Search

This assessment by the Environmental Effects Assessment Panel (EEAP) of the Montreal Protocol under the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) evaluates the effects of ultraviolet (UV) radiation on human health within the context of the Montreal Protocol and its Amendments. We assess work published since our last comprehensive assessment in 2018. Over the last four years gains have been made in knowledge of the links between sun exposure and health outcomes, mechanisms, and estimates of disease burden, including economic impacts. Of particular note, there is new information about the way in which exposure to UV radiation modulates the immune system, causing both harms and benefits for health. The burden of skin cancer remains high, with many lives lost to melanoma and many more people treated for keratinocyte cancer, but it has been estimated that the Montreal Protocol will prevent 11 million cases of melanoma and 432 million cases of keratinocyte cancer that would otherwise have occurred in the United States in people born between 1890 and 2100. While the incidence of skin cancer continues to rise, rates have stabilised in younger populations in some countries. Mortality has also plateaued, partly due to the use of systemic therapies for advanced disease. However, these therapies are very expensive, contributing to the extremely high economic burden of skin cancer, and emphasising the importance and comparative cost-effectiveness of prevention. Photodermatoses, inflammatory skin conditions induced by exposure to UV radiation, can have a marked detrimental impact on the quality of life of sufferers. More information is emerging about their potential link with commonly used drugs, particularly anti-hypertensives. The eyes are also harmed by over-exposure to UV radiation. The incidence of cataract and pterygium is continuing to rise, and there is now evidence of a link between intraocular melanoma and sun exposure. It has been estimated that the Montreal Protocol will prevent 63 million cases of cataract that would otherwise have occurred in the United States in people born between 1890 and 2100. Despite the clearly established harms, exposure to UV radiation also has benefits for human health. While the best recognised benefit is production of vitamin D, beneficial effects mediated by factors other than vitamin D are emerging. For both sun exposure and vitamin D, there is increasingly convincing evidence of a positive role in diseases related to immune function, including both autoimmune diseases and infection. With its influence on the intensity of UV radiation and global warming, the Montreal Protocol has, and will have, both direct and indirect effects on human health, potentially changing the balance of the risks and benefits of spending time outdoors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Montreal Protocol has limited increases in the UV-B (280–315 nm) radiation reaching the Earth's surface as a result of depletion of stratospheric ozone. Nevertheless, the incidence of skin cancers continues to increase in most light-skinned populations, probably due mainly to risky sun exposure behaviour. In locations with strong sun protection programs of long duration, incidence is now reducing in younger age groups. Changes in the epidemiology of UV-induced eye diseases are less clear, due to a lack of data. Exposure to UV radiation plays a role in the development of cataracts, pterygium and possibly age-related macular degeneration; these are major causes of visual impairment world-wide. Photodermatoses and phototoxic reactions to drugs are not uncommon; management of the latter includes recognition of the risks by the prescribing physician. Exposure to UV radiation has benefits for health through the production of vitamin D in the skin and modulation of immune function. The latter has benefits for skin diseases such as psoriasis and possibly for systemic autoimmune diseases such as multiple sclerosis. The health risks of sun exposure can be mitigated through appropriate sun protection, such as clothing with both good UV-blocking characteristics and adequate skin coverage, sunglasses, shade, and sunscreen. New sunscreen preparations provide protection against a broader spectrum of solar radiation, but it is not clear that this has benefits for health. Gaps in knowledge make it difficult to derive evidence-based sun protection advice that balances the risks and benefits of sun exposure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Environmental Effects Assessment Panel (EEAP) is one of three Panels of experts that inform the Parties to the Montreal Protocol. The EEAP focuses on the effects of UV radiation on human health, terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, air quality, and materials, as well as on the interactive effects of UV radiation and global climate change. When considering the effects of climate change, it has become clear that processes resulting in changes in stratospheric ozone are more complex than previously held. Because of the Montreal Protocol, there are now indications of the beginnings of a recovery of stratospheric ozone, although the time required to reach levels like those before the 1960s is still uncertain, particularly as the effects of stratospheric ozone on climate change and vice versa, are not yet fully understood. Some regions will likely receive enhanced levels of UV radiation, while other areas will likely experience a reduction in UV radiation as ozone- and climate-driven changes affect the amounts of UV radiation reaching the Earth's surface. Like the other Panels, the EEAP produces detailed Quadrennial Reports every four years; the most recent was published as a series of seven papers in 2015 (Photochem. Photobiol. Sci., 2015, 14, 1–184). In the years in between, the EEAP produces less detailed and shorter Update Reports of recent and relevant scientific findings. The most recent of these was for 2016 (Photochem. Photobiol. Sci., 2017, 16, 107–145). The present 2017 Update Report assesses some of the highlights and new insights about the interactive nature of the direct and indirect effects of UV radiation, atmospheric processes, and climate change. A full 2018 Quadrennial Assessment, will be made available in 2018/2019. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There are several connections between coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), solar UV radiation, and the Montreal Protocol. Exposure to ambient solar UV radiation inactivates SARS-CoV-2, the virus responsible for COVID-19. An action spectrum describing the wavelength dependence of the inactivation of SARS-CoV-2 by UV and visible radiation has recently been published. In contrast to action spectra that have been assumed in the past for estimating the effect of UV radiation on SARS-CoV-2, the new action spectrum has a large sensitivity in the UV-A (315–400 nm) range. If this "UV-A tail" is correct, solar UV radiation could be much more efficient in inactivating the virus responsible for COVID-19 than previously thought. Furthermore, the sensitivity of inactivation rates to the total column ozone would be reduced because ozone absorbs only a small amount of UV-A radiation. Using solar simulators, the times for inactivating SARS-CoV-2 have been determined by several groups; however, many measurements are affected by poorly defined experimental setups. The most reliable data suggest that 90% of viral particles embedded in saliva are inactivated within ~ 7 min by solar radiation for a solar zenith angle (SZA) of 16.5° and within ~ 13 min for a SZA of 63.4°. Slightly longer inactivation times were found for aerosolised virus particles. These times can become considerably longer during cloudy conditions or if virus particles are shielded from solar radiation. Many publications have provided evidence of an inverse relationship between ambient solar UV radiation and the incidence or severity of COVID-19, but the reasons for these negative correlations have not been unambiguously identified and could also be explained by confounders, such as ambient temperature, humidity, visible radiation, daylength, temporal changes in risk and disease management, and the proximity of people to other people. Meta-analyses of observational studies indicate inverse associations between serum 25-hydroxy vitamin D (25(OH)D) concentration and the risk of SARS-CoV-2 positivity or severity of COVID-19, although the quality of these studies is largely low. Mendelian randomisation studies have not found statistically significant evidence of a causal effect of 25(OH)D concentration on COVID-19 susceptibility or severity, but a potential link between vitamin D status and disease severity cannot be excluded as some randomised trials suggest that vitamin D supplementation is beneficial for people admitted to a hospital. Several studies indicate significant positive associations between air pollution and COVID-19 incidence and fatality rates. Conversely, well-established cohort studies indicate no association between long-term exposure to air pollution and infection with SARS-CoV-2. By limiting increases in UV radiation, the Montreal Protocol has also suppressed the inactivation rates of pathogens exposed to UV radiation. However, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that the expected larger inactivation rates without the Montreal Protocol would have had tangible consequences on the progress of the COVID-19 pandemic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Due to the implementation of the Montreal Protocol, which has limited, and is now probably reversing, the depletion of the stratospheric ozone layer, only modest increases in solar UV-B radiation at the surface of the Earth have occurred. For many fair-skinned populations, changing behaviour with regard to exposure to the sun over the past half century - more time in the sun, less clothing cover (more skin exposed), and preference for a tan - has probably contributed more to greater levels of exposure to UV-B radiation than ozone depletion. Exposure to UV-B radiation has both adverse and beneficial effects on human health. This report focuses on an assessment of the evidence regarding these outcomes that has been published since our previous report in 2010. The skin and eyes are the organs exposed to solar UV radiation. Excessive solar irradiation causes skin cancer, including cutaneous malignant melanoma and the non-melanoma skin cancers, basal cell carcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma, and contributes to the development of other rare skin cancers such as Merkel cell carcinoma. Although the incidence of melanoma continues to increase in many countries, in some locations, primarily those with strong sun protection programmes, incidence has stabilised or decreased over the past 5 years, particularly in younger age-groups. However, the incidence of non-melanoma skin cancers is still increasing in most locations. Exposure of the skin to the sun also induces systemic immune suppression that may have adverse effects on health, such as through the reactivation of latent viral infections, but also beneficial effects through suppression of autoimmune reactivity. Solar UV-B radiation damages the eyes, causing cataracts and pterygium. UV-B irradiation of the skin is the main source of vitamin D in many geographic locations. Vitamin D plays a critical role in the maintenance of calcium homeostasis in the body; severe deficiency causes the bone diseases, rickets in children and osteomalacia in adults. Although many studies have implicated vitamin D deficiency in a wide range of diseases, such as cancer and cardiovascular disease, more recent evidence is less compelling, with meta-analyses of supplementation trials failing to show a beneficial effect on the health outcomes that have been tested. It continues to be difficult to provide public health messages to guide safe exposure to the sun that are accurate, simple, and can be used by people with different skin types, in different locations, and for different times of the year or day. There is increasing interest in relating sun protection messages to the UV Index. Current sun protection strategies are outlined and assessed. Climatic factors affect the amount of UV radiation received by the skin and eyes, separately from the effect of ozone depletion. For example, cloud cover can decrease or increase the intensity of UV radiation at Earth's surface and warmer temperatures and changes in precipitation patterns may alter the amount of time people spend outdoors and their choice of clothing. The combination of changes in climate and UV radiation may affect the number of pathogenic microorganisms in surface waters, and could have an impact on food security through effects on plant and aquatic systems. It remains difficult to quantify these effects and their possible importance for human health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite the widespread use of ambient ultraviolet radiation (UVR) as a proxy measure of personal exposure to UVR, the relationship between the two is not well-defined. This paper examines the effects of season and latitude on the relationship between ambient UVR and personal UVR exposure. We used data from the AusD Study, a multi-centre cross-sectional study among Australian adults (18–75 years), where personal UVR exposure was objectively measured using polysulphone dosimeters. Data were analysed for 991 participants from 4 Australian cities of different latitude: Townsville (19.3°S), Brisbane (27.5°S), Canberra (35.3°S) and Hobart (42.8°S). Daily personal UVR exposure varied from 0.01 to 21 Standard Erythemal Doses (median = 1.1, IQR: 0.5–2.1), on average accounting for 5% of the total available ambient dose. There was an overall positive correlation between ambient UVR and personal UVR exposure (r = 0.23, p ＜ 0.001). However, the correlations varied according to season and study location: from strong correlations in winter (r = 0.50) and at high latitudes (Hobart, r = 0.50; Canberra, r = 0.39), to null or even slightly negative correlations, in summer (r = 0.01) and at low latitudes (Townsville, r = −0.06; Brisbane, r = −0.16). Multiple regression models showed significant effect modification by season and location. Personal exposure fraction of total available ambient dose was highest in winter (7%) and amongst Hobart participants (7%) and lowest in summer (1%) and in Townsville (4%). These results suggest season and latitude modify the relationship between ambient UVR and personal UVR exposure. Ambient UVR may not be a good indicator for personal exposure dose under some circumstances. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The protection of Earth's stratospheric ozone (O3) is an ongoing process under the auspices of the universally ratified Montreal Protocol and its Amendments and adjustments. A critical part of this process is the assessment of the environmental issues related to changes in O3. The United Nations Environment Programme's Environmental Effects Assessment Panel provides annual scientific evaluations of some of the key issues arising in the recent collective knowledge base. This current update includes a comprehensive assessment of the incidence rates of skin cancer, cataract and other skin and eye diseases observed worldwide; the effects of UV radiation on tropospheric oxidants, and air and water quality; trends in breakdown products of fluorinated chemicals and recent information of their toxicity; and recent technological innovations of building materials for greater resistance to UV radiation. These issues span a wide range of topics, including both harmful and beneficial effects of exposure to UV radiation, and complex interactions with climate change. While the Montreal Protocol has succeeded in preventing large reductions in stratospheric O3, future changes may occur due to a number of natural and anthropogenic factors. Thus, frequent assessments of potential environmental impacts are essential to ensure that policies remain based on the best available scientific knowledge. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The global variation in type 1 diabetes (T1D) incidence rates is one of the most significant observed for any non-communicable disease. Geographical patterns in incidence suggest that low sun exposure may contribute to the wide disparity, with incidence rates generally increasing with distance from the Equator. T1D development is associated with hyperactivity of the adaptive immune system leading to autoimmune destruction of insulin-secreting pancreatic β cells. Both exposure to ultraviolet radiation (UVR) and vitamin D, with their known immunosuppressive effects, have the potential to delay or inhibit the disease. Efforts to confirm the role of UVR by vitamin D dependent and independent pathways in the pathogenesis of T1D have been challenged by inconsistent results among studies. Human observational studies and animal and in vitro experiments indicate that at least some of the benefits of sun exposure come from improved vitamin D status. There is no evidence of benefit for T1D risk of vitamin D supplementation during pregnancy at current recommended levels (400 IU per day); but some evidence supports that higher sun exposure and/or vitamin D sufficiency in pregnancy, or supplementation in early life, decreases T1D risk. Further research is required to confirm an association between UVR exposure and T1D and clarify the mechanisms involved. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]