Solar Ultraviolet Radiation Exposure Among Opencast Miners in Namibia with the Use of Electronic Dosimeters: A Feasibility Study

Motsehoa Cynthia Ramotsehoa; Frederik Christoffel Eloff; Johannes Lodewykus du Plessis; Caradee Yael Wright; David Jean du Preez

doi:10.5334/aogh.4490

Solar Ultraviolet Radiation Exposure Among Opencast Miners in Namibia with the Use of Electronic Dosimeters: A Feasibility Study

Volume 90 (2024): Issue 1

By: Motsehoa Cynthia Ramotsehoa , Frederik Christoffel Eloff , Johannes Lodewykus du Plessis , Caradee Yael Wright and David Jean du Preez

Open Access

|Nov 2024

Abstract

Importance: The lack of information on exposure of opencast mineworkers to solar ultraviolet radiation, a group I carcinogen, was addressed. The feasibility of using electronic dosimeters in the determination of exposure to solar ultraviolet radiation was investigated.

Objective: The objective of the study was to determine the feasibility of measuring the occupational exposure of opencast mineworkers to solar ultraviolet radiation using electronic dosimeters.

Design: The study followed a cross-sectional design.

Setting: Measurements were carried out at two opencast diamond mining operations hereafter referred to as site A and B, located in the Karas region of Namibia.

Participants: Workers from all four outdoor occupations (bedrock, engineering, metallurgy and security) were recruited to participate in the study.

Measurements: The study was conducted over four days at each site during winter (site A: 28 June to 4 July 2018 and site B: 6–11 July 2018) in the Karas region of Namibia with 28 consenting workers taking part. The AlGaN photodiode-based electronic dosimeters were worn above clothing on the dorsal wrists (one) and two placed on the horizontal, unshaded area from 08:00 to 16:00 for the measurement of personal and ambient solar ultraviolet radiation, respectively. Historical meteorological data for the measurement period were obtained from Solcast and Ozone Monitoring Instrument (OMI) NASA.

Results: Overall, clear skies and surface reflectivity of 0.19 were observed for both study sites. The mean ultraviolet indices were 2.43 (0.06–4.51) and 2.24 (0.09–4.88) for site A and B, respectively. Findings of valid measurements from nine participants showed the mean total daily personal solar ultraviolet radiation exposure of 1.9 ± 1.0 (1.01–1.57) standard erythemal dose (SED) for site A and 3.4 ± 2.6 (3.39–7.28) SED for site B.

Conclusions and Relevance: Personal solar ultraviolet radiation exposure above the occupational exposure limit (OEL) demonstrated the need to include the winter season in planning for protective measures for skin and eyes, since workers are at risk of excessive exposure to solar ultraviolet radiation.

References

Wittlich M. Criteria for occupational health prevention for solar UVR exposed outdoor workers‑prevalence, affected parties, and occupational disease. Front Public Health. 2022;9:772290. doi:10.3389/fpubh.2021.772290.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. Solar and Ultraviolet Radiation. WHO/IARC; 1992:55. ISBN 978-92-832-1255-3. Accessed August 3, 2024. Available from: https://publications.iarc.fr/Book-And-Report-Series/Iarc-Monographs-On-The-Identification-Of-Carcinogenic-Hazards-To-Humans/Solar-And-Ultraviolet-Radiation-1992.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Schmalwieser AW, Cabaj A, Schauberge G. Facial solar UV exposure of Austrian farmers during occupation. Photochem Photobiol. 2010;86:1404–1413.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Grandahl K, Mortensen OS, Sherman DZ, et al. Solar UV exposure among outdoor workers in Denmark measured with personal UV‑B dosimeters: Technical and practical feasibility. BioMed Eng Online. 2019;16:119.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Ministry of Labour. Labour Act (Act 156 of 1992). Regulations Relating to the Health and Safety of Employees at Work. Government Gazette of the Republic of Namibia; 1997.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Lucas RM, Norval N, Wright CY. Solar ultraviolet radiation in Africa: A systematic review and critical evaluation of the health risks and use of photoprotection. Photochem Photobiol Sci. 2016;15:10–23.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Pega F, Momen NC, Streicher KN, et al. Global, regional and national burdens of non‑melanoma skin cancer attributable to occupational exposure to solar ultraviolet radiation for 183 countries, 2000–2019: A systematic analysis from the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work‑related Burden of Disease and Injury. Environ Int. 2023;181:108226.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Broyles JR, Glick P, Hu J, Lim Y. Cataract Blindness and Simulation‑Based Training for Cataract Surgeons: An Assessment of the HelpMeSee Approach. RAND Corporation; 2012. Accessed July 7, 2022. Available from: 10.7249/j.ctt5hhvbk">http://www.jstor.com/stable/10.7249/j.ctt5hhvbk.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Chamber of Mines of Namibia. The Impact of the Mining Sector on the Namibia Economy: Assessing Socio‑Economic and Environmental Effects. 2021. Accessed March 9, 2023. Available from: https://www.npc.gov.na/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/The-Impact-of-Mining-sector-to-the-Namibia-economy-FINAL.pdf.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Solcast. Global solar irradiance data and PV system power output data; 2024. Accessed July 16, 2024. Available from: https://toolkit.solcast.com.au/historical.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Bhartia PK. OMI/Aura TOMS‑like ozone and radiative cloud fraction L3 1 Day 0.25 Degree x 0.25 Degree V3. NASA Goddard Space Flight Center; 2012. Accessed July 22, 2024. doi:10.5067/Aura/OMI/DATA3002.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Madronich S. Analytic formula for the clear‑sky UV index. Photochem Photobiol. 2007;83:1537–1538.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Allen M, McKenzie R. Enhanced UV exposure on a ski‑field compared with exposures at sea level. Photochem Photobiol Sci. 2005;4:429–437. doi:10.1039/b418942f.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Allen MW, Swift N, Nield KM, Liley B, McKenzie RL. Use of electronic UV dosimeters in measuring personal UV exposures and public health education. Atmos. 2020;11(7):744. doi:10.3390/atmos11070744.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
International Organization for Standardization/International Electrotechnical Commission. ISO/CIE 17166: 2019. Erythema reference action spectrum and standard erythema dose. Accessed Mar 18, 2024, Available from: https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/en/#iso:std:74167:en.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Nkogatse MM, Ramotsehoa MC, Eloff FC, Wright CY. Solar ultraviolet radiation exposure and sun protection behaviors and knowledge among a high‑risk and overlooked group of outdoor workers in South Africa. Photochem Photobiol. 2019;95:439–445.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hammond V, Reeder AI, Gray A. Patterns of real‑time occupational ultraviolet radiation exposure among a sample of outdoor workers in New Zealand. Pub Health. 2009;123:182.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
International Commission on Non‑Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). ICNIRP statement on protection of workers against ultraviolet radiation. Health Phys. 2010;99:66–87.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
McKenzie RL, Lucas RM. Reassessing impacts of extended daily exposure to low‑ level solar UV radiation. Sci Rep. 2018;8:13805.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Backes C, Religi A, Moccozet L, et al. Sun exposure to the eyes: Predicted UV protection effectiveness of various sunglasses. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol. 2019;29:753–764.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Downs NJ, Igoe DP, Parisi AV, et al. Seasonal minimum and maximum solar ultraviolet exposure measurements of classroom teachers residing in tropical north Queensland, Australia. Photochem Photobiol. 2019;95:1083–1093.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Parisi AV, Meldrum LR, Kimlin MG, et al. Evaluation of differences in ultraviolet exposure during weekend and weekday activities. Phys Med Biol. 2000;45:2253–2262.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Larkö O, Diffey BL. Natural UV‑B radiation received by people with outdoor, indoor, and mixed occupations and UV‑B treatment of psoriasis. Clin Exp Dermatol. 1983;8:279–285.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Neale RE, Hamilton AR, Janda M, et al. Seasonal variation in measured solar ultraviolet radiation exposure of adults in subtropical Australia. J Photochem Photobiol. 2010;86(2):445–448.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
John SM, Trakatelli M, Gehring R, et al. Consensus report: Recognizing non‑melanoma skin cancer, including actinic keratosis, as an occupational disease‑ A call to action. Eur Acad Derma Venereol. 2016;30:38–45.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
International Commission on Non‑Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). Principles for non‑ionizing radiation protection. Health Phys. 2020;118:477–482.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
World Health Organization. Global Health Solar Index: A practical guide: A joint recommendation of World Health Organization, Meteorological Organization. United Nations Environment Programme, International Commission on Non‑ionizing Radiation Protection. WHO; 2002.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Tod BM, Kellett PE, Singh E, et al. The incidence of melanoma in South Africa: An exploratory analysis of National Cancer Registry data from 2005 to 2013 with a specific focus on melanoma in black Africans. S Afr Med J. 2019;109(4):246–253. doi:10.7196/SAMJ.2019.v109i4.13565.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Modenese A, Chou BR, Ádám B, Loney T. Occupational exposure to solar radiation and the eye: A call to implement health surveillance of outdoor workers. Med Lav. August 2, 2023;114(4):e2023032. doi:10.23749/mdl.v114i4.14657.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Clairwood M, Ricketts J, Grant‑Kels J, Gonsalves L. Melanoma in the skin of color in Connecticut: An analysis of melanoma incidence and stage at diagnosis in non‑Hispanic blacks, non‑Hispanic whites, and Hispanics. Int J Dermatol. 2013;53:425–433.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Felton SJ, Cooke MS, Kift R, et al. Concurrent beneficial (vitamin D production) and hazardous (cutaneous DNA damage) impact of repeated low‑level summer sunlight exposures. Br J Dermatol. 2016;175:1320–1328.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Diffey B. The Early days of personal solar ultraviolet dosimetry. Atmos. 2020;11:1–11.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Køster B, Søndergaard J, Nielsen JB, et al. Feasibility of smartphone diaries and personal dosimeters to quantitatively study exposure to ultraviolet radiation in a small national sample. Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed. 2015;31:252–260.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article

Articles in this issue

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/aogh.4490 | Journal eISSN: 2214-9996

Journal RSS Feed

Language: English

Submitted on: Jun 4, 2024

Accepted on: Oct 17, 2024

Published on: Nov 27, 2024

Published by: Ubiquity Press

In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services

Publication frequency: 1 issue per year

Keywords:

solar ultraviolet radiation,

sun exposure,

outdoor workers,

occupational exposure

© 2024 Motsehoa Cynthia Ramotsehoa, Frederik Christoffel Eloff, Johannes Lodewykus du Plessis, Caradee Yael Wright, David Jean du Preez, published by Ubiquity Press
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Volume 90 (2024): Issue 1