Overall, this seems to be an "ok" product in it's category, but lots of questions still remain about the effectiveness of UV-C sanitizer boxes. The main shortcoming of this box is that the light is only emitted on one side, and except for the small object shelf there is nothing to space objects away from the reflective sides to help prevent the sides and bottoms of opaque objects from being blocked to UV-C exposure. While the fact that UV-C kills bacteria is not disputed, quantifying the effectiveness of any particular implementation of a UV-C germicidal luminaire in any particular use case is proving to be difficult. Currently no standards exist to compare anything with, and all the lab test data provided by manufacturers seems to be for very ideal cases like smooth surface objects with no hollow cavities. Origin of the Device and Purpose According to the ETL listing, this device is manufactured by "FOSHAN SHUNDE NARTISAN ELECTRICAL APPLIANCE CO., LTD - Foshan, Guangdong CHINA" and sold under the brand names Mamahome and Philips as "Bottle Sterilizer, Model Nos. S3, S3-1, S3-1D, S3D" and "Germicidal UV Bottle Sterilizer, Model Nos. S5P, 9290024876". (The choice of the term "sterilizer" here is unfortunate because this is a "sanitizer", not a sterilizer, since it won't kill 100% of bacteria like an autoclave.) The Mamahome version appears to be the same as the Philips except for a different external housing design (it comes in white or pink), and it is sold specifically as a baby bottle and toy sanitizer. This suggests that the product was originally designed to sanitize baby bottles specifically as its primary purpose, which would explain the presence of the heat dry function that other UV-C sanitizers lack. It also seems to be assumed that baby bottles would be transparent to UV-C and thus preventing exposure shadows inside or under bottles doesn't seem to be a major design concern. ETL Compliance There are two ETL listings for this device. One says "A representative sample of the listed devices have been tested, investigated and found to comply with the requirements of the Standard(s) for Electric Heating Appliances (UL-499) and are identified with the ETL Listed Mark." This means that the device complies with standards for electrical heating devices. This tells us that it meets safety standards for electrical and heating, but doesn't tell us anything about the quality of the UV-C germicidal functions. The other listing is essentially the same except for Canadian standards: "A representative sample of the listed devices have been tested, investigated and found to comply with the requirements of the Standard(s) for Household Cooking & Liquid-Heating Appliances (CAN/CSA-C22.2 No. 64) and are identified with the cETL Listed Mark." UV-C Standards and the EPA Listing The "EPA listing" provided (EPA listed 98042-CHN-1) is just an EPA Establishment Number, about which the EPA says "Please note that an EPA Establishment number appearing on a product label does not signify that the pesticide or device is in compliance with FIFRA. Rather, an EPA establishment number on a pesticide product label identifies the EPA registered location where the product was produced." So this doesn't tell us anything except that the manufacturer filled out the forms needed to notify the EPA that it intends to manufacture "pesticidal devices" (which includes germicidal devices). That's useful since it makes it easier to figure out who made the device, which is more than I can say for even some expensive UV-C devices out there that don't provide this information, but says nothing about compliance or effectiveness. The EPA just wants to know who to complain to if they find a problem. Currently I can't find any quality standards for UV-C sanitizers, and the FDA and EPA have threatened to pursue actions against manufacturers making insufficiently supported claims about effectiveness or use for a particular purpose (such as sanitizing CPAP equipment). This is why you'll seldom see any specific claims on these devices about what they're good for, even when it seems like they're obviously being sold as CPAP sanitizers under brand names like "Paptizer". It could also be why Philips seems to have removed their product info page for this product, which has broken links to it on some of their sites but doesn't seem to exist anymore. UV-C Light Source The device uses two Philips TUV TL Mini 4W FAM (G4 T5) "slim double-ended UV-C 253.7 nm emitting lamps". The data sheet says they consume 4.5W and emit 0.9W of UV-C each. They're made specifically as "disinfection fluorescent lamps". Based on the spectral power distribution graph provided, it looks like around 85% of the light emitted is UV-C, and only around 8% or something is UV-A/UV-B. This is all very suitable for killing bacteria, it it's nice that it's easy to identify the light source just by looking at the markings printed on the bulbs. (It's much harder to identify an LED product because they're too small and seldom have any markings.) A UV-C test card shows the presence of UV-C, but not the quantity. The TUV TL product brochure claims "Good environmental choice because of lowest amount of mercury" and "Special lamp glass filters out the 185 nm ozone-forming radiation". So for anyone wondering about ozone, they are supposed to be filtered to reduce ozone-forming UV-C wavelengths. So there seems to be little doubt that the UV-C light source is in fact producing UV-C, the only real question is how much and what exposure time is needed for what sort of objects. Drying Function The "dry" function in this unit is similar to that of a dishwasher heated dry cycle: it just heats up the inside, though it also tries to vent the air. Unfortunately I don't have my multimeter temperature probe with me so I can't measure the internal temperature right now, but several people have mentioned that it gets over 160F. This leads me to believe that you don't want to put anything in it that isn't "dishwasher safe" and even some "dishwasher safe" items might not be ok. Remember this was originally intended for baby bottles. Electronic devices will certainly get damaged by the heat dry mode. The solder used to assemble the circuit boards has a low melting point and is likely to melt and move around if heated up that much. Components will either get disconnected or short circuited when this happens. CPAP Use First off, a UV-C sanitizer isn't a cleaning device. It won't remove dirt, debris, oil, or dead bacteria. At best it only kills bacteria or inactivates viruses that aren't "hiding" in a shadowed area and actually get exposed to the radiation. So it doesn't replace washing things and that includes CPAP equipment. How suitable this device is for additional sanitizing of CPAP equipment I still don't know. Philips certainly doesn't claim that it is, and they specifically say it's not intended for "medical use". But then again it seems like nobody who makes these is claiming they're good for any particular use. I looked at a few different devices being sold for sanitizing CPAP equipment. One is the "Lumin LM3000 Household Item UV Sanitizer". While some merchant listings specifically call this a CPAP sanitizer, and it originates from 3B Medical, which is a CPAP machine manufacturer, even the Lumin manual refers to it as a sanitizer for "household items" and not CPAP equipment. The manual doesn't have an EPA establishment number, anything about FTL compliance, or any information about where it was manufactured even though this device is over twice as expensive as the philips one. I couldn't find any lab tests showing effectiveness on CPAP gear either. Another UV-C product is the "LiViliti Health 59S Paptizer Smart Sanitizer". Oddly, even though this product is named "Paptizer", the manual still only refers to "sanitization" and "items" in the general sense and doesn't say what it's suitable for sanitizing. LiViliti does get credit for i
