MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Ultraviolet radiation exposure in cannabis growing facilities

2023· other· en· W6902049351 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2023
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUltraviolet radiationCannabisOccupational exposureRadiation exposureSunlightPersonal protective equipmentUltraviolet lightHealth risk

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cultivation and processing of cannabis is becoming an important industry in the United States and Canada. The industry employs over 400,000 workers in the United States (U.S.) and is growing rapidly. Both natural sunlight and artificial lamp-generated radiation are commonly used to grow cannabis plants. These optical sources can contain both visible and ultraviolet radiation (UVR) wavelengths, and overexposure to UVR is associated with negative health effects. The severity of these adverse health effects is governed by the specific wavelengths and exposed dose of UVR, yet worker exposure to UVR within cannabis growing facilities has not been studied. In this study, worker exposure to UVR was assessed at five cannabis production facilities in Washington State, including indoor, outdoor, and shade house facilities. Lamp emission testing was performed at each facility and worker UVR exposures were measured for 87 work-shifts. Observations of worker activities and use of personal protective equipment in association with UVR exposure measurements were recorded. For lamp emission measurements, at three feet from the center of the lamp, the average irradiances were 4.09x10−4, 6.95x10−8, 6.76x10−9, 3.96x10−9, 1.98x10−9 effective W/cm2 for germicidal lamps, metal halide lamps, high pressure sodium lamps, fluorescent lamps, and light emitting diodes, respectively. The average measured UVR exposure was 2.91x10−3 effective J/cm2 (range: 1.54x10−6, 1.57x10−2 effective J/cm2). Thirty percent of the work-shifts monitored exceeded the American Conference for Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) threshold limit value (TLV) of 0.003 effective J/cm2. Exposures were highest for workers who spent all or part of the work-shift outdoors, and solar radiation was the primary source of worker UVR exposure for most of the work-shifts that exceeded the TLVs. Outdoor workers can reduce UVR exposures by applying sunscreen and wearing appropriate personal protective equipment. Although the artificial lighting used in the cannabis production facilities included in this study did not contribute substantially to the measured UV exposures, in many cases the lamp emissions would generate theoretical exposures at three feet from the center of the lamp that would exceed the TLV. Therefore, employers should choose low UVR emitting lamps for indoor grow operations and should use engineering controls (e.g., door-interlocks to de-energize lamps) to prevent worker exposure to UVR from germicidal lamps.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.230 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshare→French-language works237,207→