This assessment, by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Environmental Effects Assessment Panel (EEAP), one of three Panels informing the Parties to the Montreal Protocol, provides an update, since our previous extensive assessment (Photochem. Photobiol. Sci., 2019, 18, 595-828), of recent findings of current and projected interactive environmental effects of ultraviolet (UV) radiation, stratospheric ozone, and climate change. These effects include those on human health, air quality, terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, biogeochemical cycles, and materials used in construction and other services. The present update evaluates further evidence of the consequences of human activity on climate change that are altering the exposure of organisms and ecosystems to UV radiation. This in turn reveals the interactive effects of many climate change factors with UV radiation that have implications for the atmosphere, feedbacks, contaminant fate and transport, organismal responses, and many outdoor materials including plastics, wood, and fabrics. The universal ratification of the Montreal Protocol, signed by 197 countries, has led to the regulation and phase-out of chemicals that deplete the stratospheric ozone layer. Although this treaty has had unprecedented success in protecting the ozone layer, and hence all life on Earth from damaging UV radiation, it is also making a substantial contribution to reducing climate warming because many of the chemicals under this treaty are greenhouse gases.

/pdf/environmental-effects-of-ozone-depletion-uv-radiation-and-1v1beswx0x.pdf

Environmental effects of ozone depletion, UV radiation and interactions with climate change: UNEP Environmental Effects Assessment Panel, update 2017

1 Historique    2 Administration    3 Missions    4 Activites    5 Organisation    6 Reunions    7 Liaisons internationales    8 Conclusion

Commission internationale de l''éclairage (CIE)

The SMARTS spectral irradiance model after 25 years: New developments and validation of reference spectra

Currently there is a worldwide pandemic due to Covid-19, which has caused a great impact on humanity in social, economic, psychological aspects and unfortunately on health. Due to the risk that food can also be a medium to cause virus diseases, the procedures in the food industry safety programs must be revised; and, to be more specific, to disinfect Covid-19. Some effective disinfectants that have been proved to inactivate the coronavirus are: chlorine dioxide, sodium hypochlorite, quaternary compound, ozone and UV-C (shortwave ultraviolet light). In this review, some treatments used to inactivate a virus, with an emphasis to the coronavirus family, and other influenza viruses, are reported. It has been concluded that the coronavirus could be inactivated using free chlorine solutions at 30 mg/L, sodium hypochlorite 0.25 %, or Chlorine Dioxide (99% purity) diluted at 1/2.5 relation. Also, alcohol is an effective disinfectant at concentrations of 62 to 71% of ethanol. With respect to the use of the quaternary compound, it can be used at concentrations of 0.10%. Ozone is another promising disinfectant to inactivate the coronavirus and Covid-19. Doses of ozone between 10 to 20 ppm for 10 to 15 minutes are recommended to inactivate the coronavirus with 3.5 log10 reductions. However, a warning should be reported to the use of high doses of exposure because it can be a risk to human health. UV-C can inactivate the coronavirus at a value of 67 J/m2 by 1 to 30 minutes of exposure.

/pdf/inactivation-of-coronaviruses-in-food-industry-the-use-of-1plj2xohq5.pdf

Inactivation of coronaviruses in food industry: the use of inorganic and organic disinfectants, ozone, and UV radiation

Exposure of the skin to ultraviolet (UV) radiation is the main risk factor for skin cancer, and a major source of vitamin D, in many regions of the world. Sun protection messages to minimize skin cancer risks but avoid vitamin D deficiency are challenging, partly because levels of UV radiation vary by location, season, time of day, and atmospheric conditions. The UV Index provides information on levels of UV radiation and is a cornerstone of sun protection guidelines. Current guidelines from the World Health Organization are that sun protection is required only when the UV Index is 3 or greater. This advice is pragmatic rather than evidence based. The UV Index is a continuous scale; more comprehensive sun protection is required as the UV Index increases. In addition, a wide range of UVA doses is possible with a UVI of 3, from which there may be health consequences, while full sun protection when the UVI is "moderate" (between 3 and 5) may limit vitamin D production. Finally, the duration of time spent in the sun is an essential component of a public health message, in addition to the intensity of ambient UV radiation as measured by the UV Index. Together these provide the dose of UV radiation that is relevant to both skin cancer genesis and vitamin D production. Further education is required to increase the understanding of the UV Index; messages framed using the UV Index need to incorporate the importance of duration of exposure and increasing sun protection with increasing dose of UV radiation.

/pdf/are-current-guidelines-for-sun-protection-optimal-for-health-1gbdpperbh.pdf

Are current guidelines for sun protection optimal for health? Exploring the evidence

Overexposure to ultraviolet (UV) radiation is the main modifiable risk factor for skin cancer. The Global Solar Ultraviolet Index (UVI) was introduced as a tool to visualize the intensity of UV radiation on a certain day, which should enable and encourage people to take appropriate protective measures. The ‘low’ exposure category of the UVI, defined by a rounded UVI value of 0, 1 or 2, was linked to the health message ‘No protection required’ by the World Health Organization and partner organizations. However, published evidence corroborating this advice is not available. To evaluate the erythemal risk of low UVI days, we analyzed 14,431 daily time series of ambient erythemal irradiance data measured at nine stations of the German solar UV monitoring network during the years 2007–2016. We analyzed the proportion of days in the sample for which ambient erythemal doses calculated for various time intervals exceed average minimal erythemal doses (MEDs) of the Fitzpatrick skin phototypes I–VI to assess the potential for erythema arising from sun exposure on days with low UVI values. Additionally, we calculated for each day the minimum exposure duration needed to receive one MED. Our results indicate that on days with a UVI value of 0, risk of erythema is indeed negligible. Conversely, the abovementioned health message appears misleading when melano-compromised individuals (skin type I and II) spend more than 1.5 hours outdoors on days with a UVI value of 2. Under rare circumstances of prolonged exposure, MEDs of the two most sensitive skin types can also be exceeded even on days with a UVI value of 1. Hence, current WHO guidance for sun protection on days with low UVI values needs reconsideration.

Public Health Messages Associated with Low UV Index Values Need Reconsideration

Spatial measurements of the diffusely scattered sky radiance at a seaside resort under clear sky and slightly overcast conditions have been used to calculate the sky radiance distribution across the upper hemisphere. The measurements were done in the summer season when solar UV radiation is highest. The selected wavelengths were 307, 350 and 550 nm representing the UVB, UVA and VIS band. Absolute values of radiance differ considerably between the wavelengths. Normalizing the measured values by use of direct solar radiance made the spatial distributions of unequal sky radiance comparable. The results convey a spatial impression of the different distributions of the radiance at the three wavelengths. Relative scattered radiance intensity is one order of magnitude greater in UVB than in VIS, whereas in UVA lies roughly in between. Under slightly overcast conditions scattered radiance is increased at all three wavelengths by about one order of magnitude. These measurements taken at the seaside underline the importance of diffuse scattered radiance. The effect of shading parts of the sky can be estimated from the distribution of sky radiance. This knowledge might be useful for sun seekers and in the treatment of people staying at the seaside for therapeutic purposes.

Spectral and Spatial UV Sky Radiance Measurements at a Seaside Resort Under Clear Sky and Slightly Overcast Conditions.

According to the World Health Organization and partner organizations, no protection against ultraviolet (UV) radiation is required on days with "low" values (i.e., values <3) of the Global Solar Ultraviolet Index (UVI). Erythemal irradiance (Eer ) data of such days were analyzed to evaluate this claim. Measurements from 9 stations of the German solar UV monitoring network from 2007 to 2016 yielded 14,431 daily Eer time series of low UVI days. Erythemal doses for certain fixed time intervals-acquired from measurements on horizontal planes-were compared with the average minimal erythemal dose (MED) of skin phototype II. Doses from days with rounded UVI values of 0 were insufficient to induce erythema and even on days with rounded UVI values of 1 doses exceeding 1 MED of skin type II could only be acquired under very specific circumstances of prolonged exposure. Conversely, sun exposure on days with rounded UVI values of 2 can indeed provide doses sufficient to induce erythema in skin type II after two hours around noon. In conclusion, our analyses do not support the claim of harmlessness currently associated with the entire low UVI exposure category in public guidance on interpretation of the UVI.

Erythemal UV Radiation on Days with Low UV Index Values-an Analysis of Data from the German Solar UV Monitoring Network over a Ten-year Period.

A Global Solar Ultraviolet Index (UVI) value of 2 is generally linked to the health message 'You can safely stay outside!' To examine whether this is sound advice for all skin types and even for prolonged periods spent outside we used erythemal irradiance data of all 136 days during the study period from 2014 till 2016 with such a UVI measured by the German Federal Office for Radiation Protection (BfS) in Munich, Germany. A comparison between the ambient erythemal doses calculated for various time intervals and minimal erythemal doses (MEDs) of the Caucasian skin types I-IV led us to a critical reappraisal of the above health message. Specifically, the message might be misleading if people with a fair complexion want to spend several hours outside, because without any protective measures the doses received can be sufficient to induce erythema. We thus recommend an amendment of the health message related to a safe level of the UVI and, moreover, generally tailoring UVI-related health messages to different skin types. Currently, these messages do not seem to be strictly evidence based, which might be one reason for the unexpected result of our analysis.

Implications of Low Levels of the UV Index for Sun Protection.

Overexposure to ultraviolet (UV) radiation is the main modifiable risk factor for skin cancer. The Global Solar Ultraviolet Index (UVI) was introduced as a tool to visualize the intensity of UV radiation on a certain day which should enable and encourage people to take appropriate protective measures. The exposure category ‘low’ of the UVI, including values from 0 to 2, was linked to the health message ‘No protection required’ by the World Health Organization and collaborating centres. However, published evidence corroborating this advice is scarce. Therefore, we analysed ambient erythemal irradiance data of 14,431 daily UVI time series of low UVI days. Data were gathered at nine stations of the German solar UV monitoring network – covering all major climate areas in Germany – in the years 2007 ­­­- 2016. We compared ambient erythemal doses calculated for various time intervals with average minimal erythemal doses (MEDs) of the Caucasian Fitzpatrick skin phototypes I-IV to assess the potential for skin damage arising from sun exposure on days with low UVI values. The most common months for the occurrence of days with low UVI values in our dataset were January and December, February and November, and March and October for UVI 0, 1 and 2, respectively. Our results indicate that on days with a UVI value of 0, risk of deterministic radiation injury (solar erythema) is negligible. Conversely, the above-mentioned health message appears misleading when melano-compromised individuals spend several hours outdoors on days with a UVI value of 2, as median doses exceed the MEDs of Fitzpatrick skin types I and II after an exposure duration of only 2h around solar noon. Under very rare specific circumstances, MEDs of those two most sensitive skin types can also be exceeded even on days with UVI 1. Hence, two aspects of current public health messages may need reconsideration: on the one hand, the health message related to an ‘innocuous level’ of the UVI and, on the other hand, a possible adaption of UVI-related health messages to different skin types.

/pdf/public-health-messages-associated-with-the-low-exposure-4j3tpl8qak.pdf

Public Health Messages Associated with the Low Exposure Category of the UV Index Need Reconsideration

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

Henner Sandmann

Author Tools

Chat about Author