Risk assessment arising from exposure to artificial optical radiation Results of an extensive evaluation campaign in the hospitals of Tuscany (Italy)
University of Pisa Dept. of Energy, Systems, Land and Constructions Engineering (DESTeC)
LIghting and Acoustic laboratory AUTHORS: F. FANTOZZI, F. LECCESE, M. ROCCA, G. SALVADORI
17th IEEE International Conference on Environmental and Electrical Engineering Milan, Italy, 6th – 9th June 2017
ARTIFICIAL OPTICAL RADIATION Electromagnetic radiation in the wavelengths range between (approx.) 100 nm and 1 mm is commonly known as “optical radiation”. The spectrum of optical radiation is divided into ultraviolet radiation (UV), visible light (VIS) and infrared radiation (IR).
Risk assessment arising from exposure to artificial optical radiation F. Fantozzi, F. Leccese, M. Rocca, G. Salvadori
22
17th IEEE International Conference on Environmental and Electrical Engineering
33
Milan, Italy, 6th – 9th June 2017
ARTIFICIAL OPTICAL RADIATION The minimum requirements to protect workers against risks to health and safety that may result from exposure to the AOR are specified in the European Directive 2006/25 EC, with special attention to the risks due to adverse effects on the eyes and skin as previously stated by ICNIRP1). The radiometric parameters, which are used to express the exposure limit values for the incoherent sources at different wavelengths ranges, are: Irradiance E (W m–2); Radiant exposure H (J m-2); Radiance L (W m–2 sr–1) EYE
1)
SKIN
International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). Statement general approach to protection against non-ionizing radiation protection. Health Physics 2000; 82(4): 540-548. Risk assessmentRisk arising assessment from exposure arisingtofrom artificial exposure opticaltoradiation artificial optical radiation F. Fantozzi, F. Leccese, M. Rocca, G. Salvadori
17th IEEE International Conference on Environmental and Electrical Engineering
44
Milan, Italy, 6th – 9th June 2017
EU Directive 2006/25 EC, Italian Legislative Decree 81/2008 (Chapter V , Annex XXXVII - Part I: incoherent sources). Index (a) (b) (c) 1 (d) 1 (e) 1 (f) 1 (g) 2 (h) 2 (i) 2 (j) 3 (k) 3 (l) 3 (m) (n) (o)
Wavelength range (nm) 180 400 (UVA, UVB, UVC) 315 400 (UVA) 300 700 (Blue Light) 380 1400 (Visible, IRA) 780 1400 (IRA) 780 3000 (IRA,IRB) 380 3000 (Visible, IRA,IRB)
Units
Action spectrum
HEFF=30 Daily value (8 h)
J/m2
S(λ)
HUVA=104 Daily value (8 h)
J/m2
---
W/m2·sr
B(λ)
W/m2
B(λ)
ELVs Exposure limit values
LB=106·t-1 for t ≤10000 s LB=100 for t >10000 s -1 EB=100·t for t ≤10000 s EB=0.01 for t >10000 s 7 LR=(2.8·10 )·Cα-1 for t >10 s LR=(5·107)· Cα-1·t-0.25 for 10 µs≤ t ≤10 s LR=(8.89·108)· Cα-1 for t 10 s 7 -1 -0.25 LR=(5·10 )· Cα ·t for 10 µs≤ t ≤10 s 8 -1 LR=(8.89·10 )· Cα for t 1000 s HSKIN=20000·t0.25
for t < 10 s
R(λ) W/m2·sr R(λ) W/m2
---
J/m2
---
International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). Guidelines on limits of exposure to incoherent visible and infrared radiation. Health Phys 2013; 105: 74–96.
17th IEEE International Conference on Environmental and Electrical Engineering Milan, Italy, 6th – 9th June 2017
The risk assessment of AOR is included in the activities of the Prevention and Protection Services in workplaces. The hospital environments, given the huge variety of sources hosted and the large series of visual tasks performed by the working personnel, represent an interesting case study for anyone involved in the risk assessment of exposure to AOR.
The most commonly sources in hospitals are: • Medical equipment; • Surgical lights; • Biological laboratory devices; • Photo-curing polymers; • Office equipment; • General lighting. Risk assessment arising from exposure to artificial optical radiation F. Fantozzi, F. Leccese, M. Rocca, G. Salvadori
55
17th IEEE International Conference on Environmental and Electrical Engineering Milan, Italy, 6th – 9th June 2017
The evaluation campaign described in this paper is part of a larger research activity (currently still in progress), started by the Authors some years ago and partly funded by the Tuscan Health Service. In this activity has been carried out more than 100 measures on 35 sources. The results of the in situ measurements have been systematically collected in a database called by the Authors "AOR_ics_DB (Artificial Optical Radiation_InCoherent Sources_DataBase)”. Risk assessment arising from exposure to artificial optical radiation F. Fantozzi, F. Leccese, M. Rocca, G. Salvadori
66
17th IEEE International Conference on Environmental and Electrical Engineering
77
Milan, Italy, 6th – 9th June 2017
Characterization of the emission of the analysed equipment, in relation to the range of wavelengths in which the emission is significant, and to evaluate the hazard level. Range of wavelengths
Hazard Ratio
Hazard Ratio = Ratio between the measured hazard levels and the relative exposure limit values (ELVs). Risk assessment arising from exposure to artificial optical radiation F. Fantozzi, F. Leccese, M. Rocca, G. Salvadori
17th IEEE International Conference on Environmental and Electrical Engineering Milan, Italy, 6th – 9th June 2017
Risk assessment arising from exposure to artificial optical radiation F. Fantozzi, F. Leccese, M. Rocca, G. Salvadori
88
17th IEEE International Conference on Environmental and Electrical Engineering Milan, Italy, 6th – 9th June 2017
Risk assessment arising from exposure to artificial optical radiation F. Fantozzi, F. Leccese, M. Rocca, G. Salvadori
99
17th IEEE International Conference on Environmental and Electrical Engineering Milan, Italy, 6th – 9th June 2017
Risk assessment arising from exposure to artificial optical radiation F. Fantozzi, F. Leccese, M. Rocca, G. Salvadori
10 10
17th IEEE International Conference on Environmental and Electrical Engineering Milan, Italy, 6th – 9th June 2017
WORST-CASE APPROACH
The "worst-case" approach was used for the evaluation campaign, with the aim to minimizing measurement and analysis effort.
This approach eliminates the need to analyse the room occupancy times and the actual exposure geometry, and allow to compare the emission of different sources. Despite of the "worst-case" approach, in order to properly assess the risk of exposure, measurements in different configurations it is necessary to carried out for numerous equipment, for example using the direct or indirect (by reflective surfaces) vision of the source, inserting or removing of protective screens supplied with the equipment, etc. Risk assessment arising from exposure to artificial optical radiation F. Fantozzi, F. Leccese, M. Rocca, G. Salvadori
11 11
17th IEEE International Conference on Environmental and Electrical Engineering
12 12
Milan, Italy, 6th – 9th June 2017
WORST-CASE APPROACH
Selection of the source
Limit values exceeded
Further investigations is needed
Limit values not exceeded
No needs others measures
Measure in the worst configuration
The worst-configuration was set to the source-detector distance of 20 cm or where the maximum illuminance was reached. Risk assessment arising from exposure to artificial optical radiation F. Fantozzi, F. Leccese, M. Rocca, G. Salvadori
17th IEEE International Conference on Environmental and Electrical Engineering Milan, Italy, 6th – 9th June 2017
MEASUREMENT INSTRUMENT Portable broadband photoradiometer DeltaOhm mod. HD2402 Sensors: 1. LASER LED pointer;
2. UV range (220÷440 nm); 3. IR range (700÷1300 nm); 5. UVA range (315÷440 nm); 6. visible radiation (luxmeter); 7. Blue Light range (400÷600 nm); 9. IRA and IRB range (400÷2800 nm).
Risk assessment arising from exposure to artificial optical radiation F. Fantozzi, F. Leccese, M. Rocca, G. Salvadori
13 13
17th IEEE International Conference on Environmental and Electrical Engineering
14 14
Milan, Italy, 6th – 9th June 2017
EXAMPLE OF THE ANALYZED SOURCES
ID05 - New-born phototherapy system
ID22 - Biohazard cabinet
ID11 - Hand and foot phototherapy system
ID12 - Surgical light or Scialitic system
ID23 – Video-projector
ID25 - General lighting luminaire
ID17 - Infant warmer system
ID26 - General lighting spotlight
Risk assessment arising from exposure to artificial optical radiation F. Fantozzi, F. Leccese, M. Rocca, G. Salvadori
17th IEEE International Conference on Environmental and Electrical Engineering
15 15
Milan, Italy, 6th – 9th June 2017
Irradiance in the UV wavelength range 180-400 nm
Limit value
Risk assessment arising from exposure to artificial optical radiation F. Fantozzi, F. Leccese, M. Rocca, G. Salvadori
17th IEEE International Conference on Environmental and Electrical Engineering
16 16
Milan, Italy, 6th – 9th June 2017
Limit value
Risk assessment arising from exposure to artificial optical radiation F. Fantozzi, F. Leccese, M. Rocca, G. Salvadori
17th IEEE International Conference on Environmental and Electrical Engineering
17 17
Milan, Italy, 6th – 9th June 2017
Radiance in the Blue Light wavelength range 300-700 nm
Limit value
Risk assessment arising from exposure to artificial optical radiation F. Fantozzi, F. Leccese, M. Rocca, G. Salvadori
17th IEEE International Conference on Environmental and Electrical Engineering
18 18
Milan, Italy, 6th – 9th June 2017
Limit value
Risk assessment arising from exposure to artificial optical radiation F. Fantozzi, F. Leccese, M. Rocca, G. Salvadori
17th IEEE International Conference on Environmental and Electrical Engineering
19 19
Milan, Italy, 6th – 9th June 2017
Irradiance in the IR wavelength range 780-3000 nm
Limit value
Risk assessment arising from exposure to artificial optical radiation F. Fantozzi, F. Leccese, M. Rocca, G. Salvadori
17th IEEE International Conference on Environmental and Electrical Engineering
20 20
Milan, Italy, 6th – 9th June 2017
Limit value
Risk assessment arising from exposure to artificial optical radiation F. Fantozzi, F. Leccese, M. Rocca, G. Salvadori
17th IEEE International Conference on Environmental and Electrical Engineering
21 21
Milan, Italy, 6th – 9th June 2017
CONCLUSIONS The worst-case approach allows to identify which sources do not exhibit risks in these particular conditions and then allow not to proceed with further investigations. On the contrary, to the other sources that have values higher than the limit, it is necessary to carry out further measures in order to identify the possible risks in the actual conditions of exposure of workers. The values obtained with worst-case approach are not typical of the actual exposures, but indicators of the need to perform further assessments.
Risk assessment arising from exposure to artificial optical radiation F. Fantozzi, F. Leccese, M. Rocca, G. Salvadori
17th IEEE International Conference on Environmental and Electrical Engineering Milan, Italy, 6th – 9th June 2017
CONCLUSIONS Hospitals host a huge number of potentially dangerous incoherent sources and the activity of the prevention and protection services is very complex. The investigation in hospital environment revealed that the AOR sources represent a hazard that which must be carefully considered, and there a significant number of sources of which the risk should not be neglected.
Risk assessment arising from exposure to artificial optical radiation F. Fantozzi, F. Leccese, M. Rocca, G. Salvadori
22 22
17th IEEE International Conference on Environmental and Electrical Engineering Milan, Italy, 6th – 9th June 2017
Thank you for your attention
Risk assessment arising from exposure to artificial optical radiation F. Fantozzi, F. Leccese, M. Rocca, G. Salvadori
23 23
17th IEEE International Conference on Environmental and Electrical Engineering Milan, Italy, 6th – 9th June 2017
Risk assessment arising from exposure to artificial optical radiation Results of an extensive evaluation campaign in the hospitals of Tuscany (Italy) Michele Rocca
[email protected] +39 050 2217104
University of Pisa – School of Engineering Dept. Of Energy, Systems, Territory and Constructions Engineering (DESTeC) Lighting and Acoustic Laboratory
For a complete bibliography of the Authors on the subject, visit www.researchgate.com AUTHORS: F. FANTOZZI, F. LECCESE, M. ROCCA, G. SALVADORI
24 24
