Daylight-mediated photodynamic therapy (daylight PDT) is a simple and pain free treatment of actinic keratoses. Weather conditions may not always allow daylight PDT outdoors. We compared the spectrum of five different lamp candidates for indoor “daylight PDT” and investigated their ability to photobleach protoporphyrin IX (PpIX). Furthermore, we measured the amount of PpIX activating daylight available in a glass greenhouse, which can be an alternative when it is uncomfortable for patients to be outdoors. The lamps investigated were: halogen lamps (overhead and slide projector), white light-emitting diode (LED) lamp, red LED panel and lamps used for conventional PDT. Four of the five light sources were able to photobleach PpIX completely. For halogen light and the red LED lamp, 5000 lux could photobleach PpIX whereas 12,000 lux were needed for the white LED lamp. Furthermore, the greenhouse was suitable for daylight PDT since the effect of solar light is lowered only by 25%. In conclusion, we found four of the five light sources and the greenhouse usable for indoor daylight PDT. The greenhouse is beneficial when the weather outside is rainy or windy. Only insignificant ultraviolet B radiation (UVB) radiation passes through the greenhouse glass, so sun protection is not needed.

Ultraviolet radiation spectral irradiance was measured at different altitudes on horizontal and tilted planes in different azimuth directions on cloudless days in Austria, in March 2010, within the Impact of Climatic and Environmental factors on Personal Ultraviolet Radiation Exposure project framework. The presented results demonstrate variations of the UVB, UVA and biologically effective spectral irradiance measured on inclined and horizontal surfaces with east, west and south azimuth directions of the vertical surface and the angular position of a detector.

Personal ultraviolet radiation (UVR) dosimetry has been performed for decades to objectively measure human exposure to UVR. These measurements have been used to investigate solar behaviour and its negative effects on human health such as skin cancer and positive effects such as vitamin D formation. A specific electronic dosimeter is described with a spectral sensitivity as the erythema response for human skin and temperature measurements for compliance control. Technical, methodological and environmental causes of uncertainties regarding personal UV dosimetry are investigated using this dosimeter as an example, which enables us to show the dosimeter's limitations and enables readers to compare their dosimeters with that described and to increase awareness of imperfections of dosimeters. The dosimeter's spectral response, cosine response, linearity, temperature dependency and sensitivity are investigated. As opposed to biological and chemical dosimeters, electronic dosimeters do not measure UV radiation continuously but at time-intervals (sampling). The error introduced by sampling is investigated for sampling intervals from 1 second up to 60 seconds for 3 groups of people (n = 18, 1.1–4.6 hours of positive UV measurements) on sunny (n = 12) and cloudy (n = 6) days. Increasing the sample time by 1 second added on average an uncertainty of maximum +0.29% to −0.27% per added second compared to the 1-second sample time. The importance of dirt on the sensor was investigated in 24 dosimeters after 6 months use by farmers. The reduction in the registered dose due to the dirty sensor was 2.3% (median = 2.0%, inter-quartile range = 2.0%, max = 5%) suggesting that dirt on the sensor generally does not play a significant role.

Background Childhood solar ultraviolet radiation (UVR) exposure increases the risk of skin cancer in adulthood, which is associated with mutations caused by UVR-induced cyclobutane pyrimidine dimers (CPD). Solar UVR is also the main source of vitamin D, essential for healthy bone development in children. Objectives To assess the impact of a 12-day Baltic Sea (54° N) beach holiday on serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D₃ [25(OH)D₃] and CPD in 32 healthy Polish children (skin types I–IV). Methods Blood and urine were collected before and after the holiday and assessed for 25(OH)D₃ and excreted CPD, respectively, and personal UVR exposure was measured. Diaries were used to record sunbathing, sunburn and sunscreen use. Before- and after-holiday skin redness and pigmentation were measured by reflectance spectroscopy. Results The average ± SD daily exposure UVR dose was 2·4 ± 1·5 standard erythema doses (SEDs), which is borderline erythemal. The mean concentration of 25(OH)D₃ increased (× 1·24 ± 0·19) from 64·7 ± 13·3 to 79·3 ± 18·7 nmol L⁻¹ (P < 0·001). Mean CPD increased 12·6 ± 10·0-fold from 26·9 ± 17·9 to 248·9 ± 113·4 fmol μmol⁻¹ creatinine (P < 0·001). Increased 25(OH)D₃ was accompanied by a very much greater increase in DNA damage associated with carcinogenic potential. Overall, skin type had no significant effects on behavioural, clinical or analytical outcomes, but skin types I/II had more CPD (unadjusted P = 0·0496) than skin types III/IV at the end of the holiday. Conclusions Careful consideration must be given to the health outcomes of childhood solar exposure, and a much better understanding of the risk–benefit relationships of such exposure is required. Rigorous photoprotection is necessary for children, even in Northern Europe.

The main purpose of this study was to investigate whether people change their sun behaviour over a period of 7 years. Thus 32 volunteers, who had all participated in earlier sun exposure studies in 1999–2001, were enrolled in a follow-up study in 2006. They were selected to represent a previous low, medium and high UVR exposure. They participated for mean 121 days (range 65–157 days) wearing a personal, electronic wrist-borne UVR dosimeter and completed sun exposure diaries. No statistically significant differences were seen from year to year in the estimated annual UVR dose, mean UVR dose per day or mean percentage of ambient UVR. However, there was a person effect showing that participants maintained a high or low UVR dose lifestyle over the years. In 2006 the 32 participants received an estimated annual mean UVR dose of 221 SED and a median dose of 154 SED (range 25–1337 SED), while they received a mean for the previous participation years (1999–2001) of 236 SED (median 153 SED, range 24–980 SED). The estimated annual UVR dose for each of the previous sun years and the estimated annual dose for 2006 correlated significantly (R² = 0.51; p < 0.0001). Sun risk behaviour, expressed as days sunbathing, did not change either. The participants thus seem to have maintained their sun exposure behaviour over a 5–7-year period.