For both types of lamps, three different color
temperatures were chosen, 3000 K, 4000 K, and 6000 K. These measurements were
performed to evaluate the photobiological safety of the sources. The radiance and
irradiance values have been measured in a wide range of wavelengths (180–3000 nm). The
measurement results obtained for the LED tubes have been compared to those of similar
measurements obtained for fluorescent lamps. The analysis has been focused on the range
of wavelengths 300–700 nm, the blue light range, which turned out to be defining for the
risk groups of the lamps. This classification is a function of the maximum permissible
exposure time as indicated in the European Standard EN 62471 on the photobiological
safety of lamps and lamp systems.
Keywords: artificial optical radiation; LED tubes; fluorescent lamps; blue light hazard;
maximum permissible exposure time; risk group
Sustainability 2015, 7 13455
1. Introduction
Artificial optical radiation (AOR) is emitted by a very wide range of sources that people may be
exposed to, in the workplace and elsewhere. In order to guarantee sufficient safety minimizing the
artificial optical radiation hazard, different technical reports and guidelines have been issued by
international institutions [1–6].
AOR is separated into laser and non-coherent radiation in [5,6]. The non-coherent sources are
defined as all of the sources, apart from laser, that emit any radiation in the optical wavelength range
of 100 nm to 1 mm [5]. Among the non-coherent sources [1,6,7], special attention has been paid to
industrial process equipment (e.g., welding, paint drying ovens, melting of metal and glass, etc.) and
medical equipment (e.g., neonatal phototherapy lamps, sterilization, surgical lights, etc.), while minor
attention has been paid to non-coherent sources widely used in offices (e.g., lamps/luminaries, display
screen equipment, copiers, LED for lighting and signalization, etc.).
Nowadays the sources most used for the lighting of workplaces (particularly offices) are fluorescent
lamps [7–9]. With their efficacy, approaching that of fluorescent lamps, their long durability, small
size and low weight, LEDs are very often used to replace existing lamps [9–11]. These new
applications have placed increasingly stringent demands on the optical characterization of LEDs,
which serves as the fundamental baseline for product quality and product design [8,12–16].
In this paper, the authors discuss the results of a measurement survey of AOR emitted by 8 W LED
tubes suitable for substitution of 18 W tubular fluorescent lamps (length 60 cm), widely used for
general lighting of workplaces. The irradiance and radiance values, both measured and evaluated in a
wide range of wavelengths (from 180 nm to 3000 nm), have been analyzed in order to define the risk
group of LED as a function of the maximum permissible exposure time as indicated in the European
Standard EN 62471 [17] and in the Technical Report IEC 62778 [18]. By using the measurement
results, some consideration about blue light hazard (wavelengths 300–700 nm) has been made
regarding the prescriptions of the EU Directive 2006/25 [5] on the minimum health and safety
requirements for the exposure of workers to risks arising from AOR.
2. Risk Assessment for Human Exposure and Safety Assessment for the Lamps
2.1. Risk of Exposure to AOR
With reference to the risk of exposure, at the international level, it was considered necessary to
introduce measures protecting workers from the risks arising from AOR, on their health and safety, in
particular damage to the eyes and to the skin. In Table 1, the risks of exposure to AOR (for eyes and
skin) emitted by non-coherent sources are highlighted as a function of the wavelength [6].
With the EU Directive 2006/25 [5], the minimum requirements to protect workers against risks of
exposure to AOR have been specified. The content of the EU Directive 2006/25 has been fully taken
up by the Italian legislation, in particular: Legislative Decree 81/2008, Chapter V, Articles 213 to 218
and Annex XXXVII [19].
The limit values for the risk of exposure fixed by the Italian legislation [19], according to the EU
Directive [5], are shown in Table 2 for the different wavelength ranges between 180 and 3000 nm.
Sustainability 2015, 7 13456
Table 1. Risks of exposure to artificial optical radiation (AOR) emitted by non-coherent
sources as a function of the wavelength [6].
Range (nm) Hazard Bioeffect
180–400 Actinic UV skin and eye Eye: photokeratitis; conjunctivitis; cataractogenesis
Skin: erythema; elastosis
315–400 UVA eye Eye: cataractogenesis
Skin: -
300–700 Retinal blue light Eye: photoretinitis.
Skin: - Retinal blue light small source
380–1400 Retinal thermal Eye: retinal burn.
Skin: - 780–1400 Retinal thermal, weak visual stimulus
780–3000 Infrared radiation eye Eye: cornea burn; cataractogenesis.
Skin: -
380–3000 Thermal skin Eye: -
Skin: burn
Table 2. Limit values specified in the Italian legislation [19].
Risk Index Range Limit Value
(Legislative Decree 81/08)
Wavelength (nm) Name
(a) 180–400 UVA, UVB, UVC Heff = 30 J/m2
(b) 315–400 UVA HUVA = 104 J/m2
(c) 300–700 Blue Light LB = 106·t1 W/m2sr
(d) Blue Light LB = 100 W/m2sr
Visible, IRA LR = (2.8·107) Cα1 W/m2sr
(h) Visible, IRA LR = (5·107) Cα1·t0.25 W/m2sr
(i) Visible, IRA LR = (8.89·108) Cα1 W/m2sr
IRA LR = (6·106) Cα1 W/m2sr
(k) IRA LR = (5·107) Cα1·t0.75 W/m2sr
(l) IRA LR = (8.89·108) Cα1 W/m2sr
(m) 780–3000 IRA, IRB EIR = 8000·t0.75 W/m2
(n) IRA, IRB EIR = 100 W/m2
(o) 380–3000 Visible, IRA, IRB Hskin = 20,000·t0.25 J/m2
Notes: The limit values for Indices (c) and (d) are referred to α 11 mrad. The coefficient Cα for Indices (g),
(h) and (i) can be evaluated as follow: Cα = 1.7 when α < 1.7 mrad; Cα = α when 1.7 α 100 mrad; Cα =
100 when α > 100 mrad. The coefficient Cα for Indices (j), (k) and (l) can be evaluated as follow: Cα = 11
when α < 11 mrad; Cα = α when 11 α 100 mrad; Cα = 100 when α > 100 mrad (if the visual field of the
measurements does not exceed 11 mrad). With the letters UVA, UVB, and UVC have been indicated the
ultraviolet radiation in the following ranges: 315–400 nm; 280–315 nm; 180–280 nm. With the letters IRA,
and IRB have been indicated the infrared radiation in the following ranges: 780–1400 nm (near-infrared);
1400–3000 nm (short-wavelength infrared).
Sustainability 2015, 7 13457
2.2. Photobiological Safety of the Emitting Lamps
Regarding the photobiological safety and quality of the marketed lamps, one of the more important
international standards is the EN 62471 “Photobiological safety of lamps and lamp systems”,
September 2008 [17].
According to EN 62471 [17], non-coherent sources of AOR are classified into risk groups as a
function of their potential photobiological hazard (see Table 3). If a source is assigned to a “safe”
group (Group 0) or to a low risk group (Group 1), there is no need for a detailed workplace evaluation,
since there is no photobiological safety hazard issue. It is necessary to observe that the evaluation of
the light sources separately may result in a different (higher) risk group classification than in the final
product. This classification takes place through an analysis, conducted on either the individual
components or the final product, and based on information obtained from the manufacturer.
It is important to point out that each group is defined as a function of the maximum permissible
exposure time [17]. Below this value, the lamp does not cause a photobiological risk for this specific
wavelength interval, as mentioned in Table 4.
Table 3. Description of risk groups [17].
Risk Group Description
Group 0 RG0 Exempt No photobiological hazard
Group 1 RG1 Low Risk No photobiological hazard under normal behavioral limitations
Group 2 RG2 Moderate Risk Does not pose a hazard due to aversion response to bright light or
thermal discomfort
Group 3 RG3 High Risk Hazardous even for momentary exposure
Table 4. Exposure time limits (in seconds) for risk group classification [17,20].
Hazard Exposure Time Limit (s)
Actinic UV 30,000 10,000 1000
UVA Hazard 1000 300 100
Blue Light Radiance 10,000 100 0.25
Retinal Blue Light, Small Source 10,000 100 0.25
Retinal Thermal 1000 100 10
IR Eye 1000 100 10
It is possible to determine the risk group of a source as follows: measure the spectral irradiance (or
radiance) at a specified distance for each hazard; weigh the measured values with appropriate
biological action spectra (indicated in the third column of Table 5); calculate the maximum permissible
exposure time (tmax) using the related equation shown in the fourth column of Table 5 (for example,
tmax for Actinic UV hazard can be calculated with the equation: tmax = 30/ES, where ES is the effective
ultraviolet irradiance); and determine the risk group by comparing tmax of the lamp with the exposure
time limit of each risk group (see Table 4).
It can be noticed that the risk groups are correlated with tmax, and tmax is correlated with the emission
of the lamps (irradiance or radiance). Therefore, it is possible to associate the risk group with the
Sustainability 2015, 7 13458
emission value and, thus, to determine the value of irradiance and radiance corresponding to each
exposure time limit [17,20].
According to [17], all of these different hazards (shown in Table 5) must be evaluated: at the
distance at which the illuminance reaches 500 lx (in the case of lamps for general lighting) and at the
distance of 0.20 m (in the case of all other lamps). It should be noticed that in the cases in which the
same lamps can be used both for general lighting and other applications, the evaluation should be
repeated in both configurations.
Regarding the blue light hazard, a specific technical report has been draw up [18]. This technical
report brings clarification and guidance concerning the assessment of blue light hazard of all lighting
products that have the main emission in the visible spectrum, specifically in the interval 300–700 nm,
similarly to [17], defining the risk group as shown in Table 6.
Table 5. Maximum permissible exposure time (tmax) of continuous wave lamps [17].
Hazard (Symbol) Quantity (Unit) Weighted Spectrum [6] tmax (s)
Actinic UV (ES) Irradiance 2
S(λ) 30/ES
UVA (EUVA) - 10,000/EUVA
Retinal Blue Light Radiance (LB) Radiance 2
B(λ) 106/LB
Retinal Blue Light (small source) (EB) Irradiance 2
B(λ) 100/EB
Retinal Thermal (LR) Radiance 2
50000/ Lα⋅
Retinal Thermal (weak visual stimulus) (LR) R(λ) -
IR (eye) (EIR) Irradiance 2
Notes: Small source defined as one with α < 0.011 rad. A visual stimulus can be considered weak if the
luminance of the source is lower than 10 cd/m2.
Table 6. Blue light hazard: correlation between tmax and risk group [18].
Risk Group RG0 RG1 RG2 RG3
tmax range (s) >10,000 100–10,000 0.25–100 <0.25
3. Description of the Analyzed Lamps
In this paper, a study was performed on commercially available LED tubes with a 60 cm length and
a diameter of 2.6 cm, with electric power of 8 W and color temperatures of 3000 K, 4000 K and
6000 K. These LED sources are adapted for the substitution of fluorescent lamps (commonly called
T8) with electric power of 18 W, an equal length and diameter and an analogue color temperature.
Such fluorescent lamps are widely used in the general lighting of workplaces [21,22] and, in particular,
in luminaires with four lamps (4 × 18 W), usually embedded in the ceiling and closed by a plastic
translucent screen or with an aluminum reflector to achieve a controlled luminance.
Each of the analyzed LED tubes is composed by a strip with 54 chip phosphor-based LED located
in the middle of the tube and an opal surface in the front that does not allow one to perceive the single
chip LED, but that produces a uniform light emission.
Sustainability 2015, 7 13459
The chosen lamps are a significant representation of the solutions available on the market for the
substitution of fluorescent lamps with LED tubes [16,20–23]. Regarding the substitution of fluorescent
lamps of 60 cm, nowadays, there are LED tubes available with electric power of 8 W up to 11 W. In
Table 7, the following properties, given by the manufacturer, for both of the LED tubes of 8 W and the
fluorescent lamps of 18 W are presented on the left: the length of the lamps (l), the power (P) the color
temperature (Tk), the luminous flux (Φ), the color rendering index (Ra) and the lifetime (D). On the
right part of Table 7, the spectra for the 4000 K lamps, measured at a distance of 0.20 m using a
spectrophotometer KONICA MINOLTA CL-500A [24], are represented as the relative distribution of
the measured radiance on the maximum radiance at the peak wavelength, for which the value is
also stated.
Table 7. Technical specifications of LED tubes and fluorescent lamps.
LED Tube Spectrum of 8 W LED Tube 4000 K
Peak at 448 nm: 52.4 mW/m2/nm
l 60 cm
P 8 W
3000 K, 4000 K, 6000 K
Φ 900 lm
Ra 80
D 40,000 h
Fluorescent lamp Spectrum of 18 W Fluorescent lamp 4000 K
Peak at 545 nm: 105.0 mW/m2/nm
l 60 cm
P 18 W
3000 K, 4000 K, 6000 K
Φ 1350 lm
Ra 80.89
D 20,000 h
4. AOR Measurements
The AOR measurements have been carried out at the Lighting and Acoustics Laboratory (LIA) of
the Department of Energy Engineering, Systems, Territory and Constructions (DESTeC) of the
University of Pisa. The measurements were performed on a sample of 96 lamps; in particular, 48 LED
tubes and 48 fluorescent lamps were analyzed, 16 for each color temperature (3000 K, 4000 K, and
6000 K) of both types.
Sustainability 2015, 7 13460
4.1. Measurement Instrument
The AOR measurements were realized using a Delta Ohm HD2402 broadband
photoradiometer [24], with six integrated sensors (Figure 1). The instrument used is a radiometer with
a spectral sensitivity in accordance to the specific weighting functions S(λ), B(λ) and R(λ).
Each of the six sensors measures in a specific wavelength interval between the ultraviolet (UV) and
infrared (IR) range. The sensors are the following: a radiometric sensor for UV (220–400 nm)
corrected with the spectral weighting factor S(λ); a radiometric sensor for UVA (315–400 nm); a
photometric sensor for the illumination in the visible range (380–780 nm); a radiometric sensor for the
blue light (400–700 nm) corrected with the spectral weighting factor B(λ); a radiometric sensor for IR
(700–1300 nm) corrected with the spectral weighting factor R(λ); a thermopile sensor to measure in
the visible, IRA and IRB range (400–2800 nm). The circular position of the sensors and the presence
of the integrated laser pointer, as demonstrated in Figure 1 [25], allow orientating the instrument
correctly toward the source. The radiometric parameter measured by the HD2402 instrument is always
irradiance (or illuminance as concerns Sensor 6 in Figure 1); however, the radiance and the irradiance
are related, and radiance can be obtained from irradiance (assuming that radiance is constant), provided that
the geometric parameters of the measured source are known [26,27].
This instrument is of practical use to obtain, with a single device, radiometric measurements of the
interesting parameters for each hazard as required by the EN 62471 [17] and indicated in Table 3.
1. Laser LED
2. Radiometric sensor for the measurements of the
UV range (220–440 nm)
3. Radiometric sensor for the measurements of the
UVA range (700–1300 nm)
4. Additional sensor
5. Radiometric sensor for the measurements of
UVA range (315–440 nm)
6. Radiometric sensor for the measurements of
visible radiation (lux meter)
7. Radiometric sensor of blue light range
(400–600 nm).
8. Predisposition for additional sensor
9. Thermopile sensor for the measurements of the
IRA-IRB range (400–2800 nm)
Figure 1. Delta Ohm HD2402 photoradiometer [25].
4.2. Conditions of the Measurements
The measurements have been carried out in the Lighting and Acoustic Laboratory of the University
of Pisa, where a suitable test chamber was realized, with the following dimensions: width 1.20 m,
length 2.00 m, height 2.10 m (Figure 2). This test chamber was constructed with a frame hanging from
Sustainability 2015, 7 13461
the ceiling on which a black fabric is fixed. The fabric is matt black (reflection factor 0.10) to create an
environment in which the contribution of the reflected light is negligible. The shades of the windows
of the room were completely shut to avoid the influence of the variability of daylight.
Each measurement had a duration of five minutes. Before measuring, the warm up time was
respected (5–15 min, depending on the source type), so the examined sources had time to reach their
regime state. The measurements have been performed at a distance of the source to detectors that
produces an illuminance of 500 lx, as indicated in EN 62471 [17] for lamps intended for general
lighting service (GLS). The measurements have been repeated at distances source to detectors equal to
0.2 m and 1.0 m in order to have a better characterization of the emission of each source [6,18].
4.3. Post-Processing Data
The post-processing of the irradiance measurements has been performed using the software
DeltaLog13 [25], provided together with the instrument. This software permits one to visualize in real
time the results of the measurements and to process the results saved on the instrument. With this
post-processing software, it is possible to obtain the necessary values for the illuminance, the
luminance, the irradiance and the radiance in the wavelength ranges of interest (see Table 1).
Figure 2. Test chamber: external view (left) and internal view (right).
As stated previously, the analysis of this study is focused particularly on the blue light range
(300–700 nm), as this range is the most significant in the case of lamps with phosphor-based LEDs.
These LEDs have generally a large emission in the interval of the Blue Light (as shown in the upper
part of Table 7), and therefore, an accurate evaluation of their emission is important, as in the
classification of the photobiological safety.
For the completeness of the study, the results of the measurements at the source to detector
distances of 0.2 m and 1.0 m are used to verify the risk of exposure according to what was
provided in [5,19].
Sustainability 2015, 7 13462
Concerning the verification of the risks of exposure for the workers, it is important to notice that it
is difficult to meet the conditions of an exposure analogue to those in the test (at a distance of 0.2 m
and 1.0 m with a viewing direction orthogonal to the source). These test conditions result in a more
severe situation than usual working activities. Consequently, obtaining a low risk of exposure in the
test conditions guarantees a low risk of exposure in the working conditions, except for particular and
infrequent cases (e.g., maintenance work on the devices with the light source on).
5. AOR Measurements Results
The following results of the AOR measurements have been divided in groups according to the type
of source (LED tube or fluorescent lamp) and color temperature (3000 K, 4000 K or 6000 K). For each
group and each distance, the limit value, the median and the standard deviation of the radiance are
represented in the blue light range (300–700 nm). Additionally, the obtained results are displayed for
every single LED tube of 4000 K.
5.1. LED Tubes
The results of the measurements of all of the 48 analyzed 8 W LED tubes (16 for each color
temperature) are shown in Table 8. In this table, the following values are indicated: the observation
distance, the angular dimension of the sources (α), the limit value (LBlim) of the radiance and the
median (M) and the standard deviation (SD) of the measured values.
In Table 9, the results of the AOR measurements of each of the sixteen 8 W LED tubes (named: S1,
S2, S3, ......, and S16) for the color temperature of 4000 K are shown in detail. For the evaluation of
the results, it must be observed that for the range 300–700 nm (blue light range), the limit value of the
radiance is 100 W/m2sr (see Section 2).
Table 8. Results of AOR measurements on 8 W LED tubes.
Distance (cm) Tk (K) α (mrad) LB (W/m2sr) 300–700 nm
LBlim M SD
3000 - - 83.31 4.70
4000 99.96 100 96.64 5.37
6000 - - 231.25 2.50
60 (500 lx)
3000 - - 19.62 0.86
4000 65 100 31.19 1.01
6000 - - 48.29 1.25
3000 - - 7.15 0.68
4000 60 100 15.20 0.39
6000 - - 19.87 0.83
Sustainability 2015, 7 13463
Table 9. Results of AOR measurements on 8 W LED tubes for 4000 K.
Distance (cm) Lamps LB (W/m2sr)
300–700 nm Lamps LB (W/m2sr)
300–700 nm Lamps LB (W/m2sr)
300–700 nm Lamps LB (W/m2sr)
300–700 nm
60 (500 lx) 31.61 30.01 31.20 32.61
100 11.27 11.98 12.53 12.25
60 (500 lx) 32.21 31.55 29.98 30.83
100 11.43 11.67 11.31 12.23
60 (500 lx) 29.77 30.17 32.01 31.12
100 12.28 12.14 11.75 11.66
60 (500 lx) 33.63 31.59 30.77 31.17
100 11.89 11.97 12.09 12.58
5.2. Fluorescent Lamps
The results of the measurements of all of the 48 analyzed 18 W fluorescent lamps (16 for each color
temperature) are shown in Table 10. In this table, similar to the LED tubes, are indicated: the
observation distance, the angular dimension of the sources (α), the limit value (LBlim) of the radiance
and the median (M) and the standard deviation (SD) of the measured values.
6. Discussion of the Measurements Results
The results of the measurements of the AOR are discussed below in relation to the photobiological
safety of the lamps with the resulting classification in risk groups. The discussion is completed with
the evaluation of the risk of exposure, according to the provided European and National legislation
(see Section 2).
Table 10. Results of AOR measurements on 18 W fluorescent lamps.
Distance (cm) Tk (K) α (mrad) LB (W/m2sr) 300–700 nm
LBlim M SD
3000 - - 35.00 0.78
4000 99.96 100 123.65 1.39
6000 - - 139.00 1.62
50 (500 lx)
3000 - - 15.59 1.06
4000 61.1 100 32.49 1.53
6000 - - 51.45 2.15
3000 - - 5.80 0.42
4000 60 100 9.75 0.59
6000 - - 14.70 0.99
It can be observed immediately that the distance at which the illuminance of the LED tubes reaches
500 lx is 0.60 m, and for the fluorescent lamps, this is 0.50 m. This can prompt questions, since the
Sustainability 2015, 7 13464
luminous flux of the LED tubes is 900 lm, and for the fluorescent lamps, it is 1350 lm. However, this
can be explained by the fact that the angle of the light beam of the LEDs is 120° and of the fluorescent
lamps 360°, and thus, the beam of the LED tubes is more concentrated.
6.1. Maximum Permissible Exposure Time and Risk Group Classification According to EN 62471
The risk group classification for the analyzed sources has been performed based on the radiance LB
(W/m2sr), which is the radiance emitted in the wavelength interval 300–700 nm (the blue light range).
In Table 11, the risk group (RG) and the tmax for each analyzed lamp are reported (calculated with the
median radiance value; see Tables 8 and 10). From these values, it can be noticed that the LED tube of
6000 K and fluorescent lamps of 4000 K and 6000 K are classified as RG1, with a tmax of 4324 s
(1 h 12 min), 8087 s (2 h 15 min) and 7194 s (2 h), respectively. The other lamps (LED tube 3000 K
and 4000 K, fluorescent lamp 3000 K) are classified as RG0. However, there are two lamps, S8 and S9
(see Table 12), in the group of LED tubes with a color temperature of 4000 K that have an LB value
higher than the limit of 100 W/m2sr and, thus, a tmax lower than 10,000 s (2 h 47 min): 9951 s (2 h
45 min) and 8909 s (2 h 28 min), respectively. Therefore, those two must be classified as RG1; see
also Table 12.
Table 11. Risk group classification of the analyzed lamps at a distance of 0.20 m.
Lamps LB (W/m2sr) tmax (s) RG
LED tubes 3000 K 83.31 >10,000 0
LED tubes 4000 K 96.64 >10,000 0
LED tubes 6000 K 231.25 4324 1
Fluorescent lamps 3000 K 35.00 >10,000 0
Fluorescent lamps 4000 K 123.65 8087 1
Fluorescent lamps 6000 K 139.00 7194 1
Table 12. Risk group classification and maximum permissible exposure time of the LED
tubes 4000 K at a distance of 0.20 m.
Lamps LB (W/m2sr) tmax (s) RG Lamps LB (W/m2sr) tmax (s) RG
S1 85.64 >10,000 0 S9 112.2 8909 1
S2 96.66 >10,000 0 S10 93.74 >10,000 0
S3 98.35 >10,000 0 S11 97.03 >10,000 0
S4 98.34 >10,000 0 S12 96.31 >10,000 0
S5 96.61 >10,000 0 S13 96.01 >10,000 0
S6 84.84 >10,000 0 S14 96.54 >10,000 0
S7 97.70 >10,000 0 S15 88.92 >10,000 0
S8 100.5 9951 1 S16 98.72 >10,000 0
6.2. Risk of Exposure to AOR According to Directive 2006/25/EC
From the results of the AOR measurements on the LED tubes shown in Table 8, it can be noticed
that the only LED tubes with a median radiance value higher than the limit value (LB = 100 W/m2sr)
are those with a color temperature of 6000 K, measured at a distance of 0.20 m. However, the values in
Sustainability 2015, 7 13465
Table 9 show that in the group of LED tubes of 4000 K, there are two lamps, S8 and S9, with a
radiance value higher than the limit: 100.5 W/m2sr and 112.2 W/m2sr, respectively. These results are
not perceptible only out of the median value.
The only fluorescent lamps with a median radiance value higher than the limit value
(LB = 100 W/m2sr) are those with a color temperature of 4000 K and 6000 K, measured at a distance
of 0.20 m.
In Figure 3, the median radiance values for LB, measured at a distance of 0.20 m, of all of the types
of lamps are set side by side. It is clear that the radiance values increase with the color temperature,
and at 4000 K, the radiance of both LED tubes and fluorescent lamps is near the limit value.
Figure 3. Comparison of the radiance LB in the blue light range between the LED tubes
(dark gray) and the fluorescent lamps (light gray) with different color temperatures at a
distance of 0.20 m.
7. Conclusions
In spite of the problem of the risk assessment from exposure to AOR having long been analyzed,
there are always new light sources available on the market, whose photobiological safety must be analyzed.
In this paper, the authors have shown and discussed the results of a measurement survey of AOR
emitted by 8 W LED tubes, which are suitable for the substitution of 18 W fluorescent lamps.
In a wide range of wavelengths (180–3000 nm), the irradiance values measured and the radiance
values calculated have been analyzed as required in the EU Directive 2006/25, and a risk group
according to the EN 62471 has been attributed to each LED tube.
From the measurement results, considering in particular the average values of the radiance, it is
possible to highlight that only the LED tubes with a color temperature of 6000 K are in Risk Group 1
(low risk); on the contrary, all of the other LED tubes are in Risk Group 0 (exempt risk). For the LED
tubes with a color temperature of 6000 K, the maximum permissible exposure time is however still
very high, approximately 4300 s.
Sustainability 2015, 7 13466
By comparison, the AOR emission analysis was also performed for the fluorescent lamps, which
could be replaced with the examined LED tubes. In this case, the fluorescent lamps of 4000 K and
6000 K are classified in Risk Group 1 (low risk) and the fluorescent lamps of 3000 K in Risk Group 0
(exempt risk). The fluorescent lamps of 4000 K and 6000 K have a maximum permissible exposure
times of 8100 s and 7200 s, respectively.
Although not generally harmful to health, the new LED sources, which are continuously inserted
into the market, require an accurate analysis of their emissions and a classification according to the risk
groups defined in the EN 62471 in order to make both installers and users aware of the safe manners of
exposition and about the maximum permissible exposure times to these sources.
The Authors want to thank the Technical Staff of the Department of Energy engineering, Systems,
Territory and Construction (DESTeC) of the University of Pisa, in particular: Mr. Massimo Ciampalini
and Mr. Roberto Manetti for their cooperation during the measurements activity.
Author Contributions
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
1. International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). Guidelines on limits
of exposure to incoherent visible and infrared radiation. Health Phys. 2013, 105, 74–96.
2. International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). Statement general
approach to protection against non-ionizing radiation protection. Health Phys. 2002, 82, 540–548.
3. International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). Statement on
LightEmitting Diodes and laser diodes: implications for hazard assessment. Health Phys. 2000,
78, 744–752.
4. Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR). Health
Effects of Artificial Light. Available online:
opinions_layman/artificial-light/en/about-artificial-light.htm (accessed on 20 April 2015).
5. Directive 2006/25/EC of 5 April 2006 on the Minimum Health and Safety Requirements
Regarding the Exposure of Workers to Risks Arising from Physical Agents (Artificial Optical
Radiation). Available online:
april-2006 (accessed on 20 April 2015).
6. Employment Social Affairs and Inclusion. Available online:
main.jsp?catId=7388&langId=en&pubId=5926&type=2&furtherPubs=no (accessed on 20
April 2015).
Sustainability 2015, 7 13467
7. Leccese, F.; Salvadori, G.; Casini, M.; Bertozzi, M. Analysis and Measurements of Artificial
Optical Radiation (AOR) Emitted by Lighting Sources Found in Offices. Sustainability 2014, 6,
8. Leccese, F.; Corucci, T.; Salvadori, G.; Rocca. M.; Vandelanotte V. Evaluation of Optical
Radiation emissions by a measurement campaign on LED sources for general lighting. IEEE
2015, doi: 10.1109/EEEIC.2015.7165248.
9. Ryckaert, W.R.; Smet, K.A.G.; Roelandts, I.A.A.; van Gils, M.; Hanselaer, P. Linear LED tubes
versus fluorescent lamps: an evaluation. Energy Build. 2012, 49, 429–436.
10. Principi, P; Fioretti R. A comparative life cycle assessment of luminaires for general lighting for
the office—Compact fluorescent (CFL) vs. Lighting Emitting Diode (LED)—A case study.
J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 43, 96–107.
11. Khan, N.; Abas, N. Comparative study of energy saving light sources. Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev. 2011, 15, 296–309.
12. Behar-Coher, F.; Martinsons, C.; Viénot, F., Zissis, G.; Barlier-Salsi, A.; Cesarini, J.P.; Enouf, O.;
Garcia, M.; Picaud, S.; Attia, D. Light-emitting diodes (LED) for domestic lighting: Any risks for
the eye? Prog. Retinal Eye Res. 2011, 30, 239–257.
13. Bellia, L.; Bisegna, F.; Spada, G. Lighting in indoor environments: Visual and non-visual effects
of light sources with different spectral power distributions. Build. Environ. 2011, 46, 1984–1992.
14. Ferlazzo, F.; Piccardi, L.; Burattini, C.; Barbalace, M.; Giannini, A.M.; Bisegna, F. Effects of new
light sources on task switching and mental rotation performance. J. Environ. Psychol. 2014, 39,
15. Bellia, L.; Bisegna, F. From radiometry to circadian photometry: A theoretical approach. Build.
Environ. 2013, 62, 63–68.
16. CELMA Position Paper T5 and T8 Fluorescent Lamp and LED Lamp/Module Adaptors “Retro-fit
Conversion Units” for T8, T10 & T12 Luminaires. Available online: (acessed on 18 May 2015)
17. European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization (CENELEC). EN 62471,
Photobiological Satety of Lamps a'nd Lamps Systems. Bruxelles, 2008. Available on line: (accessed on 15 March 2015).
18. International Electrotechnical Commission. IEC/TR 62778, Application of IEC 62471 for the
Assessment of Blue Light Hazard to Light Sources and Luminaires. Geneva, 2012. Available
online: (accessed on 18 May 2015).
19. Code on Health and Safety Protection of Employees in the Workplaces. Available online: (accessed 30 April 2015).
20. INTERTEK. Photobiological Safety of Lamps and Lamps Systems (IEC/EN 62471) for LEDs,
London 2014. Available online:
0414-web (accessed on 18 May 2015).
21. Leccese, F.; Salvadori, G.; Casini, M.; Bertozzi, M. Lighting of indoor work places: Risk
assessment procedure. WIT Trans. Commun. Technol. 2012, 44, 89–101.
22. Vahl, F.P.; Campos, L.M.S.; Casarotto Filho, N. Sustainability constraints in techno-economic
analysis of general lighting retrofits. Energy Build. 2013, 67, 500–507.
Sustainability 2015, 7 13468
23. LED Lighting Solutions for Industries, Cities & Streets. Available online: (accessed on 18 May 2015).
24. Technical Documentation of the Instrument Illuminance Spectrophotometer CL-500A. Available
online: (accessed on 7 June 2015).
25. Technical Documentation of the Instrument Photoradiometer Datalogger Non-Coherent Optical
Radiation HD2402. Available online: (accessed on 20 April 2015).
26. Schulmeister, K.; Schwaiger, M.; Vees, G.; Schmitzer, Ch. Measurements of Optical Radiation to
Assess the Blue Light Hazard. In Proceedings of the International Laser Safety Conference,
Orlando, CF, USA, 8–11 March 1999; pp. 266–273.
27. Schulmeister, K. Concepts in dosimetry related to laser safety and optical radiation hazard
evaluation. Laser Noncoherent Light Ocul. Eff.: Epidemiol. Prev. Treat. 2001, 4246, 104–116.
© 2015 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license
... The lack of cases with eye damage in the years 2010-2014 may also be due to changes in the reporting of such cases, unfortunately this information is not available in official statistics. It can also be noticed that the number of eye injuries is generally higher when the eye is exposed to a more energetic green or blue laser than in the case of a red laser, for which the eye hazard distance is shorter [29]. ...
... Ratio of the number of incidents with the laser to the total number of flights in the USA and Poland. Own elaboration based on data from[29,30]. ...
Full-text available
Introduction: Although aviation is considered the safest mode of transportation, the annual number of pilots blinded by laser light cannot be understated. An analysis of the available statistics indicates that it is a widespread phenomenon. The stories told by the pilots show the consequences of these incidents, ranging from temporary sight loss to months of vision problems. The article also describes the current penalties for dazzling a pilot by laser light. Moreover, limited research has been conducted on the intensity of laser light of different wavelengths passing through the fairing and through standard glasses used by pilots. Understanding the effects of laser glare on pilots can help reduce adverse events and improve the ability of safety managers to develop safety procedures. Correctly designed transport systems enable effective route planning and order processing. Methods: Two types of easily available laser pointers, drawn at different distances from the aircraft, were analyzed and the intensity of the transmitted light was examined. Results: The results showed that the intensity decreases with distance and that the intensity is too low to harm the eye. In addition, it should not be forgotten that the light propagates in a cone which strengthens the illumination effect in the cabin and causes pilots to lose orientation. Practical application of the findings: They enable the identification of areas around the airport where the use of lasers should be prohibited. Practical Application: The possibility of determining the transition of laser light through the windscreen of the aircraft as well as its intensity under near real-life conditions.
... Characterizing the possible hazards of commercially available LED lamps by analyzing the effects on the eyes of rabbits and monkeys have been presented 2 . Studies have presented the assessment of risks of blue light emitted by the LED lamps 7,8 . The effect of the LED displays on the suppression of melanin has been studied 9 . ...
Full-text available
The use of LED luminaries is increasing day by day and the traditional sources of light are being replaced by this semiconductortechnology. In this study, the interactions of Red, Green and Blue LED light with human-eye are considered to model the temperatureprofile due to the attenuation in the ocular media. The simulation has been done using COMSOL Multiphysics 5.3. The results of thestudy show that Blue LED light causes temperature rise more than the other two colours of light. At the tip of the corneal surface,blue LED light causes the temperature to rise by 0.91⁰C whereas the rise of temperature for green and red LED are 0.85⁰C and0.46⁰C respectively. However, the temperature at the posterior layers of the eye, sclera, choroid and retina undergoes little thermaleffects due to LED light owing to the fact that the heat-flux due blood flow is dominant in that region. Dhaka Univ. J. Sci. 70(1): 34-41, 2022 (January)
... × time of exposure (s); (3) for a light source subtending an angle less than 0.011 radian, the maximum light intensity is 10 −4 W/cm 2 for viewing durations greater than 100 s [156]. In accordance with these recommendations, a study analyzed blue light-related hazards through optical radiation measurements of several light sources [157]-the methodology in this study can be applied within the food industry for assessing the safety of different antimicrobial blue light technologies. ...
Full-text available
Blue light primarily exhibits antimicrobial activity through the activation of endogenous photosensitizers, which leads to the formation of reactive oxygen species that attack components of bacterial cells. Current data show that blue light is innocuous on the skin, but may inflict photo-damage to the eyes. Laboratory measurements indicate that antimicrobial blue light has minimal effects on the sensorial and nutritional properties of foods, although future research using human panels is required to ascertain these findings. Food properties also affect the efficacy of antimicrobial blue light, with attenuation or enhancement of the bactericidal activity observed in the presence of absorptive materials (for example, proteins on meats) or photosensitizers (for example, riboflavin in milk), respectively. Blue light can also be coupled with other treatments, such as polyphenols, essential oils and organic acids. While complete resistance to blue light has not been reported, isolated evidence suggests that bacterial tolerance to blue light may occur over time, especially through gene mutations, although at a slower rate than antibiotic resistance. Future studies can aim at characterizing the amount and type of intracellular photosensitizers across bacterial species and at assessing the oxygen-independent mechanism of blue light-for example, the inactivation of spoilage bacteria in vacuum-packed meats.
... So, the purple LED at 380 to 415 nm, and azure LED at 460 to 480 nm are chosen to get blue vision by light mixing [46]. Some studies figured that azure LED at 460 to 480 nm is sensitive to non-visual effects, such as antidepressant effect, combined with less blue light hazard [23,39,47]. The purple LED contributes little to the blue light hazard because of the absorption by the ocular media in the eye, while the small transmittance of purple light is enough for visual perception, as shown in Fig. 2 [48]. ...
Referring to the standard of International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), purple and azure light emitting diodes (LEDs) are used to obtain the blue vision and avoid the blue light hazard (BLH). In order to get the high color fidelity for mixed white LED, the other monochromatic LEDs are chosen according to the CIE 1931 chromaticity diagram and Grassmann Color Law of additive color mixture. Using the mathematical model of monochromatic LEDs and restrictions of chromaticity coordinates on Planckian blackbody locus, there are only 2 independent variables in the simulation to a certain combination of peak wavelengths. The optimized peak wavelengths of the five monochromatic LEDs are 385, 467, 524, 564, and 632 nm. The blue light hazard efficiency of radiation (BLHER) of the practical mixed white light is always less than 0.06 when its correlated color temperature (CCT) changes from 2500 to 7000 K. The BLHER is as low as the incandescent lamp at 2700 K and is much lower than other conventional lighting sources. The measured color rendering index (CRI), color fidelity score (Rf), and color gamut score (Rg) of the mixed white light are more than 84.9, 80.4, and 98.1, respectively. The circadian action factor (CAF) is measured as from 0.23 to 0.89 in the above CCT ranges. At last, the limitations of this work and some potential solutions are discussed.
Due to the wide range of uses for phosphors in lighting and displays, research on narrow-band luminescent phosphors has recently received significant interest. In this work, Eu2+-activated Sr2BN2Cl phosphor has been successfully synthesized. Sr2BN2Cl:Eu2+ shows a wide absorption band in the UV region and exhibits a narrow-band emission peaking at 450 nm with a full width at half-maximum of ∼60 nm. More significantly, excellent thermal stability was discovered, which showed it still retained 87.4 and 100% of room-temperature intensity at 150 and 250 °C, respectively. The rigid skeleton formed by the co-edge connection of Sr(N, Cl)6 octahedra and defects in the crystal are responsible for the excellent thermal stability of the phosphor. In addition, two types of white-led devices have been prepared to test this phosphor for illumination and display applications. The former shows low correlated color temperature (CCT = 3190 K) and a high color rendering index (CRI = 92.0). The latter shows that using Sr2BN2Cl:Eu2+, β-sialon:Eu2+, and K2SiF6:Mn4+ together for backlit displays can cover 73.3% of the NTSC area, which is comparable to commercial BaMgAl10O17:Eu2+ phosphors. These findings suggest that the blue phosphor Sr2BN2Cl:Eu2+ will be a promising choice for lighting and backlight displays.
Many dental personnel use light-emitting diode (LED) headlamps for hours every day. The potential retinal ‘blue light hazard’ from these white light headlamps is unknown. Methods The spectral radiant powers received from direct and indirect viewing of an electronic tablet, an LED curing light, a halogen headlamp, and 6 brands of LED headlamps were measured using integrating spheres attached to fiberoptic spectroradiometers. The spectral radiant powers were measured both directly and indirectly at a 35 cm distance, and the maximum daily exposure times (tMAX) were calculated. Results The headlamps emitted very different radiant powers, emission spectra, and color temperatures (K). The total powers emitted at zero distance ranged from 47 mW from the halogen headlamp to 378 mW from the most powerful LED headlamp. The color temperatures from the headlamps ranged from 3098 K to 7253 K. The tMAX exposure times in an 8-hour day when the headlamps were viewed directly at a distance of 35 cm were: 810 s from the halogen headlamp, 53 to 220 s from the LED headlamps, and 62 s from the LED curing light. Light from the LED headlamps that was reflected back from a white reference tile 35 cm away did not exceed the maximum permissible exposure time for healthy adults. Using a blue dental dam increased the amount of reflected blue light, but tMAX was still greater than 24 hours. Conclusions White light LED headlamps emit very different spectra, and they all increase the retinal ‘blue light hazard’ compared to a halogen source. When the headlamps were viewed directly at a distance of 35 cm, the ‘blue light hazard’ from some headlamps was greater than from an LED curing light. Depending on the headlamp brand, tMAX could be reached after only 53s. The light from the LED headlamps that was reflected back from a white surface that was 35 cm away did not exceed the maximum permissible ocular exposure limits for healthy adults. Clinical Relevance Reflected white light from dental headlamps does not pose a blue light hazard for healthy adults. Direct viewing may be hazardous, but the hazard can be prevented by using the appropriate blue-light-blocking glasses.
Bi3+-related metal-to-metal charge transfer (MMCT) transition phosphors are expected to become a new class of solid-state luminescent materials due to their unique broadband long-wavelength emission; however, the main obstacle to their application is the thermal quenching effect. In this study, one novel thermal quenching mechanism of Bi3+-MMCT transition luminescence is proposed by introducing electron-transfer potential energy (ΔET). Y0.99V1-xPxO4:0.01Bi3+ (YV1-xPxO4:Bi3+) is used as the model; when the band gap of the activator Bi3+ increases from 3.44 to 3.76 eV and the band gap of the host YV1-xPxO4 widens from 2.75 to 3.16 eV, the electron-transfer potential energy (ΔET) decreases and the thermal quenching activation energy (ΔE) increases, which result in the relative emission intensity increasing from 0.06 to 0.64 at 303-523 K. Guided by density functional calculations, the thermal quenching mechanism of the Bi3+-MMCT state transition luminescence is revealed by the double-band-gap modulation model of the activator ion and the matrix. This study improves the thermal quenching theory of different types of Bi3+ transition luminescence and offers one neo-theory guidance for the contriving and researching of high-quality luminescence materials.
Owing to the broad application scope of phosphors for light and display, the development of narrow-band light-emitting phosphors has recently gained considerable research attention. In this study, a new type of narrow-band blue light-emitting phosphor, Rb2HfSi3O9:Eu2+, with a full width at half maximum (FWHM) of 64 nm was synthesized successfully. Upon the near visible ultraviolet (NUV) light excitation, the internal quantum efficiency of Rb2HfSi3O9:Eu2+ was 68%. It also exhibited good thermal stability, which was higher than that of a commercial blue phosphor (BaMgAl10O17:Eu2+) at 150 °C. The significant photoluminescence properties of Rb2HfSi3O9:Eu2+ were found to be related to its robust crystal structure, which was investigated in detail. The results indicate that Eu2+-activated Rb2HfSi3O9 is a promising phosphor for use in white light-emitting diodes.
Based on the wide application of Bi³⁺-activated phosphors in Near-ultraviolet light-emitting diode (NUV-LED) chips for inducing healthy lighting, it is necessary to reveal the characteristics of high-quality Bi³⁺-activated phosphors. In this study, a high bright yellow light is realized with Bi³⁺-activated Ba2YGaO5, showing an internal quantum efficiency (IQE) of up to 92 %. Under 350 nm excitation, Ba2YGaO5: Bi³⁺ emits a broad yellow light peak at 587 nm with full width at half maximum (FWHM) of 135 nm, while simultaneously exhibiting good thermal stability; these results are superior to those of the commercial yellow phosphor Y3Al5O12: Ce³⁺. Moreover, significant cathodoluminescence properties are observed with Ba2YGaO5: Bi³⁺. These excellent luminescence properties are demonstrated to result from the D-level state described as the Metal-to-metal charge transfer (MMCT) state. Combined with the crystal and electronic structure of Ba2YGaO5, the origin of the D-level state along with its luminous mechanism is investigated in detail in this work, which may pave the way for developing more high-quality Bi³⁺-activated phosphors for use in NUV-LED chip-induced healthy lighting.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
The risk assessment from exposure to artificial optical radiation (AOR) has long been analyzed. Minor attention has been paid to incoherent sources used in offices (e.g. lamps, LED for lighting). The LED is becoming one of the most widespread light sources. Due to spectral characteristics of white LEDs some concerns have been raised regarding their safety for human health. The minimum requirements to protect workers against risks to health and safety that may result from exposure to the AOR are specified in the EU Directive 2006/25. In this paper the Authors discuss the results of a measurement survey of AOR emitted by LEDs suitable for substitution of lamps used in lighting. These results have been compared with the results of similar measurements on fluorescent tubes. The risk analysis was thorough in the range 300÷700nm (Blue Light Hazard) to define the Risk Group of LED in function of the exposure time as indicated in the EN 62471 on photobiological safety of lamps.
Full-text available
In this paper the authors describe in detail the exposure limit values concerning artificial optical radiation due to the main incoherent light sources found in offices. In particular, for some examples of significant sources chosen as case studies, the authors discuss the results of in situ measurements obtained using a broadband photoradiometer. By comparing the measurement results with the exposure limit values specified in the European legislation, the maximum exposure times for workers have been evaluated. From the analysis of the results it can be concluded that the lighting sources typically present in indoor workplaces under usual conditions of use, do not pose a health risks for workers. However, in the case of accidental exposure during work activities or exposure linked to maintenance activities (short exposure distance), values in excess of the limit values have been observed, with decidedly short maximum exposure times.
Full-text available
Techno-economic performance comparison of compact fluorescent lamps (CFL) with light emitting diodes (LED), electrode less fluorescent lamps (EEFL), fluorescent tubes, incandescent bulbs, photovoltaic (PV) and fiber optic lighting systems was carried out in view of worsening power and energy crisis in Pakistan. Literature survey showed 23 W CFL, 21 W EEFL, 18 W fluorescent tube or 15 W LED lamps emit almost same quantity of luminous flux (lumens) as a standard 100 W incandescent lamp. All inclusive, operational costs of LED lamps were found 1.21, 1.62. 1.69, 6.46, 19.90 and 21.04 times lesser than fluorescent tubes, CFL, EEFL, incandescent bulbs, fiber optic solar lighting and PV systems, respectively. However, tubes, LED, CFL and EEFL lamps worsen electric power quality of low voltage networks due to high current harmonic distortions (THD) and poor power factors (PF). Fluorescent lamps emit UV and pollute environment by mercury and phosphors when broken or at end of their life cycle. Energy consumption, bio-effects, and environmental concerns prefer LED lamps over phosphor based lamps but power quality considerations prefer EEFL. CFL and EEFL manufacturers claim operating temperatures in range of −20 °C < TCFL < 60 °C and −30 °C < TCFL < 50 °C but CFL frequently damage in wet and damp locations. Costs of low THD and high PF CFL, EEFL and LED lamps may be five to ten times higher that high THD and low PF lamps. Choice of a lamp depends upon its current THD, PF, life span, energy consumption, efficiency, efficacy, color rendering index (CRI) and associated physical effects. This work proposes manufacturing and user level innovations to get rid of low PF problems. Keeping in view downside of phosphor based lamps our research concludes widespread adoption of LED lamps. Government and commercial buildings may consider full spectrum hybrid thermal photovoltaic and solar fiber optic illumination systems.
Guidelines for exposure to visible and infrared radiation were first proposed by ICNIRP in 1997. Related guidelines on limits of exposure to ultraviolet radiation (UVR) and laser radiation have been published. This document presents a revision of the guidelines for broadband incoherent radiation.
Several governmental programs seek the adoption of measures to promote energy efficiency through the substitution of old incadescent light bulbs by CFLs (compact fluorescent lamps). However, fluores- cent lamps emit UV, pollute the environment with mercury and rare earths if disposed recklessly. These also present higher performance degradation levels, lower efficiency and shorter lifespans if compared to LEDs (light emitting diodes), which require higher initial investment. We advocate that retrofits shall have a broader scope, pursuing beyond the achievement of short term efficiency and profitability, but the long term sustainability. Thus, selecting which technology to use in a retrofit requires thorough feasibility study comparing alternatives. We propose a framework using equivalent annual costs (EAC) as a met- ric for comparing substitute technologies in lighting retrofits, considering sustainability constraints as reverse logistics, waste management, performance degradation, lifespan, luminous efficiency and energy prices. The results of a simulated general lighting retrofit comparing LED tubes, CFLs and fluorescent tubu- lars demonstrate CFL as the highest annual cost and toxic waste disposal in most scenarios, fluorescent tubular as the most economic alternative, but if their lifespans shorten, LED prices drop or achieve higher efficiency LED becomes the most sustainable and economically attractive alternative.
The paper presents a life cycle assessment of two lighting technologies based on compact fluorescent (CFL) and Light Emitting Diode (LED) luminaires for the general lighting of the office. The life cycle assessments are carried out considering all the parts of the luminaire: lamp, housing and ballast (or driver for LED). The environmental impact is evaluated considering the whole life cycle of the devices, from manufacturing (including the extraction of raw materials), to use and disposal. An experimental test was conducted to verify the illuminance produced by the two systems. Alternative end-of-life and electricity production scenarios were assessed and compared in order to evaluate possible variations deriving from these changes. The life cycle assessments show that the LED luminaire allows the environmental impacts to be significantly reduced (reduction of 41–50% of greenhouse gas emission and cumulative energy demand), mainly due to high energy efficiency in the use stage. The present paper makes three original contributions: 1) it presents a life cycle assessment (LCA) of a last generation kind of LED and luminaire built for this technology and compares it with a similar CFL luminaire; 2) it presents one of the first LCAs for lighting luminaires made with International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) 2011 Midpoint; 3) it shows a comparison evaluated with two functional units: 1 lm per 50,000 h and 1 lux per 50,000 h.
Recent studies investigated the non-visual effects of light on cognitive processes and mood regulation and showed that light exposure has positive effects on circadian rhythms and alertness, vigilance and mood states and also increases work productivity. However, the effects of light exposure on visuo-spatial abilities and executive functions have only been partially explored. In this study, we aimed to investigate the effects of new LED light sources on healthy participants’ performance on some components of visuo-spatial abilities and executive functions in a specifically-designed and fully-controlled luminous environment. Participants had to mentally rotate 3-D objects and perform a switching task in which inhibitory processes and switch cost were measured. Results suggest that cooler light exposure improves the cognitive system’s capacity to deal with multiple task representations, which might remain active simultaneously without interfering with each other, and visuo-spatial ability, producing fewer errors in the mental rotation of 3-D objects.
Many manufacturers and distributors of LED tubes claim energy savings of 50% and more when replacing T8 fluorescent tubes with linear LED replacement lamps. Several distributors even pretend that the same visual comfort will be maintained after such a replacement. Optical and electrical parameters of twelve commercially available linear LED tubes have been determined and the evolution in time of these parameters has been monitored. Additionally, a case study is presented in which the fluorescent lamps in a small office room were replaced by LED linear replacement lamps in order to compare the illuminance distribution on the work plane, the glare perception and the overall visual appreciation. According to this study, it is clear that a one-to-one replacement of a classical fluorescent tube by a currently available linear LED lamp might have severe consequences on the lighting quality.