UV Light and Terpenoids

[englishrick]

hay guys,,,,,,,,,have you ever thought about this,,,,,,,,

check this out:::::::::::

Hops ,Hemp and Cannabis has grown outdoors for years and years,,,,,hemp is the source of the sub-species Cannabis,,,,, species spred themselvs over large distances and "split" into removed and isolated populations!!,,,, this "split" sometimes results in enviroment colaps,,,,,loss-of-function over many generations is not uncomon!!,,,,,but the ability to display traits from years-gone-by still remains in the population numbers!!,,,,,

imo,,, THC is displayed as result of DEFENCE and selective breeding,,,,,,,,,,,,if we grow a seeline with a hight-capacity for DEFENCE i expect to see high levels of THC,,,,,,if i grow the same seeline indoors and i remove the reason for the DEFENCE then i expect to see even higher levels of THC than beffore....

 

[C21H30O2]

So blue and UV light for extra ancillary cannaboids and terpenes, flavanoids, etc??? I have a friend that associates with the oaksterdam crowd, and they have been doing a lot of test on their cannabis lately. Their casual observations where that seed grown crops and outdoor crops show higher levels of ancillary cannabanoids (other than THC). testing is getting pretty cheap for cannabis samples, about $100 a sample, not bad if your doing breeding work, im sure the prices will come down as well.

 

[alexdubbeat]

hey, guys i`ve got one question about uv bulbs. there are some peeps who trying to proof that with using uvb sativas can flower faster and produce more dense buds and higher yield. is it true or not? maybe somebody have some experience with this

 

[englishrick]

i think indifferent actualy displayd with amazing finness, how UV made trics turn amber mutch quicker,,,,

an from what i read ,,higher UV levels are defo desired in the later maturing stages...

i feel UV will speed things up,,,,,,,!!!!!

 

[Telegraphist.]

Lux levels

Lux levels

Got a cheap LX101BS lux meter on the internet and this is what it reads:-

26watt CFL 10% uvb (Repti Glo10.0) - At 1inch 14000, 2inch 7000, 3inch 4000, 4inch 1900, 5inch 1400, 6inch 1200

20watt CFL (household CFL ) - At 1inch 32000, 2inch 21000, 3inch 11000, 4inch 5600, 5 inch 4000

250watt red CFL (8u tube) At 4 inches 34000

250watt blue CFL (8u tube) At 4 inches 38000

600watt Metal halide At 12 inches 60000

600watt HPS At 12 inches 78000

All units are in Lux.

So for the uvb levels take 10% from the 26watt CFL.


Hope this helps a little, not much on lux levels

 

[indifferent]

Actually, the UV level figure of 10% isn't 10% of the bulb's output, it's way lower than that.

The 10% figure refers to 10% of the UVB present at the equator at noon with the sun directly overhead.

Looking at the chart on the box, you can see there is a miniscule amount of UVB, 1-2% of the total output at most, but it's enough to promote Vitamin D synthesis in reptiles.

 

[Telegraphist.]

This is where i wish i kept the box. I have no idea what the 10.0 is about till you said there Indi
Think this is a case of not the lumens that count but the wavelength and energy of the photons.

I am also noticing that the area below the blue CFL gives the appearance of the pistils ripening through color change but whether the plant has undergone complete cannabinoid synthesis i cannot tell

Hope this helps

 

[indifferent]

Here's a pic of the box:

You can see the UVB (280-320nm) is only a very small fraction of the total output.

Blue/UVA light should stimulate the 6 carotenoid type terpenoids. I haven't found a chart showing the response of the flavonoids and other terpenoids though.

Took me a while to find out what the 10.0 figure referred to, I found the answer on a reptile keeping website eventually.

Here are the spds for the common colour temperature fluorescents, these are from philips, but the other brands will be very similar.

827 = 2700k very warm white
830 = 3000k warm white
840 = 4000k white
850 = 5000k cool white
865 = 6500k daylight
Actinic = 10000k marine

The 8 at the beginning indicates a CRI in the 80s, you can also get bulbs with a 9 at the beginning, those are more expensive and have a CRI in the 90s.

Hope that info helps, as you can see, there isn't a huge difference between different temps of fluorescent, some have more blue, they will all work for growing pot, a mix of different temps is better than just one imho.

 

[englishrick]

^^^ i think your spot-on with that 1 indifferent bro....your defo becoming the wavelength master around here,,,,i cant wait to see you design a compleet lighting system,,,i bet its gona be wickid!!!

 

[Ghostwolf]

 

[indifferent]

Cheers rick. I have a lot of time on my hands these days so I've been researching all kinds of lighting technologies.

I'm currently installing a lighting system, it uses three central heating timers to control it so I can design all kinds of funky lighting schedules. Progress in putting it together is slow as I'm on the dole and money is therefore extremely limited, but I'm good at finding bits on ebay very cheap, then you gotta wire it all together yourself, which I can do, but it's all a lot of fiddly work. I had a small disaster yesterday. Four 24W t5ho Actinic 10k tubes arrived and I stood them up in the carboard tube they were in next to my desk, turned round on my chair and knocked the tube over, one tube shattered and the other three all make a rattling noise so i expect the electrodes have snapped off and they won't work. They were 8.99 each so I;m pissed off. Regular 4000k t5ho tubes are under 3 quid but I had to go and break the most expensive tubes I've bought.

Anyways, when the setup is finished and working, expect to see the mother of all experimental lighting threads, it's high time we sorted out this UV thing once and for all and found out just what can be achieved and what lighting types are needed to achieve it.

I'm fitting a few of these Phillips CLEO Compact 15W t5 tubes intended for facial tanning units, they are pretty cheap compared to blacklight tubes and have just as high a UVA output, sadly they don't put out much UVB, only 0.9% of their total output is UVB. The do a -s version that has 1.9% UVB but not found those for sale cheap.

Here's the CLEO SPD:

The -s version with twice the UVB looks extremely similar:

I checked the SPD of other Philips tanning tubes and they have bugger all UV either, these are all 6 foot length 100 or 140w so no use to me:

Philips also produce a range of medical therapy UV tubes, this UVA one is for treating new born infants with virtilligo:

This one is an Actinic type, the cheaper marine Actinics are very similar:

This one is an Actinic type too:

This is a BL350 blacklight blue type, it uses a Wood's Glass envelope that blocks visible light so the output is all UVA save for that tiny little bit of violet just above 400nm and I think they have designed it so that tiny bit of violet output is there so people can tell when the lamps are switched on. These are the common blacklight tubes you see in nightclubs or used for money checkers:

Germicidal UVC tubes are common and cheap these days, but they don't have any output in the range we want, I've seen some people claiming you should use these, well they are useless for plant growth and highly dangerous as UVC will burn skin and eyes very rapidly with only slight exposure, shame on those people, I feel like mentioning the grow guru of another site who told people to use these lamps but I won't. Please folks, do not use a UVC lamp, you risk blinding yourself and getting sever skin melanoma type cancer!

I found the SPD for the /01 lamp i mentioned earlier, and it is not as good as i claimed, the output is in a very narrow band and it is in the 310nm UVB, range, not what we want, we want 290-300nm UVB:

None of the above are of much use for UVB, but I did find the SPD of a Philips lamp that does have loads of UVB:

So it looks like the only really viable fluorescent source of suitable UVB is that /12 type lamp. Not sure how expensive they are, they are sold for treatment of psoriasis so won't be cheap, probably similar price to the /01 type and those are nearly 50ukp plus VAT for a 2ft one! If you look up medical therapy UV lamps, you'll see all the products sold use either narrowband or broadband lamps. The /01 is the narrowband one, the /12 is the broadband one, they peak at the same wavelength - 311.4nm, but the narrowband one doesn't have anyoutput below 300nm and it is UVB in the 280-300nm range we want. I think the precise wavelength said to stimulate THC production is 285nm, but I forget where I read that now and whether it was a reliable source or not.

 

[indifferent]

There are two more possible UVb light sources, first is the Philips CLEO Low Power double-ended metal halide facial tanning lamp, which comes in a standard R7X fitting same as the 35, 70 and 150W halides you commonly see used for shop displays or aquariums, halogen floodlights for outdoor lighting also use this fitting.

There is a good deal of UVB there as well as a shitload of UVB and blue, looks like a very interesting and useful bulb to use for plants. There is a wee bit of harmful UVC there too, so you would have to be very careful using one of these. You'd have to DIY a fixture for it, wouldn't be too expensive as you can use a standard 400W metal halide ballast to power it, but for the reflector and socket you would have to get creative and either buy an aquarium or shop display halide fixture and remove the reflector and socket from that or buy just the R7X socket and bolt or rivet it to a standard growlight reflector instead of the usual e40 socket. I would probably just buy a 500W halogen floodlight as they are under 5ukp, throw away the halogen bulb, fit the halide in it's place and put a IEC connector on the end of the electric cable so it connects to a standard ballast. The light distribution out of a halogen floodlight is not ideal for growing, doesn't spread the light as much as the usual tubular e40 lamp and dutch barn type reflector does, but it would work for an experiment. The CLE halide tanning lamps are about 20ukp, similar price to a regular 400W halide.

The other option is the Osram Vitalux I mentioned before, which is a Mercury Vapour discharge lamp they have been makiing and selling for UV skin therapy, tanning and reptile keeping since the 1960s. All the early tanning lamps used this bulb but nowadays they are all fluorescent tubes.

I found some very useful info on using the TL/12 type fluoros and the Osram Vitalux 300W Mercury Vapour:

Originally Posted by Nirrity
Hey gojo why do you stick with Osram Vitalux and zoo lamps?
Zoo lamps are the only lamps I know of which can emit the required (or ideal) amount of UV-b.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nirrity
Philips TL 12 is far more refined and far less wattage needed with far more even UV distribution due to tubular appearance? Not to mention it has almost 2000-3000 hours of useful life.

I have not looked at that lamp but I will. As far as my initial thoughts, I doubt it emits enough UV-b. A good distribution of irradiance over the whole UV-b spectrum (280-320nm) is preferred, but it is more important to reach the correct irradiance, regardless of the nano-meter as long as it's in the UV-b spectrum. Unless by "distribution" you mean 'area of irradiance', i.e. "foot-print"? In that case yes, I assume the foot-print would be more even, although, the Osram hung at a distance of 20 inches emits a 15 inch circumference of about 140 uW/cm^2. To me, a 15 inch circumference is not too terrible.

Interestingly, research has shown that alkaloid precursor (I forget which it is CB?) conversion into THC most likely happens with most efficiency, and hence, highest conversion into THC, between 280-290nm.[1] Even zoo lamp UV-b bulbs do not emit much irradiance in that short of a wavelength (aka nano-meter; which is the "length" of one "wave").

Hmm, according to my research we want 375mw/cm2 of UVB in the 280-300nm range. If the Osram is only producing 140mw/cm2 intensity over an area 15 inches in circumference at 20 inches, it has a tight beam ike a flashlight and is only useful for illuminating one plant. I haven't even mentioned the 160W reptile Mercury Vapour lamps as they have a much tighter beam than the Osram and to me, that's not at all suitable for growing plants.

Here's some very cool distribution pattern diagrams for the Mercury Vapour lamps, this one is a Mega-Ray Reptile lamp, as you can see, it has a very tight beam:

The Vitalux has a much wider spread but still not that great for covering a large area:

The Phillips TL/12 tube offers a much wider spread of light so it would appear to be the best option for growing plants. The Philips CLEO halides look very useful too and their light distribution is dependent on the type of reflector used, but it also has harmful UVC output requiring a careful use and requires some DIY work as suitable fixtures are not readily available. Also, they are 400w and that is overkill for my space, I think a 20W TL/12 tube would be more suitable for my purposes, just need to find a cheap source now!

I found a huge amount of in-depth discussion of the use of the TL/12 and Vitalux lamps and it makes me head hurt trying to summarise it all but I'll have a go:

Both are useful, we need the highest levels of UVB in the 280-320nm range, 250mw/cm2 being the minimum, 375mw/cm2 being ideal as that is the highest level at the top of high mountains like the Himalayas. The Vitalux is 300w and hung at 50-60cm will cover almost 1m2, the TL/12 is 20w in the 2 foot length and at 15cm produces an intensity of 250mw/cm2. Therefore, for a small space, the TL/12 would be ideal and you would need to keep it as close to the plants as you can.

I'm not at all sure which i will use, I will probably get a TL/12 and try that, ideally I'd like four of them to position around the sides of my box, but that would be very expensive. The Vitalux might be more effective but it would be difficult to fit one into my box.

 

[englishrick]

yeh man, sounds like you got hit with the same sh1t as them ninja turtles

i cant wait for something you rate as top-notch

 

[titoon29]

nice info indifferent.

here some info i found which could be interesting for you, also they are a lot of publications on the subject cited in the text, but most of the time you will have to pay for them. and it is a bit technical and doesn t give much more details on the specific spectrum, but it gives a general understanding and some good references to check.

extract from :
The effect of ultra violet radiation on the accumulation of medicinal
compounds in plants
W.J Zhang, L.O.B


7. Essential oils and terpenoids
Essential oils constitute a heterogeneous collection of chemical compounds. They have in common that they are synthesized by plants and are volatile and mostly soluble in ethanol. They have traditionally been obtained from plants by extraction and distillation. Since the middle ages, they have been widely used for insecticidal, medicinal and cos- metic purposes.

For a detailed review of their biological ef- fects the reader is referred to Bakkali et al. [80]. Schelz et al. [81] have assayed antimicrobial effects of several of them. Some essential oil compounds are terpenoids, i.e. a class of hydrocarbons and derivatives of them. The substances from Glycyrrhiza and yew dealt with at the end of this section are also terpenoids.

Karousou et al. [82] studied two different chemotypes of Mentha spicata, and found that in one of them UV-B radiation, on a dry weight basis, caused a 50% increase in essential oil production, while in the other chemotype the increase was insignificant.

A more thorough investigation was carried out by Johnson et al. [22] on essential oil production in sweet basil (Ocimum basilicum L.), in which the effect of ultraviolet radiation is much greater. They separately analyzed no less than 22 dif- ferent essential oil compounds in this plant. The effect of UV-B radiation increased with the age of the plants, and was different for different compounds, but mostly positive. At the 5 leaf stage the irradiated plants contained between 3 and 4 times as much of most essential oil components as did the unirradiated control plants. In a later paper [83] by the same group, the authors reported that UV-B radiation is necessary for normal development of oil glands in sweet basil. There seems to be a requirement for UV-B in the filling of the glandular trichomes of this plant.



Roots and rhizomes of licorice (Glycyrrhiza, mostly G. glabra, G. uralensis, G. inflata, G. aspera, G. korshinskyi, G. eurycarpa, and G. glabra) have been used since at least 500 B.C. for various medical purposes, and are still used in many preparations. It contains various saponins, flavonoids, isoflavones, coumarins, stilbenoids and other compounds. The reader is referred to Asl et al. [84] for a review of the pharmacological effect of these compounds. Licorice, or glycyrrhizin isolated from it, is used as a sweetener. Glycyrrhizin is a triterpenoid saponin that con- stitutes about 20% of licorice, and has 30–50 times the sweet- ening power of sucrose.


Afreen et al.[85] found that a three-day treatment of the plants with UV-B increased the contents of glycyrrhizin. In the highest exposure the increase was less than with a lower exposure, but it is difficult to assess the effect, as the des- cription of the UV-B radiation is insufficient, and the treat- ment time is so short.


Yew (Taxus bacchata) contains several compounds (terpe- noids) collectively referred to as taxoids, which have found use in cancer therapy. They block mitosis by preventing mi- crotubuli depolymerisation. Hajnos et al. [86] studied the effect of ultraviolet radiation on the accumulation of two of them, 10-DAB III and paclitaxel (Fig. 6). During 48 h of irra- diation of excised twigs the amounts of both were increased, more by UV-C than by UV-A treatment (UV-B was not tested), but since the radiations were not measured this comparison may be misleading. More of the taxoid taxol accumulated in 2-year old twigs than in 1-year old ones. The effect of the irradiation was much more pronounced for paclitaxel than for 10-DAB III.


Feverfew (Tanacetum parthenium [L.] Schultz-Bip., Aster- aceae) has been used for 2000 years as a remedy for various medical conditions, including fever, inflammation and mi- graine. It contains several active substances, including the sesquiterpene lactone parthenolide. Recently parthenolide has received interest for its abilities to modulate intracellular signalling in mammals [87], to inhibit cancer-induced angio- genesis [88] and cell proliferation [89,90], and to induce ap- optosis, differentiation [91] or radiation sensitivity [92,93] in various types of cancer cells, although so far few in vivo experiments have been carried out. In feverfew plants ex- posed to water stress, but not in well-watered ones, ultra- violet (UV-A + UV-B) radiation increases the accumulation of parthenolide up to about three times the control [94].


8. Cannabinoids
Pate [95] cites older literature suggesting that UV-B radia- tion promotes cannaboid production in Cannabis and also speculates about cannaboid evolution. Plots of estimated UV-B exposure in different growth places shows an increase in Δ9- tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ9-THC) with exposure, but a decrease in cannabidiol. Lydon [96] and Lydon et al.[97] found that in both leaf and floral tissues the concentration of Δ9-THC but not of other cannabinoids increased linearly with UV-B exposure in drug-type Cannabis sativa plants (Fig. 7), but not in fiber- type plants of the same species. Nowadays many sites on the Internet show that the dependency of cannabinol accumula- tion on UV-B radiation is common knowledge among private entrepreneurs in the drug industry. The biosynthetic pathway of cannabinoid synthesis is shown in Fig. 8.




It is not known which enzyme or enzymes for Δ9- tetrahydrocannabinol biosynthesis are induced or stimulated by UV-B radiation, but one can speculate. The gene for poly- ketide synthase catalyzing the synthesis of olivetolic acid possesses strong sequence homology with chalcone synthase and may have evolved from this. Chalcone synthase is one of the classic UV-B-regulated enzymes.


produced act as deterrants on most animals, but attract some specialists. Some glucosinolate-producing plants have been used as medicinal plants [100], and recently isothiocyanates have gained interest as cytostatica and cytotoxins in cancer therapy [101-103]. Both glucosinolate content and myrosi- nase activity are increased by UV-B radiation in some plants [104]. In Nasturtium officinale the UV-B effect on glucosinolate content was much greater in old leaves than in young ones, and in Sinapis alba the effect on myrosinase activity was greatest for the insoluble fraction, and also greater for old leaves than for young ones.


[22] Johnson CB, Kirby J, Naxakis G, Pearson S. Phytochemistry 1999;51:507[80] Bakkali F, Averbeck S, Averbeck D, Idaomar M. Food Chem Toxicol
2008;46:446.
[81] Schelz Z, Molnar J, Hohmann J. Fitoterapia 2006;77:279.
[82] Karousou R, Grammatikopoulos G, Lanaras T, Manetas Y, Kokkini S.
Phytochemistry 1998;49:2273.
[83] Ioannidis D, Bonner L, Johnson CB. Ann Bot 2002;90:453.
[84] Asl MN, Hosseinzadeh H. Phytother Res 2008;22:709.
[85] Afreen F, Zobayed SMA, Kozai T. Plant Physiol Biochem 2005;43:
1074.
[86] Hajnos ML, Zobel AM, Glowniak KL. Phytomedicine 2001;8:139.
[87] Bedoya LM, Abad MJ, Bermejo P. Curr Signal Transd Ther 2008;3:83.
[88] Kong F, Chen Z, Li Q, Tian X, Zhao J, Yu K, et al. J Huazhong Univ Sci
Technol [Med Sci] 2008;28:525.
[89] Wu C, Chen F, Rushing JW, Wang X, Kim HJ, Huang G, et al. J Med Food
2006;9:55.
[90] Liu Y, Lu WL, Guo J, Du J, Li T, Wu JW, et al. J Control Release 2008;129:18.
[91] Kim SH, Danilenko M, Kim TS. Br J Pharmacol 2008;155:814.
[92] Mendonca MS, Chin-Sinex H, Gomez-Millan J, Datzman N, Hardacre M,
Comerford K, et al. Radiat Res 2007;168:689.
[93] Sun Y, Clair DKS, Fang F, Warren GW, Rangnekar VM, Crooks PA, et al.
Mol Cancer Ther 2007;6:2477.
[94] Fonseca JM, Rushing JW, Rajapakse NC, Thomas RL, Ri ley MB.
HortScience 2006;41:531.
[95] Pate DW. Econ Bot 1983;37:396.
[96] Lydon J. Effects of ultraviolet-B radiation on the growth, physiology
and cannabinoid production of Cannabis sativa L. Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of
Maryland, College Park, MD, USA. 1986. p. 117.
[97] Lydon J, Teramura A, Coffman CB. Photochem Photobiol 1987;46:201.
[98] Halkier BA, Gershenzon J. Annu Rev Plant Biol 2006;57:303.
[99] Agerbirk N, Warwick SI, Hansen PR, Olsen CE. Phytochemi stry
2008;69:937.
[100] Songsak T, Lockwood GB. Fitoterapia 2002;73:209.
[101] Fimognari C, Nüsse M, Berti F, Iori R, Cantelli-Forti G, Hrelia P. Mutat
Res 2004;554:205.
[102] Fimognari C, Nüsse M, Bertia F, Iori R, Cantelli-Fortia G, Hrelia P.
Biochem Pharmacol 2004;68:1133.

 

[indifferent]

Good info titoon, thanks for that.

Lydon J. Effects of ultraviolet-B radiation on the growth, physiology
and cannabinoid production of Cannabis sativa L. Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of
Maryland, College Park, MD, USA. 1986. p. 117.

This one is the key text i wish I had access to, but being a PHD thesis there are only two places that hold a copy, one being the Uni of Maryland library.

I found some more modern studies that had found a link between UV and production of terpenoids and cannabinoids but I lost the text file I saved them into now, it is somewhere on one of my hard drives, but I have so much text saved on my computer I often lose things for a while!

 

[titoon29]

Indifferent, mate, i m happy to tell you the thesis you re looking for has been published, and so can be found whithout asking the university of maryland.
edit : can t find it to download for free. the only place where it seems to be sold is a fr website where you have to put at least 50E to start with...

Titre du document / Document title
UV-B radiation effects on photosynthesis, growth and cannabinoid production of two Cannabis sativa chemotypes
Auteur(s) / Author(s)
LYDON J. (1) ; TERAMURA A. H. ; COFFMAN C. B. ;
Affiliation(s) du ou des auteurs / Author(s) Affiliation(s)
(1) Univ. Maryland, dep. botany, College Park MD 20742, ETATS-UNIS
Revue / Journal Title
Photochemistry and photobiology ISSN 0031-8655 CODEN PHCBAP
Source / Source
1987, vol. 46, no2, pp. 201-206 (30 ref.)
Langue / Language
Anglais
Editeur / Publisher
Blackwell Publishing, Malden, MA, ETATS-UNIS (1962) (Revue)

 

[vince514]

damm indifferent this is an amazing thread and a very intresting read.... i've always heard among other growers about the attributes of uvb/blacklights for increased resin production, but i've never seen such descriptive diagrams on wavelenghts in terms of uvb spectrums............blacklight bulbs are very expensive but if you've found an alternitive to these bulbs...i gotta thank you because it opens doors to try new things to tweak the garden..........
i've always been intrested in this matter . and i wish i had stumbled onto this thread long ago............

thank you the plethora information......

 

[indifferent]

Indifferent, mate, i m happy to tell you the thesis you re looking for has been published, and so can be found whithout asking the university of maryland.
edit : can t find it to download for free. the only place where it seems to be sold is a fr website where you have to put at least 50E to start with...

Good find! Just wish I had the money to spend on such things! It's sad that the key study of this subject is almost a quarter of a century old.

damm indifferent this is an amazing thread and a very intresting read.... i've always heard among other growers about the attributes of uvb/blacklights for increased resin production, but i've never seen such descriptive diagrams on wavelenghts in terms of uvb spectrums............blacklight bulbs are very expensive but if you've found an alternitive to these bulbs...i gotta thank you because it opens doors to try new things to tweak the garden..........
i've always been intrested in this matter . and i wish i had stumbled onto this thread long ago............

thank you the plethora information......

Glad you found some value in it Vince. Like you, I've been reading people saying there are benefits to UV lights for years, but it's almost always anecdotal, no-one seems to have done much actual testing, just comments about getting more resin and potency. I've been trying to keep the info I post in this thread to a minimum as there is such a huge amount I could post, but I'm trying to just post the important bits and to be honest, I'm burn out from reading so much, I've reached the point where i don't want to read much more I just want to get on with some actual real-world experimenting.

As soon as my new lighting setup is up and running and I have the cuts i am going to use ready, I shall begin some experiments and will be documenting them as thoroughly as i can in a thread. I feel that properly documenting testing is sadly lacking when it comes to UV and cannabis.

Titoon, just a thought, but you're in a high UV location and I believe you have the possibility of growing some plants outside? You could be a very interesting UV test outdoors, take two cuttings of the same plant and grow them outdoors, but keep one under a sheet of plastic such as is used for greenhouses and is opaque to UV. This would show you what effects the UV in natural sunlight has on a plant.

There are records of UV levels for most places on the earth and most local weather services give UV levels, particularly in areas with high UV, so someone doing a UV experiment such as I suggest outdoors would have a full set of data available on the UV received by the plant that was not covered by plastic.

 

[SupraSPL]

I'm seeing damage to trichomes (premature ambering) and damage to chlorrophylls (turning buds dark purple) from over exposure to a reptile CFL with a high UVA output.

From what you wrote, I assume you suspect that the UVA may have caused the damage to the exposed side of the bud. Another poster suggested that outdoor plants get plenty of UVA. This is true, natural sunlight has a ton of UVA and rolls off the UVB hard at around 300nm. The reptiglo bilb you used (26w CFL) uses aggressive UVB phospohors that do not emulate natural sunlight. Since you beamed that into the bud it is not surprising that there was tissue damage.

There are many other reptile lamps that do not use the aggressive phosphors. The repti glo tubes for example use the correct (human tanning) phosphors that roll off at 300nm just like sunlight.

I once read somewhere that back in the ol days (lol) suntan lotion was released that only blocked UVB but allowed UVA through. This caused some serious problems for tanners. Since the UVB was blocked, their skin could not develop the correct melanin and the UVA was allowed to penetrate the skin and go on the rampage (causing free radicals, tissue damage, even cancer).

Moral of the story is, when in doubt emulate the sun as naturally as possible. That's my 2 cents anyway, good luck!

Mean-As-Hell Australian sun:

 

[DIGITALHIPPY]

Here's a pic of the box:

You can see the UVB (280-320nm) is only a very small fraction of the total output.

Blue/UVA light should stimulate the 6 carotenoid type terpenoids. I haven't found a chart showing the response of the flavonoids and other terpenoids though.

Took me a while to find out what the 10.0 figure referred to, I found the answer on a reptile keeping website eventually.

Here are the spds for the common colour temperature fluorescents, these are from philips, but the other brands will be very similar.

827 = 2700k very warm white
830 = 3000k warm white
840 = 4000k white
850 = 5000k cool white
865 = 6500k daylight
Actinic = 10000k marine

The 8 at the beginning indicates a CRI in the 80s, you can also get bulbs with a 9 at the beginning, those are more expensive and have a CRI in the 90s.

...

Hope that info helps, as you can see, there isn't a huge difference between different temps of fluorescent, some have more blue, they will all work for growing pot, a mix of different temps is better than just one imho.