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/m2). Least sun protection was provided by middle-sized sunglasses with highest midday dose at the white lateral (290.8 J/m2) and lateral periorbital zones (390.9 J/m2). 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/m2), 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.
Abstract. The availability of long-term records of the total ozone content (TOC)
represents a valuable source of information for studies on the assessment of
short- and long-term atmospheric changes and their impact on the terrestrial
ecosystem. In particular, ground-based observations represent a valuable tool
for validating satellite-derived products. To our knowledge, details about
software packages for processing Brewer spectrophotometer measurements and
for retrieving the TOC are seldom specified in studies using such datasets. The
sources of the differences among retrieved TOCs from the Brewer instruments
located at the Italian stations of Rome and Aosta, using three freely available
codes (Brewer Processing Software, BPS; O3Brewer software; and European Brewer Network (EUBREWNET) level
1.5 products) are investigated here. Ground-based TOCs are also compared with
Ozone Monitoring Instrument (OMI) TOC retrievals used as an independent
dataset since no other instruments near the Brewer sites are available. The overall agreement of the BPS and O3Brewer TOC data with EUBREWNET data is
within the estimated total uncertainty in the retrieval of total ozone from a
Brewer spectrophotometer (1 %). However, differences can be found
depending on the software in use. Such differences become larger when the
instrumental sensitivity exhibits a fast and dramatic drift which can affect
the ozone retrievals significantly. Moreover, if daily mean values are
directly generated by the software, differences can be observed due to the
configuration set by the users to process single ozone measurement and the
rejection rules applied to data to calculate the daily value. This work aims to provide useful information both for scientists engaged in
ozone measurements with Brewer spectrophotometers and for stakeholders of
the Brewer data products available on Web-based platforms.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.