Choosing the right validated UV system can be a daunting task for end-users due to the existence of various validation protocols. Decision-makers in corporations and regulatory bodies must fully comprehend the differences between these protocols to ensure end-users make informed decisions on the appropriate UV system for their requirements. Comprehensive research is essential for end-users to understand the various validation protocols. Ignoring, misinterpreting, or undervaluing the differences between the protocols can result in selecting the wrong system for their specific needs.
End-users may question the difference between UV systems that are “validated.” The difference becomes apparent when comparing the NSF/ANSI 55 Class A validation guidelines to the USEPA UVDGM validation guidelines. Although a system receives validation under either protocol or both, they are not interchangeable. The USEPA validation process considers crucial elements that the NSF validation process does not, such as lamp fouling and aging. The USEPA validation ensures that the system delivers the required dose, even in under-aged and contaminated lamp conditions.
On the other hand, the NSF procedure does not consider these factors. Additionally, the USEPA protocol requires the inclusion of a safety factor to account for biases, variability, and experimental uncertainty. On the other hand, the NSF/ANSI 55 Class A validation process does not require such an element.
Due to the abovementioned differences in these validation procedures, many businesses and governmental UV guidelines require USEPA-authorized UV equipment. The standard view is that an NSF-validated system delivers fewer data and tracking capabilities than a USEPA-validated system. In particular, a USEPA-approved system and an NSF-validated system may function at different levels of quality since the former requires fewer safety factors during the validation process. The performance differential is over 30% on average.
The USEPA and NSF protocols both require the use of a UV intensity sensor, yet the NSF protocol does not specify that the intensity must be reported or recorded. Instead, an alarm is issued if the UV dose drops below 40mJ/cm2. Additionally, the NSF protocol does not include a ‘UV lamp status’ indicator as required by the USEPA UVDGM. It also does not directly account for changes in the UV transmittance of the water or for the inherent uncertainty of the UV intensity sensors. Finally, the NSF protocol does not consider how the UV dose may vary with reductions in flow due to different velocity profiles of the water going through the reactor; it only considers the maximum flow rate.
The NSF protocol is an important tool in the evaluation of UV systems, but it has its limitations. It does not account for lamp or critical component failures and relies solely on dose measurements to indicate a problem. In addition, it does not factor in the inlet and outlet piping configuration of the UV chamber, which can have a major effect on system performance, leading to a 30% reduction in effectiveness due to poor hydraulics. To get the most accurate evaluation, additional tests should be performed to ensure the system functions as intended.
The National Sanitation Foundation (NSF) protocol does not consider lamp or critical component failures, relying instead solely on dose measurement to detect issues. It also does not directly address the inlet and outlet piping configuration surrounding the UV chamber, which can significantly affect performance and reduce UV dosage by up to 30% in the event of poor hydraulics. These issues should be considered when designing and maintaining UV disinfection systems to ensure proper operation and optimal results.
The USEPA and NSF protocols both require a UV intensity sensor to monitor UV doses. While the NSF protocol requires an alarm be issued if the UV dose drops below 40mJ/cm2, it does not obligatorily require that the intensity be reported or recorded, nor does it have a `UV lamp status’ indicator (a requirement of the USEPA UVDGM). Furthermore, the NSF protocol does not directly account for changes in the UV transmittance of the water, lamp, or critical component failures, the different velocity profiles of the water going through the reactor, or the inlet and outlet piping configuration surrounding the UV chamber. These all have the potential to affect the performance of the reactor, with the inlet and outlet piping configuration potentially reducing performance by up to 30%. It is important to account for these variables and use appropriate indicators to ensure accuracy.
End-users must understand the minor variations between multiple “validations” to make informed decisions. The UVDGM certification procedure and requirements of the USEPA are significantly more stringent than the NSF/ANSI 55 Class A criteria. As the end-users will discover, a system with an NSF validation score may perform much worse than one with a USEPA validation score. If the NSF certification safety criteria are met, dosage variations will not exist. The NSF protocol’s disregard for the intake and outlet pipework around the UV system may result in an extra 30% dosage difference, depending on the inlet/outlet hydraulics.
To ensure the safety and purity of their products, food, and beverage manufacturers understand the importance of using validated UV disinfection systems that meet established standards. However, it’s essential to note that not all validated methods are interchangeable, even if they meet different requirements.
To make informed decisions about the appropriate UV system for their needs, decision-makers in corporations and regulatory bodies must understand the differences between the various validation protocols. End-users, in turn, must conduct comprehensive research to ensure that they select the right system for their specific requirements.
High standards of uniformity and safety are paramount in the food and beverage industries. Many businesses, from dairies to bottled water and carbonated beverage facilities, rely on approved UV systems to verify the purity and safety of their products, whether influenced by corporate policies or regulatory bodies like the FDA.
Share:
Nuvonic is the innovator in sustainable UV technology for water, air and surface disinfection on a global scale. Our mission is to support nature’s purity with science by protecting people and processes from harmful contamination.
No spam – just our latest innovations, research, and product applications.
We only send you what you need to know, when you need to know it, and of course you can end it at any time.
We hope you won’t of course!
