Literature DB >> 11683037

Exposure of arctic field scientists to ultraviolet radiation evaluated using personal dosimeters.

C S Cockell1, K Scherer, G Horneck, P Rettberg, R Facius, A Gugg-Helminger, C Driscoll, P Lee.   

Abstract

During July 2000 we used an electronic personal dosimeter (X-2000) and a biological dosimeter (Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt: Biofilm) to characterize the UV radiation exposure of arctic field scientists involved in biological and geological fieldwork. These personnel were working at the Haughton impact structure on Devon Island (75 degrees N) in the Canadian High Arctic under a 24 h photoperiod. During a typical day of field activities under a clear sky, the total daily erythemally weighted exposure, as measured by electronic dosimetry, was up to 5.8 standard erythemal dose (SED). Overcast skies (typically 7-8 okta of stratus) reduced exposures by a mean of 54%. We estimate that during a month of field activity in July a typical field scientist at this latitude could potentially receive approximately 80 SED to the face. Because of body movements the upper body was exposed to a UV regimen that often changed on second-to-second time-scales as assessed by electronic dosimetry. Over a typical 10 min period on vehicle traverse, we found that erythemal exposure could vary to up to 87% of the mean exposure. Time-integrated exposures showed that the type of outdoor field activities in the treeless expanse of the polar desert had little effect on the exposure received. Although absolute exposure changed in accordance with the time of day, the exposure ratio (dose received over horizontal dose) did not vary much over the day. Under clear skies the mean exposure ratio was 0.35 +/- 0.12 for individual activities at different times of the day assessed using electronic dosimetry. Biological dosimetry showed that the occupation was important in determining daily exposures. In our study, scientists in the field received an approximately two-fold higher dose than individuals, such as medics and computer scientists, who spent the majority of their time in tents.

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11683037     DOI: 10.1562/0031-8655(2001)074<0570:eoafst>2.0.co;2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Photochem Photobiol        ISSN: 0031-8655            Impact factor:   3.421


  6 in total

1.  Probing Different Approaches in Ultraviolet Radiation Personal Dosimetry - Ball Sports and Visiting Parks.

Authors:  Timo Heepenstrick; Claudine Strehl; Marc Wittlich
Journal:  Front Public Health       Date:  2022-04-27

2.  Risk Assessment of Face Skin Exposure to UV Irradiance from Different Rotation Angle Ranges.

Authors:  Fang Wang; Qian Gao; Yan Deng; Rentong Chen; Yang Liu
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2017-06-06       Impact factor: 3.390

3.  Criteria for Occupational Health Prevention for Solar UVR Exposed Outdoor Workers-Prevalence, Affected Parties, and Occupational Disease.

Authors:  Marc Wittlich
Journal:  Front Public Health       Date:  2022-01-26

4.  Immune system changes during simulated planetary exploration on Devon Island, high arctic.

Authors:  Brian Crucian; Pascal Lee; Raymond Stowe; Jeff Jones; Rainer Effenhauser; Raymond Widen; Clarence Sams
Journal:  BMC Immunol       Date:  2007-05-23       Impact factor: 3.615

5.  Towards a Better Understanding of the Effects of UV on Atlantic Walruses, Odobenus rosmarus rosmarus: A Study Combining Histological Data with Local Ecological Knowledge.

Authors:  Laura M Martinez-Levasseur; Chris M Furgal; Mike O Hammill; Gary Burness
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-04-06       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 6.  Ultraviolet Radiation Albedo and Reflectance in Review: The Influence to Ultraviolet Exposure in Occupational Settings.

Authors:  Joanna Turner; Alfio V Parisi
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2018-07-17       Impact factor: 3.390

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.