Cargando…
Public Health Messages Associated with Low UV Index Values Need Reconsideration
Overexposure to ultraviolet (UV) radiation is the main modifiable risk factor for skin cancer. The Global Solar Ultraviolet Index (UVI) was introduced as a tool to visualize the intensity of UV radiation on a certain day, which should enable and encourage people to take appropriate protective measur...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6617134/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31212727 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16122067 |
_version_ | 1783433621559836672 |
---|---|
author | Lehmann, Maria Pfahlberg, Annette B. Sandmann, Henner Uter, Wolfgang Gefeller, Olaf |
author_facet | Lehmann, Maria Pfahlberg, Annette B. Sandmann, Henner Uter, Wolfgang Gefeller, Olaf |
author_sort | Lehmann, Maria |
collection | PubMed |
description | Overexposure to ultraviolet (UV) radiation is the main modifiable risk factor for skin cancer. The Global Solar Ultraviolet Index (UVI) was introduced as a tool to visualize the intensity of UV radiation on a certain day, which should enable and encourage people to take appropriate protective measures. The ‘low’ exposure category of the UVI, defined by a rounded UVI value of 0, 1 or 2, was linked to the health message ‘No protection required’ by the World Health Organization and partner organizations. However, published evidence corroborating this advice is not available. To evaluate the erythemal risk of low UVI days, we analyzed 14,431 daily time series of ambient erythemal irradiance data measured at nine stations of the German solar UV monitoring network during the years 2007–2016. We analyzed the proportion of days in the sample for which ambient erythemal doses calculated for various time intervals exceed average minimal erythemal doses (MEDs) of the Fitzpatrick skin phototypes I–VI to assess the potential for erythema arising from sun exposure on days with low UVI values. Additionally, we calculated for each day the minimum exposure duration needed to receive one MED. Our results indicate that on days with a UVI value of 0, risk of erythema is indeed negligible. Conversely, the abovementioned health message appears misleading when melano-compromised individuals (skin type I and II) spend more than 1.5 hours outdoors on days with a UVI value of 2. Under rare circumstances of prolonged exposure, MEDs of the two most sensitive skin types can also be exceeded even on days with a UVI value of 1. Hence, current WHO guidance for sun protection on days with low UVI values needs reconsideration. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6617134 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-66171342019-07-18 Public Health Messages Associated with Low UV Index Values Need Reconsideration Lehmann, Maria Pfahlberg, Annette B. Sandmann, Henner Uter, Wolfgang Gefeller, Olaf Int J Environ Res Public Health Article Overexposure to ultraviolet (UV) radiation is the main modifiable risk factor for skin cancer. The Global Solar Ultraviolet Index (UVI) was introduced as a tool to visualize the intensity of UV radiation on a certain day, which should enable and encourage people to take appropriate protective measures. The ‘low’ exposure category of the UVI, defined by a rounded UVI value of 0, 1 or 2, was linked to the health message ‘No protection required’ by the World Health Organization and partner organizations. However, published evidence corroborating this advice is not available. To evaluate the erythemal risk of low UVI days, we analyzed 14,431 daily time series of ambient erythemal irradiance data measured at nine stations of the German solar UV monitoring network during the years 2007–2016. We analyzed the proportion of days in the sample for which ambient erythemal doses calculated for various time intervals exceed average minimal erythemal doses (MEDs) of the Fitzpatrick skin phototypes I–VI to assess the potential for erythema arising from sun exposure on days with low UVI values. Additionally, we calculated for each day the minimum exposure duration needed to receive one MED. Our results indicate that on days with a UVI value of 0, risk of erythema is indeed negligible. Conversely, the abovementioned health message appears misleading when melano-compromised individuals (skin type I and II) spend more than 1.5 hours outdoors on days with a UVI value of 2. Under rare circumstances of prolonged exposure, MEDs of the two most sensitive skin types can also be exceeded even on days with a UVI value of 1. Hence, current WHO guidance for sun protection on days with low UVI values needs reconsideration. MDPI 2019-06-12 2019-06 /pmc/articles/PMC6617134/ /pubmed/31212727 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16122067 Text en © 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Article Lehmann, Maria Pfahlberg, Annette B. Sandmann, Henner Uter, Wolfgang Gefeller, Olaf Public Health Messages Associated with Low UV Index Values Need Reconsideration |
title | Public Health Messages Associated with Low UV Index Values Need Reconsideration |
title_full | Public Health Messages Associated with Low UV Index Values Need Reconsideration |
title_fullStr | Public Health Messages Associated with Low UV Index Values Need Reconsideration |
title_full_unstemmed | Public Health Messages Associated with Low UV Index Values Need Reconsideration |
title_short | Public Health Messages Associated with Low UV Index Values Need Reconsideration |
title_sort | public health messages associated with low uv index values need reconsideration |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6617134/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31212727 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16122067 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT lehmannmaria publichealthmessagesassociatedwithlowuvindexvaluesneedreconsideration AT pfahlbergannetteb publichealthmessagesassociatedwithlowuvindexvaluesneedreconsideration AT sandmannhenner publichealthmessagesassociatedwithlowuvindexvaluesneedreconsideration AT uterwolfgang publichealthmessagesassociatedwithlowuvindexvaluesneedreconsideration AT gefellerolaf publichealthmessagesassociatedwithlowuvindexvaluesneedreconsideration |