The subject of lamp compatibility, substantial equivalency and recommended relamping procedures poses several concerns for responsible salon owners and operators who are trying to conduct business within the guidelines established by the FDA, local authorities and the original equipment manufacturers. The following is a brief overview that should be reviewed by all your employees.
It generally is agreed that tanning lamps should be replaced when their output drops below 65 percent to 70 percent of the level when they were new. In operating time, this is generally between 700 and 1,000 hours, although some longer maintenance models may last as long as 1,500 hours with proper care.
When approaching this procedure, the obvious first question is, what can be used for replacement? The physical dimensions of a lamp obviously could preclude its use in certain units. A 72-inch lamp obviously will not fit into a unit designed to use 59-inch lamps. And the voltage requirements of a lamp must match the tanning unit’s output. However, there are other factors that might make a lamp good for one tanning bed and incorrect for another.
One basic factor is the connector type. Tanning lamps are available in either recessed double contact (RDC) or bi-pin configurations. The bi-pin lamp has two pins protruding in a side-by-side arrangement on each end; the RDC type of lamp has two contacts on each end housed in a plastic post. The two types are not interchangeable.
Also, distinctly different types of lamps, including standard low-pressure, RUVA and VHO lamps are not interchangeable. Different lamp types have individual operating requirements determined by their particular design. For example, RUVA lamps have a reflecting panel built into the lamp itself, eliminating the need for external reflectors in the tanning unit. This means there is a distinct front and back to the lamp, as the reflective panel must face toward the tanner. Tanning units that use this type of lamp generally place them closer together than do those using traditional lamps.
Both RUVA and VHO lamps also generate more heat than normal low-pressure lamps, making a more powerful cooling system within the tanning unit necessary. To summarize, lamps of any design should be used only in equipment that is designed for them.
Revisions to the FDA regulations bearing on tanning products fortunately take much of the guesswork out of choosing replacement lamps. To be compliant, a replacement lamp must be plus or minus 10 percent the erythemegenic and melanogenic output of the original lamp. It does not attend to the maintenance value or type of tan given by the original lamp. Since the procedures and testing necessary to satisfy the regulations are beyond the capabilities of almost any salon, primary determination of whether a replacement lamp is compatible is the responsibility of the lamp manufacturer.
Once the compatibility is established, the FDA requires the lamp manufacturer to print somewhere on the lamp or its packaging the specific lamp models that the new lamp is designed to replace. If the labeling doesn’t say that the lamp is a direct replacement for a specific lamp, odds are it is not. It is important to remember that just because a lamp physically may fit into a tanning unit, it is not necessarily designed for use in that unit.
Salon owners should be aware than an FDA inspector or state regulator may visit their salon without notice. If the original lamp or an FDA-compatible lamp is not being used in the tanning unit, they may prevent the salon owner from using the equipment until it is in compliance.
Additionally, lamp manufacturers are required to file appropriate paperwork with the FDA for its replacement lamp products. Salon owners should have all the necessary paperwork on hand to show that the lamps are compatible.
