Maximum Permissible Exposure Values Research Articles

Filamentation in Atmospheric Air with Tunable 1100\u20132400\u2009nm Near-Infrared Femtosecond Laser Source

Intense femtosecond pulse filamentation in open-air has been utilized for long distance optical communication and remote sensing, but it results in nonlinear-effect driven eye hazards which are not addressed by current eye safety standards. A systematic study of filamentation in atmospheric air was performed using a tunable 100 fs near-infrared laser (1100 nm–2400 nm). While undergoing filamentation, each source wavelength was spectrally broadened resulting in supercontinuum and third harmonic generation in the visible and near-IR spectrum. We record the spectra at the center and fringes of the supercontinuum as it is imaged onto a planar surface. In a full beam collection regime, we report the energy of the sub-1000 nm light generation for source wavelengths from 1100 nm to 1600 nm and compare the energy density to the maximum permissible exposure values under the ANSI Z136.1 laser safety standard.

On the importance of body posture and skin modelling with respect to in situ electric field strengths in magnetic field exposure scenarios

The reference levels and maximum permissible exposure values for magnetic fields that are currently used have been derived from basic restrictions under the assumption of upright standing body models in a standard posture, i.e. with arms laterally down and without contact with metallic objects. Moreover, if anatomical modelling of the body was used at all, the skin was represented as a single homogeneous tissue layer. In the present paper we addressed the possible impacts of posture and skin modelling in scenarios of exposure to a 50 Hz uniform magnetic field on the in situ electric field strength in peripheral tissues, which must be limited in order to avoid peripheral nerve stimulation. We considered different body postures including situations where body parts form large induction loops (e.g. clasped hands) with skin-to-skin and skin-to-metal contact spots and compared the results obtained with a homogeneous single-layer skin model to results obtained with a more realistic two-layer skin representation consisting of a low-conductivity stratum corneum layer on top of a combined layer for the cellular epidermis and dermis. Our results clearly indicated that postures with loops formed of body parts may lead to substantially higher maximum values of induced in situ electric field strengths than in the case of standard postures due to a highly concentrated current density and in situ electric field strength in the skin-to-skin and skin-to-metal contact regions. With a homogeneous single-layer skin, as is used for even the most recent anatomical body models in exposure assessment, the in situ electric field strength may exceed the basic restrictions in such situations, even when the reference levels and maximum permissible exposure values are not exceeded. However, when using the more realistic two-layer skin model the obtained in situ electric field strengths were substantially lower and no violations of the basic restrictions occurred, which can be explained by the current-limiting effect of the low-conductivity stratum corneum layer.

Procedure for the computation of hazards from diffusely scattering surfaces under the Z136.1-2000 American National Standard for Safe Use of Lasers

The current national consensus standard for laser safety in the United States is the American National Standard for Safe Use of Lasers (ANSI Z136.1). The most recent standard, Z136.1-2000, incorporates a wealth of recent bioeffects data and established a number of new maximum permissible exposure (MPE) limits for laser safety. The standard also includes recent procedures for the computation of MPE values from large or extended diffusely scattering sources, which must be understood by health physicists, laser safety officers, and others in the field of occupational safety. Here we present the fourth in a series of tutorial articles, written to clarify laser safety analysis procedures under this standard, with an emphasis on the MPE computation methods related to extended sources, and the determination of nominal hazard zones.

Modeling thermal damage in skin from 2000-nm laser irradiation

An optical-thermal-damage model of the skin under laser irradiation is developed by using finite-element modeling software (FEMLAB 3.1, Comsol, Incorporated, Burlington, Massachusetts). The general model simulates light propagation, heat generation, transient temperature response, and thermal damage produced by a radically symmetric laser beam of normal incidence. Predictions from the model are made of transient surface temperatures and the thermal damage on a pigskin surface generated by 2000-nm laser irradiation, and these predictions are compared to experimental measurements. The comparisons validate the model predictions, boundary conditions, and optical, thermal, and rate process parameters. The model enables the authors to verify the suitability of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) maximum permissible exposure (MPE) standard for a wavelength of 2000 nm with exposure duration from 0.1 to 1 s and 3.5-mm beam diameter. Compared with the ANSI MPE standard, however, the MPE values predicted by the model are higher for exposure durations less than 0.1 s. The model indicates that it may be necessary to modify the ANSI MPE standard for cases in which the laser-beam diameter is larger than 3.5 mm when a "safety factor" of ten is used. A histopathological analysis of the skin damage is performed to determine the mechanisms of laser-induced damage in the skin.

A procedure for multiple-pulse maximum permissible exposure determination under the Z136.1-2000 American National Standard for Safe Use of Lasers

The current national consensus standard for laser safety in the United States is the American National Standard for Safe Use of Lasers (ANSI Z136.1). Over the past few years, a comprehensive rewrite of this standard has been conducted. The updated version of the standard (Z136.1-2000) incorporates a wealth of new bioeffects data and establishes a number of new maximum permissible exposure (MPE) limits for laser safety. The updated standard also includes new procedures for the computation of MPE values, which must be understood by health physicists, laser safety officers, and others in the field of occupational safety. Here we present the first in a series of tutorial articles to clarify laser safety analysis procedures under this new standard. This article deals with the proper application of three rules for determining the appropriate MPE values for repetitively pulsed lasers or repeated exposures from laser beams.

Risk assessment and laser safety

The basic tenets of risk assessment have always been applied in laser safety during the development of safety standards. For example, statistical methods were used in the probit analysis of the threshold of ocular injury; concepts of risk analysis were employed in the development of hazard classes, where the increased risk of exposure and potential for injury from increasing laser output power led to assignment of an increasing hazard class. In recent years, however, there has been a number of attempts to apply statistical probability analysis in the risk assessment of actual use conditions. However, once the hazard classification has been assigned, how should one further apply the techniques of risk assessment in the determination of hazard control measures, or does this lead to a potential controversy of what is the risk? Risk analysis is the evaluation of potentially hazardous exposure conditions coupled with a realistic assessment of actual human exposure. The maximum permissible exposure values for laser radiation coupled with the laser hazards classification scheme, already permit realistic health hazard evaluations. However, in determining effective hazard control measures, one must perform a risk analysis. A risk analysis must consider aspects of human behaviour and how behaviour affects exposure. This is frequently the area of greatest controversy in the derivation of safety standards; however, it is this aspect where standards are most needed.

Standardization in the field of lasers in Europe—Towards common international standards

Different standards in different European countries have given rise to technical trade barriers. The European Community made a great effort to establish a single market before the end of 1992 in which the free movement of goods is ensured. The first approach was to adopt directives setting up detailed requirements for all products. This has proved to be such a slow and difficult process that the New Approach has been adopted: the essential requirements are established by directives, whereas the technical specifications are detailed in harmonized standards. The preparation of these standards must be mandated by the Commission of the European Communities. Since European countries are relatively small and export-oriented there is a general readiness to harmonize standards. Thousands of new standards are needed, a workload that could not be accomplished by the end of 1992. A transition period of 2 years will therefore be allowed for most fields. In contrast to the United States, where the CDRH (Center for Devices and Radiological Health) standard differs in many points from IEC 825, most laser standards in Europe are already identical with international standards. Where national standards had been developed they were chiefly used as a basis for international standardization work. IEC standards are now subjected to parallel voting in Europe so that they become European standards at the same time as they are adopted as IEC standards. For the relevant laser standards, differences to the CDRH standard are discussed from a European point of view. International harmonization in Europe must still overcome one major problem: directives according to article 118 A of the EEC treaty are still following the old approach. A directive on Physical Agents is in preparation which will include maximum permissible exposure values for optical radiation that run counter to IEC 825: some are more restrictive, some are not safe according to present knowledge. Every effort should be made to prevent this directive from being adopted.

Permissible Exposure to Ionizing Radiation

Hazards from exposure to radiation are discussed. Sources of natural radiation are described. Early records of damage to man by ionizing radiation are summarized. The establishment of national and international standards for maximum permissible exposure (MPE) to radiation is reviewed. Considerations in the selection of MPE values are outlined, and units are defined. (M.C.G.)