1
|
Bringing Light into Darkness-Comparison of Different Personal Dosimeters for Assessment of Solar Ultraviolet Exposure. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND PUBLIC HEALTH 2021; 18:ijerph18179071. [PMID: 34501660 PMCID: PMC8431201 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18179071] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/20/2021] [Revised: 08/20/2021] [Accepted: 08/25/2021] [Indexed: 11/23/2022]
Abstract
(1) Measuring personal exposure to solar ultraviolet radiation (UVR) poses a major challenges for researchers. Often, the study design determines the measuring devices that can be used, be it the duration of measurements or size restrictions on different body parts. It is therefore of great importance that measuring devices produce comparable results despite technical differences and modes of operation. Particularly when measurement results from different studies dealing with personal UV exposure are to be compared with each other, the need for intercomparability and intercalibration factors between different measurement systems becomes significant. (2) Three commonly used dosimeter types—(polysulphone film (PSF), biological, and electronic dosimeters)—were selected to perform intercalibration measurements. They differ in measurement principle and sensitivity, measurement accuracy, and susceptibility to inaccuracies. The aim was to derive intercalibration factors for these dosimeter types. (3) While a calibration factor between PSF and electronic dosimeters of about 1.3 could be derived for direct irradiation of the dosimeters, this was not the case for larger angles of incidence of solar radiation with increasing fractions of diffuse irradiation. Electronic dosimeters show small standard deviation across all measurements. For biological dosimeters, no intercalibration factor could be found with respect to PSF and electronic dosimeters. In a use case, the relation between steady-state measurements and personal measurements was studied. On average, persons acquired only a small fraction of the ambient radiation.
Collapse
|
2
|
Soueid L, Triguero-Mas M, Dalmau A, Barrera-Gómez J, Alonso L, Basagaña X, Thieden E, Wulf HC, Diffey B, Young AR, Nieuwenhuijsen M, Dadvand P. Estimating personal solar ultraviolet radiation exposure through time spent outdoors, ambient levels and modelling approaches. Br J Dermatol 2021; 186:266-273. [PMID: 34403140 DOI: 10.1111/bjd.20703] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 08/13/2021] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Evidence on validation of surrogates applied to evaluate the personal exposure levels of solar ultraviolet radiation (UVR) in epidemiological studies is scarce. OBJECTIVES To determine and compare the validity of three approaches, including (i) ambient UVR levels, (ii) time spent outdoors, and (iii) a modelling approach integrating the aforementioned parameters, to estimate personal UVR exposure over a period of six months among indoor and outdoor workers and in different seasons (summer/winter). METHODS This validation study was part of the EU ICEPURE project and was performed between July 2010 and January 2011 in a convenience sample of indoor and outdoor workers in Catalunya - Spain. We developed linear regression models to quantify the variation in the objectively measured personal UVR exposure that could be explained, separately, by the ambient UVR, time spent outdoors, and modelled UVR levels. RESULTS Our 39 participants - mostly male and with a median age of 35 years- presented a median daily objectively measured UVR of 0.37 standard erythemal doses (SEDs). The UVR dose was statistically significantly higher in summer and for outdoor workers. The modelled personal UVR exposure and self-reported time spent outdoors could reasonably predict the variation in the objectively measured personal UVR levels (R2 = (0.75, 0.79)), whereas ambient UVR was a poor predictor (R2 =0.21). No notable differences were found between seasons or occupation. CONCLUSIONS Time outdoors and our modelling approach were reliable predictors and of value to be applied in epidemiological studies of the health effects of current exposure to UVR.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- L Soueid
- Barcelona Institute of Global Health (ISGlobal), Barcelona, Spain.,Universitat Pompeu Fabra (UPF), Barcelona, Spain.,CIBER Epidemiología y Salud Pública (CIBERESP), Barcelona, Spain
| | - M Triguero-Mas
- Barcelona Institute of Global Health (ISGlobal), Barcelona, Spain.,Universitat Pompeu Fabra (UPF), Barcelona, Spain.,CIBER Epidemiología y Salud Pública (CIBERESP), Barcelona, Spain.,Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.,Lab for Urban Environmental Justice and Sustainability, Barcelona, Spain.,Institute of Environmental Science and Technology, ICTA-UAB), Barcelona, Spain.,Hospital del Mar Medical Research Institute (IMIM), Barcelona, Spain
| | - A Dalmau
- Barcelona Institute of Global Health (ISGlobal), Barcelona, Spain.,Universitat Pompeu Fabra (UPF), Barcelona, Spain.,CIBER Epidemiología y Salud Pública (CIBERESP), Barcelona, Spain.,Agència de Qualitat i Avaluació Sanitàries de Catalunya (AQuAS), Barcelona, Spain
| | - J Barrera-Gómez
- Barcelona Institute of Global Health (ISGlobal), Barcelona, Spain.,Universitat Pompeu Fabra (UPF), Barcelona, Spain.,CIBER Epidemiología y Salud Pública (CIBERESP), Barcelona, Spain
| | - L Alonso
- Barcelona Institute of Global Health (ISGlobal), Barcelona, Spain.,Universitat Pompeu Fabra (UPF), Barcelona, Spain.,CIBER Epidemiología y Salud Pública (CIBERESP), Barcelona, Spain
| | - X Basagaña
- Barcelona Institute of Global Health (ISGlobal), Barcelona, Spain.,Universitat Pompeu Fabra (UPF), Barcelona, Spain.,CIBER Epidemiología y Salud Pública (CIBERESP), Barcelona, Spain
| | - E Thieden
- Department of Dermatology, Bispebjerg Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - H C Wulf
- Department of Dermatology, Bispebjerg Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - B Diffey
- Institute of Cellular Medicine, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, England, UK
| | - A R Young
- King's College London, St John´s Institute of Dermatology, London, United Kingdom
| | - M Nieuwenhuijsen
- Barcelona Institute of Global Health (ISGlobal), Barcelona, Spain.,Universitat Pompeu Fabra (UPF), Barcelona, Spain.,CIBER Epidemiología y Salud Pública (CIBERESP), Barcelona, Spain
| | - P Dadvand
- Barcelona Institute of Global Health (ISGlobal), Barcelona, Spain.,Universitat Pompeu Fabra (UPF), Barcelona, Spain.,CIBER Epidemiología y Salud Pública (CIBERESP), Barcelona, Spain
| |
Collapse
|