I can find no justification for claims of "50% More Attraction!"
1) To begin with, the assumption (made in the advertising literature for the Quantum BL lamp) that a "standard Sylvania® 350BL/ECO lamp" exists is false. There are two different lamps, one made in North America and another made in Europe, labeled exactly the same except for where it is manufactured. Comparing their lamp only to the inferior European version seems to have been a mistake.
2) Secondly, the energy a lamp emits at 365nm is relatively unimportant (theoretically about 4 times less important) since the peak response of the housefly is around 342nm. Superimpose the fly response curve* over their lamp comparison graphs, and, it now appears obvious that the "standard 350BL/ECO" curve (shown in the ad) is superior to that of their new private labeled lamp.
3) Note that the fly response curve* (completely omitted from the Quantum BL lamp ad) can be superimposed over lamp curves in various ways according to how important you think fly response is, relative to lamp energy output? A standard response to this point has been to ramble on about different parts of the fly's eye that respond to different wavelengths (which is irrelevant). The response curve I am referring to is that which graphs what the whole fly responds to, not what different parts of its' eye respond to.
4) The Quantum BL lamp graph looks very similar to old Philip's strontium floral borate, europium activated phosphor. That lamp has long been inferior to the Osram Sylvania® phosphor for catching flies. You might take a look at the article I wrote on the subject in a 1980 issue of our distributor newsletter, THE FLYER.
5) There are more important considerations than graphs. Meters are not flies. I began this discussion that way only because that's the way the Quantum BL lamp was introduced. I prefer real experience and experiments with real flies done with sincere scientific aims.
6) Early tests suggest the manufacturer has increased both the intensity of output over their own old lamp. It appears improved (when compared to old European lamps), but not up to the claims made for it. When those claims are backed with research, the lamp will deserve serious scientific consideration. Another brand, that upon initial metering, graphs very similar, if not the exactly the same as the Quantum BL lamp. Surprise! Philips® has an apparently improved version of their BL lamp, named ACTINIC BL. Philips® was first ?
7) When claims are exaggerated, does it bode well for the future of the industry? How will we end up with a field full of ILT professionals, if the field is flooded year after year with exaggerated sales talk and misinformation? Where will the science come from that is absolutely bedrock necessary for flying pest management to be practiced in a truly professional manner?
Early test results, here at Gilbert®, with Musca Domestica slightly favored the Quantum over the Sylvania®, but the old champ, North American Sylvania, caught and passed Quantum over time. Our choice remains the American made Osram Sylvania® F40/350BL/ECO Lamp. We are also looking into Philips® ACTINIC lamps Further tests are underway here at Gilbert®.
Last update (11/1/13)