Portable UV Sterilizer £6.99 was £9.99 instore Poundstretcher - HotUKDeals
We use cookie files to improve site functionality and personalisation. By continuing to use HUKD, you accept our cookie and privacy policy.
Get the HUKD app free at Google Play

Search Error

An error occurred when searching, please try again!

Login / Sign UpSubmit
Had a few of these instore Huyton, Liverpool yesterday.
Product Feature
Dust mites are a part of our everyday life and living and they thrive in beds,
Clothing, carpets, pillows and other area that might be warm and humid.
Portable UV sterilizer, is a new and innovative product that kills dust mites in a very easy and convenient way and it also kills pathogenic bacteria as well.
More From Poundstretcher:

All Comments

(6) Jump to unreadPost a comment
Comments/page:
#1
http://i777.photobucket.com/albums/yy60/adeo_2010/PIC_00030-1-1.jpg
#2
how do you know this thing really works, i know give me £10 and i'll tell you to switch your bed room light and and it will kill 99% of bacteria
banned#3
wickedteen
how do you know this thing really works, i know give me £10 and i'll tell you to switch your bed room light and and it will kill 99% of bacteria


to be honest, natural sunlight will have more uv in it anyway, open the curtains, let some air in

of course, this advice only works in summer
#4
If it's powerful enough then it will kill bacteria but it will also be harmful to you, so I'm guessing that it not very potent.
http://www.ehs.washington.edu/rsononion/uvlight.shtm
1 Like #6
ASA Adjudication on Sit-Up Ltd
Sit-Up Ltd t/a Price-Drop.tv
171-181 The Vale
Acton
London
W3 7RW
Date: 10 June 2009
Media:Television
Sector:Household
Number of complaints:1
Complaint Ref:79349

Ad
A Sit-Up teleshopping presentation for the UV-C light rechargeable sweeper (the sweeper).

Issue
One viewer challenged whether:

1. the claim "kills 99.9% of bacteria on floors as you clean" could be substantiated; and

2. the sweeper worked on carpet as well as laminate flooring, as claimed.

The ASA challenged whether:

3. the claim "eliminates viruses, mould, dust mites... " could be substantiated; and

4. the sweeper could kill E.coli, Staphylococcus and Salmonella, as claimed.

BCAP TV Code
5.1.15.2.15.2.2
Response
1. Sit-Up said the UV-C technology present in the sweeper was used extensively in water treatment plants and hospitals to reduce levels of bacteria. They nevertheless conceded that they did not have documentary evidence to support the manufacturer's claim that the sweeper could kill 99.9% of bacteria and assured the ASA that the claim would not be made again.

2. & 4. Sit-Up said laboratory tests had demonstrated the efficacy of UV-C technology in killing a number of bacteria (E.coli, Staphylococcus and Salmonella) when they were exposed to the direct UV-C light in the sweeper from a height of 1 cm, for a period of between two and three seconds, which they believed was consistent with its expected use. Sit-Up therefore believed the sweeper was effective in killing germs on surfaces where the germs would be exposed to direct UV-C light, such as laminate, wooden, vinyl and tiled flooring. They said, however, they would not refer to the efficacy of the sweeper on carpeted floors in future.

Sit-Up sent three test certificates in support of the claim for each type of bacteria: E-Coli, Staphylococcus and Salmonella. The tests were carried out under laboratory conditions using the UV-C floor sweeper. Petri dish samples were exposed to the light in the sweeper for between two and three seconds at a height of 1 cm. The results purported to show that the UV-C light could kill 98.16%, 98.17% and 99.32% of E.coli, Staphylococcus and Salmonella, respectively.

3. Sit-Up said they did not have evidence to show that the sweeper could eliminate viruses and mould and those claims would not be repeated. However, they submitted a report showing the results of a laboratory test on the efficacy of UV-C technology in killing dust mites.

The report explained that 25 dust mites were exposed to the UV-C light in a hand-held device, with the same wavelength as the sweeper, which was slowly passed four times over the petri dish. The results were recorded and calculated after 4.83, seven and nine minutes and showed a kill rate of 69%, 87% and 100%, respectively.

Assessment
1. Upheld

The ASA noted Sit-Up's assurance that the claim would not be repeated in future ads for the sweeper. We concluded that, in the absence of evidence, the claim "kills 99.9% of bacteria on floors as you clean" was misleading.

On this point, the ad breached CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 5.1.1 (Misleading advertising) and 5.2.1 (Evidence).

2. & 4. Upheld

We noted tests exposing Salmonella, E.coli and Staphylococcus to the UV-C light in the sweeper at a height of 1 cm for between two and three seconds showed that the sweeper was effective at killing bacteria. We understood that the sweepers efficacy depended on direct light exposure and would therefore be effective on flat even surfaces such as vinyl flooring but considered the evidence did not support claims that the sweeper was effective at killing bacteria in carpet, for example. We noted Sit-Up would not refer to the efficacy of the sweeper on carpeted floors in future.

We were concerned that the exposure of the bacteria to the UV-C light under test conditions might not be representative of normal use of the sweeper. The ad showed the sweeper being passed over different flooring but did not state that each area of floor needed to be exposed to the light for between two and three seconds in order for the bacteria to be eliminated. We concluded that the ad exaggerated the performance of the sweeper in killing bacteria and was likely to mislead.

On point (2), the ad breached CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 5.1.1 (Misleading advertising), 5.2.1 (Evidence) and 5.2.2 (Implications).

On point (4), the ad breached CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 5.1.1 (Misleading advertising) and 5.2.2 (Implications).

3. Upheld

We noted Sit-Up were unable to substantiate that the sweeper could eliminate viruses and mould and those claims would not be repeated.

We noted the test results showed that, nine minutes after exposure to the UV-C light in the hand-held device, 100% of the dust mites in the petri dish were killed. While we noted the test was conducted using a hand-held device of the same frequency as the sweeper, we understood that it was passed slowly over the petri dish four times and we were concerned that the test method might not be representative of normal use of the sweeper; the ad showed the sweeper being passed over different parts of a wooden floor and what appeared to be linoleum flooring but did not state that this action needed to be repeated four times. Furthermore, we had not seen evidence that the sweeper itself would be effective at killing dust mites on different flooring as the ad implied.

We considered that robust, product-specific testing on different flooring was required to substantiate the claim "eliminates viruses, mould, dust mites... " and, in the absence of such testing, we concluded that it was unsubstantiated and could mislead.

On point (3), the ad breached CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 5.1.1 (Misleading advertising) and 5.2.1 (Evidence).

Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Broadcast)

Post a Comment

You don't need an account to leave a comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

...OR log in with your social account

...OR comment using your social account

Top of Page
Thanks for your comment! Keep it up!
We just need to have a quick look and it will be live soon.
The community is happy to hear your opinion! Keep contributing!