Search

Shade is an important means of protection against harmful effects of sun ultraviolet (UV) exposure, but not all shades are identically protective. UV rays scattered by the atmosphere and surroundings can reach the skin indirectly. To evaluate the relative contribution of the direct, diffuse, and reflected radiation in UV protection provided by different sizes of shade structure, we used SimUVEx v2, a numeric tool based on 3D graphic techniques and ambient ground UV irradiance. The relative UV exposure reduction was expressed by the predictive protection factor (PPF). Shade structures were found to predominantly reduce exposure from direct radiation (from 97.1% to 99.9% for the upper body areas such as the head and the neck), with greater protection from larger shade structures and structures closer above the subject. Legs were the least protected anatomical zone from any shade structure above the subject with PPF ranging from 18.5% to 68.1%. Throughout the day, except for lower solar zenith angles (SZA), small and high shade structures provide the lowest protection (between 20% and 50%), while small and low shade structure show PPF between 35% and 65% and large and high shade structures reach PPF higher than 60%.

Background/purpose Solar ultraviolet radiation (UVR) doses received by individuals are highly influenced by behavioural and environmental factors. This study aimed at quantifying hats' sun protection effectiveness in various exposure conditions, by predicting UVR exposure doses and their anatomical distributions. Methods A well-defined 3-dimensional head morphology and 4 hat styles (a cap, a helmet, a middle- and a wide-brimmed hat) were added to a previously published model. Midday (12:00-14:00) and daily (08:00-17:00) seasonal UVR doses were estimated at various facial skin zones, with and without hat wear, accounting for each UVR component. Protection effectiveness was calculated by the relative reduction in predicted UVR dose, expressed as a predictive protection factor (PPF). Results The unprotected entire face received 2.5 times higher UVR doses during a summer midday compared to a winter midday (3.3 vs 1.3 standard erythema dose [SED]) with highest doses received at the nose (6.1 SED). During a cloudless summer day, the lowest mean UVR dose is received by the entire face protected by a wide-brimmed hat (1.7 SED). No hat reached 100% protection at any facial skin zone (PPFmax : 76%). Hats' sun protection effectiveness varied highly with environmental conditions and was mainly limited by the high contribution of diffuse UVR, irrespective of hat style. Larger brim sizes afforded greater facial protection than smaller brim sizes except around midday when the sun position is high. Conclusion Consideration of diffuse and reflected UVR in sun educational messages could improve sun protection effectiveness.

The aim of this study was to assess solar ultraviolet radiation (UVR) doses received by the eyes in different exposure situations, and to predict the sun protection effectiveness provided by various styles of sunglasses at facial, periorbital, and ocular skin zones including the cornea and accounting for different head positions. A 3D numeric model was optimized to predict direct, diffuse and reflected erythemally weighted UVR doses received at various skin zones. Precisely defined facial, periorbital, and ocular skin zones, sunglasses (goggles, medium-, and large-sized sunglasses) and three head positions were modeled to simulate daily (08:00-17:00) and midday (12:00-14:00) UVR doses. The shading from sunglasses' frame and lenses' UVR transmission were used to calculate a predictive protection factor (PPF [%]). Highest ocular daily UVR doses were estimated at the uncovered cornea (1718.4 J/m 2 ). Least sun protection was provided by middle-sized sunglasses with highest midday dose at the white lateral (290.8 J/m 2 ) and lateral periorbital zones (390.9 J/m 2 ). Goggles reached almost 100% protection at all skin zones. Large-sized sunglasses were highly effective in winter; however, their effectiveness depended on diffuse UVR doses received. In "looking-up" head positions highest midday UVR doses were received at the unprotected cornea (908.1 J/m 2 ), totally protected when large-sized sunglasses are used. All tested sunglass lenses fully blocked UVR. Sunglasses' protection effectiveness is strongly influenced by geometry, wearing position, head positions, and exposure conditions. Sunglasses do not totally block UVR and should be combined with additional protection means. 3D modeling allows estimating UVR exposure of highly sensitive small skin zones, chronically exposed and rarely assessed.

Excessive exposure to solar ultraviolet (UV) radiation is the main cause of skin cancer. The dose-response between UV exposure and skin cancer occurrence is not yet fully understood since UV exposure is highly heterogeneous and strongly influenced by host and behavioural factors, such as posture, orientation to the sun, skin complexion and clothing. To address this issue, a three-dimensional (3D) numeric model (SimUVEx) has been developed to assess dose and distribution of anatomical UV exposure. The model uses 3D computer graphics techniques to compute UV radiance on the basis of postural information and ambient irradiation data, without necessitating time-consuming individual dosimetry, ensuring a wide potential use in skin cancer prevention and research. With the purpose to improve simulation capabilities in order to obtain more realistic scenarios and quantify effective sun protection strategies, a new version has been released, SimUVEX v2. Among new features, a specific morphology for the most sun-exposed body area, the head, has been added. We selected three different styles of hat (cap, wide-brimmed hat and helmet) to compare scenarios with and without solar protections considering the relative contribution of the direct, diffuse and reflected radiation. It was found that, sites directly covered apart (e.g., forehead and top of the head), hats with a wide brim are necessary in order to provide reasonable protections around facial zones on which non-melanoma skin cancers commonly occur, such as nose and cheeks.

Epidemiology and public health research relating to solar ultraviolet (UV) exposure usually relies on dosimetry to measure UV doses received by individuals. However, measurement errors affect each dosimetry measurement by unknown amounts, complicating the analysis of such measurements and their relationship to the underlying population exposure and the associated health outcomes. This paper presents a new approach to estimate UV doses without the use of dosimeters. By combining new satellite-derived UV data to account for environmental factors and simulation-based exposure ratio (ER) modelling to account for individual factors, we are able to estimate doses for specific exposure periods. This is a significant step forward for alternative dosimetry techniques which have previously been limited to annual dose estimation. We compare our dose estimates with dosimeter measurements from skiers and builders in Switzerland. The dosimetry measurements are expected to be slightly below the true doses due to a variety of dosimeter-related measurement errors, mostly explaining why our estimates are greater than or equal to the corresponding dosimetry measurements. Our approach holds much promise as a low-cost way to either complement or substitute traditional dosimetry. It can be applied in a research context, but is also fundamentally well-suited to be used as the basis for a dose-estimating mobile app that does not require an external device.