In America, when you make a claim you back it up with proof, period! Apparently, in Europe, you make a claim based upon what sounds good, no proof needed. Don’t get me wrong, if the UVC180 can do what the company says it can do (kill fungi on natural turf), then American innovation will rule the day, specifically the 850 GreenZapr. In 2013 the 850 GreenZapr was tested in a controlled setting by a world leading horticultural school, Oregon State University College of Agricultural Sciences, and the results of the fungi eradication test using UVC was lackluster. The testing was conducted over 3 months and with a very controlled testing regiment. Alec Kowalewski, assistant professor and turf grass specialist was the lead expert in charge of the testing.
After three months of testing the results showed no significant improvement in the turf for the elimination of fungus. We know that UVC can kill fungus but the dosage output of UVC would need to be much more powerful. Speed, distance and energy output of the UVC bulbs are variables used in the calculation of exposure needed when trying to kill organisms, bacteria, yeast, viruses, mold spores, etc. American Ultraviolet, a world leader in UVC technology was the expert behind the proper specifications for the GreenZapr. You simply can’t build a UVC piece of equipment without knowing all the proper specifications. How it works is, you first figure out what the kill factor needed is for the different viruses, bacteria, protozoa, etc, and then you design in reverse the machine based upon speed, distance, and energy output of the bulbs because these are controllable variables. As you can see by the chart, GreensGroomer Worldwide built the 850 GreenZapr with the expertise of American Ultraviolet. Want to know what the GreenZapr will kill, documentation is provided so you will know the kill factors needed to eradicate the different organisms, viruses, etc.
Recently the UVC180 was shared with me. It’s a good looking machine but what the website said about its ability to kill fungi caught my attention. A claim about killing fungus on natural turf would surely have solid testing behind it right?
According to SGL, the manufacturers of the UVC180 UVC Fungi Killer, this is how they proved the effectiveness of the UVC180.
No other information was provided and there is no data science behind the testing. I reached out to SGL and they confirmed that no scientific research was conducted. Perhaps, in Europe, this is how product development is conducted and is accepted. What we should be told is, how much fungi was accounted for prior to testing, if any additives like fertilizer were added to the turf during the test period, the number of times the unit was used during the test, the weather conditions during testing, the number of bulbs on the machine and the energy output of the machine. In America, products are designed, built, tested and are supported by proof of claims. When a product is developed and is the first of its innovation kind then further protection is awarded in the form of a patent.
In America, products are designed, built and tested and once these steps are accomplished successfully then a claim of action, a solution to a problem, first of its kind, etc can be attached to the product. When a product is innovative and new it can be awarded a patent. A patent is good for 20 years, this is the reward a developer receives when design, build, and testing match the claims of the invention. Take for example patent number US 8431075 that has 20 years of protection. The patent title tells us what it will do.