If you have the spec sheet from the manufacturer that states 3 years, it would be super difficult for an auditor to challenge that. They could dive into the weeds and try to present a study such as you posted in post #5, but unless the bulb in that study is the exact composition of what you're buying for the ILT's, you can argue the manufacturer spec overrides.
Then they could dive into trending analysis to argue more, but the goal of PC program is to prevent pests from entering to begin with. If they argue that the bulb must be losing efficiency due to low findings at the ILT, you can reply back your facility inspections for door seals is preventing them from entering.
Really the only issue here would be if you're seeing all sorts of flying insects hanging around the facility. Then I'd be inclined to say the bulbs really need to be changed lol.
No, I understand. Although (after re-reading) I think my wording reflects otherwise, im not really arguing that the change frequency needs to be changed or that LEDs shouldnt be used, etc. I agree that the paper the MFG provides should be adequate for audit purposes, it alway has been.
I guess my point really should be just that the type of device, placement, type of bulb, and frequency of bulb changes can effect the ability to capture insects. Or maybe, just because its the recommendation, doesnt mean its the best practice. Maybe more for those that might need a more substantial program or have more insect pressure.
My wife has a shirt that says "hold on let me over think this". I should probably go put it on. lol