Updated Info for CF UVB Lamps

Howdy All,

I'm also a member of another site; The UVB Meter Owners Group, and this post came in this morning. It contains updated info as well as some summary info on the discussions revolving around Compact Fluorescent UVB lamps as well as some of the rather notorious linear tubes. It is by no means a complete report yet but since there are so many posts regarding UVB sources, I thought it would be useful to share it. The post is by Dr. Frances Baines who is a major contributor to the http://www.uvguide.co.uk/ site. Much of what is in her post will turn into data on the UK site when this round of testing is complete.

http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/UVB_Meter_Owners/message/6685

I agree with Dr. Baines that not all CF UVB units are bad. What I still think is that for the average chameleon keeper and especially true for the very new keeper, the likelihood of getting a CF UVB source that is actually beneficial has odds that are poor enough that it is still safer to stay with the Reptisun 5.0 linear tube for now mainly because of its acceptable, long-term track record. They have good spectral content (nice UVB spectrum with no non-terrestrial output), acceptable uW/cm2 levels (~20uW/cm2 at ~12"), last a long time (~1yr), come in a variety of lengths (15"-48"), and can be found as cheap as $14 to $20 (usually LLLReptile) with a little shopping .

Excellent Info Dave, thank you very much.

Thanks Dave; a very interesting write-up.

Yes, thank you Dave.

The author makes a really good point about the 2 best methods we use to provide UVB. Making a very good case for not using coils even though they may be safe.

dave if you dont mind telling what do you use for lighting?

Awesome read. The part about basking behaviors was particularly informing.

Thx for the info Dave

hailo said:

dave if you dont mind telling what do you use for lighting?

Click to expand...

Howdy Anthony,

Until I find something that's been tested with chameleons and found to be better, I'm still using my trusted 18" Retpisun 5.0 linear tubes. Any length that works with your setup should work well too. I like seeing the setups with the 48" tubes strung across multiple enclosures. Either single or double tubes with our without both being Reptisuns. I think a quality "plant light"; for our plants, as the 2nd tube in a double fixture seems to be a good thing to .

I use Philips Halogena 60w Halogen Floods (Home Depot) for basking.

My chameleons also get an important day or two of sunshine on the weekends.

EDIT: I'm hopeful that we'll eventually have a good solution in the way of reptile specific metal halides. Bob at ReptileUV is working towards that goal and may already be there for some applications. I'm waiting for more data before I take the plunge . They may eventually offer the best alternative to the Reptisuns providing that the combination of UVB and heat can be properly understood with regard to placement/positioning etc.

I think a quality "plant light"; for our plants, as the 2nd tube in a double fixture seems to be a good thing to .

Click to expand...

I want to point out that just any "plant" bulb won't do. You need to look at the info of the bulb and get one in the 5500 to 6700 Kelvin range. Aquarium plant bulbs are usually the best option here. There's a reason why so many people here have to rotate plants with ones they have outside. Proper lighting should prevent this from having to be done.

for the deepest penitration of viable light(for plants that are the bottom) would the 10.0 be better. does the extra do any harm to the chams themselves

UV has nothing to do with photosynthesis and little to nothing to do with the over all health of the plant so a 10.0 isn't needed.

Updates to the Updates

Howdy,

Dr. Baines, of UV Guide UK fame (http://www.uvguide.co.uk), has recently received a number of the newly released/re-formulated ZooMed Reptisun CFLs. She will be developing a full report on their UV output characteristics in the near future. The main characteristic that is in question is whether or not they still produce any spectral content that is biologically overactive and, even more important, any UV that is in the non-terrestrial region of the spectrum. Non-terrestrial content are the portions of our sunlight's spectrum that are normally adsorbed in the atmosphere and never reach us. The UVB portion of the spectrum is approximately 290nm-315nm (nm=nanometer). 297nm is the sweet spot for pre-vitamin D3 production. Different biological activities occur above and below 297nm. Too much UVB above 297nm will have certain effects on D3 production and too much below has other effects. Below around 290nm is where the overly biologically active components of the spectrum are present. “More biologically active” is a friendly way of saying that there is a potential for “cellular damage”. When you leave the UVB region and enter into UVC (~180nm-280nm) then you are talking about the ability to actually sterilize (kill) biological material.

So how do you know that you are getting one of the re-formulated ZooMed Reptisun CFLs? Here’s a quote from a post by Dr. Baines:

“The new lamps can be distinguished from the old ones by the new instruction leaflet inside the box. Shane (from ZooMed) has sent me samples of these (as pdf files.) The new information sheet has pictures of the Deep Dome Lamp Fixture. These do not appear on older leaflets. The USA ones also have the date 03-09 printed inside the ZooMed address label - at the very end of the sheet, in the right-hand corner. The European ones don't have this date, but look at the Application Chart in the English section...
The first entry is: -Zoo Med Deep Dome Lamp Fixture. -Terrarium with screen cover. During burn-in 28-41cm (11-16")
This is different from the older version, which gave a considerably greater distance: During burn-in 41-46 cm (16-18")."

Here are the links to Dr. Baines’ posts on the UVB_Meter_Owners group site from 09/11/09:

http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/UVB_Meter_Owners/message/6697
http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/UVB_Meter_Owners/message/6698

As of 09/19/09, ZooMed's website still appears to have their old 10.0 CFL pdf posted. Note the date of 12-06 in the bottom right-hand corner. I'm sure this is a simple oversight and will be fixed soon . http://www.zoomed.com/Library/ProductDBFiles/reptisun10cf.pdf



A couple of my thoughts about CFLs:
The two main variables regarding the safe use of UVB sources are the wavelengths (nanometers) and the energy levels (uW/cm2) produced at those wavelengths.

Having any non-terrestrial UV content is a very bad situation and it has to be completely avoided.

If a CFL is improperly positioned (too close), a chameleon will be overexposed to even the “safe” wavelengths of the UVB spectrum. Remember that the “C” in CFL is for COMPACT. Its lightwave energy output is “compacted”. This can lead to accidental overexposure if a chameleon gets too close to the CFL much more so than with a normal linear tube. One could speculate that if a CFL has 4 spirals or 4 folds then it may be outputting 4x the energy density at any given distance. This means that you need to increase the distance by some factor (possibly following the square law) to have only safe levels of UVB be accessible. (Gotta love those Solarmeter 6.2 units for setting the right distance!)

From the standpoint of 5.0 vs. 10.0, compact or linear, we often read about 10.0 having “better reach” in tall enclosures. That “better reach” comes from the simple fact that a 10.0 source’s initial energy level leaving the tube’s surface is higher than with a 5.0 and, if it is a CFL, even more so. With a 10.0 source, you need to pay careful attention to the close-in levels to be sure that you are not overexposing at the basking spot while trying to reach deeper into the enclosure. My suggestion is to get your basking spot UVB level set right and let the deeper enclosure levels “fall where they may” producing whatever UVB gradient that is does. It's more important to limit the maximum UVB exposure to safe levels more so than it is to increase the "reach" into the deeper areas of the enclosure.

as always an incredibly informative and educational post by dw, i wasnt aware there were spectral with the cfls issues as well, i have never given the issue much consideration as i have always summarily dissmissed cfls based soley on the concentrated energy levels and i would continue to be wary of them based on that alone. however kudos to zoo med for for at least attempting to improve the issue (regarless of their motivation for doing so) hopefully this will begin to show as a decline in chams displaying health issues due to adverse lighting conditions, for me personally i will continue to favor lineals regarless of the new cfl spectral content . i do however have a couple of questions, aimed primarily towards dw but of course all are welcome to chime in. first, if the ideal spectral target is in the 297nm range then why is advertized targeted range in the 310 nm range (once again i do not have a light meter so i really have no idea of the range of any given bulb) ? second , is more of an observation that readings taken (at least by zoo med or their agents ) are usually given in terms of bare bulb readings, (or at least bulb in reflector readings) and often do not take into account the reduced levels associated with the usual scenario of being shined through a screen. the levels of energy lost in such a situation can be significant (depending on the screen involved), but are easily caculated based on percentage value, if the physical charachteristics of the screen are known , most major screen manufacturers / distributors provide some sort of notation as to their light transmission (loss) charachteristics of any given screen (which of course is due to the spacing / wire/fabric/ filament size) but its important to note that all screens reduce the energy recieved by a noticable pecentage and some screens, say in the case of fabric pet screens reduce the energy recieved by a coinsiderable amount . some of the fabric pet screens show a loss in excess of 30% or more because of the larger filament size/smaller spacing involved , so i guess the basis of my question is what would be the ideal energy levels recieved (assuming the spectral levels are within the desired range) also a third question , not being a light meter owner i am not that familiar with their readings and i assume that readings in terms of uW/cm2 means unit watts divided by cubic meter squared or is it unit watts divided by centimeter squared or do i have it wrong altogether (entirely possible and not all that uncommon for me , as i tend to make alot lot of bold and frequently innacurate assumptions)

Howdy John,

Thank for the thought-provoking questions .

xanthoman said:

...if the ideal spectral target is in the 297nm range then why is advertised targeted range in the 310 nm range...?

Click to expand...

I don't now why some mfgrs picked 310nm for their advertising . The actual wavelengths that are involved with vitamin D3 activity are quite varied even though there is a peak at 297nm. They've got some great info on which wavelengths are actually involved in regulation and production of D3 and all of its related bio-chemistry in this particular section of the UV Guide UK: http://www.uvguide.co.uk/vitdpathway.htm. Figure 1 has nice animation showing the effects of various portions of the UVB spectrum and what is produced and regulated by exposure to it.

xanthoman said:

...readings taken (at least by zoo med or their agents ) are usually given in terms of bare bulb readings, (or at least bulb in reflector readings) and often do not take into account the reduced levels associated with the usual scenario of being shined through a screen. the levels of energy lost in such a situation can be significant ...what would be the ideal energy levels recieved (assuming the spectral levels are within the desired range)...

Click to expand...

A lot of "safe/effective" UVB uW levels get tossed around in various sites and articles. In Dodolah's chameleon blog at http://chamworld.blogspot.com/ he interviewed Dr. Gary Ferguson and asked questions regarding UVB levels. Dr. Ferguson mentions 10-50uW/cm2 and I kinda latched onto those artificially produced levels of UVB for my chameleons. I usually aim for not less than about 20uW/cm2 at the basking spot and let it go as high as 50uW/cm2.

xanthoman said:

...i assume that readings in terms of uW/cm2 means unit watts divided by cubic meter squared or is it unit watts divided by centimeter squared...

Click to expand...

Yep. uW/cm2 is "microwatts per square centimeter". Sunlight in general is often expressed in W/m2 (watts per square meter). Here's an example of sunlight energy expressed in W/m2: http://racerocks.com/racerock/abiotic/solar/solar.htm

Update on ZooMed 10.0 & 5.0 CFL Preliminary Testing Results

Howdy,

Here is a link to another post by Dr. Baines. Her preliminary results show that the newly re-formulated ZooMed 10.0 and 5.0 Compact Fluorescent Lights are now safe to use. There is no longer any unsafe spectral content from either of these models. Her testing will continue as she gathers the long-term (many months of testing) data on their output level decay.

The direct link goes to her post on the UVB_Meter_Owners group site. You are welcome to join the group, at which point you'll also be able to access the recently archived data files containing her preliminary results. Dr. Baines and the rest of the UVB Guide UK team will be updating their site with these new results but it may be some time before that is competed.

Dr. Baines' post: http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/UVB_Meter_Owners/message/6711

Note: If you are planning on buying one of these new models, be sure that you understand how to tell the difference between the new ones and the old ones before you buy . Review the previous post that talks about documentation and dates codes. (https://www.chameleonforums.com/updated-info-cf-uvb-29318/#post281790)

Just as important, be sure that you understand the instructions on height and positioning to be sure that you don't over-do-it with "good" UVB .