B Piccoli1, G Soci, P L Zambelli, D Pisaniello. 1. Department of Occupational Health, Universita' Degli Studi, University of Milan, Via S Barnaba 8, Milan 20122, Italy.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The assessment of lighting conditions in workplaces has traditionally focused on the measurement of illuminance. The rationale for a new method for the detailed evaluation of natural and artificial light in 'near work' situations, involving the assessment of luminance, is described. METHODS: The procedure comprises four successive phases: (1) identify object/images observed during work tasks; (2) outline the area of the operator's visual field where gaze is predominantly directed; (3) measure luminances in the visual field, pin-pointing all sources of primary and secondary luminance, and constructing iso-luminance maps; and (4) compare luminance ratios. RESULTS: The procedure was illustrated using the common example of near work in an office environment. Illuminance was found to be inadequate to evaluate the effects of natural and artificial environmental light in the workplace. This is due to the fact that the luxmeter is designed to integrate the light detected over a large angle, whereas in near work the operator's retina is mainly stimulated by light originating from objects/images placed in the occupational visual field. CONCLUSIONS: A detailed measurement of luminance within the occupational visual field is consistent with ocular anatomy and physiology, and can be used as part of a risk assessment for visual disturbances and to rationalize lighting at workstations.
OBJECTIVES: The assessment of lighting conditions in workplaces has traditionally focused on the measurement of illuminance. The rationale for a new method for the detailed evaluation of natural and artificial light in 'near work' situations, involving the assessment of luminance, is described. METHODS: The procedure comprises four successive phases: (1) identify object/images observed during work tasks; (2) outline the area of the operator's visual field where gaze is predominantly directed; (3) measure luminances in the visual field, pin-pointing all sources of primary and secondary luminance, and constructing iso-luminance maps; and (4) compare luminance ratios. RESULTS: The procedure was illustrated using the common example of near work in an office environment. Illuminance was found to be inadequate to evaluate the effects of natural and artificial environmental light in the workplace. This is due to the fact that the luxmeter is designed to integrate the light detected over a large angle, whereas in near work the operator's retina is mainly stimulated by light originating from objects/images placed in the occupational visual field. CONCLUSIONS: A detailed measurement of luminance within the occupational visual field is consistent with ocular anatomy and physiology, and can be used as part of a risk assessment for visual disturbances and to rationalize lighting at workstations.