SEARCH · Search NASA
Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
This poster, part of the IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists Conference in June 2023, provides an overview of recent progress in radiometric standards and best practices.
This poster provides an overview of progress in international radiometric standards for solar energy applications.
International standards and best practices for solar resource assessments provide assurance for traceable measurements associated with a low uncertainty. This benefits the solar energy industry by reducing the investment risks through heightened confidence in the solar resource information. NREL, in collaboration with international organizations, such as subcommittees G03 of ASTM (Radiometry) and TC180/SC1 of ISO (Climate measurement and data), recently revised some standards that are widely used by the solar industry. These include radiometric standards that assist in (i) maintaining calibration traceability; (ii) uncertainty analysis; (iii) measurement quality assurance, and (iv) establishing reference spectral irradiance distributions. The latter are widely used by the solar community to evaluate the actual absorptance, reflectance, and transmittance of solar energy materials, or the performance of solar energy devices and systems, relative to standard conditions. This paper provides a summary of the recent changes brought to these standards as a way to better support the solar energy industry.
Accurate measurements of direct normal (beam) solar irradiance from pyrheliometers are important for developing and deploying solar energy conversion systems, for improving our understanding of Earth's energy budget for climate change studies, and for other science and technology applications involving solar flux. Providing these measurements places many demands on the quality system used by the operator of commercially available radiometers. Maintaining accurate radiometer calibrations that are traceable to an international standard is the first step in producing research-quality solar irradiance measurements. In 1977, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) established the World Radiometric Reference (WRR) as the international standard for the measurement of direct normal solar irradiance (Frohlich 1991). The WRR is an internationally recognized, detector-based measurement standard determined by the collective performance of six electrically self-calibrated absolute cavity radiometers comprising the World Standard Group (WSG). Various countries, including the United States, have contributed these specialized radiometers to the Physikalisch-Meteorologisches Observatorium Davos - World Radiation Center (PMOD/WRC) to establish the WSG. As with all measurement systems, Absolute Cavity Radiometers (ACR) are subject to performance changes over time. Therefore, PMOD/WRC in Davos, Switzerland, hosts an quinquennial International Pyrheliometer Comparison (IPC) event for transferring the WRR to participating radiometers by invitation. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) has represented the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) in each IPC since 1980. And NREL has developed and maintained a select group of absolute cavity radiometers with direct calibration traceability to the WRR, and it uses these reference instruments to calibrate pyrheliometers and pyranometers using the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 17025-accredited Broadband Outdoor Radiometer Calibration (BORCAL) process (Reda et al. 2008). To fill the gap between each IPC, NREL pyrheliometer comparisons (NPCs) are held annually at the Solar Radiation Research Laboratory (SRRL) in Golden, Colorado. Open to all ACR owners and operators, each NPC provides an opportunity to determine the unique WRR transfer factor (WRR-TF) for each participating pyrheliometer. By adjusting all subsequent pyrheliometer measurements by the appropriate WRR-TF, the solar irradiance data are traceable to the WRR.
The Infrared Cloud Imager Instrument Intercomparison was a guest instrument deployment by NWB Sensors to the U.S. Department of Energy’s Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) User Facility observatory on the Southern Great Plains (SGP) between May 18 and December 12, 2023. NWB Sensors is a company that has developed a commercially available infrared cloud imager (ICI). The ICI provides radiometrically calibrated, full-sky images of the downwelling infrared radiance in the 7.3-14 µm band. In addition, it provides cloud radiance as the residual between the observed radiance and the modeled cloud-free radiance as well as derived cloud products. The instrument is used in applications that require consistent detection of clouds across day and night. For more information, consult the instrument's webpage. The primary goal of the deployment was to validate the radiometric accuracy of the ICI. The ICI uses a proprietary calibration method to convert the raw data from its infrared camera into downwelling radiance. Unlike similar instruments, the system does not have an onboard blackbody calibration standard. Instead, NWB Sensors characterizes each ICI camera individually in an environmental chamber while looking at a blackbody standard. The resulting (proprietary) calibration is used operationally in the instrument and has been demonstrated to be stable over long periods. To validate the radiometric products from the ICI, an intercomparison between the ICI data products and those from ARM’s atmospheric emitted radiance interferometer (AERI) was made. The AERI is a best-in-class instrument for measuring downwelling infrared radiance (Gero et al. 2025). A weighted integration of the AERI’s spectral radiances across the ICI’s camera response was performed. The resulting radiance (herein called the AERI radiance) was directly compared to the zenith radiance concurrently observed by the ICI. The results of these comparisons are reported in the next section of this report.
This report analyzes the independently tested performance of eight germicidal ultraviolet (GUV) upper-room luminaires marketed for use in occupied spaces and purchased between March and June 2023. This type of product is mounted to upper walls or ceilings to treat air in the portion of the room above occupants; this allows for safe use of the room when the device is operating, but requires sufficient air mixing between upper and lower portions of the room. Three of the luminaires used UV-emitting LEDs, and the remaining five luminaires used low-pressure mercury (LPM) lamps. Product testing covered radiometric and electrical performance for each luminaire. Initial performance was measured for all eight products, and four were additionally measured after 100 h and 500 h of operation. Measured performance data allowed for comparison against manufacturer or vendor claims if the tested products included such claims. Some products had no performance data available for a given quantity (e.g., UV-C output power), and only four of the eight luminaires had radiant intensity distribution data files in a standard format (e.g., IES LM-63) available for download from product websites. The lack of publicly available performance data makes it difficult for potential buyers and specifiers to identify suitable products and design GUV systems for their specific applications. When products had performance claims, they were sometimes contradictory (e.g., unexplained differences between multiple power values) or ambiguous (e.g., measurement units conflict with quantity, unclear whether luminaire power or lamp power, unclear whether UV output power or UV-C output power). Three of the eight tested luminaires had claimed output power (i.e., radiant flux) values that exceeded measured values by more than an order of magnitude. There was substantial variation in UV-C radiant efficiency, with a measured range of 0.3–1.9% for LED and 0.4–2.1% for LPM, as shown in Figure 1. For example, the LPM luminaire with 0.4% radiant efficiency would need 5 times the amount of electrical energy used by the LPM luminaire with 2.1% radiant efficiency to produce the same amount of UV-C output power. LPM luminaires that had parabolic reflectors aligned with inclined louvers exhibited substantially higher UV-C radiant efficiency than tested luminaires with other designs, potentially cutting energy use by 75%. These results indicate a substantial opportunity for more energy efficient LPM luminaire designs, while demonstrating that UV LED luminaires can offer comparable UV-C radiant efficiency in this application. This may seem surprising, given that LED emitters have lower UV-C radiant efficiency than LPM lamps, but the efficiency-throttling louvers that are generally required for LPM luminaires typically are not needed for LEDs thanks to their directionality. However, lateral beam angles (which describe beam width as viewed from above) were 41–83° for LED luminaires versus 89–110° for LPM luminaires. More luminaires may be required if their lateral beam angles are relatively small, and coverage may be poor if UV-C radiant intensity distribution (i.e., beam shape) is not considered when designing systems.
This report analyzes the independently tested performance of eight germicidal ultraviolet (GUV) upper-room luminaires marketed for use in occupied spaces and purchased between March and June 2023. Three of the luminaires used UV-emitting LEDs, and the remaining five luminaires used low-pressure mercury (LPM) lamps. Product testing covered radiometric and electrical performance for each luminaire. Initial performance was measured for all eight products, and four were additionally measured after 100 h and 500 h of operation. Measured performance was compared against manufacturer or vendor claims. Specifiers and buyers of GUV products need accurate performance claims and data to deploy GUV technology safely and effectively. As with the CALiPER GUV Round 1 report, this CALiPER GUV Round 2 report demonstrates that manufacturers and vendors need significant education and training to accurately test and report the performance of their GUV products. Further development of industry consensus standards and guidelines may address testing limitations and improve test methods, product performance, and the accuracy of performance claims.
This report analyzes the independently tested performance of 13 germicidal ultraviolet (GUV) products purchased between February and July 2022. The products were of three different types: • Seven portable, consumer-oriented GUV towers designed to be placed on the floor or a desk of an unoccupied room to disinfect air and surfaces. Five of these products used LED sources and two products used low-pressure mercury (LPM) sources. • One non-portable GUV whole-room luminaire designed to be installed on a ceiling to disinfect air when a room is occupied. This product used an LED source. • Five non-portable GUV troffer or high-bay style whole-room luminaires designed to be installed in or suspended from a ceiling to disinfect air and surfaces when a room is unoccupied. All five used LPM sources. Radiometric and electrical performance was evaluated for all 13 products. Photobiological safety was also assessed for two of the products because their documentation included testable claims. The test results were compared across products and to manufacturer or vendor claims. The testing identified many issues related to the accuracy of reported GUV product performance. Claims were often untestable, contradictory, ambiguous, or used incorrect units and/or terminology. And when claims were testable, they often did not match test results. For example, three products that claimed to emit UV-C emitted only UV-A. These product claim issues were more numerous with consumer-oriented tower products, but problems with accurate performance claims were found across all products. The UV-C radiant efficiency of the products varied widely, even among similar products using the same source technologies. For example, the UV-C radiant efficiency of LPM products varied by greater than a factor of three for the same product type, indicating a large potential energy savings opportunity for products that are better designed for efficiency. LED products had orders-of-magnitude lower UV-C radiant efficiency than LPM products. Several testing challenges and limitations were identified. Most significant among these is the capability to accurately test and report the performance of larger GUV products. Integrating spheres require a specialized and costly coating to test UV, and the testing laboratory for this round of products had only a 20-inch diameter hemisphere with this capability. Only 2 of the 10 UV-C emitting products could be tested in this sphere. Goniometer testing had a different size limitation in that mirrors typically used to increase goniometer test distance to the far field are not reflective of UV and therefore could not be used to increase test distance. As a result, 7 of 13 products could not be tested far field. The implication is that electronic files of UV-C intensity data typically imported into design software for designing GUV applications may not be reliable for predicting irradiance at arbitrary far-field distances. It is currently unclear if these are industry-wide testing laboratory limitations, and what solutions may exist to address them. Specifiers and buyers of GUV products will need accurate performance claims and data to safely and effectively deploy GUV technology to reduce the transmission of diseases in buildings. This CALiPER GUV Round 1 report demonstrates the significant education and training that is needed for manufacturers and vendors to accurately test and report the performance of their GUV products. Further standards and guidelines are needed to improve test methods, address testing limitations, and improve reporting of product performance. Additionally, the wide range in UV-C radiant efficiency of GUV products means there is a large energy-savings opportunity for more energy efficient GUV products.
This summary report analyzes the independently tested performance of 13 germicidal ultraviolet (GUV) products purchased between February and July 2022. A companion full report provides additional information and discussion of the tested products, test methods, and results. The products were of three different types: • Seven portable, consumer-oriented GUV towers designed to be placed on the floor or a desk of an unoccupied room to disinfect air and surfaces. Five of these products used LED sources and two products used low-pressure mercury (LPM) sources. • One non-portable GUV whole-room luminaire designed to be installed on a ceiling to disinfect air when a room is occupied. This product used an LED source. • Five non-portable GUV troffer or high-bay style whole-room luminaires designed to be installed in or suspended from a ceiling to disinfect air and surfaces when a room is unoccupied. All five used LPM sources. Radiometric and electrical performance was evaluated for all 13 products. Photobiological safety was also assessed for two of the products because their documentation included testable claims. The test results were compared across products and to manufacturer or vendor claims. The testing identified many issues related to the accuracy of reported GUV product performance. Claims were often untestable, contradictory, ambiguous, or used incorrect units and/or terminology. And when claims were testable, they often did not match test results. For example, three products that claimed to emit UV-C emitted only UV-A. These product claim issues were more numerous with consumer-oriented tower products, but problems with accurate performance claims were found across all products. The UV-C radiant efficiency of the products varied widely, even among similar products using the same source technologies. For example, the UV-C radiant efficiency of LPM products varied by greater than a factor of three for the same product type, indicating a large potential energy savings opportunity for products that are better designed for efficiency. LED products had orders-of-magnitude lower UV-C radiant efficiency than LPM products. Several testing challenges and limitations were identified. Most significant among these is the capability to accurately test and report the performance of larger GUV products. Integrating spheres require a specialized and costly coating to test UV, and the testing laboratory for this round of products had only a 20-inch diameter hemisphere with this capability. Only 2 of the 10 UV-C emitting products could be tested in this sphere. Goniometer testing had a different size limitation in that mirrors typically used to increase goniometer test distance to the far field are not reflective of UV and therefore could not be used to increase test distance. As a result, 7 of 13 products could not be tested far field. The implication is that electronic files of UV-C intensity data typically imported into design software for designing GUV applications may not be reliable for predicting irradiance at arbitrary far-field distances. It is currently unclear if these are industry-wide testing laboratory limitations, and what solutions may exist to address them. Specifiers and buyers of GUV products will need accurate performance claims and data to safely and effectively deploy GUV technology to reduce the transmission of diseases in buildings. This CALiPER GUV Round 1 report demonstrates the significant education and training that is needed for manufacturers and vendors to accurately test and report the performance of their GUV products. Further standards and guidelines are needed to improve test methods, address testing limitations, and improve reporting of product performance. Additionally, the wide range in UV-C radiant efficiency of GUV products means there is a large energy-savings opportunity for more energy efficient GUV products.
This summary report analyzes the independently tested performance of 13 germicidal ultraviolet (GUV) products purchased between February and July 2022. A companion full report (DOE 2023) provides additional information and discussion of the tested products, test methods, and results. The products were of three different types: • Seven portable, consumer-oriented GUV towers designed to be placed on the floor or a desk of an unoccupied room to disinfect air and surfaces. Five of these products used LED sources and two products had low-pressure mercury (LPM) sources. • One GUV whole-room luminaire designed to be installed on a ceiling to disinfect air when a room is occupied. This product had LED sources. • Five GUV troffer or high-bay style whole-room luminaires designed to be installed in or suspended from a ceiling to disinfect air and surfaces when a room is unoccupied. All five had LPM sources. Product testing covered radiometric and electrical performance for all 13 products as well as photobiological safety evaluation if product documentation included testable claims. Measurement results enable comparison between products and against manufacturer or vendor claims. Testing identified numerous issues related to the accuracy of claimed GUV product performance. Claims were often untestable, contradictory, ambiguous, or used incorrect units and/or terminology. When claims were testable, they often did not match test results. For example, three LED products that claimed to emit UV-C emitted only UV-A. Product claim issues were more common among consumer-oriented tower products, but all product types exhibited problems with accurate performance claims. The UV-C radiant efficiency (calculated as UV-C output power divided by electrical input power) of the products varied widely, even among similar products using the same source technologies. For example, the UV-C radiant efficiency of LPM products varied by greater than a factor of three for the same product type, indicating a large potential energy savings opportunity for products that are better designed for efficiency. LED products had orders-of-magnitude lower UV-C radiant efficiency than LPM products. This study also identified several testing challenges and limitations. Most significant among these is the capability to accurately test and report the performance of larger GUV products. Whereas integrating spheres are used to quickly measure total radiant flux (i.e., output power) and spectral distribution, goniometers are used to measure radiant intensity distribution (from which radiant flux can be calculated). Integrating spheres require a specialized and costly coating to test UV, and the testing laboratory for this round of products had only a 20-inch diameter hemisphere with this capability. The integrating sphere accommodated just 2 of the 10 UV-C emitting products. Goniometer testing had a different size limitation in that mirrors typically used to increase goniometer test distance to the far field reflect little to no UV. As a result, the study evaluated only 6 of 13 products in the far field. Electronic files of UV-C intensity data for the other 7 products, which would typically be imported into design software for designing GUV applications, may not be reliable for predicting irradiance at arbitrary far-field distances (IES 2022a; CIE 2020). Specifiers and buyers of GUV products need accurate performance claims and data to deploy GUV technology safely and effectively. This CALiPER GUV Round 1 report demonstrates the significant education and training manufacturers and vendors still require to accurately test and report the performance of their GUV products. Further industry standards and guidelines may address testing limitations and improve test methods, product performance, and the accuracy of performance claims.
This report analyzes the independently tested performance of 13 germicidal ultraviolet (GUV) products purchased between February and July 2022. The products were of three different types: • Seven portable, consumer-oriented GUV towers designed to be placed on the floor or a desk of an unoccupied room to disinfect air and surfaces. Five of these products used LED sources and two products had low-pressure mercury (LPM) sources. • One GUV whole-room luminaire designed to be installed on a ceiling to disinfect air when a room is occupied. This product had LED sources. • Five GUV troffer or high-bay style whole-room luminaires designed to be installed in or suspended from a ceiling to disinfect air and surfaces when a room is unoccupied. All five had LPM sources. Product testing covered radiometric and electrical performance for all 13 products as well as photobiological safety evaluation if product documentation included testable claims. Measurement results enable comparison between products and against manufacturer or vendor claims. Testing identified numerous issues related to the accuracy of claimed GUV product performance. Claims were often untestable, contradictory, ambiguous, or used incorrect units and/or terminology. When claims were testable, they often did not match test results. For example, three LED products that claimed to emit UV-C emitted only UV-A. Product claim issues were more common among consumer-oriented tower products, but all product types exhibited problems with accurate performance claims. The UV-C radiant efficiency (calculated as UV-C output power divided by electrical input power) of the products varied widely, even among similar products using the same source technologies. For example, the UV-C radiant efficiency of LPM products varied by greater than a factor of three for the same product type, indicating a large potential energy savings opportunity for products that are better designed for efficiency. LED products had orders-of-magnitude lower UV-C radiant efficiency than LPM products. This study also identified several testing challenges and limitations. Most significant among these is the capability to accurately test and report the performance of larger GUV products. Whereas integrating spheres are used to quickly measure total radiant flux (i.e., output power) and spectral distribution, goniometers are used to measure radiant intensity distribution (from which radiant flux can be calculated). Integrating spheres require a specialized and costly coating to test UV, and the testing laboratory for this round of products had only a 20-inch diameter hemisphere with this capability. The integrating sphere accommodated just 2 of the 10 UV-C emitting products. Goniometer testing had a different size limitation in that mirrors typically used to increase goniometer test distance to the far field reflect little to no UV. As a result, the study evaluated only 6 of 13 products in the far field. Electronic files of UV-C intensity data for the other 7 products, which would typically be imported into design software for designing GUV applications, may not be reliable for predicting irradiance at arbitrary far-field distances (IES 2022a; CIE 2020). Specifiers and buyers of GUV products need accurate performance claims and data to deploy GUV technology safely and effectively. This CALiPER GUV Round 1 report demonstrates the significant education and training manufacturers and vendors still require to accurately test and report the performance of their GUV products. Further industry standards and guidelines may address testing limitations and improve test methods, product performance, and the accuracy of performance claims.