Environmental Effectsof Stratospheric Ozone
Depletion, UV Radiation,and Interactions with
Climate Change
2022 Assessment Report

Montreal Protocol
on Substancesthat Deplete the
Ozone Layer
1

Montreal Protocol
On Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer
UNEP
2022 Assessment Report of theEnvironmental Effects Assessment Panel
The text of this report is composed in Gibson.
Co-ordination: Environmental Effects Assessment Panel
Reproduction: UNEP Nairobi, Ozone Secretariat
Date: March 2023
This document is available in electronic form fromhttp://ozone.unep.org/science/eeap

No copyright involved. This publication may be freely copied, abstracted and cited, withacknowledgement of the source of the material.

ISBN: 978-9914-733-91-4

2

Disclaimer
The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the Environmental Effects Assessment Panel (EEAP) Co-chairs and members, andthe companies and organisations t in furnishing or distributing this information, do not make any warranty or representation, either
express or implied, with respect to the accuracy, completeness, or utility; nor do they assume any liability of any kind whatsoever
resulting from the use or reliance upon any information, material, or procedure contained herein,including but not limited to any claims
regarding health, safety, environmental effect or fate, efficacy, or performance, made by the source of information.
Mention of any company, association, or product in this document is for information purposes only and does not constitute a
recommendation of any such company, association, or product, either express or implied by UNEP, the Environmental Effects
Assessment Panel Co-chairs or members, or organisations that employ them.
Acknowledgement
The Environmental Effects Assessment Panel, Co-chairs and members acknowledge with thanks the outstanding contributions fromall of the individuals and organisations who provided support to the Panel. The opinions expressed are those of the Panel and do notnecessarily reflect the reviews of any sponsoring or supporting organisation.

3

Highlights

HIGHLIGHTS
Environmental Effects Assessment Panel2022 Quadrennial Assessment
Environmental effects of stratospheric ozone depletion, UV radiation,and interactions with climate change
The highlights of the 2022 Quadrennial Assessment focus on major findings since the last assessment, acknowledging the contributionof the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer to several of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals
and the alignment of the Panel with these Goals. The strong interconnected effects of stratospheric ozone depletion, ultraviolet (UV)radiation, and climate change are increasingly evident and complex, with consequences for life on Earth and a sustainable future. Within
this context, the Highlights cover current and projected consequences for human health (including the COVID-19 pandemic), terrestrial
and aquatic ecosystems, air quality, natural and synthetic materials, and microplastics.

1 Ultraviolet radiation, stratospheric ozone depletion, and climatechange• Concentrations of stratospheric ozone in the future will depend on the decrease in ozone-depleting substances (ODSs) controlled
by the Montreal Protocol, other substances currently not controlled, and on emissions of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide,
methane and nitrous oxide. The trajectory of these emissions depends greatly on policy decisions.
• Large increases in UV radiation were observed during the 2020 Antarctic and Arctic springs, when the UV Index rose by to 80% and70%, respectively, above the historical means.
• In the Antarctic, these anomalously high amounts of UV radiation extended over spring and the start of summer, and may have
had negative consequences for migrating animals returning to breed, which may not have been adapted to the unusually high UV
irradiation.
• Increasing warming will lead to more ice melt and increased exposure of ecosystems to UV radiation on land and in water bodies,
especially in polar and high-elevation regions.
• Thawing of permafrosts will result in the release of UV-absorbing organic carbon into aquatic ecosystems and enhanced emissions ofcarbon dioxide and methane to the atmosphere.
• The concurrence of heat waves with drought and high UV-B irradiance (280-315 nm) may negatively affect food security andbiodiversity of crops and animals. These climatic conditions can disrupt formerly favourable habitats and may shift habitats tolocations with different conditions, to which plants and animals may not be adapt. Tropical coral reefs under naturally high UV
irradiance are of particular concern, since an increase in sea surface temperatures of 1 °C to 2 °C can cause bleaching of corals,enhanced by high amounts of UV radiation.

2 Human health• Exposure to UV radiation has multiple harms and benefits. Harms include skin cancer, inflammatory skin disorders, sunburn, and eye
disorders such as cataract. Benefits include production of vitamin D, reduced autoimmune disease and, possibly, lowered bloodpressure and decreased risk of metabolic disorders.
• The Montreal Protocol has resulted in significant reductions in UV-related diseases. The United States Environmental Protection
Agency has estimated that, due to the Montreal Protocol, 11 million cases of melanoma, 432 million cases of keratinocyte skincancers, and 63 million cases of cataract will have been avoided for those born between 1890 and 2100 in the United States.

4Highlights• The Montreal Protocol may have benefits for UV-induced inflammatory skin disorders. In some people these lead to large decreases
in quality of life. Many diuretic and anti-inflammatory drugs can cause photosensitivity when skin is exposed to UV radiation, although
the global incidence of drug-induced photosensitivity is unclear. Some drugs used for decreasing blood pressure may increase therisk of keratinocyte skin cancer through UV-induced DNA damage.
• By avoiding large increases in the UV Index, the Montreal Protocol may have enabled people, especially those with light skin,to spend time outdoors without incurring sunburn, thereby gaining the benefits of sun exposure. One of these benefits is thegeneration of vitamin D in the skin. Vitamin D plays an important role in maintaining musculoskeletal health, and there is increasing
evidence of benefits for diseases related to immune function, including autoimmune diseases (e.g., multiple sclerosis), infection, andfor cardiovascular disease, cancer mortality, and all-cause mortality.
• Decreases in UV radiation under the Montreal Protocol may have resulted in a lower rate at which pathogens are inactivated,
including the SARS-CoV-2 virus responsible for COVID-19. However, the positive outcomes of the Montreal Protocol outweigh any
potential advantage for disinfection by higher amounts of solar UV radiation.

3 Role of UV radiation in the troposphere• Outdoor air pollution (e.g., from sulfate, nitrate, ozone, and particulate matter) results in ca 4 million premature deaths per year, andalso damages vegetation and crops.
• Increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases are partly responsible for enhanced atmospheric circulation resulting in a downward
transport of additional ozone (‘good’ UV-B-absorbing ozone) from the stratosphere to the troposphere (‘bad’ ozone, part of smog).
• In the troposphere (the layer of the atmosphere extending from the Earth’s surface to a height of 8-15 km), UV-B radiation generates
the cleaning agent of the atmosphere, the hydroxyl radical (OH). This radical removes many compounds released by humanactivity and natural sources, such as carbon monoxide, methane, and HFOs, HFCs and HCFCs1 (widely used as refrigerants). HFCs
and HCFCs have high global warming potential contributing to climate change. When broken down by hydroxyl radicals, thesecompounds can form halogenated chemicals, including trifluoroacetic acid (TFA).
• TFA has a long environmental lifetime, accumulates in surface and ground waters, and has been found in blood, drinking water,
beverages, dust, plants, and agricultural soils. However, it does not interact with biological molecules and, due to its high solubility
in water, it does not bioaccumulate. It is unlikely to cause adverse effects in terrestrial and aquatic organisms. Continued monitoring
and assessment are nevertheless advised due to uncertainties in the deposition of TFA and its potential effects on marine organisms.
• UV radiation also plays a key role in creating harmful photochemical smog by reacting with pollutants such as nitrogen oxides, andvolatile organic compounds (e.g., fuel, solvent vapours) mostly from industry and transport. Even low concentrations of pollutants
are detrimental to human health, prompting the World Health Organization to recommend average annual decreases in key air
pollutants, including halving the maximum current level (10 µg/m3) of small particulate matter to 5 µg/m3, and that of nitrogendioxide from 40 to 10 µg/m3.

4 Global challenges of increasing plastic debris in the environment• Many materials, including plastics, are susceptible to solar UV radiation, high temperature, and moisture, resulting in degradation,
loss in strength, discolouration, decreased service life and environmental pollution due to the release of potentially environmentally
harmful by-products. UV-stabilisers and other additives are being used to counteract photodegradation and release of toxic byproducts.
• UV-degradation of plastics leads to generation of microplastics (<5 mm) and nanoplastics (<0.001 mm), which have been found inecosystems, bottled drinking water, table salt, seafood, and wastewater. Microfibres, including textile fibre fragments, are common
contaminants of the environment. However, the biological effects of micro- and nanoplastics remain uncertain.
• New UV-stabilisation technologies that block UV radiation through treatment of textiles with certain oxide nanoparticles (e.g., zincoxide, titanium oxide), are being developed for next-generation synthetic (e.g., polyester fabric) and natural textiles (e.g. cotton
fabric).
A sustainable future requires continued adherence to the Montreal Protocol, with particular attention paid to mitigation of climatechange, since recovery of stratospheric ozone is highly dependent on changes in greenhouse gas emissions and atmosphericconcentrations of ozone-depleting substances, which will also determine future UV radiation at the Earth’s surface.

1

ODS replacements: HFCs, hydrofluorocarbons; HCFCs, hydrochlorofluorocarbons; HFOs, hydrofluoroolefins.

5Preface

PREFACE
Background
The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer was established 35 years ago following the 1985 Vienna
Convention for protection of the environment and human health against excessive amounts of harmful ultraviolet-B (UV-B, 280-315 nm)
radiation reaching the Earth’s surface due to a reduced UV-B-absorbing ozone layer. The Montreal Protocol, ratified globally by all 198
Parties (countries), controls ca 100 ozone-depleting substances (ODS). These substances have been used in many applications, such asin refrigerants, air conditioners, aerosol propellants, fumigants against pests, fire extinguishers, and foam materials.
The Montreal Protocol has phased out nearly 99% of ODS, including ODS with high global warming potentials such as
chlorofluorocarbons (CFC), thus serving a dual purpose. However, some of the replacements for ODS also have high global warming
potentials, for example, the hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). Several of these replacements have been added to the substances controlled
by the Montreal Protocol. The HFCs are now being phased down under the Kigali Amendment. As of December 2022, 145 countries
have signed the Kigali Amendment, exemplifying key additional outcomes of the Montreal Protocol, namely, that of also curbing climate
warming and stimulating innovations to increase energy efficiency of cooling equipment used industrially as well as domestically.
As the concentrations of ODS decline in the upper atmosphere, the stratospheric ozone layer is projected to recover to pre-1980 levelsby the middle of the 21st century, assuming full compliance with the control measures of the Montreal Protocol. However, in the coming
decades, the ozone layer will be increasingly influenced by emissions of greenhouse gases and ensuing global warming. These trends
are highly likely to modify the amount of UV radiation reaching the Earth's surface with implications for the effects on ecosystems andhuman health.

Role of the Assessment Panels
Against this background, four Panels of experts were established in 1988 to support and advise the Parties to the Montreal Protocol with
up-to-date information to facilitate decisions for protecting the stratospheric ozone layer. In 1990 the four Panels were consolidated
into three, the Scientific Assessment Panel, the Environmental Effects Assessment Panel, and the Technology and Economic Assessment
Panel.
Every four years, each of the Panels provides their Quadrennial Assessments as well as a Synthesis Report that summarises the key
findings of all the Panels. In the in-between years leading up to the quadrennial, the Panels continue to inform the Parties to the Montreal
Protocol of new scientific information.

The Environmental Effects Assessment Panel
The Environmental Effects Assessment Panel (EEAP) evaluates the consequences of stratospheric ozone depletion in the context of achanging global climate in line with its Terms of Reference (decision XXXI/2, November 2019) and within the framework of the United
Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The EEAP also alerts the Parties to additional areas of potential importance to theMontreal Protocol. The 2022 Quadrennial Assessment focusses on the following:
Interactive effects of stratospheric ozone and climate change on:
1. Solar ultraviolet radiation
2. Human health
3. COVID-19 and the Montreal Protocol
4. Terrestrial ecosystems and biogeochemical cycles
5. Aquatic ecosystems
6. Composition of the troposphere and air quality
7. Natural and synthetic materials
8. Microplastics in the environment

6Preface
This 2022 EEAP Quadrennial Assessment was written by 48 individuals and reviewed by 65 reviewers from 20 countries. The
Assessment includes Highlights, Executive Summary, contribution to the above topics, and a Question & Answer (Q&A) document.
Particular attention is given to the linkages between stratospheric ozone depletion and UV radiation, and climate change, withrespect to the broad effects on the environment and human health. Key areas of concern are the increased frequency and intensityof extreme climate events that are occurring together with the ongoing increases in emissions of greenhouse gases and consequentrising temperatures in many parts of the world. These changes also change the exposure to UV radiation of humans, other animals, andecosystems, with implications for human well-being, food security, biodiversity, and overall sustainability of life on our planet.
Janet F. Bornman, Paul W. Barnes, Krishna Pandey
Co-Chairs of the Environmental Eﬀects Assessment Panel, United Nations Environment Programme7

Table of contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Highlights 												4Executive Summary 											121Stratospheric ozone, UV radiation, and climate interaction 						38Summary 											40

1Introduction 											40

2State of the science in 2018 										41

3Current and future status of atmospheric ozone 								

4Benefits of the Montreal Protocol 									475Effects of recent changes in stratospheric ozone on climate and weather 					

49

6Factors other than ozone affecting UV radiation 								

52

7Variability in UV radiation and trends from observations 							

58

8Projections of UV radiation 										649Implications of solar radiation management on UV radiation 						

10Advances in UV monitoring and modelling 								6711Action spectra 											7112Gaps in knowledge 										7213Conclusions 											734266List of abbreviations 										75References 											76
2Linkages between COVID-19, solar UV radiation, and the Montreal Protocol 				

96Summary 											98
1Introduction 											98

2The action spectrum for the inactivation of SARS-CoV-2 							

99

3Inactivation times of SARS-CoV-2 virus particles with solar UV radiation 					

101

4Radiation amplification factors for SARS-CoV-2 action spectra						

104

5Observed relationships between UV radiation and COVID-19 incidence					

105

6Vitamin D and risk and severity of COVID-19								108

7Effect of ambient air pollution and SARS-CoV-2 infections							

109

8Link between the Montreal Protocol and the inactivation of SARS-CoV-2					

110

9Gaps in knowledge										110

10Conclusions											111List of abbreviations										112References											113

3

The effects of exposure to solar radiation on human health						

120Summary 											1228

1

Introduction 											1222

New knowledge about mechanisms underpinning the effects of UV radiation on health				3Harms of exposure to UV radiation									126

123

Table of contents
4

Benefits of exposure to UV radiation									1385

Gaps in knowledge										142

6

Conclusions											143References											145Appendix											161References 											166

4

Interactive effects of changes in UV radiation and climate on terrestrial ecosystems,
biogeochemical cycles, and feedbacks to the climate system 						

168Summary												1701

Introduction											1702

Effects of stratospheric ozone depletion on climate and extreme climate events on exposure to UV radiation

171

3

Effects of UV radiation and climate interactions on plants and animals					

175

4Species distributions and biodiversity									1795

Effects on agriculture and food production								1816

Effects on biogeochemical cycles and climate feedbacks							

7Sustainability and the Montreal Protocol								1888

Gaps in Knowledge										190

9Conclusions											192

184

References											1935

The response of aquatic ecosystems to the interactive effects of stratospheric ozone depletion,
UV radiation, and climate change									217Summary												2191

Introduction											219

2

Changes in abiotic conditions alter exposure of aquatic ecosystems to underwater UV radiation			

220

3

UV radiation in combination with climate change can have adverse effects at the ecosystem level			

226

4

Environmental contaminants exposed to UV radiation and UV filters are toxic to aquatic organisms		

231

5

The adverse effects of UV radiation and the defences against those effects vary among aquatic organisms		

234

6Knowledge gaps											239

7

Conclusions											240List of abbreviations										241References											242

6

Changes in tropospheric air quality related to the protection of stratospheric ozone
and a changing climate										257Summary												259

1

Introduction											259

2

UV-dependent air pollutants and their effects on human health, plants, and the self-cleaning capacity of the 		troposphere											260

3

Trifluoroacetic acid in the global environment with relevance to the Montreal Protocol				4Knowledge gaps											293

5

Overall conclusions										294

277

References											295Appendix											310References											3209

Table of contents
7

Effects of UV radiation on natural and synthetic materials						

324Summary												3261

Introduction											326

2

Wood in building applications									329

3

Nanoparticulate filler-UV stabilisers									331

4

Photovoltaic module components									3335

Micro- and nano-particle and composite fibres								337

6

Knowledge gaps											339

7

Conclusions											3408

Montreal Protocol and the Sustainable Development Goals						

340References											3418

The Montreal Protocol and the fate of environmental plastic debris					

353Summary												3551

Introduction											355

2

Photo-oxidation and plastic persistence								3563

Different plastics and photo-oxidation									357

4

The Montreal Protocol and photo-oxidation								357

5

Plastic degradation and UV radiation in a changing climate							

357

6Exposure of environmental plastic debris to UV radiation							

358

7Biological consequences of photo-oxidation and fragmentation						

358

8Knowledge gaps											359

9

Conclusions											359

10

Relevance to the Sustainable Development Goals							360References											361

10

Executive Summary

11

Executive Summary

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Environmental Effects Assessment Panel2022 Quadrennial Assessment
Environmental Effects of Stratospheric Ozone Depletion, UV Radiation,and Interactions with Climate ChangePaul W. Barnes, Janet F. Bornman, Krishna K. Pandey [Co-Chairs], Germar H. Bernhard, Alkiviadis F. Bais, Rachel E. Neale, T. Matthew
Robson, Patrick J. Neale, Craig E. Williamson, Sasha Madronich, Stephen R. Wilson, Anthony L. Andrady, Anu M. Heikkilä, Marcel A.K.
Jansen, Sharon A. Robinson, Richard G. Zepp, Chris C. White, Pieter J. Aucamp, Anastazia T. Banaszak, Laura S. Bruckman, Marianne
Berwick, Scott N. Byrne, Bente Foereid, Donat-P. Häder, Loes M. Hollestein, Wen-Che Hou, Samuel Hylander, Rachael Ireland, Andrew
R. Klekociuk, J. Ben Liley, Janice D. Longstreth, Robyn M. Lucas, Roy Mackenzie, Javier Martinez-Abaigar, Richard L. McKenzie, Catherine
M. Olsen, Rachele Ossola, Nigel D. Paul, Lesley E. Rhodes, Kevin C. Rose, Tamara Schikowski, Keith R. Solomon, Mads P. Sulbaek
Andersen, Barbara Sulzberger, Qing-Wei Wang, Sten-Åke Wängberg, Seyhan Yazar, Antony R. Young, Liping Zhu, Meifang Zhu

1 Introduction
The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer and its Amendments and Adjustments (hereafter referred tosimply as the ‘Montreal Protocol’) have proven highly effective in protecting the stratospheric ozone layer and preventing globalscale increases in solar ultraviolet-B radiation (UV-B; wavelengths between 280-315 nm) at the Earth’s surface [1,2]. This global treaty,
including the Kigali Amendment, has also been one of the most important societal actions taken to date to mitigate global warming,
since many of the ozone-depleting substances (ODS) and their substitutes that are controlled by the Montreal Protocol are also potent
greenhouse gases (GHGs) [3-5]. The Antarctic ozone hole is contributing to climate change in the Southern Hemisphere, and climatechange is modifying the exposure of humans, other animals, plants, and materials to UV-B and UV-A radiation (315-400 nm) [6,7]. Thus,
changes in stratospheric ozone, UV radiation, and climate are inextricably linked in a number of ways that have the potential to affecthuman health and the environment.
In this Executive Summary we highlight and summarise key findings from the 2022 Quadrennial Assessment by the Environmental
Effects Assessment Panel (EEAP; Box 1) of the Montreal Protocol under the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). The 2022
Qudrennial Assessment presents the most recent, comprehensive assessment since the 2018 Quadrennial Assessment (available athttps://ozone.unep.org/science/assessment/eeap and also for the wider scientific community in Photochemical & Photobiological
Sciences 18, 595-828). The current assessment addresses the interactive environmental effects of changes in the stratospheric ozone
layer, solar UV radiation, and climate on human health, terrestrial, and aquatic ecosystems, biogeochemical cycles, air quality, materials,
and microplastics in accordance with the Terms of Reference from the Parties to the Montreal Protocol (Box 1). Additionally, we assess
the linkages between solar UV radiation, the Montreal Protocol, and the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.

12

Executive Summary

Box 1. The UNEP Environmental Effects Assessment Panel (EEAP) and its Terms of Reference.
• The EEAP is one of the three Assessment Panels established by the Montreal Protocol to assess various aspects of stratosphericozone depletion (https://ozone.unep.org/science/overview). The EEAP considers the full range of potential effects ofstratospheric ozone depletion, UV radiation and the interactive effects of climate change on human health, aquatic, terrestrial
ecosystems, biogeochemical cycles (e.g., movement and transformation of carbon and other elements through the biosphereand atmosphere), air quality, and materials for construction, and other uses.
• The Terms of Reference of the EEAP, according to decision XXXI/2, Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol, are as
follows:• The Parties to the Montreal Protocol request the Environmental Effects Assessment Panel, in drafting its 2022 report, to pay
particular attention to the most recent scientific information together with future projections and scenarios, to assess theeffects from changes in the ozone layer and ultraviolet radiation, and their interaction with the climate system, as well as theeffects of breakdown products of controlled substances and their alternatives on:
1. The biosphere, biodiversity and ecosystem health, including on biogeochemical processes and global cycles;
2. Human health;
3. Ecosystem services, agriculture, materials for construction, transport, and photovoltaic use, as well as the generation ofenvironmental microplastics.

The findings in the 2022 Quadrennial Assessment, which are summarised here, demonstrate that the Montreal Protocol continues toplay a vital role in preserving human health and maintaining healthy, diverse ecosystems on land and in the water. New findings refine
and quantify the negative consequences on human health and ecosystem productivity of extreme levels of solar UV-B radiation thatwould have occurred without the Montreal Protocol. However, other findings show that in regions of the Earth that are not currently
experiencing appreciable ozone depletion (i.e., outside polar regions), levels of solar UV-B radiation can have some beneficial effects.
For example, beneficial effects may include those for human health, crop vigour and defence against pests and pathogens, foodquality, and important ecosystem services, such as the disinfection of surface waters and the breakdown of environmental toxins
and contaminants. Evidence that climate change is playing an increasingly important role in altering the exposure to UV radiation oforganisms, ecosystems, and materials continues to mount. Changes in exposure to UV radiation are occurring through changes inextreme climate events2 , cloud cover, aerosols, snow and ice cover, mixing of ocean waters, species distributions, the seasonal patternsof growth and development (phenology), and human behaviour.

2 Ultraviolet radiation and climate change
The Montreal Protocol continues to play a critical role in protecting the stratospheric ozone layer and climate, and in preventing large
increases in surface UV-B radiation. While UV-B irradiances remain high under the Antarctic ozone hole, changes in UV-B radiation
outside polar regions over the past several decades have been small. However, substantial interannual variability in stratospheric ozone
and UV-B radiation are occurring due to changes in climate caused by increases in atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHGs). Despitelarge year-to-year variability, recovery of the Antarctic ozone hole by the middle of this century is still projected. Future changes instratospheric ozone and UV-B irradiance outside polar regions are expected to be small. Recent anomalous changes in stratosphericozone over polar regions, particularly over Antarctica, have likely contributed to extreme events, such as heat waves and wildfires, in
the Southern Hemisphere. The elevated UV-B radiation together with these extreme events have the potential to significantly affectorganisms and ecosystems in polar regions, especially as the climate continues to change.

2

An extreme climate event has been defined as “an episode or occurrence in which a statistically rare or unusual climatic period alters ecosystem structure and ⁄or function welloutside the bounds of what is considered typical or normal variability” [8]; or similarly, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), “if the value ofa variable exceeds (or lies below) a threshold” that is exceeded [9]. Compound extreme events are the “combination of multiple drivers and/or hazards that contribute tosocietal or environmental risk.” An example of a compound extreme event would be fire weather conditions which are the combination of hot, dry, and windy conditions
[9].

13

Executive Summary

Key findings• Nearly all studies published since our last Quadrennial Assessment have confirmed that changes in biologically effective
UV radiation at the Earth’s surface outside polar regions have been small (< 4% per decade) during the last 25 years.
Some locations showed small increases in the UV Index (UVI3 ), while others showed small decreases. Over the last 2–3 decades,changes in the erythemal UV radiation outside the polar regions were mainly governed by variations in clouds, aerosols, and surface
reflectivity (for areas usually covered by snow or ice) rather than long-term trends in total column ozone.
• The Antarctic ozone hole has resulted in large increases in surface UV-B radiation, with peak irradiances sometimes
exceeding those observed in subtropical locations. Results from an updated analysis [10] confirm previous conclusions that
the Antarctic ozone hole has led to large increases in the UVI at Palmer Station, Antarctica (64° S) year-round, with the largest
increases occurring during spring (between 15 September and 15 November) (Fig. 1). During spring, the maximum UVI that has
been observed at this site since the early 1990s is 2.5 times higher than it was in the pre-ozone-hole period (years 1970-1976) andsometimes exceeds values observed at subtropical locations (e.g., San Diego, California; 32° N). During summer and autumn (21December – 21 June; the time of the year when there is no ozone hole); UVI maxima measured between 1990 and 2020 exceeded
maxima estimated for years prior to 1976 by 20%.

J
16

F

Northern Hemisphere monthM

WinterA

M

J

SpringJ

ASSummerO

N

D

Autumn14

Maximum UV Index

12
10

San Diego

8

Difference
due toozone
depletion

64Palmer

2

Point Barrow

0

J

A

S

O

N

D

J

F

M

Southern Hemisphere month

A

M

J

Maximum UV Index for each day of the year.

Pre-ozone hole(calculated)

Since early 1990s.
(measured)

Palmer, Antarctica (64 S)

1970 – 1976

1990 – 2020

San Diego, California (32 N)

1970 – 1976

1992 – 2008

1970 – 1976

1991 – 2016

Point Barrow, Alaska (71 N)

Fig. 1. Comparison of the highest UV Index (UVI) ever measured for each day of the year at Palmer Station (a station at theAntarctic coast), San Diego (a city near the border of the United States and Mexico) and near Point Barrow (the northern-mostpoint in Alaska) since the early 1990s (solid lines) with reconstructed data for the pre-ozone-hole period 1970–1976 (brokenlines). Yellow shading indicates the change between historical and contemporary UVI. The difference is particularly large for
Palmer Station during spring, the period affected by the Antarctic ozone hole. The highest UVIs observed at Palmer since the1990s exceed those measured at San Diego despite that city’s much lower latitude. Adapted from [10].

314The UV Index is a measure of UV irradiance in terms of its effectiveness in causing sunburn (reddening of human skin; medically known as erythema).

Executive Summary• Large inter-annual variability in the UV Index over polar regions has been observed in recent years. For example, in spring
2019, the UVI was at the minimum of the historical (1991–2018) range at the South Pole, while near record-high values, of up to 80%
above the historical mean, were observed in spring 2020 (Fig. 2). A persistent Antarctic ozone hole in 2020 resulted in spikes in the
UVI (red arrow in Fig. 2) in late spring when young animals are born or hatched and when plants are actively growing. The loss ofprotective snow cover, due to continued global warming, could further exacerbate the deleterious effects of these high spring-time
UV irradiances on organisms in this region [11].

Daily Maximum UV Index

8

7
6
5

4
3

Arrival Heights, Antarctica (78 S, 167 E)
1989 – 2017
2018
2019
2020
2021

2
1

0
1-Sep

1-Oct

1-Nov

Month

1-Dec

1-Jan

Fig. 2. Daily maximum UV Index (UVI) measured at Arrival Heights, Antarctica in 2018 (green), 2019 (yellow), 2020 (red), and2021 (blue) compared with the average (white line) and the range (grey shading) of daily maximum observations of the years
indicated in the legends. The UVI was calculated from spectra measured by a SUV-100 spectroradiometer. Up to 2009, theinstrument was part of the NSF UV Monitoring Network [12] and it is now a node in the NOAA Antarctic UV Monitoring Network(https://gml.noaa.gov/grad/antuv/). Consistent data processing methods were applied for all years [13,14].

• Recent warming and widespread heatwave events in Antarctica may have increased the exposure of plants and animals to
UV-B radiation and disrupted ecosystems in this region. Since our last assessment there have been two widespread heatwave
events in Antarctica. The first occurred in summer 2019/2020 when temperature records were broken around the continent [15]. The
second was in March 2022 (austral autumn) when extreme temperatures, almost 40 ˚C higher than normal (-48.6° C), were reported
when an atmospheric river, or plume of warm, moist air, moved onto the Antarctic plateau. Heatwaves such as these acceleratemelting of snow and ice cover [16] and can expose vegetation to high springtime UV-B radiation from which they have previously
been protected [17]. Warming temperatures on the Antarctic Peninsula are also opening up ice-free areas [16], causing the expansionof habitats of vascular plants [18] and increasing the possibility of new plant and animal species invading the continent [19,20].
• In the Arctic, some of the highest UV-B irradiances on record were measured in March and April 2020. The monthly average
UVI over the Canadian Arctic in March 2020 was up to 70% higher than the historical (2005–2019) average, often exceeding thismean by three standard deviations. Because most Arctic organisms are protected by snow and sea ice at this time of year, they likely
were not exposed to these high UV-B irradiances; however, changes in snow and ice cover resulting from climate change could
expose these organisms to elevated UV-B radiation if these pronounced ozone depletion events continue to occur into the future.
• Recent ozone depletion events in the Arctic have been linked to extreme weather events and melting of sea ice in thisregion. Heatwave conditions that occurred in the Siberian Arctic in early 2020 [21] appeared to have been aided by atmosphericcirculation patterns that were affected by the strong ozone depletion of 2020 [22,23]. Ozone depletion in March 2020 may also
have contributed to the prevailing reduction of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean bordering Siberia [24].
• The Montreal Protocol has prevented large increases in surface UV-B radiation, with greatest benefits at high latitudes.
Modelling studies indicate that without the Montreal Protocol, the UVI at northern and southern latitudes of less than 50° would haveincreased by 10–20% between 1996 and 2020. For latitudes exceeding 50° S, the UVI would have increased by 25% at the southern
tip of South America and by more than 100% at the South Pole in spring-time (Fig. 3).

15

UV Index Change 1996 – 2020

Executive Summary

150%

SpringObservations
Modelled UVI change
without Montreal Protocol:
GEOSCCM model
NIWA-UKCA model

UV Index Change 1996 – 2020

100%
50%
0%
-50%

150%

90 S

60 S

30 S

0

30 N

60 N

90 N

30 N

60 N

90 N

Summer

100%
50%
0%
-50%

90 S

60 S

30 S

0

LatitudeFig. 3. Comparison of relativechanges in the UVI between 1996
and 2020 for (a) summer and (b)spring, derived from observations at
nine ground stations (black symbols)
and calculated from results of two
chemistry-climate models (bluelines). Both climate models assume
the “World Avoided” scenario
where emissions of ozone depleting
substances are not controlled by
the Montreal Protocol. Blue shading
indicates the range of these model
projections. Ground stations include
South Pole (90° S), Arrival Heights(78° S), Palmer Station (65° S),
Lauder (45° S), Alice Springs (24°
S), Mauna Loa (20° N), Boulder (40°N), Thessaloniki (41° N), and Barrow(71° N). Ground stations with a nearcomplete data record for 1996–2020
are indicated by solid symbols. Sites
with less than 24 years of data areshown with open symbols. Error bars
indicate the 95% confidence intervalof the regression model. Updated
from [1].

• Surface UV radiation is expected to decrease 2–6% by 2090 at mid-latitudes with variable changes in the tropics of less than3%. Assuming full compliance with the Montreal Protocol and constant atmospheric aerosol concentrations, modelling indicatesthat the UVI at mid-latitudes (30–60°) will decrease between 2015 and 2090 by 2–5% in the north and by 4–6% in the south due torecovery of the ozone layer. Changes in the UVI at the tropics over this time period are estimated to be less than 3%.
• The Montreal Protocol has made direct contributions to the mitigation of global warming. Since most substances controlled
by the Montreal Protocol are also potent greenhouse gases, the phase-out of these substances may have prevented warming by 0.5
to 1.0 °C over mid-latitude regions, and by more than 1.0 °C in the Arctic. According to some studies, ODSs likely contributed halfof the climate-forced loss of Arctic sea ice in the latter half of the 20th century, although there are large uncertainties associated withthese estimates.
• The Montreal Protocol is indirectly mitigating climate change by protecting the global vegetation carbon sink. If the
production of ODSs had not been controlled by the Montreal Protocol, effective UV-B radiation, when weighted according todamaging effects on plants, could have increased by about a factor of five over the 21st century4 [25]. Plants exposed to this extreme
UV-B radiation would have experienced reduced photosynthesis and growth, which would have resulted in an estimated 325–690
billion tonnes less carbon held in terrestrial vegetation by the end of this century. This reduction in carbon sequestration would haveresulted in an additional 115–235 parts per million of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere, causing an additional rise of globalmean surface temperature of 0.5–1.0 °C (Fig. 4).

416“World Avoided” scenarios, such as the scenario discussed here, are inevitably only estimates based on the state of current knowledge. They cannot consider possible
changes in human behaviour and policies that may come about when large changes in UV irradiance and their consequences become more obvious in the future.
Nevertheless, these projections allow us to put the crucial benefits that the Montreal Protocol has brought to date into perspective.

Executive SummaryFig. 4. Changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations (a) and surface temperature (b) resulting from UV-B radiation underscenarios with (violet line) and without (orange line) the Montreal Protocol. Shading around the orange line represents the rangeof responses from simulations assuming a 50-150% range of plant responses to UV radiation. The additional 2.5 °C (range =2.4-2.7 °C) in temperature shown in panel (b) includes the ODS warming effect (1.7 °C) and the UV plant effect (0.85 °C). Figure
adapted from Young et al. [25].

3 Human health
Exposure to excessive UV radiation can result in a number of deleterious effects on human health, including skin cancer (Fig. 5) andcataract. However, it is estimated that millions of cases of these diseases have been avoided due to the Montreal Protocol. Moderate
exposure to UV radiation can have some beneficial effects on human health, most notably the production of vitamin D. It is likely thatby avoiding large increases in UV-B radiation, the Montreal Protocol has allowed humans to safely tolerate time outdoors, thereby
gaining the benefits of sun exposure. This may have reduced the risk or severity of several diseases, particularly those related to immune
function, such as multiple sclerosis. Solar UV radiation may also have played a role in inactivating the virus responsible for the COVID-19
pandemic (SARS-CoV-2) and in influencing people’s immune system responses to viral infection. However, available evidence suggests
it to be unlikely that the Montreal Protocol has had a major effect on the COVID-19 pandemic.

Key findings• Modelling studies indicate that the Montreal Protocol is contributing to the prevention of skin cancer. Results from an updated
study [26] indicate that the Montreal Protocol will have prevented millions of cases of skin cancers (melanoma and keratinocyte
cancers) in the United States for people born between 1890 – 2100 (Table 1). The model estimated that people born in 2040 orlater will not experience excess risk of skin cancer caused by the effect of ozone depletion on UV-B radiation, assuming continued
compliance with the Montreal Protocol. While this study highlights the critical importance of the Montreal Protocol, an important
limitation is that these estimates assume no changes in sun exposure behaviour, skin screening or population structure, such as in
the distribution of skin types. Other limitations include uncertainty regarding stratospheric ozone trends and the choice of the action
spectrum for DNA damage.

17

Executive SummaryFig. 5. Skin cancer resulting from exposure to UV radiation occurs primarily as a consequence of direct and indirect (via reactive
oxygen species) DNA damage and immune suppression.

• The incidence of malignant melanoma continues to increase in many developed countries, but trends vary with population
and age. Incidence has increased in some countries (e.g., United Kingdom, Sweden, Canada, Norway, France, and Lithuania),
but declined or stabilised in others (e.g., Hungary, Australia, and Denmark) [27-32]. In Canada, Italy and England the incidence of
melanoma increased in older age groups but declined or stabilised in younger age groups [33-35]. The increases in the rates of skincancer in older age groups are most likely the result of high lifetime sun exposure, rather than to changes in stratospheric ozone. The
stabilising or decreasing incidence in younger age groups in some jurisdictions may reflect migration patterns, increased use of sun
protection strategies, and a social shift in occupational and recreational activities from outdoors to indoors. In the absence of theMontreal Protocol, these declines may not have been observed.
• Keratinocyte skin cancers are the most common cancer in the world and pose a significant burden on human health andeconomies. Keratinocyte skin cancers (KC) include basal cell carcinoma (BCC) and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). An analysis of
Global Burden of Disease (GBD) data found that in 2019 KC was the most common cancer globally, affecting almost 3 times as many
people as the next most common cancer (lung, 2.2 million people) [36,37]. Death due to BCC is very rare, but ~56,000 people died
due to SCC. The burden of disease, as measured by disability-adjusted life years (DALYs), increased by almost 25% between 2010
and 2019. The incidence of KC has increased in many locations, including Australia, New Zealand, Iceland, and the United Kingdom,
but in the United States the incidence remained fairly stable from 2005 to 2019. The lifetime risk of KC is much higher in populations
living in conditions with high ambient UV radiation; for example, the lifetime risk is 3.5 times higher in Australia than in the United
Kingdom [38,39]. The cost of KC in terms of medical treatment and lost worker productivity is very high and increasing. For example,
the average paid and unpaid productivity loss per premature death from melanoma in Europe are the second highest of all cancers,
and in the United States between 1997 and 2015, total expenditure for treatment of melanoma increased at a faster rate than forother cancers. In Australia, skin cancer (KC and melanoma combined) costs more to treat than any other cancer. These high costs
point to the potential economic benefits of the Montreal Protocol with respect to skin cancer prevention.
• Solar UV radiation causes or worsens inflammatory skin disorders (photodermatoses) and can contribute to phototoxicity ofcertain medications. Photodermatoses are inflammatory skin disorders that are induced or exacerbated by exposure to UV radiation(UV-B and UV-A radiation) and sometimes visible radiation. These disorders can lead to substantial decreases in the quality of life,
due both to the morbidity associated with the conditions and to the reduction in work and recreational activities that are needed to
manage these conditions. A considerable number of common oral medications (e.g., diuretics and anti-inflammatory drugs) [40]exhibit photosensitising potential, whereby individuals exposed to sufficient doses of these drugs together with UV radiation canexperience skin reddening, swelling and burning. Photosensitising drugs may increase the risk of skin cancer through UV-induced
DNA damage, but further studies are required to adequately assess this risk.
• Modelling studies indicate that the Montreal Protocol will reduce the incidence of cataract. Long-term exposure of eyes to UV
radiation can cause cataract, which is the leading cause of blindness world-wide [41-45]. Access to care is the main determinant ofvision loss due to cataract, and individuals living in regions with high ambient UV radiation and limited access to care (such as in partsof Asia, Oceania and Sub-Saharan Africa) experience above average incidences of moderate to severe vision impairment [41,43,45].
In the United States, model estimates indicate that the Montreal Protocol will prevent 63 million cases of cataract for individuals born
between 1890 – 2100 (Table 1).

18

Executive Summary

Table 1. Estimated number of skin cancers and cataracts avoided due to implementation of the Montreal Protocol, relative to no
regulation of ODS through the lifetimes of people born between 1890 and 2100 in the United States. From [26].
Health effects avoided by the Montreal
Protocol as amended and adjusted,compared to no ODS regulation
Incidence of skin cancer

Keratinocyte

432,000,000

Melanoma

11,000,000

Total
Mortality from skin cancer

Incidence of cataract

443,000,000

Keratinocyte

800,000

Melanoma

1,500,000

Total

2,300,000
63,000,000

Notes:The incidence estimates shown here are rounded to the nearest million; mortality estimates are rounded to the nearest hundred
thousand. Totals may not sum due to independent rounding.

• Exposing the skin and eyes to solar radiation leads to the production of vitamin D, modulates the immune system, and canhave other beneficial effects on health. The best known benefit of exposing the skin to the sun, and in particular UV-B radiation, is
production of vitamin D. Vitamin D is essential for maintaining musculoskeletal health but recent findings also indicate that low levelsof 25-hydroxy vitamin D (25(OH)D), the molecule measured to assess vitamin D status, may also be associated with increased riskof a range of health outcomes, including multiple sclerosis [46], respiratory tract infections [47], and coronary heart disease [48].
Separately from vitamin D, exposing the skin to UV radiation modulates the immune system, both locally within the skin and at distantbody sites. This has dual effects, increasing the risk of skin cancer, but downregulating inflammation. There is emerging evidence that
UV-A radiation (and possibly UV-B), can release nitric oxide from the skin with benefits for blood pressure and metabolism. Exposing
the eyes to the sun reduces the risk of short-sightedness. Balancing the risks and benefits of sun exposure is challenging. In theabsence of the Montreal Protocol the high UV indices that would have occurred would have caused skin damage in a very short time,
limiting the time people could spend outdoors and reducing the benefits of sun exposure.
• Solar UV radiation can inactivate SARS-CoV-2, the virus responsible for COVID-19, but the Montreal Protocol has likely had
a minimal effect on COVID-19 transmission. A newly-developed action spectrum indicates that both UV-B and UV-A radiation
can inactivate the SARS-CoV-2 virus [49]. Estimates of the exposure time required for virus inactivation vary among studies, but
the most reliable data suggest that 90% of viral particles embedded in saliva are inactivated within ca. 7 minutes by solar radiation
under optimal high-sun conditions, as would occur under clear skies near midday during summer at mid- to low latitudes. Longer
exposures to solar UV radiation (exceeding ~13 minutes) would be required for inactivation early or late in the day during winter athigher latitudes [50-52]. Slightly longer inactivation times were found for aerosolised virus particles, and inactivation times would
be longer for cloudy conditions or if virus particles are shielded from solar radiation. As the primary mode of transmission of this virus
from person to person appears to occur through respiratory droplets and aerosols generated by breathing, sneezing, and coughingin crowded indoor conditions [53-57], disinfection by UV radiation of outdoor surfaces is unlikely to have played a significant part incontrolling COVID-19.
• Exposure to ambient levels of solar UV radiation may contribute to a reduced incidence or severity of COVID-19, but causal
mechanisms are unclear and uncertainty is high. A number of studies have shown that the incidence or severity of COVID-19 isinversely related to ambient solar UV radiation (i.e., fewer cases and less severe COVID-19 with greater intensity of UV radiation),but there are many possible confounding factors (e.g., other environmental factors such as temperature, humidity and total solar
radiation, as well as factors affecting viral transmission and disease management). The causal nature of these relationships is therefore
unclear. Some studies have found inverse associations between vitamin D (25(OH)D) concentration in the blood and the risk of SARSCoV-2 positivity or severity of COVID-19. If vitamin D is found to be causally associated with COVID-19 risk or outcomes, or if othereffects of UV radiation on the immune system are important, extreme care would be required to balance these beneficial effects ofsun exposure against the risks of sunburn and skin cancer in people with light skin. In general, the far-reaching, positive outcomes of
the implementation of the Montreal Protocol for human health outweigh any potential advantage that might have been gained by theeffects of solar UV radiation on the transmission and severity of COVID-19 that would have occurred in the absence of the Montreal
Protocol. Perhaps most importantly, the Montreal Protocol has avoided large increases in UV-B radiation that would likely havecaused people to spend less time outdoors, and more time indoors where the risk of COVID-19 infection is much higher.

19

Executive Summary

4 Terrestrial ecosystems and biogeochemical cycles
Changes in UV radiation and climate interact to affect terrestrial ecosystems and biogeochemical cycles (i.e., the cycling of nutrientssuch as carbon and nitrogen), with potential consequences for food security, biodiversity, and climate. Exposure to extreme solar UV
radiation, as would have occurred without the Montreal Protocol, would have had pronounced deleterious effects on many plants,
animals, and microorganisms. However, most species in terrestrial environments have evolved mechanisms to tolerate or avoid theharmful effects of solar UV radiation, at least at levels within the range experienced without significant ozone depletion. Nonetheless,these moderate levels of solar UV radiation together with climate change can affect the productivity and biodiversity of terrestrial
ecosystems, including agroecosystems, by altering food quality, plant defence against pests and pathogens, plant vigour and tolerances
to other abiotic stresses, and the photodegradation of plant litter and pesticides. Importantly, the photodegradation of plant litter by UV
and short-wavelength visible radiation can enhance decomposition and nutrient cycling, resulting in emission of GHGs, such as carbon
dioxide and nitrous oxide, with positive feedbacks on the climate system.

Key findings• Extreme climate events are becoming more prevalent with climate change, and these events are likely to alter the exposureof organisms to UV radiation and disrupt terrestrial ecosystems. Globally, stronger storms, catastrophic floods, protracted
droughts, anomalous heat waves, more intense wildfires, and other extreme climate events (ECEs5) are causing long-term disruption
to the structure and function of many terrestrial ecosystems [58,59]. Together with changes in cloud cover and aerosols, these
ECEs are likely altering the UV radiation received by terrestrial organisms outside polar regions to a greater degree than current or
projected changes in stratospheric ozone concentrations (Fig. 6). While these alterations in solar UV irradiation have the potential toaffect biodiversity, productivity, emissions of GHGs [60-62], and ecosystem carbon storage [63], the magnitude of these impacts are
unknown at the present time.
• Ongoing changes in climate are exposing plants to new combinations of UV radiation and other environmental factors that
can affect stress tolerances and food quality. A combination of particular concern is high UV-B irradiance and drought, as climatechange is increasing the frequency and severity of drought. Drought periods frequently coincide with high UV radiation, particularly
at mid to low latitudes [9]. Because of shared molecular pathways in stress tolerance mechanisms, the response of plants to moderatelevels of UV radiation may confer some cross-protection against drought [64,65]. This cross-tolerance might mitigate some of the
detrimental effects of drought on crop growth and yield, unless both stress factors are excessive. UV radiation and climate factors canalso interact to have both positive and negative effects on nutritional quality of food, depending on type of crop and environmental
conditions [66].

Fig 6. Pathways by which extreme climate
events (ECEs) driven by changes instratospheric ozone and climate can affect
UV radiation exposure and terrestrialorganisms and ecosystems. Changes instratospheric ozone and climate interact
to influence the frequency and intensityof a number of ECEs (upper-most grey
rectangles). These ECEs in turn affectatmospheric and surface intermediaries(multi-coloured ovals connected with
ECEs by overlapping shaded regions)which can increase (+) or decrease (-)
the solar UV radiation reaching terrestrialorganisms and ecosystems. Solid arrows
show direct mediation by climate, ozone
and UV radiation on ECEs and potential
interactive and feedback effects. Dashedarrows show chronic effects of climatechange factors.

520

An extreme climate event has been defined as “an episode or occurrence in which a statistically rare or unusual climatic period alters ecosystem structure and ⁄or function
well outside the bounds of what is considered typical or normal variability” [8]; or similarly, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), “if the valueof a variable exceeds (or lies below) a threshold” that is exceeded [9]. Compound extreme events are the “combination of multiple drivers and/or hazards that contribute tosocietal or environmental risk.” An example of a compound extreme event would be fire weather conditions which are the combination of hot, dry, and windy conditions [9].

Executive Summary• Certain crops, especially those grown in the tropics and montane environments, may be vulnerable to relatively small
increases in UV-B radiation. Because of shifting bioclimatic zones with climate change, certain crops are being grown at higher
elevations than was previously possible [e.g., 67,68]. For some species of crop plants, especially those grown in the tropics,
the intense UV radiation at higher elevations may exceed their UV tolerances, resulting in damage to DNA and proteins withnegative consequences for their physiology and growth [69]. As crop species are grown in new habitats, they also encounter new
weeds, pests, and pathogens [70,71]. Exposure to UV radiation is known to influence competition between plants and defence
against herbivores [72,73] such that the altered UV radiation conditions may further disrupt the structure and function of these
agroecosystems by affecting interactions of crop plants with weeds and pests. Differential effects of climate change on range shifts
and phenology can also lead to spatial and/or temporal or seasonal mismatches between pollinators and their plant hosts [74,75],
posing a risk to both agroecosystem function and food security.
• Climate change can contribute to declines in biodiversity by reducing the availability of suitable habitats for species and byshifting their distribution ranges, which alters exposure to UV radiation and may disrupt species interactions. Plant and animal
species are migrating and shifting their distribution ranges to higher elevations and latitudes in response to on-going changes inclimate [76-78], and these changes can decrease (poleward shifts) or increase (elevational shifts) exposures to solar UV radiation.
Some models suggest that UV radiation can interact with climate change to influence species distributions, although the mechanisms
underlying these effects are unclear. Nonetheless, changes in UV irradiances resulting from these shifts will likely modify plant growthforms and secondary chemistry (e.g., flavonoids and other phenolic compounds), which may affect the competitive ability of plants
and their defence against herbivores [79,72]. Depending on location, these changes in species interactions have the potential tonegatively affect biodiversity [80].
• Solar UV radiation can accelerate the decomposition of dead plant matter (litter) in many terrestrial ecosystems with
implications for carbon storage and climate. The decomposition of plant litter is a key biogeochemical process determining rates
of nutrient cycling, energy flow, and carbon storage in terrestrial ecosystems. Exposure of litter to solar UV radiation and shortwavelength visible radiation (i.e., blue and green light), can increase rates of litter decomposition via the direct photochemical
breakdown of lignin and other plant cell wall constituents (i.e., photomineralisation), and indirectly, by enhancing microbial
decomposition (i.e., photofacilitation). Photodegradation of litter is now recognised to be important in a wide variety of ecosystems
across a range of climatic regions (e.g., deserts, grasslands, forests), although the relative importance of photomineralisation
vs photofacilitation may differ among habitats [81]. A newly developed action spectrum for photomineralisation indicates that
UV-A is more effective than UV-B radiation in driving this process. Thus, ozone depletion likely has minimal effect on this aspect ofphotodegradation [82]. Photodegradation influences the cycling and storage of carbon as well as other elements (e.g., nitrogen andphosphorous) and can be an important pathway of GHG emissions by terrestrial ecosystems [83,84].
• Thawing of permafrost is destabilising Arctic ecosystems and exposing ancient sources of organic carbon tophotodegradation by solar UV radiation. The world’s soils store large amounts of carbon, approximately two-to-three times morethan the atmosphere (Fig. 7A). Therefore, even small instabilities or degradation of soils driven by perturbations in climate can leadto large releases of carbon. A large proportion of soil carbon is stored at high northern latitudes, where it has remained stable inpeatlands and permafrost soils over long time periods, often many thousands of years. As climate warms, permafrost is thawing[85], leading to the decomposition of this ancient organic matter and the release of carbon dioxide, methane and other GHGs.
The organic matter from thawed permafrost soils enters aquatic ecosystems as dissolved organic matter (DOM) where it becomessusceptible to photodegradation by solar UV radiation [86]. Reductions in ice and snow or changes in vegetation and cloud coverare further modifying exposures to UV irradiation, which affect the magnitude of these photodegradation processes and Arcticorganisms (Fig. 7B).
• Photodegradation of dissolved organic matter by UV radiation in aquatic ecosystems releases greenhouse gases that may
exacerbate climate change. Climate change is enhancing terrestrial runoff rich in dissolved organic matter (DOM) to lakes, rivers,and coastal waters, which increases the amount of DOM that is subjected to photodegradation. Another important source of DOM isthe permafrost soils of the Northern Hemisphere (Fig. 7). Emissions of CO2 resulting from photodegradation of DOM at mid-latitudes
are generally negligible compared to emissions from microbial mineralisation of DOM but may play a large role at high latitudes. The
magnitude of the direct abiotic photochemical degradation (i.e., photomineralisation) of DOM in Arctic watersheds rich in yedoma(organic-rich permafrost, [87]) is still uncertain, with estimates ranging from negligible [88-90] to 75–90% of total CO2 emissions [9193]. Understanding how DOM photoreactivity varies across seasons and with water chemistry is crucial to predicting the extent ofphotochemical CO2 emissions in high latitude ecosystems and their variations induced by changes in climate and UV radiation.

21

Executive SummaryFig. 7. Biogeochemical cycling of warming permafrost under climate change. Panel A shows the carbon stocks in various
types of soils (brown bars) and the atmosphere (blue bar). The lighter extended bar gives the contribution from permafrost
soils greater than 3 m depths that is not relevant to the other soil types. Reproduced and modified from [94]. Panel B
illustrates the effects of warming on permafrost. Prior to climate change, soils and vegetation were covered for much of theyear (left). Warming leads to reduced snow cover, permafrost thaw, and subsequent increased frequency of disturbance
events such as fire, floods, droughts and insect damage causing dieback. Inset circles illustrate how solar UV radiationinteracts with these climate driven processes in soil (a-c) and waterbodies (d). Climate change is causing the active top layerof soil to thaw during the summer and freeze again in the autumn. This active layer is becoming deeper and staying unfrozen
for longer.

5 Aquatic ecosystems
Changes in stratospheric ozone along with climate change and human activity are altering the aquatic environment and modifying theexposure of aquatic ecosystems to UV radiation with potential consequences for species distributions, biogeochemical cycles, andservices provided by these ecosystems. Climate change results in variations in the depth of mixing, thickness of ice cover, the durationof ice-free conditions, and inputs of dissolved organic matter, all of which can either increase or decrease exposure to UV radiation (Fig.
8). Human activities release contaminants such as oil, UV filters in sunscreens, and microplastics into the aquatic environment, which arethen modified by UV radiation, frequently amplifying adverse effects on aquatic organisms and aquatic environments. These changes
combine with other environmental changes such as global warming and ocean acidification to impact microorganisms, macroalgae,
and plants and animals in aquatic environments. Minimising the disruptive consequences of these effects on critical services provided
by the world’s rivers, lakes, and oceans (e.g., freshwater supply, recreation, transport, and food security) will not only require continued
adherence to the Montreal Protocol but also a wider inclusion of solar UV radiation and its effects in studies and/or models of aquatic
ecosystems under conditions of the future global climate.

Key findings• Ozone depletion and climate change are altering exposure to UV radiation in the ocean’s surface layers by changing thedepth of the mixed layer, but effects vary with latitude. An analysis of almost 50 years (1970-2018) of data from sensors on
free-floating devices and ships show a deepening of the water circulation over the global ocean. The maximum depth of circulationfrom the surface, the mixed layer depth (MLD; Fig. 8), has deepened, on average, by 2.9 % per decade, adding around 5-10 m
per decade to the MLD [95]. The deeper organisms circulate, the less they are exposed to UV radiation. Deepening trends do vary
regionally, with greater deepening in much of the Southern Ocean and less deepening in the North Atlantic, whereas shallowing
is occurring for some areas near the Equator and in high Arctic latitudes. Deeper mixing in the Southern Ocean is linked to thestrengthening of surface winds associated with the positive phase of the Southern Annular Mode, which is influenced by ozone
depletion [96].

22Executive SummaryFig. 8. Schematic depiction of processes controlling exposure to UV-B radiation in aquatic ecosystems comparing before andafter the Anthropocene (i.e., the current period of significant human impact on the Earth’s ecosystems). In general, exposure
to UV-B radiation is limited to the surface layer (light blue/brown), the mixing of which depends on the stratifying effect of
surface warming and inputs of fresh water vs the stirring effects of surface winds and currents. Ice cover shields the polar
ocean and wintertime lakes (not shown). In oceans in the Anthropocene, generally there is more warming, more wind, and agreater mixed layer depth (MLD), while sharpening the density barrier (pycnocline, dark blue) to nutrient transport (arrows)
from deep water (black). However, ice melt reduces shielding and freshens the polar ocean reducing the MLD. Terrestrial
run-off from rain events browns lake surface water, lowers transparency to UV-B radiation and warms surface waters due toenhanced absorption of solar radiation. Drought would have the opposite effect. The warming results in shallower mixed
layers in lakes, as do weaker winds. Dimensions are not to scale.
• Anthropogenic factors in combination with UV radiation are exacerbating stresses on aquatic ecosystems, especiallytropical coral reef ecosystems. Tropical coral reefs, which are based on the symbiotic association between reef-building corals andsymbiotic dinoflagellates (Family Symbiodiniaceae), are highly diverse and economically important ecosystems that are naturally
exposed to high levels of UV radiation because they occur in clear, tropical waters close to the surface. Findings from some studies
indicate that exposure to UV-B radiation can have detrimental effects on symbionts, although negative effects are often not evident
on the coral host [97]. Stress on symbionts can lead to their expulsion from the coral host and coral bleaching. These negative effects
on symbiont health are a concern as coral bleaching is becoming more common as sea surface waters continue to warm and become
more acidic. These effects may exacerbate the impact of UV-B radiation on coral ecosystems. Coral reefs may also be vulnerable to oil
pollutants and chemicals from sunscreens, the toxic effects of which can be enhanced by UV-B radiation and climate change [98,99](Fig. 9).

23

Executive SummaryFig 9. Coral reef-dwelling organisms,
such as reef-building corals, are affectedby stressors such as warming of sea
surface waters and by contaminants suchas oil and UV filters (e.g., sunscreens).
In near-surface waters, corals are also
exposed to high levels of UV radiation,
the potentially damaging effects of which
are moderated by photoprotection
mechanisms. Nevertheless, the negative
impacts of stressors and contaminants areexacerbated by co-exposure to UV-A and
UV-B radiation. Photo: Sandra Mendoza
Quiroz.

• Solar UV radiation degrades oil pollutants but enhances their toxicity to aquatic organisms. Recent studies have confirmedthat solar UV radiation is a key factor contributing to the removal of pollutants from oil spills (reviewed by [100]). For example,
during the 102 days of the Deepwater Horizon spill, UV-driven production of water soluble organic carbon (also referred to as
photo-dissolution) accounted for about 8% (estimated range: 3-17%) of overall oil removal, an amount comparable to other widely
acknowledged removal processes (evaporation and coastal stranding) [101]. Exposure to high amounts of UV radiation can also
increase the toxicity of some oil components for corals, sponges, molluscs, polychaetes, and crustaceans [99]. Typically, exposure to
UV radiation has not been a part of oil toxicity studies, but these results suggest that including such exposures in future studies would
improve our understanding of the fate and toxicity of oil spills occurring at or near the ocean’s surface [102].

6 Air quality and contaminants
Solar UV radiation is a major contributor to the formation of air pollution (tropospheric ozone (O3) and some particulate matter(PM)), which has been identified as a critical issue in human health world-wide. However, UV radiation also plays a role in cleansing
the atmosphere of pollutants, and air pollution can affect the penetration of UV radiation to the Earth’s surface. Thus, changes instratospheric ozone and climate can have complex and sometimes opposing effects on different types of air pollution. Solar UV radiation
also plays an important role in the breakdown of contaminants in aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, but the ecological and humanhealth consequences of these transformations are not yet well understood. Contamination of the environment by compounds used toreplace ODS remains a concern.

Key findings• Solar UV radiation, particularly UV-B radiation, can worsen tropospheric air quality with appreciable harmful effects onhuman health. Globally, poor outdoor air quality causes extensive morbidity and over 4 million premature deaths per year related
to respiratory, cardiovascular, reproductive and neurological disorders. Improvements in some aspects of air quality (e.g., PM)
have occurred in some regions (e.g., China), because stringent measures to control pollution have led to long-term reductions inemissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and sulfur dioxide (SO2)—necessary ingredients for the UV-driven formation of tropospheric O3
and PM. Decreases in UV-B radiation, as a result of the Montreal Protocol, would be expected to result in a reduced net productionof O3 near sources of pollution (e.g., cities with large emissions of NOx from traffic) and a slower consumption of O3 with increasing
distance from polluted areas. Future scenarios in which stratospheric O3 returns to 1980 values or even exceeds them, could help
ameliorate urban O3 pollution but may worsen O3 pollution reaching rural areas. For PM, sensitivity to changes in UV radiation is
expected based on knowledge of the relevant photochemical processes, but has not been studied systematically and hence remains
unquantified.

24

Executive Summary• Tropospheric ozone and particulate matter can have adverse effects on forests and the yields of crops in rural areas, with
important economic consequences. Tropospheric O3 is known to contribute to significant losses in growth, quality and yield ofcrops and other plants, and recent studies have further quantified these effects. For example, a recent meta-analysis of 48 studies
examining the effects of chronic tropospheric O3 exposure on soybeans conducted between 1980 and 2019 showed that O3
reduced leaf-area by 21%, leaf, shoot and root biomass by 14%, 23% and 17%, respectively, and seed yield by 28% [103]. A study
on the historical losses to air pollutants in maize and soybean grown in the United States showed that improvements in the controlof O3, SO2, PM, and NO2 have increased yields by an average of 20% [104]. Of these pollutants, PM and NO2 appeared to cause
more damage than O3 and SO2. Overall, the improvement in yields from stricter controls of the pollutants was equivalent to ca US$ 5billion.
• Solar UV radiation also plays a major role in cleansing the troposphere of pollutants and greenhouse gases. UV-generatedhydroxyl radicals (OH), the major cleaning agents of the troposphere, remove many atmospheric pollutants and GHGs (Fig. 10).
Research has shown that increases in UV radiation caused by stratospheric ozone depletion over 1980-2020 have contributed a small
increase (ca. 3%) to the concentration of globally averaged OH, alongside several other variables that affect OH (e.g., temperature,humidity, and increased emissions of precursors of tropospheric O3). Hydroxyl radicals react with many environmentally importantchemicals including some GHGs (e.g., methane; CH4) and some ODSs, such as the so-called very-short-lived substances (VSLSs;
halo-organics with an atmospheric lifetime of less than or equal to 6 months). These reactions control both the lifetimes and theamounts of such chemicals in the atmosphere. For CH4, the UV-related increase in OH is the equivalent of offsetting increases in theconcentration by 40 ppb or decreasing emissions by ~15 Tg y-1. For the VSLSs, the changes in OH are part of a complex feedback(Fig. 10) that is not yet fully quantified.
Fig. 10. Interacting effects of UV-B
radiation and tropospheric O3
and water (H2O) on troposphericconcentrations of OH and on
the lifetime of very-short-lived
substances (VSLSs). Effects ofclimate change include more
frequent wildfires and thawing of
permafrost soils with the formationof thermokarst lakes, which areimportant sources of CO and CH4,
respectively. Increased emissions of
CO and CH4 tend to decrease thetropospheric OH concentration,
which in turn results in longer
lifetime of VSLSs and thus a higher
probability of stratospheric ozone
depletion.

• The increases in trifluoroacetic acid concentrations due to replacements of the ozone-depleting substances are not expected
to pose significant risk to humans or the environment at the present time. Trifluoroacetic acid (TFA) continues to be found in theenvironment, including in remote regions, although concentrations are so low that they are currently very unlikely to have adverse
toxicological consequences for humans and ecosystems [105,106]. The accumulated amount of TFA is expected to increase becauseof the planned replacement of ODS with short-lived fluorinated chemicals (Fig. 11). However, based on projected future use of theseprecursors of TFA, no harm is anticipated. There is a large uncertainty associated with the magnitude of other sources of TFA (e.g.,potential natural sources, fluorinated pesticides, and pharmaceuticals), which do not fall under the purview of the Montreal Protocol.
Trifluoroacetic acid has biological properties that differ significantly from the longer chain polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) andinclusion of TFA in this larger group of chemicals for regulation would be inconsistent with the risk assessment of TFA.

25

Executive SummaryFig. 11. Yields of trifluoroacetic acid (TFA) from selected individual chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) replacement compounds, aswell as the estimated global emissions of these compounds. The figure also includes selected compounds not under thepurview of the Montreal Protocol. Error bars represent both experimental uncertainties and upper and lower yield ranges due
to competing reaction channels that depend on environmental conditions. The yields of TFA from individual compounds are
estimated based on evaluations of the available literature. Note split scale for the emission of HFC-134a is much higher than thatof other compounds.

7 Materials and plastics
Solar UV radiation contributes to the aging and degradation of textiles as well as natural and synthetic materials, such as wood andplastics used in building materials. This degradation occurs on the surface of materials that then allows for other environmental agents,
such as heat and moisture, to enter and deteriorate deeper layers. Superficial changes caused by UV radiation therefore lead to an
overall ageing of a material. Thus, ozone depletion and climate change interact to affect the ageing process of materials and theirservice lifetimes. New technologies have been developed that can minimise these ageing effects, thereby resulting in longer lifetimes,
diminished use of natural resources and waste, and reduced release of potentially harmful micro- and nano-plastics. However, theproduction of plastics and accumulation of micro- and nano-plastics in the environment, especially aquatic environments, continues tobe of concern. Secondary microplastics can be generated in the environment during fragmentation of plastic litter that is photo-oxidisedby solar UV radiation. By preventing increases in UV radiation, the Montreal Protocol has likely resulted in a slower generation andaccumulation of microplastics in the environment than would have occurred without this treaty.

26

Executive Summary

Key findings• More environmentally-friendly additives are being developed and used in plastics and wood to reduce the degradationof these materials by solar UV radiation. The recent trend towards development of environmentally sustainable technologies
and building materials has necessitated the use of plant-based, non-toxic additives in coatings, plastics, and sunscreens [107-109].
In selecting additives, including UV-stabilisers [110], for plastics or coatings, increasing attention is being paid to minimising theirpotential ecotoxicity as these additives often leach out to contaminate the environment [111]. Some wood extractives and lignin
nanoparticles have been tested for their efficacy as UV shielding material against surface discolouration of wood. Nanoparticles oflignin applied to coatings and even sunscreens have shown promise for substituting or complementing synthetic UV-absorbers.
However, the undesirable dark colour of lignin is a drawback in lignin-based UV-shielding products and needs to be addressed.
• New technologies are being developed to increase the lifespan of photovoltaic modules used in solar panels. Polymers
in photovoltaic (PV) modules undergo oxidation when exposed to solar UV irradiation and this causes brittleness, degradation
and reduced lifetime of these systems [112-115] (Fig. 12). While accelerated laboratory testing has improved understanding of thedifferent degradation mechanisms in PV modules, accurate prediction of degradation of these systems in the outdoors and under
actual in-use conditions is still lacking [116]. Efforts to find a better replacement for the encapsulant material used in these systems
has yielded several candidate polymers, such as ionomers and thermoplastic polyolefin [117]; and novel transparent backsheets
designed to work specifically with bifacial PV cells and modules are being introduced. These modules will collect reflected sunlighton the back side of the module to increase power generation per unit area [118].

Fig. 12. Components of a crystalline silicon photovoltaic (PV) module illustrating encapsulants, backsheet, and junction box thatare made of plastic materials, which are susceptible to degradation by solar UV radiation [119].

• Solar UV radiation causes weathering of plastics, which ultimately results in fragmentation and the formation of micro- andnano-plastics. Plastic debris in the environment is perceived as an increasing pollution problem with an estimated 8300 million
metric tons being produced since the 1950s, of which ca 80% have ended in landfills and the natural environment [120]. In the naturalenvironment, micro- (<5 mm) and nano-plastics (<0.1 µm) are generated as a result of solar UV-driven weathering of plastic debris
in combination with fragmentation due to exposure to mechanical forces [121] (Fig. 13). Exposure to solar UV radiation is a primary
weathering mechanism of plastics debris. Such photo-oxidation of plastic debris under extended outdoor exposure makes thematerial weak, brittle and prone to subsequent fragmentation [122,123]. Fragmentation then occurs when plastics are subjected tofactors such as wave action or encounters with animals, resulting in the generation of secondary micro- or nano-particles. While there
are concerns about potential effects of micro- and nanoplastics, the risks of these pollutants to human health and the environment areat present unclear. Nonetheless, there are calls for a global treaty on plastics towards a more sustainable future [124].
• The implementation of the Montreal Protocol, and consequent avoidance of high solar UV-B radiation, has likely prevented
increases in the generation of microplastics in the environment. Large increases in terrestrial solar UV-B radiation, whichhave been avoided by the Montreal Protocol, would have increased the rates of UV-driven photo-oxidation, and consequently
fragmentation of plastic debris that produces microplastics. However, estimates of the impact of the Montreal Protocol on
microplastic production are limited by uncertainties in the UV dose-response of photo-oxidative reactions, and the distribution ofplastics within different environments (soil, water, etc.), which affect exposure to UV radiation. Thus, while UV driven photo-oxidationof plastics, and subsequent fragmentation are well documented, the quantitative impact of this process on plastic longevity,
microplastic generation, and ecological impacts remains unknown at present

27

Executive SummaryFig. 13. Solar UV radiation can drive the photo-oxidation of plastics, making plastics susceptible to fragmentation, a process that
may result in the formation of micro- and nano-plastic particles. Plastic mineralisation has been reported, but the relevance of
this process in the natural environment remains to be established. The climate has impacts on photo-oxidation through a variety
of different routes, including direct effects on solar UV radiation, plastic dispersal, penetration of UV radiation through the watercolumn, and rising temperatures.

8 Conclusions
The Executive Summary, together with the full Quadrennial Assessment, illustrate the diversity of ways that changes in stratosphericozone, UV radiation and climate interact to affect human health and the environment. While exposure to solar UV radiation, and, inparticular, UV-B radiation, can have deleterious effects on humans and other organisms, modest exposure to UV radiation can havebeneficial effects on human health, food quality and plant defence against pests, the disinfection of waters, and the conversion of toxic
contaminants to more benign by-products [125,60,126]. Maintaining an optimal balance between the positive and negative effects ofsolar UV radiation would have been difficult to achieve, if not impossible, without the Montreal Protocol. Evidence also continues tomount showing that the Montreal Protocol is directly and indirectly protecting the Earth’s climate and mitigating some of the negative
consequences of climate change [5,25].
Since our last Quadrennial Assessment, the world has experienced continued increases in global temperatures, additional extreme
climate events (ECEs, e.g., heat waves, droughts, and hurricanes) and events resulting from a combination of weather extremes
and other drivers (e.g., wildfires) that have all contributed to increasing societal and environmental risk. As recently reported by theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [9], ECEs are expected to increase in frequency and intensity in the future because ofanthropogenic climate change. The ECEs, together with other aspects of climate change (e.g., changing cloud cover and aerosols),
alter the exposure to UV radiation of humans, plants, animals, and materials to a greater degree than the expected changes in thestratospheric ozone layer—assuming continued and full compliance with the Montreal Protocol.
While our knowledge of the interactive effects of ozone depletion, UV radiation, and climate change has advanced since our last
Quadrennial Assessment, a number of uncertainties persist that limit our ability to precisely and quantitatively assess the full extent andmagnitude of these effects. Notably, it is uncertain how surface UV radiation will change in the future as the climate continues to change
and to what degree the environmental and human effects of climate change are modulated by concurrent changes in stratosphericozone and UV radiation. These factors are especially important considering future scenarios that might involve solar radiation
management and climate intervention [127-130]. Despite these uncertainties, it is clear from this Quadrennial Assessment that theMontreal Protocol has been vital in protecting humans, aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, air quality, and natural and synthetic materials
from the deleterious consequences of stratospheric ozone depletion [131,1].
By protecting the stratospheric ozone layer and mitigating some of the effects of climate change, the Montreal Protocol continues
to contribute to the implementation of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Specifically, the EEAP shows thealignment of the Montreal Protocol and its Amendments by addressing 21 targets in 11 of the 17 SDGs (Box 2). These SDGs address

28

Executive Summary
targets in the areas of climate change, air and water quality, biodiversity and ecosystems, contaminants and materials, and humanhealth. Thus, the Montreal Protocol has wide ranging significance for sustainability by protecting human health and maintaining healthy,
diverse ecosystems on land and in the water.
Box 2. The following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and their specific targets are addressed in the 2022 EEAP
Quadrennial Assessment.

29

Executive Summary

References

30

1.

McKenzie, R. L., Bernhard, G. H., Liley, B., Disterhoft, P., Rhodes, S., Bais, A. F., Morgenstern, O., Newman, P., Oman, L.,
Brogniez, C., & Simic, S. (2019). Success of Montreal Protocol demonstrated by comparing high-quality UV measurements with
“World Avoided” calculations from two chemistry-climate models. Scientific Reports, 9(1), 12332, https://doi.org/10.1038/
s41598-019-48625-z

2.

WMO (2022). Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: (2022).GAW Report No. 278. World Meteorological Organization,
Geneva, Switzerland. https://ozone.unep.org/science/assessment/sap

3.

Velders, G. J. M., Andersen, S. O., Daniel, J. S., Fahey, D. W., & McFarland, M. (2007). The importance of the Montreal Protocol
in protecting climate. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104(12), 4814–4819,
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0610328104

4.

Purohit, P., Borgford-Parnell, N., Klimont, Z., & Höglund-Isaksson, L. (2022). Achieving Paris climate goals calls for increasing
ambition of the Kigali Amendment. Nature Climate Change, 12(4), 339-342, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-022-01310-y5.

Goyal, R., England, M. H., Sen Gupta, A., & Jucker, M. (2019). Reduction in surface climate change achieved by the 1987 Montreal
Protocol. Environmental Research Letters, 14(12), 124041, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab4874

6.

Barnes, P. W., Williamson, C. E., Lucas, R. M., Robinson, S. A., Madronich, S., Paul, N. D., Bornman, J. F., Bais, A. F., Sulzberger,
B., Wilson, S. R., Andrady, A. L., McKenzie, R. L., Neale, P. J., Austin, A. T., Bernhard, G. H., Solomon, K. R., Neale, R. E., Young,
P. J., Norval, M., Rhodes, L. E., Hylander, S., Rose, K. C., Longstreth, J., Aucamp, P. J., Ballaré, C. L., Cory, R. M., Flint, S. D., de
Gruijl, F. R., Häder, D.-P., Heikkilä, A. M., Jansen, M. A. K., Pandey, K. K., Robson, T. M., Sinclair, C. A., Wängberg, S.-Å., Worrest,
R. C., Yazar, S., Young, A. R., & Zepp, R. G. (2019). Ozone depletion, ultraviolet radiation, climate change and prospects for asustainable future. Nature Sustainability, 2(7), 569-579, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0314-2

7.

Williamson, C. E., Zepp, R. G., Lucas, R. M., Madronich, S., Austin, A. T., Ballaré, C. L., Norval, M., Sulzberger, B., Bais, A. F.,
McKenzie, R. L., Robinson, S. A., Häder, D.-P., Paul, N. D., & Bornman, J. F. (2014). Solar ultraviolet radiation in a changing climate.
Nature Climate Change, 4(6), 434-441, https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate22258.

Smith, M. D. (2011). The ecological role of climate extremes: current understanding and future prospects. Journal of Ecology,
99(3), 651-655, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2745.2011.01833.x

9.

IPCC (2021). Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Reportof the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. [V. Masson-Demotte, P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S.L. Connors, C.Péan, S. Berger, N.
Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M.I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J.B.R. Matthews, T.K. Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi,
R. Yu and B. Zhou (Eds)], https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157896

10.

Bernhard, G. H., McKenzie, R. L., Lantz, K., & Stierle, S. (2022). Updated analysis of data from Palmer Station, Antarctica (64°S), and San Diego, California (32° N), confirms large effect of the Antarctic ozone hole on UV radiation. Photochemical &Photobiological Sciences, 21(3), 1-12, https://doi.org/10.1007/s43630-022-00178-3

11.

Robinson, S. A., & Erickson III, D. J. (2015). Not just about sunburn -- the ozone hole’s profound effect on climate has significant
implications for Southern Hemisphere ecosystems. Global Change Biology, 21(2), 515-527, https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12739

12.

Booth, C. R., Lucas, T. B., Morrow, J. H., Weiler, C. S., & Penhale, P. A. (1994). The United States National Science Foundation’s
polar network for monitoring ultraviolet radiation. In C. S. Weiler, & P. A. Penhale (Eds.), Ultraviolet radiation in Antarctica:
Measurements and biological effects (Vol. 62, pp. 17-37, Antarc. Res. Ser.): American Geophysical Union, Washington, D.C.

13.

Bernhard, G., Booth, C. R., & Ehramjian, J. C. (2004). Version 2 data of the National Science Foundation’s ultraviolet
radiation monitoring network: South Pole. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 109(D21), D21207, https://doi.
org/10.1029/2004jd004937

14.

Bernhard, G., & Stierle, S. (2020). Trends of UV radiation in Antarctica. Atmosphere, 11(8), 795, https://doi.org/10.3390/
atmos11080795

15.

Robinson, S. A., Klekociuk, A. R., King, D. H., Pizarro Rojas, M., Zúñiga, G. E., & Bergstrom, D. M. (2020). The 2019/2020
summer of Antarctic heatwaves. Global Change Biology, 26(6), 3178-3180, https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15083.

16.

Lee, J. R., Waterman, M. J., Shaw, J. D., Bergstrom, D. M., Lynch, H. J., Wall, D. H., & Robinson, S. A. (2022). Islands in the ice:
Potential impacts of habitat transformation on Antarctic biodiversity. Global Change Biology, https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.16331.

17.

Robinson, S. A., Wasley, J., & Tobin, A. K. (2003). Living on the edge - plants and global change in continental and maritime
Antarctica. Global Change Biology, 9(12), 1681-1717, https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2486.2003.00693.x.

18.

Cannone, N., Malfasi, F., Favero-Longo, S. E., Convey, P., & Guglielmin, M. (2022). Acceleration of climate warming and plant
dynamics in Antarctica. Current Biology, 32(7), 1599-1606, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2022.01.074.

Executive Summary
19.

IPCC (2022). Climate Change 2022: Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. [H.-O. Pörtner, D.C. Roberts, M. Tignor, E.S. Poloczanska,
K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Löschke, V. Möller, A. Okem, B. Rama (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA,3056 pp., doi:10.1017/9781009325844

20.

Chown, S. L., Leihy, R. I., Naish, T. R., Brooks, C. M., Convey, P., Henley, B. J., Mackintosh, A. N., Phillips, L. M., Kennicutt II, M.
C., & Grant, S. M. (Eds.). (2022). Antarctic climate change and the environment: A decadal synopsis and recommendations foraction. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research, www.scar.org

21.

Overland, J. E., & Wang, M. (2021). The 2020 Siberian heat wave. International Journal of Climatology, 41, E2341-E2346,
https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.6850.

22.

Xia, Y., Hu, Y., Huang, Y., Zhao, C., Xie, F., & Yang, Y. (2021). Significant contribution of severe ozone loss to SiberianArctic surface warming in spring 2020. Geophysical Research Letters, 48(8), e2021GL092509, https://doi.
org/10.1029/2021GL092509.

23.

Domeisen, D. I. V., & Butler, A. H. (2020). Stratospheric drivers of extreme events at the Earth’s surface. Communications Earth &Environment, 1(1), https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-020-00060-z.

24.

Zhang, J., Tian, W., Pyle, J. A., Keeble, J., Abraham, N. L., Chipperfield, M. P., Xie, F., Yang, Q., Mu, L., Ren, H.-L., Wang, L., &Xu, M. (2022). Responses of Arctic sea ice to stratospheric ozone depletion. Science Bulletin, 67(11), 1182-1190, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.scib.2022.03.015.

25.

Young, P. J., Harper, A. B., Huntingford, C., Paul, N. D., Morgenstern, O., Newman, P. A., Oman, L. D., Madronich, S., & Garcia,
R. R. (2021). The Montreal Protocol protects the terrestrial carbon sink. Nature, 596(7872), 384-388, https://doi.org/10.1038/
s41586-021-03737-3.

26.

Madronich, S., Lee-Taylor, J. M., Wagner, M., Kyle, J., Hu, Z., & Landolfi, R. (2021). Estimation of skin and ocular damage avoided
in the United States through implementation of the Montreal Protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer. ACS Earth andSpace Chemistry, 5(8), 1876-1888, https://doi.org/10.1021/acsearthspacechem.1c00183.

27.

Olsen, C. M., Thompson, J. F., Pandeya, N., & Whiteman, D. C. (2020). Evaluation of sex-specific incidence of melanoma. JAMA
Dermatology, 156(5), 1-8, https://doi.org/10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.0470.

28.

Defossez, G., Uhry, Z., Delafosse, P., Dantony, E., d’Almeida, T., Plouvier, S., Bossard, N., Bouvier, A. M., Molinié, F., Woronoff,
A. S., Colonna, M., Grosclaude, P., Remontet, L., & Monnereau, A. (2021). Cancer incidence and mortality trends in France over
1990-2018 for solid tumors: the sex gap is narrowing. BMC Cancer, 21(1), 726, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-021-08261-1.

29.

Korovin, S., Fedorenko, Z., Michailovich, Y., Kukushkina, M., Sekerija, M., & Ryzhov, A. (2020). Burden of malignant melanoma
in Ukraine in 2002-2013: incidence, mortality and survival. Experimental Oncology, 42(4), 324-329, https://doi.org/10.32471/
exp-oncology.2312-8852.vol-42-no-4.15334.

30.

Pehalova, L., Krejci, D., Snajdrova, L., & Dusek, L. (2021). Cancer incidence trends in the Czech Republic. Cancer Epidemiology,
74, 101975, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.canep.2021.101975.

31.

Liszkay, G., Kiss, Z., Gyulai, R., Oláh, J., Holló, P., Emri, G., Csejtei, A., Kenessey, I., Benedek, A., Polányi, Z., Nagy-Erdei, Z.,
Daniel, A., Knollmajer, K., Várnai, M., Vokó, Z., Nagy, B., Rokszin, G., Fábián, I., Barcza, Z., & Polgár, C. (2020). Changing trends
in melanoma incidence and decreasing melanoma mortality in Hungary between 2011 and 2019: A nationwide epidemiologicalstudy. Frontiers in Oncology, 10, 612459, https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2020.612459.

32.

Dulskas, A., Cerkauskaite, D., Vincerževskiene, I., & Urbonas, V. (2021). Trends in incidence and mortality of skin melanoma
in Lithuania 1991-2015. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(8), https://doi.org/10.3390/
ijerph18084165.

33.

Heer, E. V., Harper, A. S., Sung, H., Jemal, A., & Fidler-Benaoudia, M. M. (2020). Emerging cancer incidence trends in Canada:
The growing burden of young adult cancers. Cancer, 126(20), 4553-4562, https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.33050.

34.

Bucchi, L., Mancini, S., Crocetti, E., Dal Maso, L., Baldacchini, F., Vattiato, R., Giuliani, O., Ravaioli, A., Caldarella, A., Carrozzi,
G., Ferretti, S., Filiberti, R. A., Fusco, M., Gatti, L., Gili, A., Magoni, M., Mangone, L., Mazzoleni, G., Michiara, M., Panato, C.,
Piffer, S., Piras, D., Rosso, S., Rugge, M., Scala, U., Tagliabue, G., Tumino, R., Stanganelli, I., & Falcini, F. (2021). Mid-term trends
and recent birth-cohort-dependent changes in incidence rates of cutaneous malignant melanoma in Italy. International Journal ofCancer, 148(4), 835-844, https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.33259.

35.

Memon, A., Banniser, P., Rogers, I., Sundin, J., Al-Ayadhy, B., James, P. W., & McNally, R. J. Q. (2021). Changing epidemiology andage-specific incidence of cutaneous malignant melanoma in England: An analysis of the national cancer registration data by age,gender and anatomical site, 1981–2018. The Lancet Regional Health - Europe, 2, 100024.

36.

Global Burden of Disease 2019 Cancer Collaboration (2021). Cancer incidence, mortality, years of life lost, years lived withdisability, and disability-adjusted life years for 29 cancer groups from 2010 to 2019: A systematic analysis for the global burden of
disease study 2019. JAMA Oncology, 8(2), 420, https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2021.6987.

31

Executive Summary

32

37.

Zhang, W., Zeng, W., Jiang, A., He, Z., Shen, X., Dong, X., Feng, J., & Lu, H. (2021). Global, regional and national incidence,mortality and disability-adjusted life-years of skin cancers and trend analysis from 1990 to 2019: An analysis of the Global Burdenof Disease Study 2019. Cancer Medicine, 10(14), 4905-4922, https://doi.org/10.1002/cam4.4046.

38.

Kwiatkowska, M., Ahmed, S., Ardern-Jones, M. R., Bhatti, L. A., Bleiker, T. O., Gavin, A., Hussain, S., Huws, D. W., Irvine, L.,
Langan, S. M., Millington, G. W. M., Mitchell, H., Murphy, R., Paley, L., Proby, C. M., Thomson, C. S., Thomas, R., Turner,
C., Vernon, S., & Venables, Z. C. (2022). A summary of the updated report on the incidence and epidemiological trends ofkeratinocyte cancers in the UK 2013–2018. British Journal of Dermatology, 186(2), 367-369, https://doi.org/10.1111/bjd.20764.

39.

Olsen, C. M., Pandeya, N., Green, A. C., Ragaini, B. S., Venn, A. J., & Whiteman, D. C. (2022). Keratinocyte cancer incidence inAustralia: a review of population-based incidence trends and estimates of lifetime risk. Public Health Research & Practice, 32(1),https://doi.org/10.17061/phrp3212203.

40.

Hofmann, G. A., Gradl, G., Schulz, M., Haidinger, G., Tanew, A., & Weber, B. (2020). The frequency of photosensitizing drug
dispensings in Austria and Germany: a correlation with their photosensitizing potential based on published literature. Journal of
the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, 34(3), 589-600, https://doi.org/10.1111/jdv.15952.

41.

Cheng, C.-Y., Wang, N., Wong, T. Y., Congdon, N., He, M., Wang, Y. X., Braithwaite, T., Casson, R. J., Cicinelli, M. V., Das, A.,
Flaxman, S. R., Jonas, J. B., Keeffe, J. E., Kempen, J. H., Leasher, J., Limburg, H., Naidoo, K., Pesudovs, K., Resnikoff, S., Silvester,A. J., Tahhan, N., Taylor, H. R., Bourne, R. R. A., on behalf of the Vision Loss Expert Group of the Global Burden of Disease, S.
(2020). Prevalence and causes of vision loss in East Asia in 2015: magnitude, temporal trends and projections. British Journal of
Ophthalmology, 104(5), 616-622, https://doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2018-313308.

42.

Kahloun, R., Khairallah, M., Resnikoff, S., Cicinelli, M. V., Flaxman, S. R., Das, A., Jonas, J. B., Keeffe, J. E., Kempen, J. H., Leasher,J., Limburg, H., Naidoo, K., Pesudovs, K., Silvester, A. J., Tahhan, N., Taylor, H. R., Wong, T. Y., Bourne, R. R. A., & Vision Loss
Expert Group of the Global Burden of Disease Study. (2019). Prevalence and causes of vision loss in North Africa and Middle
East in 2015: magnitude, temporal trends and projections. British Journal of Ophthalmology, 103(7), 863-870, https://doi.
org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2018-312068.

43.

Keeffe, J. E., Casson, R. J., Pesudovs, K., Taylor, H. R., Cicinelli, M. V., Das, A., Flaxman, S. R., Jonas, J. B., Kempen, J. H., Leasher, J.,
Limburg, H., Naidoo, K., Silvester, A. J., Stevens, G. A., Tahhan, N., Wong, T. Y., Resnikoff, S., & Bourne, R. R. A. , on behalf of the
Vision Loss Expert Group of the Global Burden of Disease Study. (2019). Prevalence and causes of vision loss in South-east Asiaand Oceania in 2015: magnitude, temporal trends and projections. British Journal of Ophthalmology, 103(7), 878-884, https://doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2018-311946.

44.

Leasher, J. L., Braithwaite, T., Furtado, J. M., Flaxman, S. R., Lansingh, V. C., Silva, J. C., Resnikoff, S., Taylor, H. R., Bourne, R. R. A.,
on behalf of the Vision Loss Expert Group of the Global Burden of Disease Study. (2019). Prevalence and causes of vision loss in
Latin America and the Caribbean in 2015: magnitude, temporal trends and projections. British Journal of Ophthalmology, 103(7),885-893, https://doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2017-311746.

45.

Naidoo, K., Kempen, J. H., Gichuhi, S., Braithwaite, T., Casson, R. J., Cicinelli, M. V., Das, A., Flaxman, S. R., Jonas, J. B., Keeffe,
J. E., Leasher, J., Limburg, H., Pesudovs, K., Resnikoff, S., Silvester, A. J., Tahhan, N., Taylor, H. R., Wong, T. Y., Bourne, R. R. A.,& Vision Loss Expert Group of the Global Burden of Disease, S. (2020). Prevalence and causes of vision loss in sub-SaharanAfrica in 2015: magnitude, temporal trends and projections. British Journal of Ophthalmology, 104(12), 1658-1668, https://doi.
org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2019-315217.

46.

Sintzel, M. B., Rametta, M., & Reder, A. T. (2018). Vitamin D and multiple sclerosis: A comprehensive review. Neurology andTherapy, 7(1), 59-85, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40120-017-0086-4.

47.

Pham, H., Waterhouse, M., Baxter, C., Duarte Romero, B., McLeod, D. S. A., Armstrong, B. K., Ebeling, P. R., English, D. R.,
Hartel, G., Kimlin, M. G., Martineau, A. R., O’Connell, R., van der Pols, J. C., Venn, A. J., Webb, P. M., Whiteman, D. C., &Neale, R. E. (2021). The effect of vitamin D supplementation on acute respiratory tract infection in older Australian adults: ananalysis of data from the D-Health Trial. The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology, 9(2), 69-81, https://doi.org/10.1016/S22138587(20)30380-6.

48.

Emerging Risk Factors Collaboration/EPIC-CVD/Vitamin D Studies Collaboration (2021). Estimating dose-response relationships
for vitamin D with coronary heart disease, stroke, and all-cause mortality: observational and Mendelian randomisation analyses.
Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol, 9(12), 837-846, https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-8587(21)00263-1.

49.

Biasin, M., Strizzi, S., Bianco, A., Macchi, A., Utyro, O., Pareschi, G., Loffreda, A., Cavalleri, A., Lualdi, M., Trabattoni, D.,
Tacchetti, C., Mazza, D., & Clerici, M. (2022). UV and violet light can neutralize SARS-CoV-2 infectivity. Journal of Photochemistry
and Photobiology, 10, 100107, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpap.2021.100107.

50.

Ratnesar-Shumate, S., Williams, G., Green, B., Krause, M., Holland, B., Wood, S., Bohannon, J., Boydston, J., Freeburger, D.,
Hooper, I., Beck, K., Yeager, J., Altamura, L. A., Biryukov, J., Yolitz, J., Schuit, M., Wahl, V., Hevey, M., & Dabisch, P. (2020).
Simulated sunlight rapidly inactivates SARS-CoV-2 on surfaces. The Journal of Infectious Diseases, 222(2), 214-222, https://doi.
org/10.1093/infdis/jiaa274.

Executive Summary
51.

Schuit, M., Ratnesar-Shumate, S., Yolitz, J., Williams, G., Weaver, W., Green, B., Miller, D., Krause, M., Beck, K., Wood, S.,
Holland, B., Bohannon, J., Freeburger, D., Hooper, I., Biryukov, J., Altamura, L. A., Wahl, V., Hevey, M., & Dabisch, P. (2020).
Airborne SARS-CoV-2 is rapidly inactivated by simulated sunlight. The Journal of Infectious Diseases, 222(4), 564-571, https://doi.org/10.1093/infdis/jiaa334.

52.

Sagripanti, J. L., & Lytle, C. D. (2020). Estimated inactivation of coronaviruses by solar radiation with special reference to
COVID-19. Photochemistry and Photobiology, 96(4), 731-737, https://doi.org/10.1111/php.13293.

53.

Stadnytskyi, V., Bax, C. E., Bax, A., & Anfinrud, P. (2020). The airborne lifetime of small speech droplets and their potential
importance in SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(22), 11875-11877, https://doi.
org/10.1073/pnas.2006874117.

54.

Medicine, T. L. R. (2020). COVID-19 transmission — up in the air. The Lancet Respiratory Medicine, 8(12), 1159, https://doi.
org/10.1016/S2213-2600(20)30514-2.

55.

Rahman, H. S., Aziz, M. S., Hussein, R. H., Othman, H. H., Salih Omer, S. H., Khalid, E. S., Abdulrahman, N. A., Amin, K., &Abdullah, R. (2020). The transmission modes and sources of COVID-19: A systematic review. International Journal of Surgery
Open, 26, 125-136, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijso.2020.08.017.

56.

Zhou, L., Ayeh, S. K., Chidambaram, V., & Karakousis, P. C. (2021). Modes of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and evidence forpreventive behavioral interventions. BMC Infectious Diseases, 21(1), 496, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-021-06222-4.

57.

Zhang, R., Li, Y., Zhang, A. L., Wang, Y., & Molina, M. J. (2020). Identifying airborne transmission as the dominant route for the
spread of COVID-19. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(26), 14857-14863, https://doi.org/10.1073/
pnas.2009637117.

58.

Dodd, R. J., Chadwick, D. R., Harris, I. M., Hines, A., Hollis, D., Economou, T., Gwynn-Jones, D., Scullion, J., Robinson, D. A., &Jones, D. L. (2021). Spatial co-localisation of extreme weather events: a clear and present danger. Ecology Letters, 24(1), 60-72,
https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.13620.

59.

Filazzola, A., Matter, S. F., & MacIvor, J. S. (2021). The direct and indirect effects of extreme climate events on insects. Science of
the Total Environment, 769, 145161, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.145161.

60.

Neale, R. E., Barnes, P. W., Robson, T. M., Neale, P. J., Williamson, C. E., Zepp, R. G., Wilson, S. R., Madronich, S., Andrady, A. L.,
Heikkilä, A. M., Bernhard, G. H., Bais, A. F., Aucamp, P. J., Banaszak, A. T., Bornman, J. F., Bruckman, L. S., Byrne, S. N., Foereid,B., Häder, D. P., Hollestein, L. M., Hou, W.-C. C., Hylander, S., Jansen, M. A. K., Klekociuk, A. R., Liley, J. B., Longstreth, J., Lucas,
R. M., Martinez-Abaigar, J., McNeill, K., Olsen, C. M., Pandey, K. K., Rhodes, L. E., Robinson, S. A., Rose, K. C., Schikowski, T.,
Solomon, K. R., Sulzberger, B., Ukpebor, J. E., Wang, Q.-W., Wängberg, S.-Å., White, C. C., Yazar, S., Young, A. R., Young, P.
J., Zhu, L., & Zhu, M. (2021). Environmental effects of stratospheric ozone depletion, UV radiation, and interactions with climatechange: UNEP Environmental Effects Assessment Panel, Update 2020. Photochemical & Photobiological Sciences, 20, 1-67,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s43630-020-00001-x.

61.

Silva, C. A., Santilli, G., Sano, E. E., & Laneve, G. (2021). Fire occurrences and greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation in theBrazilian Amazon. Remote Sensing, 13(3), https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13030376.

62.

Shiraishi, T., & Hirata, R. (2021). Estimation of carbon dioxide emissions from the megafires of Australia in 2019-2020. Scientific
Reports, 11(1), 8267, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-87721-x.

63.

Walsh, J. E., Ballinger, T. J., Euskirchen, E. S., Hanna, E., Mård, J., Overland, J. E., Tangen, H., & Vihma, T. (2020). Extreme weather
and climate events in northern areas: A review. Earth-Science Reviews, 209, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2020.103324.

64.

Jansen, M. A. K., Ač, A., Klem, K., & Urban, O. (2022). A meta-analysis of the interactive effects of UV and drought on plants.
Plant, Cell & Environment, 45(1), 41-54, https://doi.org/10.1111/pce.14221.

65.

Verdaguer, D., Díaz-Guerra, L., Font, J., González, J. A., & Llorens, L. (2018). Contrasting seasonal morphological and physiobiochemical responses to UV radiation and reduced rainfall of two mature naturally growing Mediterranean shrubs in the context
of climate change. Environmental and Experimental Botany, 147, 189-201, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envexpbot.2017.12.007.

66.

Robson, T. M., Aphalo, P. J., Banas, A. K., Barnes, P. W., Brelsford, C. C., Jenkins, G. I., Kotilainen, T., Labuz, J., Martínez-Abaigar,
J., Morales, L. O., Neugart, S., Pieristè, M., Rai, N., Vandenbussche, F., & Jansen, M. (2019). A perspective on ecologically
relevant plant-UV research and its practical application. Photochemical & Photobiological Sciences, 18, 970-988, https://doi.
org/10.1039/c8pp00526e.

67.

Mansour, G., Ghanem, C., Mercenaro, L., Nassif, N., Hassoun, G., & Del Caro, A. (2022). Effects of altitude on the chemicalcomposition of grapes and wine: a review. OENO One, 56(1), 227-239, https://doi.org/10.20870/oeno-one.2022.56.1.4895.

68.

Hinojos Mendoza, G., Gutierrez Ramos, C. A., Heredia Corral, D. M., Soto Cruz, R., & Garbolino, E. (2020). Assessing suitableareas of common grapevine (Vitis vinifera l.) for current and future climate situations: The CDS Toolbox SDM. Atmosphere, 11(11),1201, https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos11111201.

33

Executive Summary

34

69.

Derebe, A. D., Gobena Roro, A., Tessfaye Asfaw, B., Worku Ayele, W., & Hvoslef-Eide, A. K. (2019). Effects of solar UV-B radiation
exclusion on physiology, growth and yields of taro (Colocasia esculenta (L.)) at different altitudes in tropical environments ofSouthern Ethiopia. Scientia Horticulturae, 256, 108563, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2019.108563.

70.

Tonnang, H. E., Sokame, B. M., Abdel-Rahman, E. M., & Dubois, T. (2022). Measuring and modelling crop yield losses
due to invasive insect pests under climate change. Current Opinion in Insect Science, 100873, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cois.2022.100873.

71.

Wallingford, P. D., Morelli, T. L., Allen, J. M., Beaury, E. M., Blumenthal, D. M., Bradley, B. A., Dukes, J. S., Early, R., Fusco, E. J.,
Goldberg, D. E., Ibáñez, I., Laginhas, B. B., Vilà, M., & Sorte, C. J. B. (2020). Adjusting the lens of invasion biology to focus on theimpacts of climate-driven range shifts. Nature Climate Change, 10(5), 398-405, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-0768-2.

72.

Pierik, R., & Ballaré, C. L. (2021). Control of plant growth and defense by photoreceptors: From mechanisms to opportunities inagriculture. Molecular Plant, 14(1), 61-76, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molp.2020.11.021.

73.

Robson, T. M., Klem, K., Urban, O., & Jansen, M. A. K. (2015). Re-interpreting plant morphological responses to UV-B radiation.
Plant, Cell & Environment, 38(5), 856-866, https://doi.org/10.1111/pce.12374.

74.

Schweiger, O., Biesmeijer, J. C., Bommarco, R., Hickler, T., Hulme, P. E., Klotz, S., Kühn, I., Moora, M., Nielsen, A., Ohlemüller,
R., Petanidou, T., Potts, S. G., Pyšek, P., Stout, J. C., Sykes, M. T., Tscheulin, T., Vilà, M., Walther, G.-R., Westphal, C., Winter, M.,
Zobel, M., & Settele, J. (2010). Multiple stressors on biotic interactions: how climate change and alien species interact to affectpollination. Biological Reviews, 85(4), 777-795, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-185X.2010.00125.x.

75.

Weaver, S. A., & Mallinger, R. E. (2022). A specialist bee and its host plants experience phenological shifts at different rates in
response to climate change. Ecology, e3658, https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.3658.

76.

Pecl, G. T., Araújo, M. B., Bell, J. D., Blanchard, J., Bonebrake, T. C., Chen, I.-C., Clark, T. D., Colwell, R. K., Danielsen, F.,
Evengård, B., Falconi, L., Ferrier, S., Frusher, S., Garcia, R. A., Griffis, R. B., Hobday, A. J., Janion-Scheepers, C., Jarzyna, M. A.,
Jennings, S., Lenoir, J., Linnetved, H. I., Martin, V. Y., McCormack, P. C., McDonald, J., Mitchell, N. J., Mustonen, T., Pandolfi, J.
M., Pettorelli, N., Popova, E., Robinson, S. A., Scheffers, B. R., Shaw, J. D., Sorte, C. J. B., Strugnell, J. M., Sunday, J. M., Tuanmu,
M.-N., Vergés, A., Villanueva, C., Wernberg, T., Wapstra, E., & Williams, S. E. (2017). Biodiversity redistribution under climatechange: Impacts on ecosystems and human well-being. Science, 355(6332), eaai9214, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.
aai9214.

77.

Vitasse, Y., Ursenbacher, S., Klein, G., Bohnenstengel, T., Chittaro, Y., Delestrade, A., Monnerat, C., Rebetez, M., Rixen, C.,
Strebel, N., Schmidt, B. R., Wipf, S., Wohlgemuth, T., Yoccoz, N. G., & Lenoir, J. (2021). Phenological and elevational shiftsof plants, animals and fungi under climate change in the European Alps. Biological Reviews, 96(5), 1816-1835, https://doi.
org/10.1111/brv.12727.

78.

Chowdhury, S., Fuller, R. A., Dingle, H., Chapman, J. W., & Zalucki, M. P. (2021). Migration in butterflies: a global overview.
Biological Reviews, 96(4), 1462-1483, https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12714.

79.

Fraser, D. P., Sharma, A., Fletcher, T., Budge, S., Moncrieff, C., Dodd, A. N., & Franklin, K. A. (2017). UV-B antagonises shade
avoidance and increases levels of the flavonoid quercetin in coriander (Coriandrum sativum). Scientific Reports, 7(1), 17758,
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-18073-8.

80.

Seastedt, T., & Oldfather, M. (2021). Climate change, ecosystem processes and biological diversity responses in high elevation
communities. Climate, 9(5), https://doi.org/10.3390/cli9050087.

81.

Wang, Q.-W., Pieristè, M., Kotilainen, T., Forey, E., Chauvat, M., Kurokawa, H., Robson, M., & Jones, A. (2022). Meta-analysis
of ecological studies attenuating solar radiation illustrates the importance of blue light over ultraviolet radiation in driving
photodegradation of litter in terrestrial ecosystems. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1377521/v1.

82.

Day, T. A., & Bliss, M. S. (2019). A spectral weighting function for abiotic photodegradation based on photochemical emission of
CO2 from leaf litter in sunlight. Biogeochemistry, 146(2), 173-190, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-019-00616-y.

83.

Wang, Q.-W., Robson, T. M., Pieristè, M., Kenta, T., Zhou, W., & Kurokawa, H. (2022). Canopy structure and phenology modulate
the impacts of solar radiation on C and N dynamics during litter decomposition in a temperate forest. Science of the Total
Environment, 820, 153185, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.153185.

84.

Day, T. A., & Bliss, M. S. (2020). Solar photochemical emission of CO2 from leaf litter: Sources and significance to C loss.
Ecosystems, 23, 1344-1361, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-019-00473-8.

85.

Hugelius, G., Loisel, J., Chadburn, S., Jackson, R. B., Jones, M., MacDonald, G., Marushchak, M., Olefeldt, D., Packalen, M.,
Siewert, M. B., Treat, C., Turetsky, M., Voigt, C., & Yu, Z. (2020). Large stocks of peatland carbon and nitrogen are vulnerable
to permafrost thaw. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(34), 20438-20446, https://doi.org/10.1073/
pnas.1916387117.

86.

Gagné, K. R., Ewers, S. C., Murphy, C. J., Daanen, R., Walter Anthony, K., & Guerard, J. J. (2020). Composition and photoreactivity of organic matter from permafrost soils and surface waters in interior Alaska. Environmental Science: Processes &Impacts, 22(7), 1525-1539, https://doi.org/10.1039/d0em00097c.

Executive Summary
87.

Zimov, S. A., Schuur, E. A. G., & Chapin, F. S. (2006). Permafrost and the global carbon budget. Science, 312(5780), 1612-1613,
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1128908.

88.

Grunert, B. K., Tzortziou, M., Neale, P., Menendez, A., & Hernes, P. (2021). DOM degradation by light and microbes along the
Yukon River-coastal ocean continuum. Scientific Reports, 11(1), 10236, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-89327-9.

89.

Rocher-Ros, G., Harms, T. K., Sponseller, R. A., Väisänen, M., Mörth, C.-M., & Giesler, R. (2021). Metabolism overrides
photo-oxidation in CO2 dynamics of Arctic permafrost streams. Limnology and Oceanography, 66(S1), 11564, https://doi.
org/10.1002/lno.11564.

90.

Stubbins, A., Mann, P. J., Powers, L., Bittar, T. B., Dittmar, T., McIntyre, C. P., Eglinton, T. I., Zimov, N., & Spencer, R. G. M. (2017).
Low photolability of yedoma permafrost dissolved organic carbon. Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences, 122(1),200-211, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JG003688.

91.

Bowen, J. C., Ward, C. P., Kling, G. W., & Cory, R. M. (2020). Arctic amplification of global warming strengthened bysunlight oxidation of permafrost carbon to CO2. Geophysical Research Letters, 47(12), e2020GL087085, https://doi.
org/10.1029/2020GL087085.

92.

Cory, R. M., Ward, C. P., Crump, B. C., & Kling, G. W. (2014). Sunlight controls water column processing of carbon in Arctic fresh
waters. Science, 345(6199), 925-928, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1253119.

93.

Mazoyer, F., Laurion, I., & Rautio, M. (2022). The dominant role of sunlight in degrading winter dissolved organic matter from athermokarst lake in a subarctic peatland. Biogeosciences Discussions, 1-28, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-2022-26.

94.

Strauss, J., Schirrmeister, L., Grosse, G., Fortier, D., Hugelius, G., Knoblauch, C., Romanovsky, V., Schädel, C., Schneider
von Deimling, T., Schuur, E. A. G., Shmelev, D., Ulrich, M., & Veremeeva, A. (2017). Deep Yedoma permafrost: A synthesisof depositional characteristics and carbon vulnerability. Earth-Science Reviews, 172, 75-86, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
earscirev.2017.07.007.

95.

Sallée, J. B., Pellichero, V., Akhoudas, C., Pauthenet, E., Vignes, L., Schmidtko, S., Garabato, A. N., Sutherland, P., & Kuusela, M.
(2021). Summertime increases in upper-ocean stratification and mixed-layer depth. Nature, 591(7851), 592-598, https://doi.
org/10.1038/s41586-021-03303-x.

96.

Waugh, D. W., Garfinkel, C. I., & Polvani, L. M. (2015). Drivers of the recent tropical expansion in the southern hemisphere:
Changing SSTs or ozone depletion? Journal of Climate, 28(16), 6581-6586, https://doi.org/10.1175/jcli-d-15-0138.1.

97.

van de Water, J. A. J. M., Courtial, L., Houlbrèque, F., Jacquet, S., & Ferrier-Pagès, C. (2018). Ultraviolet radiation has alimited impact on seasonal differences in the Acropora muricata holobiont. Frontiers in Marine Science, 5, 275, https://doi.
org/10.3389/fmars.2018.00275.

98.

He, T., Tsui, M. M. P., Tan, C. J., Ma, C. Y., Yiu, S. K. F., Wang, L. H., Chen, T. H., Fan, T. Y., Lam, P. K. S., & Murphy, M. B. (2019).
Toxicological effects of two organic ultraviolet filters and a related commercial sunscreen product in adult corals. Environmental
Pollution, 245, 462-471, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2018.11.029.

99.

Nordborg, F. M., Jones, R. J., Oelgemoller, M., & Negri, A. P. (2020). The effects of ultraviolet radiation and climate on oil
toxicity to coral reef organisms - A review. Science of the Total Environment, 720, 137486, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2020.137486.

100. Ward, C. P., & Overton, E. B. (2020). How the 2010 Deepwater Horizon spill reshaped our understanding of crude oil
photochemical weathering at sea: a past, present, and future perspective. Environmental Science: Processes & Impacts, 22(5),1125-1138, https://doi.org/10.1039/d0em00027b.
101. Freeman, D. H., & Ward, C. P. (2022). Sunlight-driven dissolution is a major fate of oil at sea. Science Advances, 8(7), eabl7605,
https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abl7605.
102. Nielsen, K. M., Alloy, M. M., Damare, L., Palmer, I., Forth, H. P., Morris, J., Stoeckel, J. A., & Roberts, A. P. (2020). Planktonic
fiddler crab (Uca longisignalis) are susceptible to photoinduced toxicity following in ovo exposure in oiled mesocosms.
Environmental Science & Technology, 54(10), 6254-6261, https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c00215.
103. Li, C., Gu, X., Wu, Z., Qin, T., Guo, L., Wang, T., Zhang, L., & Jiang, G. (2021). Assessing the effects of elevated ozone on
physiology, growth, yield and quality of soybean in the past 40 years: A meta-analysis. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety,
208, 111644, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2020.111644.
104. Lobell, D. B., & Burney, J. A. (2021). Cleaner air has contributed one-fifth of US maize and soybean yield gains since 1999.
Environmental Research Letters, 16(7), 074049, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac0fa4.
105. Chen, H., Zhang, L., Li, M., Yao, Y., Zhao, Z., Munoz, G., & Sun, H. (2019). Per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) in
precipitation from mainland China: Contributions of unknown precursors and short-chain (C2-C3) perfluoroalkyl carboxylic acids.
Water Research, 153, 169-177, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2019.01.019.
106. Pickard, H. M., Criscitiello, A. S., Persaud, D., Spencer, C., Muir, D. C., Lehnherr, I., Sharp, M. J., De Silva, A. O., & Young, C.
J. (2020). Ice core record of persistent short-chain fluorinated alkyl acids: Evidence of the impact from global environmental
regulations. Geophysical Research Letters, 47(10), e2020GL087535S, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL087535.

35

Executive Summary
107. Hassan, A. A., Abbas, A., Rasheed, T., Bilal, M., Iqbal, H. M., & Wang, S. (2019). Development, influencing parameters andinteractions of bioplasticizers: An environmentally friendlier alternative to petro industry-based sources. Science of the Total
Environment, 682, 394–404, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.05.140.
108. Gunaalan, K., Fabbri, E., & Capolupo, M. (2020). The hidden threat of plastic leachates: A critical review on their impacts onaquatic organisms. Water Research, 184, 116170, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2020.116170.
109. Najafi, V., & Abdollahi, H. (2020). Internally plasticized PVC by four different green plasticizer compounds. European Polymer
Journal, 128, 109620, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eurpolymj.2020.109620.
110. Tipton, D. A., & Lewis, J. W. (2008). Effects of a hindered amine light stabilizer and a UV light absorber used in maxillofacial
elastomers on human gingival epithelial cells and fibroblasts. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 100(3), 220–231, https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0022-3913(08)60182-1
111. Barrick, A., Champeau, O., Chatel, A., Manier, N., Northcott, G., & Tremblay, L. A. (2021). Plastic additives: challenges in ecotox
hazard assessment. PeerJ, 9, e11300, https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.11300.
112. Lokanath, S. V., Skarbek, B., & Schindelholz, E. J. (2019). 9 - Degradation processes and mechanisms of PV wires and connectors.
In H. E. Yang, R. H. French, & L. S. Bruckman (Eds.), Durability and reliability of polymers and other materials in photovoltaic
modules, pp. 217–233, Plastics Design Library. William Andrew Publishing.
113. Santhakumari, M., & Sagar, N. (2019). A review of the environmental factors degrading the performance of silicon wafer-based
photovoltaic modules: Failure detection methods and essential mitigation techniques. Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews, 110, 83–100, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.04.024.
114. Han, H., Yan, H., Wang, X., Zhang, K., Huang, J., Sun, Y., Liu, J., Verlinden, P. J., Altermatt, P., Liang, Z., & Shen, H. (2019). Analysisof the degradation of encapsulant materials used in photovoltaic modules exposed to different climates in China. Solar Energy,
194, 177–188, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2019.10.014.
115. Correa-Puerta, J., Ferrada, P., Häberle, P., Díaz-Almeida, D., Sanz, A., Zubillaga, O., Marzo, A., Portillo, C., & del Campo, V.
(2021). Comparing the effects of ultraviolet radiation on four different encapsulants for photovoltaic applications in the Atacama
Desert. Solar Energy, 228, 625–635, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2021.10.003.
116. IEA (2021). World Energy Outlook 2021. International Energy Agency Paris, France.
117. Tracy, J., Bosco, N., Delgado, C., & Dauskardt, R. (2020). Durability of ionomer encapsulants in photovoltaic modules. Solar
Energy Materials and Solar Cells, 208, 110397, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solmat.2020.110397.
118. Smith, S., Perry, L., Watson, S., Moffitt, S. L., Shen, S.-J., Mitterhofer, S., Sung, L.-P., Jacobs, D., & Gu, X. (2022). Transparent
backsheets for bifacial photovoltaic (PV) modules: Material characterization and accelerated laboratory testing. Progress in
Photovoltaics: Research and Applications, 30(8), 959-969, https://doi.org/10.1002/pip.3494.
119. Gok, A., Gordon, D. A., Wang, M., French, R. H., & Bruckman, L. S. (2019). 3 - Degradation science and pathways in PV systems.
In H. E. Yang, R. H. French, & L. S. Bruckman (Eds.), Durability and reliability of polymers and other materials in photovoltaic
modules, pp. 47–93, Plastics Design Library. William Andrew Publishing.
120. Geyer, R., Jambeck, J. R., & Law, K. L. Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever made. Science Advances, 3(7), e1700782,
https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1700782.
121. Andrady, A. L., Barnes, P. W., Bornman, J. F., Gouin, T., Madronich, S., White, C. C., Zepp, R. G., & Jansen, M. A. K. (2022).
Oxidation and fragmentation of plastics in a changing environment; from UV-radiation to biological degradation. Science of the
Total Environment, 851, 158022, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.158022.
122. Garvey, C. J., Impéror-Clerc, M., Rouzière, S., Gouadec, G., Boyron, O., Rowenczyk, L., Mingotaud, A. F., & ter Halle, A. (2020).
Molecular-scale understanding of the embrittlement in polyethylene ocean debris. Environmental Science & Technology, 54(18),11173-11181, https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c02095.
123. Alimi, O. S., Claveau-Mallet, D., Kurusu, R. S., Lapointe, M., Bayen, S., & Tufenkji, N. (2022). Weathering pathways and protocols
for environmentally relevant microplastics and nanoplastics: What are we missing? Journal of Hazardous Materials, 423, 126955,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.126955.
124. Geneva-Environment-Network (2022). Update plastics and the environment. https://www.genevaenvironmentnetwork.org/
resources/updates/plastics-and-the-environment/. Accessed 21 June 2022 2022.
125. Barnes, P. W., Robson, T. M., Neale, P. J., Williamson, C. E., Zepp, R. G., Madronich, S., Wilson, S. R., Andrady, A. L., Heikkilä,
A. M., Bernhard, G. H., Bais, A. F., Neale, R. E., Bornman, J. F., Jansen, M. A. K., Klekociuk, A. R., Martinez-Abaigar, J., Robinson,
S. A., Wang, Q. W., Banaszak, A. T., Häder, D. P., Hylander, S., Rose, K. C., Wängberg, S. Å., Foereid, B., Hou, W. C., Ossola,R., Paul, N. D., Ukpebor, J. E., Andersen, M. P. S., Longstreth, J., Schikowski, T., Solomon, K. R., Sulzberger, B., Bruckman, L. S.,
Pandey, K. K., White, C. C., Zhu, L., Zhu, M., Aucamp, P. J., Liley, J. B., McKenzie, R. L., Berwick, M., Byrne, S. N., Hollestein, L. M.,
Lucas, R. M., Olsen, C. M., Rhodes, L. E., Yazar, S., & Young, A. R. (2022). Environmental effects of stratospheric ozone depletion,
UV radiation, and interactions with climate change: UNEP Environmental Effects Assessment Panel, Update 2021. Photochemical& Photobiological Sciences, 21, 275-301, https://doi.org/10.1007/s43630-022-00176-5.

36

Executive Summary
126. Bernhard, G. H., Neale, R. E., Barnes, P. W., Neale, P. J., Zepp, R. G., Wilson, S. R., Andrady, A. L., Bais, A. F., McKenzie, R. L.,
Aucamp, P. J., Young, P. J., Liley, J. B., Lucas, R. M., Yazar, S., Rhodes, L. E., Byrne, S. N., Hollestein, L. M., Olsen, C. M., Young, A.
R., Robson, T. M., Bornman, J. F., Jansen, M. A. K., Robinson, S. A., Ballare, C. L., Williamson, C. E., Rose, K. C., Banaszak, A. T.,
Hader, D. P., Hylander, S., Wangberg, S. A., Austin, A. T., Hou, W. C., Paul, N. D., Madronich, S., Sulzberger, B., Solomon, K. R.,
Li, H., Schikowski, T., Longstreth, J., Pandey, K. K., Heikkila, A. M., & White, C. C. (2020). Environmental effects of stratosphericozone depletion, UV radiation and interactions with climate change: UNEP Environmental Effects Assessment Panel, update 2019.
Photochemical & Photobiological Sciences, 19, 542-584, https://doi.org/10.1039/d0pp90011g.
127. Crutzen, P. J. (2006). Albedo enhancement by stratospheric sulfur injections: A contribution to resolve a policy dilemma? Climatic
Change, 77(3-4), 211-220, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-006-9101-y.
128. Kravitz, B., & MacMartin, D. G. (2020). Uncertainty and the basis for confidence in solar geoengineering research. Nature
Reviews Earth & Environment, 1(1), 64-75, https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-019-0004-7.
129. Madronich, S., Tilmes, S., Kravitz, B., MacMartin, D., & Richter, J. (2018). Response of surface ultraviolet and visible radiation to
stratospheric SO2 injections. Atmosphere, 9(11), https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos9110432.
130. Tilmes, S., Müller, R., & Salawitch, R. (2008). The sensitivity of polar ozone depletion to proposed geoengineering schemes.
Science, 320(5880), 1201, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1153966.
131. Barnes, P. W., Bornman, J. F., Pandey, K. K., Bernhard, G. H., Bais, A. F., Neale, R. E., Robson, T. M., Neale, P. J., Williamson, C. E.,
Zepp, R. G., Madronich, S., Wilson, S. R., Andrady, A. L., Heikkilä, A. M., & Robinson, S. A. (2021). The success of the Montreal
Protocol in mitigating interactive effects of stratospheric ozone depletion and climate change on the environment. Global Change
Biology, 27(22), 5681-5683, https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15841

37

Chapter 1

1
STRATOSPHERIC OZONE, UV RADIATION,
AND CLIMATE INTERACTIONS

G. H. Bernhard6, A. F. Bais7, P. J. Aucamp8, A. R. Klekociuk9, J. B. Liley10,
and R. L. McKenzie9

38

6

Biospherical Instruments Inc., San Diego, California, USA.

7

Laboratory of Atmospheric Physics, Department of Physics, Aristotle University, Thessaloniki, Greece.

8Ptersa Environmental Consultants, Pretoria, South Africa.

9

Antarctic Climate Program, Australian Antarctic Division, Kingston, Australia.

10

National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research, Lauder, New Zealand.

Chapter 1

Table of contents
Summary											40
1Introduction											40

2State of the science in 2018										41

3Current and future status of atmospheric ozone							

42

3.1

Changes in total column ozone outside the polar regions							

42

3.2

Changes in total column ozone over Antarctica								423.3Changes in total column ozone over the Arctic								

44

3.4

Effects of greenhouse gases on stratospheric ozone							

45

3.5

Estimates of total column ozone during the 21st century							45

4Benefits of the Montreal Protocol									474.1Direct effects of the Montreal Protocol on stratospheric ozone depletion and UV radiation			

47

4.2

Indirect effects of the Montreal Protocol on climate							

48

5Effects of recent changes in stratospheric ozone on climate and weather					

49

5.1

Effects of Antarctic ozone depletion on Southern Hemisphere climate					

49

5.1.1

Shifting of climate zones										505.1.2Causes and consequences of the 2019/2020 “Black Summer” fires						

50

5.1.3

Effects on sea ice extent and snow coverage								

51

5.2

Associations between Arctic stratospheric ozone losses and the climate of the Northern Hemisphere		51

6Factors other than ozone affecting UV radiation							

52

6.1

Aerosols												526.2Surface reflectivity											546.3Solar activity											556.4Volcanic eruptions											566.5Climate change											57

7Variability in UV radiation and trends from observations						

58

7.1

Variations in UV radiation with time and altitude								

58

7.1.1

Temporal variations of UV radiation in Antarctica								587.1.2Temporal variations of UV radiation in the Arctic								7.1.3Dependence of UV radiation on altitude								617.2Observed long-term changes in UV radiation								617.3Reconstruction of historical changes in UV radiation							

8Projectins of UV radiation										649Implications of solar radiation management on UV radiation						

10Advances in UV monitoring and modelling								6710.1Ground-based systems										6710.2Modelling of UV radiation										6810.3Satellite observations of UV radiation									6810.4Forecasting of the UV Index										6910.5Personal exposure											6910.5.1

Exposure models											7010.5.2

Personal dosimetry											7010.5.3Low-cost / crowd-sourced sensors and cell phone apps							

11Action spectra											7112Gaps in Knowledge										7213Conclusions											73

59

62
66

71

List of abbreviations										74References											7639Chapter 1

SummaryThis assessment provides a comprehensive update of the effects of changes in stratospheric ozone and other factors (aerosols, surface
reflectivity, solar activity, and climate) on the intensity of ultraviolet (UV) radiation at the Earth’s surface. The assessment is performed in
the context of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer and its Amendments and Adjustments. Changes in UV
radiation at low- and mid-latitudes (0–60°) during the last 25 years have generally been small (e.g., typically less than 4% per decade,increasing at some sites and decreasing at others) and were mostly driven by changes in cloud cover and atmospheric aerosol content,caused partly by climate change and partly by measures to control tropospheric pollution. Without the Montreal Protocol, erythemal(sunburning) UV irradiance at northern and southern latitudes of less than 50° would have increased by 10–20% between 1996 and2020. For southern latitudes exceeding 50°, the UV Index (UVI) would have surged by between 25% (year-round at the southern tip ofSouth America) and more than 100% (South Pole in spring). Variability of erythemal irradiance in Antarctica was very large during thelast four years. In spring 2019, erythemal UV radiation was at the minimum of the historical (1991–2018) range at the South Pole, whilenear record-high values were observed in spring 2020, which were up to 80% above the historical mean. In the Arctic, some of thehighest erythemal irradiances on record were measured in March and April 2020. For example in March 2020, the monthly average UVIover a site in the Canadian Arctic was up to 70% higher than the historical (2005–2019) average, often exceeding this mean by threestandard deviations. Under the presumption that all countries will adhere to the Montreal Protocol in the future and that atmosphericaerosol concentrations remain constant, erythemal irradiance at mid-latitudes (30–60°) is projected to decrease between 2015 and2090 by 2–5% in the north and by 4–6% in the south due to recovering ozone. Changes projected for the tropics are ≤3%. However, inindustrial regions that are currently affected by air pollution, UV radiation will increase as measures to reduce air pollutants will gradually
restore UV radiation intensities to those of a cleaner atmosphere. Since most substances controlled by the Montreal Protocol are also
greenhouse gases, the phase-out of these substances may have avoided warming by 0.5 to 1.0 °C over mid-latitude regions of thecontinents, and by more than 1.0 °C in the Arctic; however, the uncertainty of these calculations is large. We also assess the effects ofchanges in stratospheric ozone on climate, focusing on the poleward shift of climate zones, and discuss the role of the small Antarctic
ozone hole in 2019 on the devastating “Black Summer” fires in Australia. Additional topics include the assessment of advances inmeasuring and modelling of UV radiation; methods for determining personal UV exposure; the effect of solar radiation management(stratospheric aerosol injections) on UV radiation relevant for plants; and possible revisions to the vitamin D action spectrum, which
describes the wavelength dependence of the synthesis of previtamin D3 in human skin upon exposure to UV radiation.

1 Introduction
Chapter 1 focuses on the effects of changes in the ozone layer on climate and ultraviolet (UV) radiation at the Earth’s surface, theinteractions between UV radiation and climate, and on the influence of other geophysical parameters affecting UV radiation.
The Chapter sets the stage for the subsequent Chapters of this Quadrennial Assessment that address the consequences of theinterconnected effects of stratospheric ozone depletion, UV radiation, and climate change on human health [1] (including the COVID-19
pandemic [2]), terrestrial [3] and aquatic [4] ecosystems, the carbon cycle [3,4], air quality [5], natural and synthetic materials [6], and thefate of environmental plastic debris [7]. The 2022 Quadrennial Assessment focuses on new scientific knowledge up to August 2022 thathas accumulated since our last comprehensive assessment of 2018 (see the website, Quadrennial Assessment 2018; and was also madeavailable in Photochem. Photobiol. Sci., 2019, 18, 595–828). Many of these effects are assessed in terms of the benefits for life on Earthresulting from the implementation of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer [8] and its Amendments andAdjustments (henceforth “the Montreal Protocol”). These benefits were achieved by curbing depletion of stratospheric ozone, thereby
limiting increases of UV radiation, and mitigating climate change. Further topics include assessments of observed trends in UV radiation,
projections of UV radiation into the future, and advances in the monitoring and modelling of UV radiation.

40

Chapter 1

2 State of the science in 2018
The previous comprehensive assessment of the EEAP [9], which was based on the state of knowledge in 2018, concluded that theMontreal Protocol was highly beneficial for protecting the stratospheric ozone layer and limiting the rise of solar UV-B (280–315 nm)
radiation at the Earth’s surface. Therefore, increases in erythemal (sunburning) UV radiation between the late 1970s (at the onset ofanthropogenically induced stratospheric ozone depletion) and 2018 were negligible in the tropics, small (< 10%) at mid-latitudes(30–60°), and large (> 50%) only in polar regions.11 Furthermore, the implementation of the Montreal Protocol12 prevented increases
in UV-B radiation since the mid-1990s. As a result, observed changes in UV radiation at mid-latitudes during the last ~3 decades weremainly controlled by clouds and aerosols instead of changes in stratospheric ozone. Statistically significant decreases in UV-B radiationconsistent with ozone recovery had not yet been detected at mid- and low-latitudes at the time of the previous assessment becauseof the large variability in UV-B radiation caused by factors other than ozone. Conversely, continuing decreases in clouds and aerosols(rather than changes in ozone) observed since the mid-1990s led to positive trends of UV radiation at several sites between 30° and
60° N. Several independent satellite records indicated that changes in large-scale patterns of clouds occurred between the 1980s and2000s with consequences on UV radiation at the Earth’s surface.
In contrast to the tropics and mid-latitudes, variability of UV-B radiation in Antarctica remained very large, with near record-higherythemal UV radiation observed at the South Pole in spring 2015 and well below average values in spring 2016. The Arctic remained
vulnerable to large decreases in total column ozone13 (TCO) and concomitant increases in UV-B irradiance whenever meteorologicalconditions led to a cold lower stratosphere in late winter and early spring. For example, greatly reduced stratospheric ozone
concentrations during the second half of February 2016 led to increases of erythemal UV radiation of up to 60% above the climatological
average over northern Scandinavia and northern Siberia.
By preventing the further growth of the Antarctic ozone hole, the Montreal Protocol also helped to reduce its effects on atmosphericcirculation, which include shifts of climate zones in the Southern Hemisphere and associated changes in weather patterns. For example,
changes in tropospheric circulation contributed to a decrease in summer temperatures over southeast and south-central Australia, andinland areas of the southern tip of Africa. Anomalously high TCO in the spring were significantly correlated with hotter-than-normal
summers over large regions of the Southern Hemisphere and vice versa.
With the predicted recovery of stratospheric ozone over the next several decades, UV-B radiation was expected to decrease at
all latitudes outside the tropics, with the greatest decreases predicted over Antarctica. A projection of the erythemal irradiance14(quantified in terms of the UV Index15 or UVI) for the end of the 21st century (average of 2085−2095) relative to the current decade(average of 2010−2020) suggested that ozone-recovery will lead to a decrease in the UVI by about 30% over Antarctica, and up to 6%
over mid-latitudes. These projections were uncertain because future concentrations of stratospheric ozone will depend not only on
the decrease of ozone-depleting substances (ODSs) controlled by the Montreal Protocol but also on the trajectory of concentrationsof other greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane, which will greatly depend on policy decisions implemented in the
coming decades. Changes in cloudiness were projected to result in small (up to 4%) localised increases in UVI over the mid-latitudes
and tropics, and to decreases exceeding 10% in the Arctic. Reductions in reflectivity due to melting of snow and sea ice as well as
shifting of the melting season were predicted to decrease above-surface UVI by up to 10% in the Arctic and by 2–3% around Antarctica.
However, the increasingly ice-free Arctic Ocean and reductions in snow cover would lead to increases in UV radiation penetrating thewater column and reaching land surfaces formerly covered by snow. Decreases in concentrations of aerosols over urban areas of theNorthern Hemisphere were projected to increase the UVI by typically 5–10% and by up to 30% over heavily industrialised regions (e.g.,southern and eastern Asia) as measures to control air pollution start to reduce contamination from aerosols towards pre-industrial levels.
The extent of these changes was again determined to be greatly contingent on policy decisions.

11

If not stated otherwise, the latitude ranges for both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres are defined as: polar latitudes (80°–90°); high-latitudes (60°–80°); midlatitudes (30°–60°); low-latitudes or tropics (0°–30°).

12The Montreal Protocol was adopted in 1987 and was implemented in 1989 when it entered into force.

13

Total column ozone or TCO is the amount of ozone in a vertical column extending from the Earth’s surface to the top of the atmosphere. TCO is reported in Dobson Units
or DU. One DU corresponds to a hypothetical layer of pure ozone with a thickness of 0.01 millimetre that would ensue if all ozone molecules in the vertical column werecompressed to standard pressure (1013.25 hPa) and temperature (273.15 K or 0 ° C). One DU corresponds to 2.69x1016 molecules per square centimetre of area at the baseof this column. Averaged over the Earth’s surface, the TCO is about 300 DU, which relates to a layer of pure ozone that is three millimetres thick.

14

Irradiance is the radiant power (or radiant flux) received by a surface per unit area. “Radiant” indicates that the energy is received as electromagnetic radiation, and thesurface is assumed horizontal unless otherwise specified.

15

The UV Index is calculated by weighting solar UV spectra with the action spectrum of erythema [10] and multiplying the result with 40 m2/ W. See also Sect. 11.

41

Chapter 1

3 Current and future status of atmospheric ozone
Changes in atmospheric ozone concentrations in general and TCO in particular are regularly being assessed by the Scientific
Assessment Panel (SAP) of the Montreal Protocol in coordination with the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and UNEP. The
information provided in this section is largely based on the SAP’s latest assessment [11] and provides the background for our assessmentof the various effects resulting from changes in the ozone layer. We note that trends in TCO assessed by the SAP and summarised here
refer to trends resulting mainly from human activities. The effects of natural cycles and events that affect TCO have been removed aspart of the trend analysis. Such cycles and events include the solar cycle; the quasi-biennial oscillation (QBO; a pattern of alternating
zonal winds in the tropical stratosphere); the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO; a pattern of alternating warm and cold sea surface
temperatures of the tropical Pacific Ocean); the Arctic Oscillation (AO) and the Antarctic Oscillation (AAO), which both describe theback-and-forth shifting of atmospheric pressure between the poles and the mid-latitudes; the Brewer-Dobson circulation (a global-scale
meridional circulation in the stratosphere); and aerosols from major volcanic eruptions [12].

3.1

Changes in total column ozone outside the polar regions

Signs of the ozone layer’s recovery outside the polar regions are now more robust compared to the SAP’s previous assessment [13]owing to updated trend models and additional four years of data. For the first time, small but statistically significant increases in TCO (of0.4±0.2% per decade) for the period 1996–2020 are now evident for the latitude band 60° S–60° N [12]. However, this positive trend
is mostly driven by TCO changes in the Southern Hemisphere (Fig. 1). In the tropics (20° S–20° N) and northern mid-latitudes (35°–60°N), increases in TCO since 1996 have not been observed with certainty (Fig. 1a and b), and statistically significant trends (of 0.7±0.6%
per decade) have only been found for the southern mid-latitudes (35°–60° S) (Fig. 1c). Even though the Montreal Protocol entered into
force more than 30 years ago, it was expected that the recovery of the ozone layer at mid-latitudes would only now start to become
evident because the removal rate of ODSs controlled by the Montreal Protocol from the stratosphere is three to four times slower than
the rate at which they were added [14]. Furthermore, year-to-year variability in TCO obscures the attribution of trends to declining
concentrations of ODSs. Detecting significant increases in TCO outside Antarctica therefore requires much more time than the detectionof its previous decline. In the upper stratosphere, however, the rate of increase in the ozone concentrations is larger, ranging between
1.5% and 2.2% per decade over the mid-latitudes of both hemispheres, and between 1% and 1.5% per decade in the tropics [11]. Sinceozone column amounts in the upper stratosphere (above 32 km) are relatively small (typically less than 25% of the TCO at mid-latitudes),these increases contribute only modestly to the growth of TCO. Over the mid-latitudes, the present day TCO (2018–2020 average) is still
below the average of the period 1964–1980 by ~4% in the Northern Hemisphere and by ~5% in the Southern Hemisphere [11]. Reasonsfor these latitude-dependent changes in TCO are discussed in SAP’s 2022 assessment [11].

3.2

Changes in total column ozone over Antarctica

Several studies have provided evidence that the Antarctic ozone hole is starting to recover [15-21]. Signs of recovery are strongest forthe month of September, which is the key month for chemical destruction of ozone. Both ground-based and satellite data indicate
a statistically significant positive trend in TCO of 12% per decade in September since 2000 (Fig. 1e). These increases are consistent
with the decrease in the concentration of ODSs controlled by the Montreal Protocol [20]. However, there are still no significant trends
for October (Fig. 1f) or later months because TCO in late spring is less sensitive to decreasing ODSs in the stratosphere compared to
September. In a typical Antarctic winter, ozone is almost completely destroyed in the lower stratosphere by the end of September,which may explain why no recovery has yet been observed in October over the polar cap [12]. In addition, year-to-year variability is also
larger later in the year [11].
Assuming continued adherence to the Montreal Protocol, concentrations of ODSs are projected to decline further, eventually resulting
in the disappearance of the annually recurring ozone hole in the second half of the 21st century [11]. Until that time, large year-to-year
variations in various ozone hole metrics are expected because of the sensitivity of chemical ozone destruction to temperature in thelower stratosphere in the presence of ODSs. Especially during the last few years, the depth and size of the Antarctic ozone hole haveexhibited particularly large variability:
In September and October 2019, the Antarctic ozone hole was the smallest on record since the early 1980s due to abnormally strong
planetary wave16 activity originating in the subtropical Pacific Ocean east of Australia and over the eastern South Pacific [22-24]. Thesewaves weakened the stratospheric polar vortex, which led to a warming of the polar stratosphere, starting in mid-August [25]. The
resulting above-normal temperature in the lower stratosphere reduced the occurrence of polar stratospheric clouds (PSCs), which
provide the surfaces for heterogeneous17 chemical reactions involving chlorine that result in catalytic destruction of ozone. The volumeof PSCs dropped to almost zero by mid-September and the chemical processes leading to ozone depletion were therefore suppressed
far earlier than usual. The average TCO over the polar cap (60°–90° S) in September and October 2019 was the highest over the last 40
years, and the minimum TCO for September 2019 was the highest since 1988.

42

16

Large-scale perturbations in atmospheric circulation, typically manifesting as meandering of the jet stream.

17

Heterogeneous chemical reactions are chemical reactions between substances of different phases, e.g., gaseous, liquid, solid.

Chapter 1
For the months of September, October, and November, the polar cap average TCO was higher by 29%, 28%, and 26%, respectively,
compared to the mean of the 2008–2018 period [26].

Fig. 1 Time series of annual mean TCO for the latitude bands (a) 35° N−60° N, (b) 20° S−20° N, and (c) 35° S−60° S; andmonthly mean TCO for (d) March in the Arctic (60° N−90° N), (e) September in the Antarctic (60° S−90° S), and (f) October inthe Antarctic (60° S−90° S). Colours indicate different ground- and satellite-based datasets. These are identified in the legendof panel (b) and defined as follows: WOUDC: ground-based measurements from the World Ozone and UV data centre (https://woudc.org/); SBUV V8.7 NASA (MOD): NASA Merged Ozone Data from the series of space-borne Solar Backscatter Ultraviolet(SBUV) instruments; SBUV V8.6 NOAA (COH): the NOAA cohesive dataset from several satellite sensors; GOME/SCIA GSG:
the merged dataset from the space-borne Global Ozone Monitoring Experiment (GOME), the SCanning Imaging Absorption
spectroMeter for Atmospheric CHartographY (SCIAMACHY), GOME-2A, and GOME-2B; and GOME/SCIA/OMI GTO: themerged data set from GOME, SCIAMACHY, the Ozone Monitoring Instrument (OMI), GOME-2A, GOME-2B, and TROPOspheric
Monitoring Instrument (TROPOMI). The MLR (heavy orange line) dataset is the median of the five datasets described above andrepresents the input to the regression model applied by Weber et al. [12]. Solid black lines indicate linear trends calculatedwith this regression model before and after the peak in ODSs in 1996, respectively, and dotted lines indicate the two standard
deviation (2σ) uncertainty of the estimated trends. Trend numbers are indicated for the pre (1979–1995) and post (1996–2020)
ODS peak period in the top part of the plot. Numbers in parentheses are the 2σ trend uncertainty. The dashed orange line
shows the mean TCO from 1964 until 1980 from the WOUDC data. Note that the scales of the ordinates are different in the six
panels. Adapted from Weber et al. [12].

• In contrast, the Antarctic ozone holes in spring 2020 and 2021 were amongst the largest and longest-lived in the observational
record [27,28]. These long-lasting ozone holes, extending to times when snow has melted, may have had impacts on Antarcticorganisms [29]. Yook et al. [28] provided evidence that injection of smoke originating from the Australian “Black Summer” wildfiresof early 2020 (Sect. 5.1.2) may have contributed to the large ozone hole of 2020, while aerosols from the eruption of La Soufrière

43

Chapter 1(13° N) on Saint Vincent in April 2021 may have played a role in the large ozone hole of 2021. (Aerosols injected into the tropicalstratosphere disperse rapidly to high latitudes [30].) Furthermore, the lack of planetary waves during both years resulted in a coldand stable stratospheric vortex over Antarctica, which created conditions favourable for persistent ozone depletion [11,20,31].
Additionally, loss of ozone in early spring 2020 enhanced the strength and persistence of the vortex later in that year [32]. Even
though large ozone holes will likely continue to occur in the future, either through dynamical variability alone, or exacerbated bylarge volcanic eruptions or major inputs of smoke into the stratosphere, the recovery of the ozone hole is expected to continue [27].
The large year-to-year variability in the TCO observed thus far resulted in large year-to-year variations in UV radiation in Antarctica (Sect.
‎7.1.1). For example, the UVIs measured at the South Pole in 2019 were some of the lowest since the start of measurements in 1991, while
those in 2020 set new record highs. The recovery of the Antarctic ozone hole is generally more difficult to detect with UV-B radiation
than ozone data because signs of recovery are most pronounced in September [15,33] when the UVI in Antarctica is still very low.
Factors other than ozone that affect UV radiation (Sect. 6) lead to additional variability, hampering detection of recovery further.
Using observations from satellites between 1978 and 2020, a recent study [34] compared annual averages of the depth and area of the
Antarctic ozone hole for early spring (1 September – 15 October) and late spring (16 October – 30 November). This analysis is of highrelevance for assessing trends in UV radiation over Antarctica because UV radiation is generally much greater later in spring when the
Sun is higher in the sky even though TCO is typically much lower earlier in spring. Figure 2a shows TCO averaged from 1 September
to 15 October (red line) and from 16 October to 30 November (blue line) at King George Island (62° S), located near the northern
tip of the Antarctic Peninsula. For the earlier period, the 11-year moving average of TCO was lowest around the year 2000, when
the concentration of ozone-depleting chlorine and bromine compounds in the stratosphere was close to its maximum, and average
TCO appears to be increasing since this time. The observation at this station is consistent with the positive trend in Antarctic TCO for
September shown in Fig. 1e. Conversely, and consistent with Fig. 1f, there is no clear indication that TCO is also recovering in the later
period. Similarly, the size of the ozone hole—quantified as the area with TCO below 220 Dobson Units (DU)—appears to be decreasing
faster in early spring (Fig. 2b).

350

(b)

King George Island
Mean 1 Sep - 15 Oct
Mean 16 Oct - 30 Nov

30
25

Period: 1 Sep - 15 Oct
Period: 16 Oct - 30 Nov

20

300

15
10

250
200
1980

Ozone Hole Area millions of km2 

Total Ozone Column (DU)

(a)

1990

2000
Year

2010

2020

5
0
1980

1990

2000
Year

2010

2020

Fig. 2 (a) Time series of TCO at King George Island (62° S), averaged from 1 September to 15 October (red line) and from 16
October to 30 November (blue line). (b) Evolution of the ozone hole area averaged from 1 September to 15 October (red line)
and from 16 October to 30 November (blue line). Bold lines indicate 11-year centred moving averages calculated from annual
data. Adapted from Cordero et al. [34].

3.3

Changes in total column ozone over the Arctic

While there is still no clear evidence of ozone recovery in the Arctic, it is expected that signs of recovery would first be detected in
March because chemical ozone loss in the Arctic is typically largest in this month [35]. Figure 1d indicates that TCO in March averaged
over the northern polar cap (63°–90° N) is indeed increasing by 2% per decade, but this small positive trend is not statistically significant
because of the large interannual dynamical variability observed for this latitude belt [11].
Sporadic ozone depletion events continue to occur in the Arctic. An exceptionally large episode of stratospheric ozone depletion wasobserved in late winter and early spring (February–April) of 2020 [36], exceeding in severity the previously reported event of 2011 [37].
The TCO averaged over 63°–90° N for this 3-month period was 340 Dobson Units (DU), which is 100 DU below the mean of the period
1979–2019 and the lowest since the start of satellite measurements in 1979. These low values of TCO in 2020 were partially caused
by a strong and long-lived polar vortex, which provided ideal conditions for chemical ozone destruction to take place. Temperatures

44

Chapter 1
low enough to form PSCs within the vortex developed early in the season, and on average enclosed about a third of the vortex volume[35,36,38-41]. Furthermore, the strong vortex also inhibited replenishment of Arctic ozone from lower latitudes [11]. These conditions
are unique in the ~40 years of measurements, making 2020 the year with the largest loss of Arctic ozone on record. The large ozone
hole observed over Antarctica six months later is a coincidence and cannot be attributed to a known common cause.
The unprecedented depletion of Arctic ozone in winter/spring of 2019/2020 contrasts with the conditions in the boreal winters of
2018/2019 and 2020/2021. In both winters, major stratospheric warmings occurred in January [42-44], which limited overall ozone
loss. As a result, the minimum TCO in March 2019 (defined as the minimum of the daily mean TCO within an area that encloses the
Arctic polar vortex and is surrounded by the 63° N contour of “equivalent latitude” [45]) was the highest since 1988 [46], and theminimum TCO in March 2021 was identical to its average value since the start of satellite observations in 1979 [47]. Such large year-toyear variations in Arctic ozone depletion, which are driven by differences in meteorological conditions, are expected to continue for as
long as concentrations of ODSs remain elevated [11,41,48]. Furthermore, winters with a warm stratosphere (and little ozone depletion)
will likely randomly alternate with winters with a cold stratosphere (and large ozone depletion). A recent study [49] provides evidence
that years with a cold stratospheric Arctic vortex are getting colder. Reduced stratospheric temperatures will likely result in more PSC
formation and lead to more chemical ozone loss via catalytic processes. As a consequence, ozone-depletion events as large or evenlarger than the one observed in 2020 [e.g., 36] will likely re-occur throughout the 21st century until concentrations of ODSs havesubstantially decreased. The magnitude of stratospheric cooling in the future will critically depend on the development of greenhousegas (GHG) concentrations and on variability in the amount of water (H2O) vapour in the stratosphere [11,49]. Under the scenario with thehighest concentration of GHGs and H2O, sporadic springtime increases in UV radiation in the Arctic could be somewhat larger at theend of the 21st century than those observed in 2020 [49].

3.4

Effects of greenhouse gases on stratospheric ozone

This section briefly discusses the effects of changes in the atmospheric concentration of GHGs that are responsible for global warming
but are also relevant to stratospheric ozone changes. The SAP’s latest report [11] discusses these processes in more detail. Increases
in GHGs affect ozone depletion in several key ways [50]. First, radiative cooling of the polar stratosphere (promoted by GHGs during
winter months) enhances the formation of PSCs. These clouds provide the surfaces for heterogeneous chemical reactions that lead tothe destruction of ozone, thereby decreasing ozone concentrations. Second, cooling of the upper stratosphere at extrapolar latitudes
reduces the rates of gas-phase chemical reactions that lead to ozone loss, thereby increasing ozone concentrations in the upper
stratosphere. Third, changes in the concentrations of nitrous oxide (N2O) and methane (CH4), which are both GHGs, also affect ozone
concentrations chemically because both gases are also key sources of reactive species in catalytic cycles (the NOx and HOx cycles,
respectively) that destroy ozone. The NOx cycle dominates in the middle stratosphere (approximately 25-35 km) while the HOx cycle ismostly contributing in the lower stratosphere. Fourth, increases in GHG concentrations are expected to strengthen the Brewer–Dobson
circulation, which describes the redistribution of ozone from tropical to extratropical regions [51]. Fifth, global warming induced byincreases in GHGs increases the flux of “very short-lived substances” (VSLS) into the stratosphere as further explained in the following.
VSLS are ozone-depleting halogen-containing substances with a lifetime of less than six months that are mostly produced by naturalprocesses, for example, by macroalgae (seaweed) and phytoplankton. About 25% of bromine entering the stratosphere in 2016 wasfrom VSLS [13], with the majority originating from oceanic sources. While stratospheric bromine is a relatively minor constituent by
volume, it is an important contributor to ozone depletion. Per atom, bromine is about 60–75 times (depending on the concentration of
GHGs) more effective in destroying ozone than is chlorine [52]. A recent modelling study [53] examined the effect of climate change
on changes in bromine from oceanic sources. The study assumed the Representative Concentration Pathway18 RCP 6.0 GHG scenario
and concluded that the flux of brominated VSLS compounds from the ocean to the atmosphere will increase by about 10% over the
21st century for all latitudes with the exception of the Arctic. The increase will be even greater over the Arctic because of the projected
decrease in sea ice, which is currently hindering the escape of brominated compounds from the ocean. By the end of the 21st century,
almost the entire polar ocean will likely be exposed in August and September and sea ice will no longer curtail ocean–atmosphere fluxesof brominated compounds. This study is one example of an indirect effect of climate change on the concentration of substances that
promote stratospheric ozone depletion.

3.5

Estimates of total column ozone during the 21st century

Projections of TCO into the future are available from chemistry-climate models (CCMs), which were run for different future emissions
scenarios as part of a coordinated, multi-model activity where all models follow the same protocols to perform a comparable set ofsimulations [11,54]. Uncertainties associated with these projections arise mainly from the assumed future trajectories of emissions of
GHGs and pollutants. The models were run in the framework of CMIP619 simulations and follow a new set of future emissions scenarios,

18

Representative Concentration Pathways are greenhouse gas concentration (not emission) trajectories adopted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for
its fifth Assessment Report. The pathways are used for climate modelling and research. They describe four climate futures, which differ in the amount of greenhouse gasesthat are emitted in years to come. The four RCPs, RCP 2.6, RCP 4.5, RCP 6, and RCP 8.5, are named after a possible range of radiative forcing values in the year 2100 relative
to pre-industrial values (+2.6, +4.5, +6.0, and +8.5 W m−2, respectively).

19

Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6.

45

Chapter 1
the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSP20) [55], which assume compliance with the Montreal Protocol and its Amendments. The
ozone projections for the different SSPs are therefore based on the same evolution of controlled ODSs and depend only on theevolution of GHGs and other pollutants.
The new simulations for the evolution of TCO towards the year 2100 support conclusions similar to those presented in a previous
assessment of the SAP [13]. Figure 3 depicts the evolution of the annual-mean TCO averaged over different latitude bands for theperiod 1950–2100. The projections are based on a set of CMIP6 CCMs, which were run for the historical period 1950–2015 as well
as for different scenarios for the future period 2015–2100. Year-to-year variability in these simulations is the result of internal variability(sometimes called “weather noise” [13]).
In summary, for scenarios with stabilising or slightly decreasing concentrations of GHGs (SSP2-4.5, SSP4-3.4, and SSP4-6.0), the nearglobal mean (60° S–60° N) TCO is projected to return to historic levels (year 1980) by the middle of the 21st century (around year 2040)
and remain at those levels until 2100. For scenarios with continued GHG increases (SSP3-7.0 and SSP5-8.5), the TCO is projected toreturn to 1980 levels sooner and significantly exceed historic levels throughout the latter half of the 21st century. This overshoot, which
has also been termed “super-recovery”, results from the fact that increases in GHGs cool the upper stratosphere. This cooling reduces
the rates of gas-phase chemical reactions that destroy ozone, and as a result, ozone concentrations increase. In contrast, and despite theassumption that halogenated ODSs will continue to decline throughout this century, TCO is not projected to return to historic levels by
2100 for scenarios with small GHG emissions (SSP1-1.9 and SSP1-2.6) and is projected to decrease in the tropics [11]. The consequencesof these changes in TCO on UV radiation at the Earth’s surface, and its dependence on the GHG scenario, are discussed in Sect. 8.

CMIP6 MMM Total Column Ozone
60oS-90oS

300

300

280

360 30 S-60 S

TCO [DU]o260
1960 1980 2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100
15oS-15oN

o

270
265

340

260

320
1960 1980 2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100
370 30 N-60 No255
1960 1980 2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100
60oN-90oNo

TCO [DU]

1960 1980 2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100

TCO [DU]

320

310
290

TCO [DU]

340

320

420

360

400

350

380

340

TCO [DU]

TCO [DU]oo
330 60 S-60 N

360

330
1960 1980 2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100
Historical (22)
SSP1-1.9 (5)SSP1-2.6 (13)
SSP2-4.5 (13)1960 1980 2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100
SSP3-7.0 (13)
SSP4-3.4 (4)SSP4-6.0 (2)SSP5-8.5 (14)Fig. 3 Regional average CMIP6 multi-model annual mean TCO for the historical period (1950–2015) (black line), and the future(2015–2100) based on seven SSP scenarios (coloured lines). The six panels show results for different latitudinal bands, indicatedin the top left of each panel. The number of models participating in each simulation is shown in parentheses in the legend. The
light grey envelope indicates the model spread for the historical simulations (calculated as the standard error). Total ozone
columns for the 1960 and 1980 annual means are given by the solid and dashed horizontal grey lines respectively. Note that thescales of the ordinates are different in the six panels. Reprinted from Keeble et al. [54].

20

46

Shared socio-economic pathway (SSP) scenarios describe a range of plausible trends in the evolution of society over the 21st century and were adopted by theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for its sixth Assessment Report. The pathways are used for climate modelling and research, as different socio-economic
developments and political environments will lead to different GHG emissions and concentrations. They describe five climate futures (SSP1–SSP5) that are combined withassumed amounts of greenhouse gases that are emitted in years to come. The CMIP6 simulations are based on seven SSPs (SSP1-1.9, SSP1-2.6, SSP2-4.5, SSP3-7.0, SSP43.4, SSP4-6.0, and SSP5-8.5), which are named after a possible range of radiative forcing (see footnote 14) values in the year 2100 relative to pre-industrial values (1.9,
2.6, 4.5, 7.0, 3.4, 6.0, and 8.5 W m−2, respectively), and have some equivalence to the “Representative Concentration Pathways” or RCPs used in IPCC’s fifth Assessment
Report.

Chapter 1

4 Benefits of the Montreal Protocol
Benefits of the Montreal Protocol can be both direct (curbing stratospheric ozone depletion and limiting increases of UV radiation) andindirect (effects on climate). This section provides new information on both benefits.

4.1

Direct effects of the Montreal Protocol on stratospheric ozone depletion and UV radiation

The phase-out of ODSs mandated by the Montreal Protocol has already limited increases in UV radiation at the Earth’s surface. To
demonstrate this beneficial effect, McKenzie et al. [56] compared seasonal means of the daily maximum UVI measured at the Earth’s
surface with UVI data derived from results of two CCMs that assumed either the “World Avoided” scenario, where emissions of ODSs
would have continued without regulation, or the “World Expected” scenario, where ODSs are curbed in compliance with the Montreal
Protocol and its Amendments. The ground-based measurements were made at 17 mostly clean-air sites (latitude range 73° N–90° S) by
state-of-the-art spectroradiometers. Trends in the UVI over 1996–2018 derived from measurements at sites with sufficiently long data
records were found to be either small (< ±10% per decade at Antarctic sites) or not significantly different from zero. These estimates
matched calculations following the World Expected scenario within the limits of the measurement uncertainty. In contrast, without
the Montreal Protocol, the UVI at northern and southern latitudes of less than 50° would have increased by 10–20% between the early
1990s and 2018. For southern latitudes exceeding 50°, UVI values would have surged by between 25% (year-round at the southern tip
of South America) and more than 100% (South Pole in spring and summer).
Figure 4 shows an update of the work by McKenzie et al. [56] including also UVI measurements from 2019 and 2020, and focusing onsites with at least 15 years of observations between 1996 and 2020. With the exception of Thessaloniki (41° N), changes in the UVI overthis time period have been smaller than ±11% at all sites for both summer (Fig. 4a) and spring (Fig. 4b), and smaller than the “World
Avoided” scenarios projected by the two CCMs (GEOSCCM21 [57] and NIWA-UKCA22 [58]), confirming that the Montreal Protocol has
prevented large increases in UV radiation, in particular at southern latitudes higher than 60°. For example, without the Montreal Protocol(blue lines in Fig. 4), the UVI at the South Pole would by now have more than doubled in spring, while the ground-based measurements
indicate a decrease of 10±34% (±2 standard deviations). Projected changes for high latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere are generally
smaller because ozone depletion over the Arctic is less severe than that over the Antarctic (Sect. ‎3.2 and ‎3.3). The relatively large
increases in the measured UVI at Thessaloniki (16% for spring and 8% for summer) are mostly caused by reductions in atmosphericaerosols at this urban site resulting from air pollution control measures (Sect. ‎6.1) and are not the result of decreases in ozone.

UVI Change 1996 – 2020

150%

SummerObservations
Modelled UVI change
without Montreal Protocol:
GEOSCCM model
NIWA-UKCA model

100%
50%
0%
-50%

150%

UVI Change 1996 – 2020

(a)

-90

-60

-30

0

30

60

Spring

90

(b)

100%
50%

Fig. 4 Comparison of relative changes in the UVI between
1996 and 2020 for (a) summer and (b) spring, derived
from observations at nine ground stations (black symbols)
and calculated from results of two chemistry-climate
models (blue lines). Both climate models assume the“World Avoided” scenario where emissions of ozone
depleting substances are not controlled by the Montreal
Protocol. Blue shading indicates the range of these model
projections. Ground stations include South Pole (90° S),
Arrival Heights (78° S), Palmer Station (65° S), Lauder(45° S), Alice Springs (24° S), Mauna Loa (20° N), Boulder(40° N), Thessaloniki (41° N), and Barrow (71° N). Groundstations with a near-complete data record for 1996–2020
are indicated by solid symbols. Sites with less than 24
years of data are shown with open symbols. Error bars
indicate the 95% confidence interval of the regression
model. Updated from McKenzie et al. [56].

0%
-50%

-90

-60

-30

0

Latitude

30

60

90

21

Goddard Earth Observing System Chemistry-Climate Model.

22

REF-C2 simulation of the NIWA-UKCA model (Implementation of the United Kingdom Chemistry and Aerosols (UKCA) model by New Zealand’s National Institute of Water &Atmospheric Research (NIWA)) [58] with exponentially increasing concentrations of ODSs at 3% per year added from 1974 onwards

47

Chapter 1

4.2

Indirect effects of the Montreal Protocol on climate

Most ODSs controlled by the Montreal Protocol are also potent GHGs with Global Warming Potentials (GWPs) that are substantiallylarger than those of carbon dioxide (CO2) on a molecule-by-molecule basis. The climate forcing of halocarbons has greatly increased
during the last century. For example, over the second half of the 20th century, the combined direct radiative effect of all ODSs was thesecond largest contributor to global warming after CO2, with approximately one third of the radiative forcing23 (RF) of CO2 [59]. The
climate effects of ODSs were already anticipated during the establishment of the Montreal Protocol [60], and their impact on climate
has been continuously revised since the ratification of the Montreal Protocol [13,61,62]. Work on assessing the contribution of ODSs to
global warming has continued during the last four years; however, the net effect of ODSs on global temperatures is still highly uncertain[Chapters 6 and 7 of 63] because some of the warming that ODSs induce is offset by their effect on stratospheric ozone. Specifically,
since ozone is also a GHG, depletion of ozone caused by ODSs has a cooling effect, but the magnitude of this effect (hereinafter termed“indirect forcing from ozone depletion”) is uncertain. On one hand, two single-model studies have reported a very large cancellationof the direct forcing by ODSs by the indirect forcing from ozone depletion of up to 80% [64,65], and two multi-model studies using an“emergent constraint approach”24 based on CMIP6 models came to a similar conclusion [66,67]. On the other hand, additional studies,
which were part of several model intercomparison projects, concluded that the climatic effect from ODS-induced ozone depletion iseither small or negligible [68-72]. According to Chiodo and Polvani [72], the four studies that have calculated a large effect on climate
from ozone depletion have weaknesses (e.g., one study was based on a short time period, one study had a large ozone bias, and theremaining two studies assumed unrealistically strong ozone depletion), while the other studies that indicate a small indirect forcing
from ozone depletion are more reliable because they are consistent with multi-model means of the CMIP5 and CMIP6 models, assummarised by Checa-Garcia et al. [68]. However at this time, results from the two groups of studies cannot be reconciled. Because of
these discrepancies, the latest (6th) report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) [specifically, Chapter 7 of 63] does
not attempt to quantify the indirect forcing from ozone depletion, in contrast to previous IPCC reports [e.g., 73].
In the following, we summarise results of recent studies that evaluate the amount of global warming that has been avoided due to theMontreal Protocol’s control of ODSs. All studies implicitly calculate the indirect forcing from ozone depletion and take this forcing
into account when computing the net effect of the Montreal Protocol on surface temperatures. However, because of the uncertainty
in calculating this feedback, the resulting effect on temperature is also uncertain. Still, taken together, these new studies further
demonstrate the effectiveness of the Montreal Protocol in limiting temperature rise at the Earth’s surface.
Goyal et al. [74] used a coupled atmosphere-ocean-land-sea-ice model to re-evaluate the Montreal Protocol’s effect on global warmingfrom the control of ODSs. The study considered ODSs that have contributed substantially to stratospheric chlorine concentrations,
namely the chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) CFC-11 and CFC-12, as well as the CFC substitutes HCFC-22, HFC-125 and HFC-134a. Increases
in GHG concentrations (including the concentrations of these ODSs) were described in this model by RCP 8.5, which leads to thestrongest warming at the surface of the Earth. The study determined that, as of 2019, the Montreal Protocol has avoided warming
between 0.5 to 1.0 °C over mid-latitude regions of Africa, North America, and Eurasia and as much as 1.1 °C warming in the Arctic.
In addition to quantifying the benefits from the Montreal Protocol that have already been realised, Goyal et al. [74] also assessed theMontreal Protocol’s effect on the future climate for the RCP 8.5 scenario. Projected temperature increases that are likely to be averted by
2050 are in the order of 1.5 °C to 2 °C over most extrapolar land areas, and between 3 °C and 4 °C over the Arctic. Averaged over the
globe (including the oceans), about 1 °C warming would be avoided by 2050, which corresponds to about 25% mitigation of global
warming expected from all GHGs.
A separate study [59] found that, over the period 1955–2005, ODSs were responsible for about one third of warming globally andabout half of the warming in the Arctic. Since changes in Arctic temperatures have a direct effect on sea ice loss, Polvani et al. [59]concluded that ODSs contributed half of the forced Arctic sea ice loss in the latter half of the 20th century. These results were recently
confirmed [75], showing that Arctic warming and sea-ice loss from ODSs are slightly more than half (52-59%) of those from CO2.
More recently, Chiodo and Polvani [72] calculated that stratospheric ozone depletion from ODSs only cancels about 25% of the RF from
ODSs, in agreement with recent studies [e.g., 68]. The net RF of ODS is 0.24 W/m2 accordingly, which amounts to nearly one third of
the RF of CO2 over the period 1955–2005, emphasising the large RF effect of ODSs on tropospheric temperatures.
In summary, recent model calculations demonstrate a large effect of the Montreal Protocol in limiting global warming, but these results
are subject to large uncertainties because the cooling effect resulting from ODS-induced ozone depletion is quantitatively not well
reproduced by CCMs. The influence of ODSs on climate is an area of active research and it is expected that refinements to chemistryclimate models will further reduce uncertainties in estimating the effect of the Montreal Protocol on surface temperature.
In one of the latest Amendments of the Montreal Protocol (the 2016 Kigali Amendment [76]), the phase-down of hydrofluorocarbons(HFCs)—replacement chemicals of ODSs that do not harm the ozone layer but have a large GWP—is regulated.
Without this amendment, the continued increase in atmospheric HFC concentrations would have contributed 0.28–0.44 °C to global
surface warming by 2100. In contrast, the controls established by the Kigali Amendment are expected to limit surface warming from
HFCs to about 0.04 °C in 2100 [77].

48

23

Radiative forcing quantifies the change in Earth’s energy balance (in W m-2) between incoming short-wave solar radiation and outgoing long-wave (thermal) IR radiation,either at the tropopause or at the top of atmosphere. If radiative forcing is positive at the tropopause, the temperature of the troposphere will increase.

24

Emergent constraints are physically explainable empirical relationships between characteristics of the current climate and long-term climate prediction that emerge in large
ensembles of climate model simulations.

Chapter 1
An unexpected slowdown in the decline of the atmospheric concentration of CFC-11 was observed after 2012 [78] and was partiallycaused by new emissions from eastern China (primarily the northeastern provinces of Shandong and Hebei). These emissions werelikely due to new production and use [79]. They were initially of concern as they would delay recovery of ozone [80] and make a small
but significant contribution to global warming [81]. The emissions appear to have been eliminated [82-84] and likely did not have asignificant effect on dates of recovery of the ozone hole [85-88]. However, if similar emissions were to reoccur and last longer, effects on
climate could be significant.
If the production of ODSs had not been controlled by the Montreal Protocol, biologically active UV-B radiation causing plant damage[89] could have increased by about a factor of five over the 21st century25 [90]. The ensuing harmful effects on plant growth were
estimated to result in 325–690 billion tonnes less carbon held in plants by the end of this century. This reduction in carbon sequestration
would have resulted in an additional 115–235 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere, causing an additional rise of global-meansurface temperature of 0.5–1.0 °C. However, these estimates have large uncertainties and should be viewed with caution because
the “generalised plant damage action spectrum” [89] used in the calculations does not account for the variety of plant responses
across species and ecosystems. Furthermore, experiments (summarised by Ballaré et al. [91]) have not yet established whether theassumed sensitivity of plants to increases in UV-B radiation (i.e., a 3% reduction in biomass for every 10% increase in UV-B radiation for
the “reference” scenario considered by Young et al. [90]) can be extrapolated to the very large increases in UV-B radiation simulated
in this study. For example, Young et al. [90] did not consider that plants have protective mechanisms against damaging amounts of UV
radiation, e.g., by synthesising UV-absorbing compounds [e.g., 29,92-95]. Such adaptation would mitigate the net CO2 flux into theatmosphere. Conversely, enhanced photodegradation of organic matter under elevated UV radiation would release additional CO2 into
the atmosphere [96]. For more details, see Box 1, Chapter 4 [3].
In conclusion, the studies assessed above provide further evidence that the Montreal Protocol is not only vital for the recovery of
the ozone layer, but also for the reduction of global warming. The Montreal Protocol is therefore considered to be one of the mostsuccessful international treaties to date mitigating anthropogenic climate change.

5 Effects of recent changes in stratospheric ozone on climate andweather
An in-depth assessment of the two-way interactions between changes in stratospheric ozone and climate is part of the SAP’s latest
report [11]. Here we focus on a subset of this assessment and emerging topics. We also highlight the effects of Antarctic and Arctic
ozone depletion on the climates of the Southern and Northern Hemisphere, respectively, and assess how these changes impact
temperature and precipitation at the Earth’s surface as well as the extent of Antarctic sea ice and snow coverage.

5.1

Effects of Antarctic ozone depletion on Southern Hemisphere climate

By enhancing cooling of the stratosphere, Antarctic ozone depletion has caused a poleward shift of climate zones and has been the
primary driver of climate change in the Southern Hemisphere during summer in recent decades [97 and Sect. 5.1.1]. An influence ofstratospheric ozone changes on sea surface temperature (SST) of the Southern Ocean may also be expected. However, current climate
models have generally not been able to reliably reproduce observed changes in SST at high southern latitudes [98]. Recent modelling
has provided evidence that changes in atmospheric ozone during the latter half of the 20th century may be responsible for about one
third of the observed warming in the upper 2,000 m of the Southern Ocean (30°–60° S) [99]. About 60% of this contribution can be
attributed to increases in tropospheric ozone—partly caused by increasing downward transport of ozone from the stratosphere to
the troposphere and partly by enhanced production of ozone in the troposphere [100]—and the other 40% to stratospheric ozone
depletion [99].
Antarctic sea ice cover increased between 1978 and 2015 [101,102] and has subsequently shown a general decline with large year-toyear variability [103], which is still not completely understood (Sect. 5.1.3). Atmosphere-ocean interactions are intimately linked to theformation and dissipation of sea ice. However, the influence of ozone depletion on Antarctic sea ice is largely masked by other climate
processes.

25“World Avoided” scenarios such as the scenario discussed here are inevitably only estimates based on the state of current knowledge. They cannot consider possible
changes in human behaviour and policies that may come about when large changes in UV irradiance and their consequences would have become more obvious in the
future. Nevertheless, these projections allow us to put the crucial benefits that the Montreal Protocol has brought to date into perspective.

49

Chapter 1

5.1.1 Shifting of climate zones
The effect of stratospheric ozone depletion on the summertime large-scale atmospheric circulation in the Southern Hemisphere has
recently been confirmed and substantiated [97]. The primary effect has been the poleward shift of the tropospheric westerly winds over
the Southern Ocean during the latter part of the 20th century. The location of these tropospheric winds is quantified with the Southern
Annular Mode (SAM26) index. The poleward shift of these winds has led to a more positive state of the SAM during summer [104-106].
This shift has affected regional temperature patterns [104] as well as precipitation in parts of Australia and South America [107], andAntarctica [105]. Specifically, stratospheric ozone depletion led to a tendency for more precipitation in parts of Australia, and lessrain in South America. As an example, Yook et al. [28] provide evidence that the large Antarctic ozone holes of 2020 and 2021 (Sect.
‎3.2)—which were likely influenced by the Australian wildfires of early 2020 and the eruption of La Soufrière in April 2021, respectively—
contributed to anomalously strong westerly winds over much of the Southern Ocean, anomalously cool conditions over the Antarctic
plateau, anomalously warm conditions over the Antarctic peninsula, and anomalously cool conditions over much of Australia withflooding rains across the south-east of the continent. These anomalies are consistent with those observed in other years with large
Antarctic ozone holes [105].
As a direct result of the Montreal Protocol, recovery of stratospheric ozone observed since the end of the 20th century reversed
cooling trends of the Southern Hemisphere’s lower stratosphere [21,108]. However, warming trends observed post-2001 are about
50–75% smaller in magnitude than the cooling trends during the era of progressing ozone depletion. These changes in stratospherictemperature have also halted or partially reversed the poleward shift of climate zones [97].
Projections of the future climate for the Antarctic region under the 6th phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6)[109] suggest that ozone recovery over the first half of the 21st century will tend to shift the westerly jet27 equatorward during summer.
This would lead to a reversal of the changes in air and sea temperature at the surface—as well as in precipitation and in the zonal
wind speed over Antarctica and the Southern Ocean— that were observed during the period of progressively worsening ozone
depletion in the late 20th century. However, this shift in the westerly jet is countered by the effects of both tropospheric warming andstratospheric cooling associated with increases in GHGs. The magnitude of this effect will depend on the GHG scenario defined by
SSPs. Low-emissions scenarios (SSP1-2.6 and SSP2-4.5) tend to result in little overall change in the jet’s position, while high emissions
scenarios (e.g., SSP5-8.5) tend to cause an overall poleward forcing, particularly outside of the summer season. In the second half ofthe 21st century, GHG effects dominate under all emissions scenarios, with the westerly jet strengthened and placed further poleward
than before the ozone hole era. However, projections of how this shift will affect weather patterns at southern mid and high latitudes(including South America, South Africa and Australia) are subject to the strong dependence on GHG scenario and climate feedbacks(e.g., changes in sea ice and ocean temperatures), which may develop over the next 50 years, plus the limited ability of models to takeall these processes into account on a regional scale.

5.1.2 Causes and consequences of the 2019/2020 “Black Summer” fires
A topic that has emerged since our previous assessment [9] is the role played by Antarctic ozone variability in recent extreme weather
and climatic conditions, and the follow-on effects of these extremes for stratospheric ozone concentrations.
From mid-2019 to early-2020, a series of devastating wildfires occurred in Australia, particularly along parts of the eastern coast,
affecting over 10 million hectares. The overall severity of these 2019/2020 “Black Summer” fires was exacerbated by exceptionally hot
and dry weather conditions combined with rainfall deficits over several years. As shown by Lim et al. [110], anomalously hot and dry
conditions in subtropical eastern Australia from austral spring to early summer are favoured in years when the Antarctic stratosphericwinter vortex is weak. Weak vortex conditions are promoted when planetary-scale (Rossby) waves disturb and warm the Antarctic
atmosphere and reduce the overall amount of stratospheric ozone depletion in spring. The strong warming of the Antarctic stratospherethat occurred in September 2019 is a specific case of a weak vortex that has been linked with the 2019/2020 Black Summer fires[25,111-117]. Specifically, downward coupling from the Antarctic stratosphere promoted a strong negative phase of the tropospheric
SAM at mid-latitudes in summer, which reduced precipitation over Australia and further exacerbated fire conditions [115].
While the fires were mainly promoted by the weak polar vortex, the reduced ozone depletion resulting from the weak vortex may havebeen an exacerbating factor. This connection was studied by Jucker and Goyal [117] who found that surface conditions were influenced
by anomalously high concentrations of ozone in the lower stratosphere that accompanied the stratospheric warming event and delayed
the stratosphere-to-troposphere coupling. This suggests that ozone recovery could further promote a seasonal delay in stratosphere-totroposphere coupling under weak vortex conditions. On the other hand, stratospheric warming events, such as that observed in 2019,
appear to be less likely in a future climate [118] as increasing concentrations of GHGs will cool the stratosphere.
One consequence of the Black Summer fires was that superheated air from the these fires produced large-scale pyrocumulonimbus
clouds, which forced injection of an unprecedented amount of smoke and tropospheric air into the lower stratosphere [119-125]. From
there, this air rose to heights of up to 35 km where it had persistent effects across a wide latitude band for several months [123,126].

50

26

The SAM is the leading mode of Southern Hemisphere extratropical climate variability describing a seesaw of atmospheric mass between the mid- and high-latitudes, withcorresponding impacts on the strength of the circumpolar westerly winds. A positive SAM index corresponds to a poleward shift of the maximum wind speed, which resultsin weaker-than-normal westerly winds in the southern mid-latitudes.

27

The term “westerly jet” refers in the context to the maximum of westerly winds (i.e., winds blowing from west to east) close to the surface, not the jet stream in the upper
troposphere. The jet’s latitude is defined as the latitude with the largest wind speed.

Chapter 1
Ozone-poor tropospheric air in the rising plume reduced TCO by up to 100 DU locally [119,123,127], with impacts on UV radiation at the
Earth’s surface. The rising air also increased mixing ratios of water vapour in the lower stratosphere at southern mid-latitudes [123,127]
where it may have depleted ozone through enhanced heterogeneous reactions [128], although the magnitude of this effect is unclear[129]. The plume also contained significant quantities of black carbon aerosol and reactive gases, which affect stratospheric chemistry[31,130-132]. Quantifying the overall effect of the Black Summer fires on stratospheric ozone is still the subject of ongoing research.
Additional information on the fire’s impact on stratospheric chemistry is provided in SAP’s latest assessment [11].

5.1.3 Effects on sea ice extent and snow coverage
The effects of ozone depletion on temperature and air circulation over Antarctica may also change snow and ice cover on the Antarctic
continent and the extent of sea ice. For example, interactive climate models [97,133], which are state-of-the-art in representing thecomplex interplay between effects of transport and dynamics [134], have demonstrated that ozone depletion has influenced nearsurface winds over the Southern Ocean during summer and could thus potentially affect sea ice extent. However, as discussed below,
these linkages are still not well understood. Changes in ice or snow coverage are important because they modify the reflectivity of thesurface, which in turn changes downwelling UV radiation (Sect. 6.2).
The sea ice zone surrounding Antarctica shows strong seasonal variability [101,102,135]. There has been marked interannual variability
during the last four decades, particularly in the last years, with regionally opposing patterns of change [Chapter 2 of 63]. Antarctic sea
ice expanded between 1979 (the start of satellite measurements) and 2015, although only in the transitional seasons. Trends in bothsummer and winter were not significant. After this period of increase, the extent of Antarctic sea ice declined dramatically during the
austral springs of 2016 and 2017 [101], reaching a record low on 1 March 2017, which was 27% below the mean of annual minima
calculated for 1978–2016. However, a partial recovery was observed between 2017 and 2021 (https://climate.nasa.gov/ask-nasaclimate/2861/arctic-and-antarctic-sea-ice-how-are-they-different/). Several studies examined the reasons for this recovery [136-138];
however, none of these studies found robust evidence that trends or variations in stratospheric ozone contributed to this phenomenon.
As discussed in Sect. 5.1, the effect of stratospheric ozone depletion on temperatures at the surface of the Southern Hemisphere is
primarily mediated by changes in the SAM during summer. Observational studies have shown that the seasonal response to trends in
the SAM has resulted in the cooling of the SST around Antarctica in autumn, which should have promoted an overall increase in sea ice
extent in that season, consistent with observations between 1979 and 2015 [139-141]. Furthermore, ozone depletion has been linked
to a reduction in downwelling long-wave28 radiation. This reduction would also cool the Southern Ocean [142,143]. In contrast to thesestudies, results from state-of-the-art earth-system models clearly indicate that ozone depletion in the second half of the 20th century
should have caused a reduction in sea ice extent, mainly by promoting the redistribution of ocean heat content [140,141,143-145].
However, only a subset of leading climate models can adequately capture the observed link between the SAM and autumn changes
in sea ice [133]. In general, current climate models do not provide a consistent representation of the observed long-term trends in sea
ice. As concluded by Polvani et al. [133], this appears to be the consequence of the relatively small fraction of variance explained by theseasonal coupling of the SAM and sea ice, which is surpassed by the larger fractions attributable to natural variations and the models’internal variability. The effect of ozone depletion on changes in sea ice is therefore still not well understood.
Over much of the Antarctic continent, only relatively small seasonal changes in the short-wave albedo29 of the ice sheet occur andare primarily caused by deposition of snow and melting at the surface [146]. Local exceptions occur in the regions of exposed rock,which account for approximately 0.4% of the surface area of the continent. Here, varying coverage by ice, snow, and surface water
can strongly influence albedo [147]. Changes in snowfall over Antarctica have been attributed to changes in atmospheric circulation
resulting from the depletion of ozone [148], although patterns of relative change are heterogeneous [149].

5.2

Associations between Arctic stratospheric ozone losses and the climate of the Northern 		HemisphereYears with a strong Arctic polar vortex and associated significant stratospheric ozone depletion have been linked to widespread climate
anomalies across the Northern Hemisphere based on targeted model experiments with CCMs [150]. As an example, the exceptionallylarge ozone depletion that occurred in March–April 2020 (Sect. 3.3) not only led to record-breaking increases in Arctic solar UV
radiation (Sect. 7.1.2) but also affected weather patterns in the Northern Hemisphere during spring. Specifically, it helped to keep the
Arctic Oscillation (or AO30) in a record-high positive state through April [36], thus contributing to abnormally high temperatures acrossAsia and Europe [151]. Furthermore, loss of stratospheric ozone modified circulation patterns of winds around the Arctic, thereby
affecting the stability of the upper troposphere in the Siberian sector of the Arctic. In turn, this led to more high-level clouds thatenhanced downwelling long-wave (thermal) radiation [152]. The associated anomalous warming of the surface in April 2020 was further

28

Long-wave radiation is electromagnetic radiation with wavelengths between 3 and 100 μm that is emitted from the Earth and its atmosphere in the form of thermal radiation.
Long-wave radiation contrasts with short-wave radiation with wavelengths between ~0.3 and ~3 μm originating from the Sun.

29

Albedo is the proportion of the incident radiation that is reflected by a surface. Short-wave albedo refers to the fraction of the total incident solar irradiance in the wavelength
range of ~0.3–3 μm that is reflected by the Earth’s surface. Albedo may also refer to the reflectivity in a certain wavelength range, such as the UV range.

30

The Arctic Oscillation (AO) or Northern Annular Mode (NAM) is analogous to the Southern Annular Mode (SAM) and characterises the pattern of winds circulating aroundthe Arctic. When the AO is in its positive phase, a ring of strong winds circulating the North Pole acts to confine colder air in the polar regions.

51

Chapter 1
amplified by a reduction in albedo caused by melting of snow and sea ice. Monthly anomalies (relative to the 1981–2010 climatology) in
air temperature of up to +6 °C were observed over Siberia from January through May 2020 [153]. The temperature in the Siberian townof Verhojansk (68° N, 133° E) set a new record of 38 °C on 20 June 2020, which is the highest temperature ever documented near theArctic Circle. Depletion of stratospheric ozone over the Arctic in March may cause reductions in the sea ice concentration and the sea
ice thickness over the Arctic Ocean north of Siberia from spring to summer [154].
The unprecedented depletion of Arctic ozone in the spring of 2020 contrasts with the boreal winter of 2020/2021, when a major
sudden stratospheric warming (SSW) occurred on 5 January 2021 [42,43] and limited overall ozone loss (Sect. 3.3). During an SSW
event, the westerly winds of the wintertime polar stratosphere decelerate and temperatures in the polar stratosphere rapidly increase[155]. The 2021 SSW event warmed the lower stratosphere, interrupted the catalytic cycles associated with ozone depletion [47],and also affected the polar atmospheric circulation from the upper stratosphere to the surface for six weeks after the event. During
this period, surface temperatures were anomalously high over Greenland and the Canadian Arctic and anomalously low over Europe,
northern Asia, and the United States, with a cold air outbreak first occurring over Eurasia in January and then over North America in thefirst two weeks of February [156]. SSWs generally increase the likelihood of such weather anomalies [157]; however, it is still unclear towhat degree the cold weather events in early 2021 were linked to the SSW on 5 January 2021. There is some evidence that the coldoutbreak in Siberia on 22–24 January 2021 was associated with the SSW [158]. However, simulations with a climate model did not findevidence that this SSW event caused or influenced the record-breaking cold in North America during February 2021.
Precipitation in Central China in April–May has been linked to Arctic stratospheric ozone changes in February–March by combining
observations, reanalysis data, and a CCM [159]. Specifically, positive Arctic ozone anomalies enhance precipitation in central China andnegative anomalies reduce precipitation. Another study, using the same CCM, demonstrated a negative relationship between Arctic
ozone anomalies in March and surface temperature anomalies in central Russia and, a weaker positive relationship in southern Asia[160]. Furthermore, variations in precipitation occurring during April in the northwestern United States (mainly the states of Washington
and Oregon) are strongly linked to changes in Arctic stratospheric ozone during March [161]. Specifically, higher-than-normal Arctic
ozone concentrations in March lead to less precipitation in April and vice versa.
Despite these advances in the understanding, assessing linkages between Arctic ozone depletion and weather in the Northern
Hemisphere remains difficult and is subject to large uncertainties. It is anticipated that future studies will refine the conclusions
summarised above.

6 Factors other than ozone affecting UV radiation
Solar UV-B radiation at the Earth’s surface is mostly controlled by the height of the Sun above the horizon (i.e., the solar elevation31);
TCO; clouds; aerosols; the reflectivity of the surface, also called albedo; and altitude. Less important factors include: the vertical
distribution of ozone in the atmosphere (i.e., the ozone profile) for fixed TCO; other trace gases such as sulphur dioxide (SO2) andnitrogen dioxide (NO2); seasonal changes in the Earth-Sun distance; changes in solar activity, which influence both stratospheric ozone
concentrations and the UV-B irradiance at the top of the atmosphere; topography; and volcanic eruptions. Except for determinants
related to the Sun and volcanic activity, all these factors are influenced by human activities—such as the release of GHGs and air
pollutants—and are coupled with changes in the climate. For example, higher temperatures will lead to less sea ice in the Arctic, which
will in turn reduce surface reflectivity and UV radiation at or above the surface. The effects of these factors have been described at length
in previous assessments [9,162,163]. No studies published in the last four years provide new insights into the effect of clouds on UV
radiation. We therefore focus in the following sections on new understandings into the roles of aerosols, albedo, solar activity, volcanic
eruptions, and climate interactions on UV radiation.

6.1

Aerosols

Natural and anthropogenic aerosols (solid and liquid particles suspended in the atmosphere) play a major role in controlling the intensityof UV radiation at the Earth’s surface. Although effects of aerosols have been discussed in numerous studies, the magnitude of theseeffects is still uncertain. The attenuation of surface UV radiation by aerosols depends on their amount, as measured by aerosol opticaldepth (AOD), and on their efficiency of absorption, as discussed at length in our last assessments [9,162]. To quantify these effects
further, Campanelli et al. [164] analysed optical properties of aerosols and spectral irradiance in Rome, Italy, and correlated the variabilityof the UVI (adjusted for variations in TCO) with the AOD at 340 nm for two groups of either strongly or weakly absorbing aerosols.

31

52

The position of the Sun in the sky is typically either described by the solar elevation, which is counted from the horizon, or the solar zenith angle (SZA), which is counted
from the zenith (the imaginary point directly above a particular location). The solar elevation can be calculated as 90° – SZA.

Chapter 1
Absorption for the two classes was quantified with the single scattering albedo32 (SSA). For strongly absorbing aerosols (SSA < 0.9), an
increase of the AOD by one unit resulted in a decrease of the UVI by 2.7 units (about 30%) for a solar zenith angle (SZA) of 30° and by
1.65 units (about 25%) for a SZA of 40°. For less absorbing aerosols (SSA > 0.9), the UVI decreased only by one unit (about 12%) per unitof AOD increase for both SZAs. The study illustrates the importance of the absorption properties of aerosols.
The paucity of measurements of the properties of aerosols (including the SSA) in the UV-B range [9] hampers our ability to accurately
assess the effects of aerosols on a global scale as well as for urban regions with a diverse mix of aerosol types [5]. Global networks,
such as the Aerosol Robotic Network (AERONET), which measure AOD and other aerosol properties, do not perform observations at
UV-B wavelengths. While the technology for measuring AOD and SSA in the UV-B range exists and has been tested at a few sites [165169], there are at present no reliable data to assess aerosol properties in this critical wavelength range on a global scale. However, theEuropean Brewer Network (EUBREWNET) [170] has recently started to provide AOD in the wavelength range from 306 to 320 nm [167]and a preliminary analysis confirms the good quality of the data. It is anticipated that this network will expand globally.
In areas with elevated levels of air pollution and small variability in TCO, the attenuation of solar UV radiation under cloudless skies ismainly controlled by aerosols. In such areas, abatement of air pollution can lead to increases in the intensity of UV radiation towards
levels that would normally occur in unpolluted areas at similar latitudes and altitudes. An example of this is the observed increase of~25% in UVI over Mexico City between 2000 and 2019, which was attributed to reductions in pollutants; in order of importance,
aerosols, tropospheric ozone, NO2, and SO2 [171]. Because of high historical levels of air pollution in Mexico City, the UVI under cloudfree conditions was lower by ~40% in 2000 and ~25% in 2019 relative to values expected for an unpolluted clear atmosphere. Monthly
averages of the daily maximum UVI from the 11 stations distributed across the Mexico City Metropolitan Area considered in this study
show a clear upward trend of 0.9% per year between 2000 and 2019, and an overall increase in monthly maximum UVI of 1.5 over thetwo decades (Fig. 5). Since 2016, the rate of increase is greater, possibly reflecting more aggressive measures in reducing air pollutants.
Human health benefits resulting from the decrease in air pollution [5,172] outweigh risks—such as the potential increase in skin cancer
incidence—stemming from the gradual return of UV radiation intensities to more natural levels prevailing at unpolluted areas33.
The effects of air quality measures implemented in Mexico City may help to project changes in UV radiation for regions that are currently
still affected by heavy smog, such as South and East Asia [9,173]. Finally, the study for Mexico City also confirmed earlier findings [e.g.,174] that the UVI at the surface of heavily polluted areas cannot be reliably estimated from satellite observations, emphasising theimportance of ground-based measurements. A similar finding was reported by Roshan et al. [175] for the city of Doha, Qatar, whenextreme dust storms resulted in a measured UVI of 6–7 compared to a UVI of 10–11 estimated by the OMI satellite on the same days.

Fig. 5 Monthly average noontime UVI in the Mexico City
Metropolitan Area (black line) ± 1 standard deviation (blueshading), and linear fit (red line) to average data. Reprinted
from Ipiña et al. [171] with permission from the American
Chemical Society, Copyright © 2021.

The effect of increased aerosols and tropospheric ozone on surface UV radiation during the biomass burning34 season in Pretoria,
South Africa, was investigated by du Preez et al. [176]. The simulations included different scenarios with and without increased levels
of aerosols and tropospheric ozone from biomass burning. For cloudless days during the height of the biomass burning period in
September, aerosols and tropospheric ozone reduced the noontime UVI by 13% and 1%, respectively, demonstrating that changes in

32

The AOD is the sum of the aerosol scattering optical depth τsca and the absorption optical depth τabs, which quantifies the attenuation of the direct solar beam due toscattering and absorption of photons: τ = τsca + τabs. Instead of specifying τ and τabs, the single scattering albedo (SSA) is often reported instead: SSA = τsca / (τsca + τabs) = τsca
/ τ, resulting in τabs = (1 − SSA) × τ. A decrease in SSA, therefore, corresponds to an increase in absorption of radiation.

33

The global number of deaths from air pollution (particulate matter and gases such as tropospheric ozone and nitrous oxides) has been estimated at 4.2 million per year [5].
In comparison, the number of deaths from skin cancer was about 120,000 in 2020 (https://gco.iarc.fr/today/fact-sheets-cancers, accessed 13 November 2022).

34

Biomass burning is the burning of living and dead vegetation. It generally includes the human-initiated burning of vegetation for land clearing and land-use change as wellas natural, lightning-induced fires.

53

Chapter 1
the UVI were dominated by the effects from aerosols.
Smog from the Black Summer wildfires in Australia (Sect. 5.1.2) led to extreme air pollution and low visibility. However, even duringdays with a visibility of less than 5 km, the intensity of UV radiation may have still been harmful to human health. For example, on 10
December 2019, the visibility near Sydney, Australia, dropped to about 1 km around noon. Despite this low visibility, the cumulative
erythemal UV dose measured at this location over a one-hour period at noon was still more than 4 SED35 or about 46% of the onehour dose measured on the cloud and haze-free day of 27 November 2019. During the eight hours between early morning and lateafternoon the dose on 10 December 2019 was 17 SED. The corresponding dose of 27 November was 48 SED [180]. These UV doses far
exceed the maximum daily UV dose recommended by ICNIRP for outdoor workers [181]. While most people stayed indoors during thefires because the air pollution was so extreme, emergency workers, who had to be outside despite adverse conditions, may have been
exposed to UV radiation levels harmful to human health, potentially without being aware of it and without applying appropriate sunprotection measures.
Despite increases of aerosols in specific regions (e.g., from bushfires, burning of biomass or dust storms), over most populated areasof the globe, there is a general decrease in aerosols. Trends of aerosol optical and chemical properties on global and regional scales
have been reported from observations with several ground-based networks [182]. Most of the properties related to loading of aerosols
exhibit negative trends in the period 2000–2014 in regions covered by observations, both at the surface and in the total atmosphericcolumn. Significant decreases in AOD were found in areas with intense anthropogenic activity (Europe, North America, South America,
North Africa and Asia), ranging from −1.2% per year to −3.1% per year. These data were used to validate various aerosol models (sixAeroCom36 phase III models, four CMIP6 models and the CAMS37 reanalysis dataset) showing good agreement in the AOD trends.
When these models were used to estimate the global AOD trend by filling the gaps in regions not covered by observations, a global
increase in AOD of about 0.2% per year between 2000 and 2014 was found, primarily caused by an increase in the loads of organic
aerosols, sulphate, and black carbon. These findings highlight differences between regional and global effects of aerosols on UV
radiation, which must be considered, especially when projecting into the future.
In a modelling study [183] exploring China’s future anthropogenic emission pathways, it was projected that emissions of major air
pollutants (i.e., SO2, NOx, PM2.5 aerosols, and non-methane volatile organic compounds) in China will be lower by 34–66% in 2030
and by 58–87% in 2050 compared to 2015. These estimates were derived by considering a combination of strong low-carbon and air
pollution control policies. A second study [184] investigated the evolution of different types of aerosols over the Euro-Mediterranean
region between 1971–2000 and 2021–2050 according to three different scenarios representing a wide range of possible future
pathways. The study showed a decrease in AOD of between 30% and 40% over Europe, mainly from decreasing emissions of sulphur
dioxide. However, these reductions are partly (~30%) compensated by increases in the optical depth from nitrate and ammonium
particles.
Attenuation of UV radiation by aerosols can sometimes also mask the effect of “ozone mini-holes” (defined as a synoptic-scale38 region
with strongly decreased TCO resulting from dynamical processes [185]) that would otherwise lead to increases in UV radiation. One
example is an event that occurred in Athens, Greece, during 8 days in May 2020 [186]. On 15 May 2020, TCO was 43 DU (or more than
2 standard deviations) below the climatological mean, which would have normally led to an increase in the UVI by ~29%. However, theAOD on this day was 0.31 (47%) higher than the climatological mean due to the intrusion of Saharan dust, and measured UVIs agreed towithin ~2% with the climatological mean. Hence the opposing effects of low TCO and high AOD nearly cancelled each other. This study
highlights the important role of aerosols in modifying the effects of changes in TCO on surface UV-B radiation. There is some evidence
that the weather pattern that led to the transport of dust from Africa towards Athens was also responsible for the occurrence of theozone mini-hole and the low TCO over Athens that ensued.

6.2

Surface reflectivity

Changes in the reflectivity of the Earth’s surface (both land and ocean) can change the downwelling UV radiation because radiationthat is reflected upward by the surface may subsequently be scattered downward by air molecules, aerosols, and cloud droplets.
Topography can modify the reflectivity resulting in complex effects on UV radiation, as for example in narrow valleys with snow covered
slopes. The largest effect of surface reflectivity occurs in areas with variable snow and ice cover because of the large difference in thealbedo of bare and snow/ice covered ground. This variability is often linked to climate change. For example, because of the warming of
the Arctic, the start date of the spring snow melt at Ny-Ålesund (79° N), Svalbard, has advanced by three days per decade over the last
40 years [187], so now begins about two weeks earlier than in the early 1980s.
Figure 6 illustrates the effect of surface albedo on UV radiation by comparing UV irradiance in the 337.5–342.5 nm range measured
at Arrival Heights (78° S), Antarctica, with the extent of land-fast ice—defined as sea ice fixed in place by attachment to land, glaciers,
grounded icebergs, or ice shelves—covering McMurdo Sound 1 km west of Arrival Heights. In 2000, a mega-iceberg calved from the

54

35

The standard erythemal dose (SED) is a measure of cumulative erythemal UV radiation [177]. One SED is equivalent to an erythemally effective radiant exposure of 100 J m-2.
Two SED may lead to erythema in individuals with freckled pale skin (Skin Type I, defined by the Fitzpatrick scale [178]). Longer exposure times are required for individuals
with darker skin [179].

36

Aerosol Comparisons between Observations and Models (https://aerocom.met.no/)37

Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service (https://atmosphere.copernicus.eu/)

38

In meteorology, synoptic scale refers to a high- or low-pressure area with a horizontal length scale of the order of 1000 km or more.

Chapter 1

6.3

75

25

70

20

65

15

60

10

55

5

50
2005

2010

Year

2015

0

Distance to ice edge [km]Spectral irradiance between–2337.5 and 342.5 nm [ W cm ]Ross Ice Shelf, became temporarily trapped, and persisted in the entrance to McMurdo Sound for five years [188]. The tabular iceberg
interrupted the normal movement of sea ice, resulting in McMurdo Sound remaining covered by ice with high albedo until April in someyears [189]. As a consequence, UV irradiance was elevated in March between 2001 and 2007 when the ice edge was more than 13 km
away from McMurdo, while less UV radiation was observed between 2011 and 2015 when McMurdo Sound was free from land-fast
ice [190]. Since similar data are not available before 2000 and after 2016, sea ice cannot be correlated with UV radiation over a longer
time period at this location. However, Kim et al. [189] reported that the dates of the retreat of land-fast ice in McMurdo Sound have notchanged over the last 37 years except for years affected by mega-icebergs.
Fig. 6 Comparison of monthly mean spectral
irradiance between 337.5 and 342.5 nm for
March (left axis) at Arrival Heights, Antarctica, andapproximate distance of the outer edge of theland-fast ice from Arrival Heights (right axis) during
March. Distance data are based on Fig. 3 of Kim
et al. [189]. The vertical extension of the blue bars
indicates the variability of the distance within themonth of March. A distance of zero km from theice edge means that McMurdo Sound, 1 km westof Arrival Heights, was free of ice. In years when
the ice edge was far from the station and the ocean
surrounding the station was covered by sea ice,
the albedo was greatly enhanced and UV radiationin these years tended to be higher compared toyears when McMurdo Sound adjacent to the station
was free of ice. Adapted from Bernhard and Stierle[190].

Solar activity

Variability in the solar activity can indirectly affect UV radiation at the Earth’s surface through changes induced in atmospheric ozone,
particularly in the stratosphere. These changes in ozone are caused by two different mechanisms, which are both related to the 11-year
variability of solar activity. One mechanism is mediated through photochemical processes in the upper atmosphere that are modified
by changes in solar UV-C (100–280 nm) radiation. The other process is driven by changes in the rate of energetic particle39 precipitation(EPP), which mainly affect ozone over the polar regions [191,192].
The increase in emissions of solar UV-C radiation between the minimum and maximum of the solar cycle leads to increases in ozone
concentrations in the upper stratosphere (altitude of 30–60 km) and decreases in the lower stratosphere (15–30 km), mainly at lower
latitudes [193]. Using a CCM, Xiao et al. [194] estimated that for a 5% (10%) increase in solar output in the spectral range of 200–370
nm, the globally averaged ozone increases by up to 4.5% (9.0%) in the upper stratosphere, and decreases by up to 1.5% (3.3%) in thelower stratosphere. It was further noticed that the response of ozone to the variability of UV-C radiation during a solar cycle is non-linear,confirming earlier results [195].
Our previous assessment [9] discussed the effects of reduced solar activity in the future (e.g., from a Grand Solar Minimum40) on UV-B
radiation received at the Earth’s surface. Based on the work by Arsenovic et al. [196], we concluded that UV-B radiation at the top of
the atmosphere would decrease slightly due to weaker emission from the Sun; however, the reduced solar activity would also lead todecreases of ozone production in the stratosphere, resulting in an overall increase of UV-B radiation at the surface. This conclusion is stillvalid.
Solar activity has recently shown a declining tendency, suggesting that the Sun has entered into a modern Grand Solar Minimum period,
from about 2020 to 2053, which would lead to a significant reduction of the solar magnetic field and magnetic activity by about 70%,
similar to the Maunder minimum that occurred in the period 1645–1710 [197]. The influence of such reductions in total solar irradiance(TSI41) on surface temperatures was investigated using a climate model run under the RCP 8.5 scenario, which predicted a decrease in
the global average temperature for the second half of the 21st century of 0.13 °C due to atmospheric effects of the upcoming Grand Solar
Minimum [198].

39

Energetic particles considered here are highly energetic electrons, protons, neutrons, and ions that are accelerated into the atmosphere through various heliophysicaland geomagnetic processes. They enter the atmosphere mainly in the geomagnetic polar regions (https://lasp.colorado.edu/home/mag/research/energetic-particleprecipitation).

40

Grand solar minima are defined as periods when several solar cycles exhibit lesser than average activity for decades or centuries.

41

Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) is the solar radiative power per area integrated over all wavelengths that is incident on the Earth’s upper atmosphere.

55

Chapter 1
Simulations by Arsenovic et al. [196], which were based on the RCP 4.5 GHG scenario, estimated that a stronger solar minimum with
reduction in TSI of 0.48% would only compensate for about 15% of GHG-induced warming by 2100.
Hence, the estimated decreases in temperature by 2100 due to reduced solar activity are small compared to the projected increases
due to GHG emissions. Therefore, the reduction of solar irradiance during a possible Grand Solar Minimum would only partly offset theanthropogenic change in climate caused by continuing GHG emissions.
The upcoming maximum of Solar Cycle 25 is expected to be weaker than the current Cycle 24, which was the weakest in at least thepast 100 years [199,200]; however, the uncertainty of this prediction is large. Model results [199] estimated a deep extended solar
activity minimum for 2019–2021, and a weak solar activity maximum in 2024–2025. This modelling study is based on analysis ofmagnetograms that contain information on the evolution of magnetic fields on the solar surface, allowing forecasting of the solar activity
in the future. The reduced activity in the period of the solar maximum will lead to less photochemical production of stratospheric ozone
at low latitudes, but also to reduced polar ozone destruction due to fewer energetic particles.
Although none of the studies discussed above addressed effects on surface UV-B radiation, the upcoming weaker solar activity period
would lead to decreases in stratospheric ozone and consequently to increases in UV-B radiation at the surface, despite the reduced solar
irradiance entering the Earth’s atmosphere. This effect has not been considered in the projections of UV radiation described in Sect. 8.

6.4

Volcanic eruptions

Throughout the Earth’s history, major volcanic eruptions or impacts of meteors have perturbed the climate, affected the stratosphere,
and caused regional and global environmental disasters. Global effects are mainly caused by the reflection of incoming solar radiationby the aerosol layer that forms in the stratosphere after a large volcanic eruption, but also by the destruction of stratospheric ozone
involving heterogeneous chemical reactions on the surfaces of volcanic aerosols in the presence of halogens [201-203]. Volcanic
aerosols are dispersed zonally to other latitudes and can persist for several years, resulting in cooling of the troposphere. Such eruptions
can either reduce solar UV-B irradiance at the Earth’s surface through scattering of radiation back to space or increase it through reduced
absorption by the depleted ozone layer. The magnitude of these effects depends on the strength of the eruption and on the amounts
of aerosols and halogenated compounds involved. Large tropical volcanos in the last ~200 years, e.g., Mt. Pinatubo in 1991 and
Mt. Tambora in 1815, have caused globally averaged cooling of 0.3 and 0.7 °C at the Earth’s surface, respectively [204]. Conversely,
stratospheric aerosols from Mt. Pinatubo warmed the lower tropical stratosphere by up to 4 °C in the 2 to 3 years following the eruption[205].
Recent studies used chemistry-climate models to investigate the effects of different amounts of SO2 and halogens injected into thetropical stratosphere by volcanic eruptions [204,206,207]. Brenna et al. [206] assumed an explosive eruption at 14° N, rich in sulphur,chlorine, and bromine compounds, occurring during preindustrial times. The assumed amount of SO2 injected represents the averageof 28 historical volcanic eruptions in the Central American Volcanic Arc (CAVA; extending parallel to the Pacific coastline from Mexico
to Panama), comparable in magnitude with the Mt. Pinatubo eruption. However, the amount of bromine and chlorine deposited in
the stratosphere was assumed to be much larger than the amount estimated for Mt. Pinatubo. (The Mt. Pinatubo eruption was unusual
because it occurred at a time when the Philippines were also inundated by a typhoon. Water droplets from the storm likely adsorbed
halogen compounds in the plume and prevented them from reaching the stratosphere [208,209].) The ozone depletion calculated
by Brenna et al. [206] led to increases in the clear-sky summertime UVI of more than 50% in the NH during the first two years after the
eruption. Maximum increases in the UVI were modelled to exceed 7 units in the NH tropics and subtropics, and peak at 4 units in the
NH mid-latitudes. Much of the mid-latitudes would have experienced a UVI above 15, which is similar to present-day peak values inthe tropics [210]. This simulation was based on the injection of large amounts of halogens, which are thought to be representative forvolcanic eruptions in the CAVA. Simulated increases in UV radiation are therefore much larger than those observed after the eruption of
Mt. Pinatubo.
Another modelling study [204] investigated the effect on the atmosphere of the eruption of a super volcano like Toba, which erupted
74,000 years ago. It has been estimated that Toba injected 100 times more SO2 into the stratosphere than Mt. Pinatubo. According
to this study42, such an event could lead to the collapse of the ozone layer in the tropics with ~50% reduction in TCO, which would
increase the daily maximum UVI by more than a factor of two. Even with one fifth of the injected SO2 amount, ozone depletion in thetropics would be similar to that currently occurring in Antarctica and would last for nearly a year.
These studies show that massive but rare volcanic eruptions can lead to severe depletion of stratospheric ozone, changes inatmospheric circulation and temperature patterns, and large increases in UV-B radiation at the Earth’s surface.
These increases can by far exceed those associated with ozone depletion from ODSs in the 1980s and 1990s as well as the expected
rise in UV B radiation to more natural levels over urban regions that may occur when measures to reduce air pollution are implemented(Sect. 6.1).

42

56

The study did not include the chemical impact of halogen compounds, as there is no reliable information on their emissions from Toba. The modelled effect on ozone mainly
occurs because absorption by SO2 and scattering by the aerosol layer reduces the flux of solar UV C radiation reaching the lower stratosphere. Solar UV-C radiation withwavelengths shorter than 242 nm initiates the formation of ozone in the stratosphere because it leads to the photolysis of oxygen molecules (O2). The resulting oxygen
atoms react with O2 to form ozone (O3). Less UV-C flux below the aerosol layer therefore leads to less ozone production. If ozone loss by halogen compounds had been
included also, the modelled ozone decline and increase in UV-B radiation at the Earth’s surface would have been even larger.

Chapter 1

6.5

Climate change

In the absence of changes in the TCO, climate-change-induced trends in the properties of clouds, atmospheric aerosols and surface
albedo have the potential to strongly influence the long-term behaviour of UV radiation at the Earth’s surface.
The optical properties of clouds, aerosols, and surface albedo, and the interactions between these components, are active areasof research because of their importance in the radiative balance at the surface. Global warming is expected to influence cloudinessbecause of the atmosphere’s ability to hold more water as temperatures increase [211]. However, patterns of change in cloud cover,height, and optical depth are difficult to assess because of the inherent internal variability in regional climate forcing combined with theshort length of available climate data records. The physical understanding of cloud processes continues to advance. For example, thebetter understanding of the microphysics of supercooled liquid water has reduced the bias in the modelled short-wave cloud radiative
effect over the Southern Ocean [212]. Climate models also continue to improve in their representation of aerosols, which cool the lower
troposphere and counter some of the warming resulting from GHGs [63]. Reductions in air pollution have generally occurred in Europe
and North America as the result of regulations; however, economic growth has caused large regional increases in aerosol emissionsin Asia and Africa [213]. Interactions between aerosols and clouds remain the largest uncertainty in climate projections. Changing
patterns of coverage of the surface with snow, ice, and vegetation under global warming are also relevant to surface UV irradiance, withobserved darkening of the Arctic surface over 2000–2019 attributed to summertime loss of sea ice, while mixed trends in albedo haveoccurred over this period in Antarctica [214] (see also Sect. 6.2).
The complexity in accurately accounting for all relevant processes, particularly on small scales where observations are influenced by
local effects (e.g., UV enhancement under broken clouds), limits the ability to attribute trends in UV irradiance to specific climate change
effects. However, several recent studies have quantified local-scale influences, with examples provided below.
The occurrence of cloud-free conditions is very important for total UV exposure. Atmospheric blocking systems, which are large-scalepatterns of stationary atmospheric pressure fields that “block” or redirect migratory cyclones or anti-cyclones, can lead to prolonged
periods of clear skies at mid and high latitudes. In a blocking event, a high-pressure weather system can persist for days or even weeks
over some geographical regions, inhibiting cloud formation and causing moisture in the westerly zonal flow to be deflected around
it. Hence, clouds are often more persistent than usual outside regions with high pressure resulting in lower UV irradiance at the Earth’s
surface. A recent example where surface UV radiation was exceptionally affected by atmospheric blocking occurred during May–July
2018 in Norway and Finland [215]. The monthly mean noontime UVI was 20–40% above the long-term mean as a direct result of
decreased cloud cover. For example at Sodankylä (67° N), the mean temperature in July 2018 was 5.6 °C above the 1981–2010 averagefor the same month and the duration of sunshine in 2018 was 405 hours, exceeding the 1981–2010 average of 245 hours by 65%. Thisparticular event was associated with a record heat-wave in central and northern Europe [216]. Recent studies examining trends andvariability in atmospheric blocking at high latitudes have found mixed patterns of change, with regional shifts in trends in the Antarctic
Peninsula region over the satellite era [217], and no significant trends over Greenland [218]. For high-emissions SSP scenarios, a clear
decrease in future blocking over Greenland and the north Pacific was found, but seasonal and regional projections are generally unclear[219].
It has been known for decades that changes in tropopause height are inversely linked to changes in TCO [220,221]. If the tropopause isshifted up, some lower stratospheric ozone is horizontally transported to surrounding regions with lower tropopause height. The result
is a decrease of TCO in areas where the tropopause is elevated [221]. Furthermore, mid-latitude regions with elevated tropopause may
also be influenced by the advection of stratospheric ozone-poor air masses from lower latitudes (ozone mini-holes) [185,222].
In a new study, Fountoulakis et al. [223] quantified the effect of changes in the geopotential height (GPH) at 250 hPa (a quantity similar to
tropopause height) on TCO and spectral irradiances at 307.5 and 324 nm at three locations across Italy: Aosta (46° N), Rome (2° N), andLampedusa (36° N). Statistically significant anti-correlations were found between GPH and monthly anomalies in TCO for all locations
and months. Conversely, positive correlations between GPH and monthly anomalies in spectral irradiance at 307.5 nm were detected
for most months. The study makes a strong case that increases in GPH or tropopause height that are expected from the warming of thetroposphere due to climate change [224,225] would reduce TCO and subsequently lead to increases in UV-B radiation.
Additional effects of climate change on TCO and the vertical distribution of ozone in the atmosphere—such as the expected
strengthening of the Brewer-Dobson circulation, unexpected declines in lower stratospheric ozone in the extratropics [226], andthe dependence of TCO on GHG scenarios (Sect. 3.5)—are discussed in great detail in SAP’s latest report [11] and are therefore notaddressed here.

57

Chapter 1

7 Variability in UV radiation and trends from observations
This section assesses observed variations in UV radiation on various time scales as well as long-term trends in the UVI observed byground-based and space-borne instruments over several decades.

7.1

Variations in UV radiation with time and altitude

Year-to-year and seasonal variability in UV radiation is mainly controlled by variations in the TCO, cloud cover, and aerosols. For
example, TCO at mid-latitudes is higher in the spring and lower in the autumn. As a result, the UVI near the autumn equinox can exceedthat at the spring equinox by nearly a factor of two for matching SZAs [227]. The effect from ozone is most pronounced at high latitudesof the Southern Hemisphere during spring but variability in stratospheric ozone in the Arctic has also led to larger variability in UV
radiation at northern high latitudes in recent years during the late winter and early spring season. Both regions are discussed in thefollowing sections.

7.1.1

Temporal variations of UV radiation in Antarctica

We reported in our previous assessment [9] that the variability of UV-B radiation in Antarctica observed between 2014 and 2017 wasvery large, with near record-high UVIs observed at the South Pole in spring 2015, and well below average values in spring 2016.
Variability during the period discussed in this report (2018–2021) was equally large, despite evidence that stratospheric ozone
concentrations over Antarctica are now recovering (Sect. 3.2).
Figure 7 shows the daily maximum UVI observed at three Antarctic stations (South Pole (90° S), Arrival Heights (78° S), and Palmer(65° S)) for September–December, the months most affected by the ozone hole. Observations in 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021 werecompared with the average and range of measurements between ~1990 and 2017. UVIs in October 2018 were well above the longterm mean and approached historical maxima at the South Pole but remained within the range of typical variability at the other two sites.
Conversely, unusually low UVIs were observed at the South Pole and Arrival Heights in spring 2019 due to a record high TCO during thisperiod. Between October and mid-November 2019, the UVI at the South Pole was at the minimum of the historical (1991–2017) range
and remained close to this minimum between mid-November 2019 and January 2020. At Arrival Heights, the UVI in 2019 was close to
the minimum between September and mid-November, and stayed below the long-term mean until mid-December, except for two shortperiods.
In contrast to 2019, near record-high UVI maxima were observed in spring 2020 and 2021 because of large and persistent Antarctic
ozone holes in these years (Sect. 3.2). In both years, the UVI at the South Pole tracked or exceeded the historical range between
September and mid-November and set new records in mid-November and mid-December 2020. On 21 November 2020, themaximum UVI measured on this day exceeded the average of the daily maxima for 21 November, calculated from measurements of
the years 1991–2017, by 83%. At Arrival Heights, the UVI reached a new all-time site record of 7.8 on 23 December 2020, exceeding
the previous record for this day by nearly 50%. Measurements at Palmer Station were highly variable, as is typical for this site, but newrecords were also set at this site in the second half of November 2020 when the centre of the ozone hole was above the station. HighUV radiation at this time, which coincides with the start of the growing season for plants and the peak breeding season for most animals,
is a concern [3].
The record-high UVIs in 2020 were not only confined to the three stations shown in Fig. 7 but also observed at other Antarctic
research stations. At the Australian Antarctic bases Casey (66° S), Mawson (68° S), and Davis (69° S), UVIs measured with broadband
radiometers between October and December 2020 were generally well above the 2007–2019 climatological mean, with new recordhigh values set on several days in November and December [31]. The number of days when TCO dropped below 220 DU and led tospikes in UVI was the highest ever observed at the three sites. The daily maximum UVI at Marambio, a station located near the Antarctic
Peninsula at 64° S, exceeded 12 on several days in late November and early December 2020 [20]. Similarly, extreme UVI values were
measured at King George Island (62° S), near the northern tip of the Antarctic Peninsula [34]. The UVI exceeded 11 on four days between
24 November and 4 December 2020 and peaked at 14.3 on 2 December. This value ties, within the measurement uncertainty, with thehighest value of 14.2 (recorded on 4 December 1998) ever measured at Palmer Station ([230] and Sect. 7.3). On 3 December 2020, theerythemal daily dose at King George Island was 8.1 kJ/m2, which is among the highest on Earth and only comparable to those recorded
at high altitude sites such as the Atacama Desert, Chile [231], or at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, where the highest dose ever observed was 9.5
kJ/m2 [232]. These extreme levels of UV radiation were a result of solar elevations close to their annual maximum; close to 24 hours of
daylight at King George Island; broken clouds, which can enhance radiation levels at the surface beyond the clear-sky level when thesolar disk is free of clouds and additional radiation is scattered by clouds to the observer; and low TCO. For example, on 1 December
2020 the TCO over King George Island was 180 DU, which is the lowest value ever recorded for December at this site [34]. UVI data for2021 from stations other than those shown in Fig. 7 are not yet available.

58

Daily Maximum UV Index

Chapter 1

4

(a)

3

2
1

0
1-Sep

8

Daily Maximum UV Index

South Pole, Antarctica (90 S)
1991 – 2017
2018
2019
2020
2021

7

1-Oct

1-Nov

1-Dec

1-Jan

(b) Arrival Heights, Antarctica (78 S, 167 E)
1989 – 2017
2018
2019
2020
2021

6
5

4
3

2
1

0
1-Sep
16

Daily Maximum UV Index

Fig. 7 Daily maximum UVI measured at (a)the South Pole, (b) Arrival Heights, and (c)Palmer Station in 2018 (green), 2019 (yellow),2020 (red), and 2021 (blue) compared withthe average (white line) and the range (greyshading) of daily maximum observations of
the years indicated in the legends. The UVI
was calculated from spectra measured by
SUV-100 spectroradiometers. Up to 2009,
the instruments were part of the NSF UVMonitoring Network [228] and they are now
a node in the NOAA Antarctic UV Monitoring
Network (https://gml.noaa.gov/grad/antuv/). Consistent data processing methods
were applied for all years [190,229].

14

1-Oct

1-Nov

1-Dec

1-Jan

(c) Palmer Station, Antarctica (65 S, 64 W)

12
10
8
6

1990 – 2017
2018
2019
2020
2021

4
2
0
1-Sep

1-Oct

1-Nov

Month

1-Dec

1-Jan

The findings of the studies discussed above show that variability of springtime UV-B radiation in Antarctica is large despite ongoing
reduction of ODSs and signs of ozone recovery. This surprisingly high variability is mainly driven by changes in meteorologicalconditions and in particular the persistently low temperature of the lower stratosphere.
When the Antarctic polar vortex breaks up at the end of the austral spring, ozone-depleted air masses disperse to lower latitudes, which
may lead to large increases in UV radiation over populated areas in the Southern Hemisphere [233]. However, a recent study found thatthe breakup of the polar vortex had only a small effect on UV radiation at Cape Town, South Africa (34° S). Elevated levels of UV radiation
at this location were more frequently associated with low-ozone air masses of tropical origin [234].

7.1.2 Temporal variations of UV radiation in the Arctic
As discussed in Sect. 3.3, an exceptionally large episode of stratospheric ozone depletion was observed in late winter and early spring(February–April) of 2020 in the Arctic [35,36,39,41]. Figure 8a shows deviations of monthly average TCO from past (2005–2019)averages north of 45° N for March, April, May, and June, and their effects on UVI. In March 2020, relative TCO anomalies of up to −40%
and exceeding 3 standard deviations (σ) were measured over northern Canada and the adjacent Arctic Ocean. In April, relative TCO
anomalies of up to −35% and exceeding 3σ were observed for virtually all areas north of 60° N. During the breakup of the polar vortex
in May [35], areas with abnormally low (> 3σ) TCO still persisted over Siberia.
The low TCO led to record-breaking anomalies in solar UV-B radiation over the Arctic measured by ground-based instruments at ten
Arctic and subarctic locations and observed by the Ozone Monitoring Instrument (OMI) on NASA’s Aura satellite [235,236]. Relative
UV-B radiation anomalies were particularly large between early March and mid-April 2020. However, absolute anomalies for this period
remained small (e.g., below 0.6 UVI units) because solar elevations for March and April are still low in the Arctic. In the following, weonly discuss relative anomalies.
In March 2020, the monthly average UVI over the Canadian Arctic and the adjacent Arctic Ocean was between 30% and 70% higher
than the historical (2005–2019) averages, often exceeding the climatological average by 3σ. By April 2020, they were positive overa vast area, including northern Canada, Greenland, northern Europe, and Siberia. The maximum anomaly was 78% and anomalies
exceeded 3σ almost everywhere north of 70° N. In May 2020, UVI anomalies of up to 60% and exceeding 3σ were measured over
Siberia. The UVIs in June were elevated by up to 30% over parts of Norway, Sweden, and Finland, resulting from a combination ofnegative TCO anomalies and unusually fair weather with several cloudless days [236]. Ground-based measurements generally confirm
UVI anomalies derived from satellite data (Fig. 8c). However, notable differences between the ground-based and satellite data sets exist
for Sodankylä (Finland), and Trondheim and Finse (Norway) in May.

59

Chapter 1
These discrepancies are likely caused by a mismatch between the albedo climatology used in the satellite retrieval and the actual
albedo. Albedo in May is affected by the timing of snow melting, which was unusually late at Sodankylä and Finse in 2020.
In contrast to 2020, Arctic UVI anomalies in 2019 and 2021 remained within 2σ of the climatological mean, with few exceptions[46,47]. One exception is the large UVI anomalies of up to 65% in the period 15–30 April 2019 in Norway, Sweden, and Finland, whena persistent high-pressure system with clear skies was centred over the Nordic countries. As the TCO in the Arctic is projected to havelarge year-to-year variability for the remainder of the 21st century (Sect. 3.5), large variations in UV radiation are likely to occur over the
next decades.

Fig. 8 Monthly mean anomaly maps (in %) of (a) TCO and (b) noontime UVI for March, April, May, and June 2020 relative to2005–2019 means. Stippling indicates pixels where anomalies exceed three standard deviations (3σ). Grey-shaded areas
centred at the North Pole in the maps for March and April indicate latitudes with no OMI data because of polar darkness.
Locations of ground stations are indicated by crosses in every map, with labels added to the first panel. Maps are based on
the OMTO3 Level 3 TCO product [237]. (c) Percentage anomalies in monthly means of the noontime UVI for 2020 derived
from measurements at 10 ground stations (North to South along the x-axis) relative to all years with available data (red) and
2005–2019 (blue). The black datasets indicate anomalies for the same stations derived from OMI measurements relative to2005–2019. Site acronyms are ALT: Alert (83° N); EUR: Eureka (80° N); NYA: Ny-Ålesund (79° N); RES: Resolute (75° N); AND:
Andøya (69° N); SOD: Sodankylä (67° N); TRH: Trondheim (63° N); FIN: Finse (61° N); OST: Østerås (60° N); and CHU: Churchill(59° N). Figure adapted from Bernhard et al. [235].

60

Chapter 1

7.1.3 Dependence of UV radiation on altitude
Measurements from satellites suggest that the highest UVI values observed during the year at the Earth’s surface range from less than 3
at the poles to about 25 at high altitudes within the tropics of the Southern Hemisphere, such as the Altiplano Region of Peru and Bolivia[210]. The average altitude of this region is 3,750 m and the highest peak (Illimani) is at 6,438 m above sea level (asl). Ground-based
measurements of UV radiation in this area are sparse despite their importance for human health and ecosystems. Recent measurements
at Quito, Ecuador (2,850 m asl), established a maximum UVI of 21 at this location [238]. This value is consistent with the highest valueof 21.2 measured at Mauna Loa (3,397 m asl) [232] and supports the maximum value of ~25 for the highest UVI that may occur on Earthconsidering that Quito is at a considerably lower elevation than the highest peaks of the Andes. The extreme UVI values at high-altitude
locations close to the equator may have significant health effects for people moving to these regions for work or recreation without
taking appropriate precautions to protect themselves from UV radiation [239].

7.2

Observed long-term changes in UV radiation

In the last four years, new trends in UV radiation derived from ground-based measurements have been published for several regions[190,223,238,240-245]. These studies confirm that changes in UV radiation during the last 25 years have generally been small—typically less than 4% per decade, increasing at some sites and decreasing at others, with few exceptions—consistent with the multi-site
study by McKenzie et al. [56] discussed in Sect. ‎4.1. Results from these studies are assessed in more detail below. While only studies thatappeared to be of high quality according to our assessment were included, the measurement uncertainty of the various datasets varies
and the reader is referred to the original publications for details.
Trends in solar spectral irradiance at 307.5 nm, which is a reasonable proxy for trends in erythemally weighted UV radiation, were
calculated at several stations in Europe, Canada, and Japan over a 25-year (1992–2016) period [240]. Long-term changes at thiswavelength vary by location and are mostly driven by changes in aerosols and TCO. However, at high northern latitudes, changes in thesurface reflectivity are also an important factor. Over Japan, the spectral irradiance at 307.5 nm has increased significantly by about 3%
per decade over this 25-year period and this increase is attributed to a decrease in absorbing aerosols. The only European station witha significant trend was Thessaloniki, Greece, where spectral irradiance at 307.5 nm rose by 3.5% per decade with an increasing rate ofchange during the last decade, possibly because of decreasing absorption by aerosols.
Updated estimates of trends in UV-B irradiance at four European stations (Reading (51° N), Uccle (51° N), Sodankylä (67° N), andThessaloniki (41° N)) have been reported for the period 1996–2017, i.e., starting after the global peak of ODSs [245]. The study
concluded that the variability of UV-B radiation at these European sites was mainly governed by variations in clouds, aerosols, andsurface reflectivity, while changes in TCO were less important. Statistically significant (95% confidence level (CL)) positive trends innoontime spectral irradiance at 307.5 nm were found for Thessaloniki (8% per decade) and Uccle (5% per decade), while, for Reading,the trend was negative (−7% per decade). These trends were again attributed to the effects of aerosols and clouds. No statisticallysignificant trend was found at Sodankylä; however, the decreasing tendency of −5% per decade at this site was found to be consistent
with changes in surface reflectivity due to declining snow cover in late winter and spring. In a follow-on study [223], a similar trend
analysis was performed for Rome (42° N), Italy. A statistically significant negative trend in TCO of –1% per decade was found, but there
was no corresponding significant increase in spectral irradiance at 307.5 nm over the period 1996–2020. However for certain months,
positive trends in UV irradiance were observed, which were predominantly caused by changes in clouds and/or aerosols.
Several other studies reported estimates of trends for erythemal irradiance (or erythemal doses) at northern European sites. No
statistically significant trends in erythemal UV radiation were observed at Moscow, Russia (56° N), over the period from 1999 to 2015[243]; at Chilton, England (52° N), between 1991 and 2015 [246]; and at Tõravere, Estonia (58° N), between 2004 and 2016 [244]. At
the last site, there were also no trends in the main factors influencing UV radiation, namely TCO; aerosol optical depth; and global shortwave radiation, which is a proxy for the effect of clouds.
Trends in erythemal irradiance at the Earth’s surface over the period of 2005–2017 have been calculated for the continental UnitedStates using satellite-based (OMI) measurements and ground-based measurements at 31 sites distributed throughout the UnitedStates by the Department of Agriculture’s UV-B Monitoring and Research Program [241]. The study concluded that trends in noontime
erythemal irradiance estimated from these satellite- and ground-based measurements cannot be reconciled. Specifically, trends
derived from the satellite-based dataset were not significant for most of the continental United States, except for a small region in the
New England states of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts. In those regions, small (about 5% per decade) positive
trends were calculated from OMI data, and they were significant at the 95% CL. However, data from the two ground-based stations
located in this region indicated a significant decrease in erythemal UV over the same period. This discrepancy can be explained, either
by calibration issues of the ground-based sensors and OMI [247], or by increasing attenuation of UV radiation in the lowest part of theatmosphere, which cannot be adequately probed by OMI. While trends calculated for several other stations were also significant, themagnitude of these trends is generally within the measurement uncertainty range so that no firm conclusions about changes in levels oferythemal irradiance across the continental United States can be drawn.
In a similar study based on OMI measurements, trends in noontime erythemal irradiance, TCO, and cloud and haze transmission
were calculated for 191 cities located between latitudes of 60° N and 60° S over the period 2005−2018 [248]. Significant changes
in erythemal irradiance were found at the 95% CL for 40 of the 191 sites over this period. When data were averaged over 15° latitude
bands, correlations between erythemal irradiance and short- and long-term changes in cloud and absorbing aerosols, as well as inverse
correlations between UV radiation and TCO, became apparent. Estimates of changes in atmospheric transmission at 340 nm show

61

Chapter 1
increases of 1.1±1.2% per decade between 60° S and 45° S, almost no change between 45° S and 20° N, decreases of 3% per decadeat 22° and 32° N, an increase of 2.5% per decade near 25° N, and increases of 1±0.9% per decade from 35° N to 60° N. Changes inzonally averaged (~15° latitude bins) erythemal irradiance between 60° N and 60° S range between –4 and 5% per decade and are
predominantly caused by changes in cloud and aerosol transmission. However, judging from the error bars in the figures provided byHerman et al. [248], changes in zonally averaged transmission and erythemal irradiance are generally not significant at the 95% CL.
Trends in erythemal daily doses (Dery) were calculated for the period 1979–2015 over Northern Eurasia (a region between 40° and 80°
N and extending in longitude from Scandinavia to Siberia) using simulations by a climate chemistry model (INM-RSHU43), re-analysesof atmospheric data (ERA-Interim44), and data from satellite measurements (TOMS/OMI) [242]. For cloud-free conditions, statisticallysignificant increases in Dery of up to 3% per decade were found for spring and summer over large areas and attributed to decreases
in TCO. When clouds were included in the analysis, greater trends of 6–8% per decade were found over Eastern Europe and several
regions in Siberia and Northeast Asia. This observation suggests that over this 36-year period, changes in cloud attenuation had larger
effects on UV-B radiation than changes in TCO at high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere extending to 80° N.
An analysis of UVI data computed from satellite-based measurements for local noon and clear skies by the Tropospheric Emission
Monitoring Internet Service (TEMIS) indicated that there is no long-term trend in UVI at the equatorial high-altitude site of Quito,
Ecuador (0° S, 2,850 m asl), for the period 1979–2018 [238]. This conclusion was corroborated by ground-based measurements at thissite. For 2010–2014, the measured UVI was within the range of variability inferred for 1979–2009 from TEMIS data. This is consistent
with the observation that there are no significant trends in TCO in the tropics (Sect. 3.1).
Trends in the UVI measured by spectroradiometers at three Antarctic sites (South Pole (90° S), Arrival Heights (78° S), and Palmer Station(65° S)) have recently been reassessed for the period of 1996–2018 [190]. At the South Pole (a site representative of the Antarctic Polar
Plateau), significant (95% CL) decadal trends of −3.9% and −3.1% were calculated for January and February, respectively, which canmostly be explained by concomitant trends in TCO. At Arrival Heights, the recalculated trend for summer is −3.3% per decade and issignificant at the 90% CL. This downward trend is caused by a significant upward trend in TCO of 1.5% per decade for January plus theeffect of reductions in land-fast ice covering the sea adjacent to the instrument site (Sect. 6.2). No significant trends were reported for
Palmer Station. The study provides further evidence that the UVI in Antarctica is starting to decrease during summer months. However,statistically significant reductions for spring (October and November), when the ozone hole leads to large UVI variability, were notdetected.
All studies summarised above paint a consistent picture: changes in UV-B radiation outside the polar regions over the last 2–3 decades
are mainly governed by variations in clouds, aerosols, and surface reflectivity (for snow- or ice-covered areas), while changes in TCO areless important. These results corroborate the conclusion by McKenzie et al. [56] discussed in Sect. 4.1 that changes in TCO have not led
to significant changes in UV-B radiation over this period.

7.3

Reconstruction of historical changes in UV radiation

Systematic measurements of surface UV radiation suitable for trend analysis began only in the late 1980s. In the absence of direct
measurements, knowledge of UV irradiance levels prior to the onset of ozone depletion relies on radiative transfer model calculations
in combination with inputs such as TCO and other proxy data. At very few locations, ground-based TCO measurements commenced
before the 1960s and UV irradiances have been reconstructed from these measurements [249-252]. The erythemal UV irradiance wasrecently reconstructed for Moscow, Russia, for the warm season (May–September) over the period 1968–2016 [253] using data of TCO,
AOD at 550 nm, surface albedo, cloud cover, and cloud transmission. Results were validated against measurements of broadband
instruments emulating the erythemal response of human skin (Sect. 10.1), which were available from 1999 onward. Reconstructed andmeasured data for the overlap period agreed well; the coefficient of determination R2 was 0.89. Results indicate statistically significant
decadal trends in erythemal UV irradiance of –11.6±1.6% for the period 1968–1978 and 5.1±1.9 for the period 1979–2016, which werepredominantly driven by changes in cloud transmission. One important shortcoming of the study is that the consistency of cloud data of
this 48-year data record was not independently verified; hence, trend estimates could be affected by spurious trends in the measures ofcloudiness.
Daily erythemal UV doses were reconstructed for Novi Sad, Serbia [254]. Using a radiative transfer model with inputs of TCO and snow
cover data, plus empirical relations between erythemal doses and sunshine duration, statistically significant increases in erythemal UV
doses of 8.8% and 13.1% per decade over the period 1980–1997 were found for summer and winter, respectively, which were linked tothe statistically significant decline in TCO over this period.
Satellite measurements of TCO became available in the late 1970s and have also been used for reconstructing the UVI at several groundstations under the assumption that changes in aerosol and clouds were small during this period [56]. These reconstructions imply thatconsiderable increases in the summer UVI occurred between 1978 and 1990, ranging from about 5% at northern mid-latitudes, up to
10% at southern mid-latitudes, and up to 20% at the three Antarctic sites considered in this study.
Starting in 2010, the “Twenty Questions and Answers About the Ozone Layer” component of assessment reports prepared by the SAP

62

43

INM-RSHU: Institute of Numerical Mathematics – Russian State Hydrometeorological University; ERA-Interim: European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts ReAnalysis; TOMS: Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer.

44

ERA-Interim is a global atmospheric reanalysis published by the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF, https://www.ecmwf.int/) that is available
from 1 January 1979 to 31 August 2019.

Chapter 1
have included a plot comparing reconstructed UVIs at Palmer Station, Antarctica (64° S), for the pre-ozone-hole period 1978–1980
with UVIs measured between 1990 and 2006 [13,255,256]. This plot has recently been updated [230] and is reproduced in Fig. 9.
The revised plot is similar to the legacy one but includes data up to 2020 and also compares recent measurements with reconstructed
pre-ozone-hole UVIs for San Diego, California (32° N), and Barrow, Alaska (79° N). Furthermore, historical UVIs at the three sites havebeen calculated from TCO measurements by the Backscatter Ultraviolet (BUV) experiment on the Nimbus-4 satellite between 1970 and
1976. While trends in TCO were already negative in the 1970s over polar regions [67], analysis presented by Bernhard et al. [230] did
not show clear evidence that the developing ozone hole affected Palmer Station before 1976. In contrast, the period 1978–1980 used
for the legacy plot was already somewhat influenced by ozone depletion. The new results confirm the previous conclusion that theozone hole led to large increases in the UVI at Palmer Station year-round, with the largest increases occurring during spring (between
15 September and 15 November). The maximum UVI at this site is now larger by a factor of 2.50±0.37 (±1σ) on average compared tothe pre-ozone-hole period. During summer and autumn (21 December – 21 June), i.e., the seasons least affected by the ozone hole, UVI
maxima measured between 1990 and 2020 exceed maxima estimated for years prior to 1976 by 20±13%. Measured and reconstructed
pre-ozone depletion data for San Diego (a subtropical site), are almost indistinguishable: on average, the UVI has increased by 3±7%(±1σ) since the 1970s. This modest growth is consistent with the small change in TCO observed at subtropical latitudes (Sect. 3.1) andwith the conclusion of McKenzie et al. [56] that maximum daily UVI values have remained essentially constant at mid-latitudes over thelast ~20 years due to the phase-out of ODSs controlled by the Montreal Protocol. At the Arctic site of Barrow, the UVI increased by
18±15% (±1σ) since the 1970s. The largest spikes in the UVI of up to 40% relative to the 1970s were measured during spring in years
with abnormally strong Arctic ozone depletion, such as 2011 [257]. We note that these reconstructions are subject to uncertainty
because they assume that surface albedo and attenuation by clouds and aerosols have not changed over the last 50 years in this area.
However, at Palmer and Barrow, the TCO is by far the most important factor in controlling the UVI, while changes in albedo at San Diego
can be considered negligible. Note that changes in the UVI discussed here do not contradict the conclusion in Sect. 7.2 that long-termchanges in UV-B radiation outside the polar regions have generally been small over the last 2–3 decades. Changes shown in Fig. 9 are
by and large attributable to changes in TCO occurring in the 1970s and 1980s (Fig. 1).

Seasonal Changes in the UV Index
J
16

F

Northern Hemisphere monthM

WinterA

M

J

SpringJ

ASSummerO

N

D

Autumn14

Maximum UV Index

12
10
8

Fig. 9 Comparison of the highest UVIs ever measured
for each day of the year at Palmer Station, San Diego,
and Barrow since the early 1990s (solid lines) withreconstructed data for the pre-ozone-hole period
1970–1976 (broken lines). Yellow shading indicates thechange between historical and contemporary UVI. The
difference is particularly large for Palmer Station during
spring, the period affected by the Antarctic ozone hole.
The highest UVIs observed at Palmer since the 1990s
exceed those measured at San Diego despite that city’smuch lower latitude. Reprinted from Bernhard et al.
[230].

6
4
2
0

J

A

S

O

N

D

J

F

M

Southern Hemisphere month

A

M

J

Maximum UV Index on a given day of the year.

Pre-ozone hole(calculated)

Since early 1990s.
(measured)

Palmer, Antarctica (64 S)

1970 – 1976

1990 – 2020

San Diego, California (32 N)

1970 – 1976

1992 – 2008

1970 – 1976

1991 – 2016

Utqiagvik, Alaska (71 N)(formerly Barrow)

At Athens, Greece, records of the duration of sunshine were used to reconstruct monthly averages of short-wave (wavelength range~300–3,000 nm) solar irradiance at the surface between 1900–2012 [258]. There were very small (0.02%) changes between 1900
and 1953, followed by a negative trend of 2% per decade during a “dimming” period of 1955–1980 and a positive trend of 1.5% per
decade during a “brightening” period of 1980–2012. Measurements of short-wave irradiance at Potsdam (52°), Germany, show distinct
dimming and brightening periods between 1947–1986 and 1986–2016, respectively, with measurements in 1986 about 10 W/m2 lower
compared to those at the start and end of the time series [259]. Changes for “all-sky” (cloudy and cloud-free) and clear-sky (cloud-free)63Chapter 1
conditions were similar, suggesting that changes in aerosols were mostly responsible for these variations in short-wave irradiance. Whilethese trend estimates are unrelated to changes in TCO and do not directly translate to changes in UV radiation, they qualitatively capture
variations in the effect of clouds and aerosols on solar irradiance over the period studied, which are also relevant for changes in UV
radiation. Trends in UV radiation related to changes in aerosols are likely larger than trends in short-wave irradiance because attenuation
by aerosols is generally larger in the UV region than at visible wavelengths.

8 Projections of UV radiation
Projections of solar UV radiation at the Earth’s surface for the 21st century have been reported in new studies published during the last
four years. These new projections are generally in agreement with those reported in our last assessment [9]. They confirm the projected
reductions in UV radiation, particularly at high and polar latitudes, due to the recovery of stratospheric ozone, as well as the increases
in UV radiation due to decreasing concentrations of aerosols over regions with intense urban or industrial activities. Furthermore,
projected decreases in surface reflectivity due to reduction in ice cover and decreases in cloudiness, both associated with climatechange, are also important drivers leading to regional changes (decreases and increases, respectively) in surface UV radiation.
One of the new studies [260] reports global projections of UVI that were calculated with a radiative transfer model using TCO,
temperature, and aerosol fields provided by 17 CCMs. These CCMs were included in the first phase of the Chemistry-Climate Model
Initiative (CCMI-1) [58,261]. The CCM simulations were performed for four future GHG scenarios described by RCPs 2.6, 4.5, 6.0 and
8.5. Zonal-mean noontime UVI for cloudless skies were calculated for the period 1960–2100.
According to this study, noontime UVI in 2100 is projected to increase relative to calculations for the 1960s for RCPs 2.6, 4.5 and 6.0.
These increases depend on latitude and the RCP scenario, and range between 1% (northern high latitudes for RCP 6.0) and 8% (northern
mid-latitudes for RCP 2.6) as shown in Table 1. Trends calculated for the worst-case scenario RCP 8.5 show a different pattern with UVI
projected to increase only in the tropics and to decrease elsewhere, with the largest decrease of 8% at northern high latitudes.
Only three of the 17 CCMs provided outputs of the AOD and its wavelength-dependence. The AOD used in projections of UV radiationis therefore based on the median of AODs derived from these three CCMs. According to these calculations, AODs are projected todecrease by almost 80% between 2000 and 2100 at northern high- and mid-latitudes, resulting in concomitant increases in the UVIof about 2% and 6%, respectively. These changes in UVI due to changes in AOD are of similar magnitude to those caused by changes
in stratospheric ozone. However, these AOD estimates as well as the absorption properties of aerosols used in these CCMs are highly
uncertain because future changes in atmospheric aerosols depend greatly on policy choices, such as measures to reduce air pollution[262]. Moreover, changes in optical depth and absorption properties of aerosols are highly dependent on region, hence zonal meanchanges in UVI, like those discussed above, are not necessarily representative for most regions.
To address these concerns, Lamy et al. [260] also provide UVI projections for temporally invariant or “fixed” AODs based on a current
climatology [263]. Using this climatology and the RCP 6.0 scenario, noontime UVIs in 2100 are projected to change relative to 1960 by–5% at Northern Hemisphere (NH) high latitudes, –2% at NH mid latitudes, +3% in the tropical belt, 0% at Southern Hemisphere (SH)mid-latitudes, and –2% at SH high latitudes (Table 1, column 6). These changes in UVI are mainly driven by changes in TCO. Assuming
time-invariant aerosol amounts for the future, the clear-sky UVI is projected to decrease from 2015 to 2090 by 3% at NH and 6% at
SH mid-latitudes. However, in regions that are currently affected by air pollution, the UVI is projected to increase if emissions of air
pollutants are curtailed in the future.
Table 1 also shows a comparison of projected changes in zonal mean UVIs between 2015 and 2090 inferred from the study by
Lamy et al. [260] and as published in our last assessment [9]. In both cases, UVI projections were based on results from the CCMI-1
initiative; however, different subsets of models were used, as well as methods to calculate the UVI from parameters provided by the
CCMs. Furthermore, Bais et al. [9] provided projections for different months while Lamy et al. [260] only considered annual averages.
Despite these differences, changes in UVI calculated by the two studies for fixed AODs are consistent (see last five columns of Table
1) and project a decrease of 2–5% for northern mid-latitudes, a decrease of 4–6% for southern mid-latitudes, and almost no change
for the tropics. Both studies also predict large decreases in the UVI over southern high latitudes due to the expected healing of thestratospheric ozone hole.
Projections provided in the above studies were corroborated by another study where long-term changes in erythemal UV radiation
were calculated over Eurasia (latitudes 40–80° N, longitudes 10° W–180° E) based on results of a CCM developed by the Russian State
Hydrometeorological University (RSHU) [264]. These calculations considered only changes in TCO (i.e., excluding effects of aerosols
and clouds) and predict that erythemal UV radiation levels in the years 2055–2059 will be lower over Eurasia by 4 to 8% relative to thereference period 1979–1983.

64

Chapter 1

Table 1 Comparison of zonal-mean changes in clear-sky UVI calculated by Lamy et al. [260] and Bais et al. [9].
Latitudes

Lamy et al. [260]

Bais et al. [9]Change [%]1960 to 2100a
Transient AODs,
RCP =
2.6

4.5

Change [%]2015 to 2090c

Change [%]2015 to 2090b

6.0

8.5

Fixed
AODs

Transient
AODs

Fixed
AODs

Fixed AODs

RCP
6.0

RCP
6.0

RCP
6.0

RCP 6.0

Annual meane

Jan

Apr

Jul

Oct

High Nd

6

2

1

-8

-5

0

-6

-3

-7

-5

-4

30–60° N

8

5

5

-1

-2

5

-3

-4

-5

-3

-2

0–30° Nf

3

3

3

1

3

-

1

0–30° Sf

-1

0

-1

-1

3

3

3

2

3

0

0

30–60° S

3

3

2

-2

0

-5

-6

-5

-4

-5

-6

High Sd

7

6

4

0

-2

-18

-18

-8

-6

-6

-23

All values are rounded.
aAccording to Table 5 of Lamy et al. [260]bInferred from Fig. 4 and 6 of Lamy et al. [260]cTable 1 of Bais et al. [9]dLatitude range of “High N” and “High S” refer to 60–90° in Lamy et al. [260] and 60–80° in Bais et al. [9]Changes reported by Lamy et al. [260] refer to trends averaged over all months; Bais et al. [9] provide changes for themonths of January, April, July, and October.
efLamy et al. [260] report changes separately for 0–30° N and 0–30° S while Bais et al. [9] provide changes for 30° N to 30° S.

Simulations with one of the CCMs (EMAC45) for the period 1960–2100 were used to derive trends in DNA-damaging radiation at four
mid-latitude locations and one tropical high-altitude site [265]. Weighting the spectral irradiance with the action spectrum for DNAdamage [266] yields dose rates that are more sensitive to changes in radiation at shorter (UV-B) wavelengths than the erythemal UV dose
rates or the UVI; hence it is more sensitive to changes in TCO. DNA-damaging irradiance averaged over the five locations considered inthis study is projected to increase by 1.3% per decade between 2050 and 2100. To isolate the effect of GHGs on climate, one simulation
assumed increasing GHGs according to RCP 6.0 and the second adopted constant GHGs at 1960 levels. No trend in TCO was detectedby the model after 2050, and the trend detected in DNA-damaging irradiance was attributed to a statistically significant (95% CL)
decrease in cloud cover of 1.4% per decade resulting from increasing GHGs. The study suggests that changes in UV-B irradiance at
low- and mid-latitudes during the second half of the 21st century will be dominated by factors other than changes in stratospheric ozone.
However, these projections depend on the accuracy of simulating the cloud fields by climate models because uncertainties in themodelling of clouds propagate to the projected changes in solar UV-B radiation.
The SAP’s latest assessment [11] also evaluates the effect of a fleet of commercial supersonic aircraft on stratospheric ozone
concentrations. Such a fleet is currently being considered by different organisations and companies. Depending on scenario and flight
altitudes, emissions of water vapour and nitrogen oxides from such a fleet could reduce TCO by up to 25 DU at high northern latitudes.

45

EMAC CCM is the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts–Hamburg (ECHAM)/Modular Earth Submodel System (MESSy) Atmospheric Chemistry Model.

65

Chapter 1
Reductions in TCO at mid and low latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere would be considerably smaller, and the Southern Hemisphereis less affected because most flights take place in the Northern Hemisphere. While no study has quantified the effect of a future fleetof supersonic aircraft on UV radiation, the estimated decrease in TCO suggests that erythemal UV irradiance could increase by several
percent at mid-latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere.
New model calculations examined the effect on stratospheric ozone (and by implication on UV radiation) of quadrupling concentrationsof atmospheric CO2 [267]. Such an increase would lead to a dynamically-driven decrease in concentrations of ozone in the tropicallower stratosphere, an increase of ozone in the lower stratosphere over the high latitudes, and a chemically-driven increase of ozone(via stratospheric cooling) throughout the upper stratosphere. In the tropics, opposite changes in ozone in the upper and lower
stratosphere result in small changes in the TCO, and, in turn, to small changes in tropical UV-B radiation in the future, if effects from allother factors remain the same. A quadrupling of atmospheric CO2 concentrations during the 21st century is currently not expected,
but could occur in the 22nd century if emissions of CO2 were to continue unabated according to the RCP 8.5 scenario [268]. The study
suggests that even “worst-case” increases in CO2 will not result in significant increases in UV-B radiation in the tropics.
All studies discussed above confirm the understanding of UV radiation in the 21st century established in our last assessment [9].
Simulations with a new generation of CCMs that have only recently been performed are expected to provide updated projections of UV
radiation but are not yet available for assessment in this report.
A recent study used a state-of-the-art climate model with interactive chemistry [269] to calculate the effects on TCO and UV radiation
resulting from a regional or global nuclear war. A global-scale nuclear war would cause a 15 year-long reduction in the TCO with a peakloss of 75% globally and 65% in the tropics. Initially, soot would shield the surface from UV-B radiation, but eventually the UVI would
become extreme: greater than 35 in the tropics for 4 years, and greater than 45 during the summer in the southern polar regions for 3
years. For a regional nuclear war, global TCO could be reduced by 25% with recovery taking 12 years.

9 Implications of solar radiation management on UV radiation
Over the last decade, global warming from increasing GHGs has accelerated, and global mean air temperatures near the surface haverisen by about 1.1 °C above pre-industrial levels [Chapter 2 of 63]. The resulting changes in climate observed worldwide have stimulated
discussions on strategies to mitigate warming through artificially forced reduction of solar radiation entering the troposphere. Impactsof such solar radiation management (SRM) interventions on the atmosphere and the environment have been investigated in numerous
modelling studies and discussed in current assessments by the SAP [11] and IPCC [Chapter 4 of 63], and the last EEAP assessment [9].
The latest SAP report [11] extensively addresses the potential impacts on TCO from stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) under different
scenarios. Here, we focus on the effects of the possible implementation of SAI on surface UV radiation. The effects are driven by changes
in TCO but also by the redistribution of solar radiation from the direct to diffuse component, plus the global dimming effect expectedfrom back-scattering of solar radiation to space by the aerosol layer.
The TCO is affected both by SAI-induced changes in heterogeneous chemical reactions, which depend on the surface area density of
the aerosol (e.g., in µm2/cm3), and by changes in atmospheric dynamics (including transport, temperature, and water vapour changes).
These effects on TCO differ with latitude and season, and depend on the future SAI scenario because they act in addition to the effects ofdecreasing ODSs and increasing GHGs. During the Antarctic ozone hole season, destruction of ozone in the stratosphere resulting from
SAI would mainly be controlled by halogen chemistry on the surface of aerosols, while transport of ozone through circulation becomes
important in other seasons [11].
Using models that participated in the Geoengineering Large ENSemble (GLENS) project, Tilmes et al. [270] estimated the effect on
TCO in the latitude band 63°–90° S from SAI designed to achieve a reduction of 1.5 and 2.0 °C in global surface temperature. They
found a reduction of up to 70 DU in the Antarctic TCO at the start of the SAI application (2020–2030), followed by an increase in TCO
towards 2100 with a pattern like the projected changes in TCO without the application of SAI. In a more recent study, Tilmes et al.
[271] estimated the initial abrupt decrease in TCO to be between 8% and 20% in 2030–2039 compared to 2010–2019, depending on
injection strategy and model. All scenarios assumed in these studies result in a delayed recovery of Antarctic ozone to pre-ozone-holelevels by 20 to ~40 years. The TCO for these SAI scenarios remains below the levels projected by the worst case GHG scenario (SSP58.5) until the end of the 21st century, which would lead to increased levels of UV-B radiation during the entire period in Antarctica.
In a similar study, Tilmes et al. [272] estimated the effects of SAI also in the Northern Hemisphere and the tropics based on simulations of
the G6 Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP). The models agree that sulphur injections result in a robust increasein TCO in winter at middle and high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere of up to 20 DU over the 21st century compared to simulations
based on the SSP5-8.5 scenario without SAI. This increase in TCO, which is linearly related to the increase in the amount of sulphur
injections, is driven by the warming of the tropical lower stratosphere and would eventually result in decreasing UV-B radiation at theselatitudes during the remainder of the 21st century. The magnitude of these changes in UV-B radiation depends on the SAI scenario. The

66

Chapter 1
Arctic TCO is initially projected to decrease by 13 to 22 DU depending on the scenario, which is a much smaller decrease than thatprojected by Tilmes et al. [270] for the Antarctic discussed above. By the end of the 21st century, the Arctic TCO with and without SAI areapproximately the same. Finally for the tropics, changes in ozone due to SAI would be small. The initial reduction in TCO projected byTilmes et al. [270] and Tilmes et al. [272] for the Antarctic and Arctic is attributable to heterogeneous reactions on aerosol particles in
the presence of ODSs. Robrecht et al. [273] showed that this effect is far less important for mid-latitudes and the tropics compared withpolar regions.
While the above studies have focused on the consequences of SAI on ozone, effects on UV and visible radiation from SAI also dependon the attenuation (dimming) and redistribution of solar radiation. These effects have been quantified with a radiative transfer modelusing inputs from the GLENS project [271] designed to counteract warming from increased GHGs under the RCP 8.5 scenario[274]. Estimated changes in the UVI are predominantly driven by the attenuation of solar radiation by the artificial aerosol layer (withconcentrations peaking above ~30 km in the tropics and above ~25 km in the high latitudes). Reduced direct radiation due to aerosol
scattering results in substantial reductions in solar irradiance at the Earth’s surface despite an enhanced contribution from diffuse
radiation. However, the larger diffuse component may allow more efficient penetration of UV irradiance through forest and crop
canopies [275], offsetting, to some extent, the reduced irradiance on top of the canopies. The intervention is estimated to reduce thedaily average above-canopy UVI in 2080 relative to 2020 by about 15% at 30° N and by 6–22% at 70° N, depending on season. About
one third of the reduced UVI at 30° N is due to the relative increase in TCO (~3.5%) between the reference and the SRM scenario. The
corresponding increase in TCO for 70° N is less than 1% and explains only a very small fraction of the decrease in the UVI. The calculatedchanges in the UVI are therefore primarily caused by the scattering effect of sulphate aerosols, with a very small contribution from theabsorption by sulphur dioxide (SO2). Finally, reductions in photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) are estimated to range from 9% to
16% at 30° N and from 20% to 72% at 70° N, depending on season, with the largest proportional changes occurring in December,when the absolute levels of radiation are small. Such large changes in the UVI and PAR would likely have important consequences forecosystem services and food security; however, such repercussions have not yet been quantified. While the study only characterisedchanges in UV radiation and PAR for the NH, similar results can be expected for the SH.

10 Advances in UV monitoring and modelling
In this section, we provide a summary of advances in measuring and modelling UV radiation at the Earth’s surface and in assessing
personal exposure to UV radiation, which is controlled both by ambient UV radiation and personal behaviour.

10.1

Ground-based systems

UV radiation at the Earth’s surface is normally measured with scanning spectroradiometers, such as those installed in the Network for the
Detection Atmospheric Composition Change (NDACC) [276]; broadband instruments, which typically emulate the erythemal responseof human skin [277]; multi-filter instruments, which measure the spectral irradiance at several wavelengths (typically 4–7) in the UV range[278]; array spectroradiometers, which record the entire UV spectrum within seconds; dosimeters, which measure the UV dose that
accumulates over a given amount of time; and specialised systems designed for a specific research question such as the measurement of
the angular distribution of sky radiance [279]. The different instruments have been discussed in detail in previous assessments [9,162]. In
brief, scanning spectroradiometers using double monochromators are the most accurate instruments but are expensive to acquire andmaintain, and the recording of a UV spectrum may take several minutes. Broadband radiometers are relatively inexpensive, and theirspectral response is tailored to a specific effect (e.g., erythema) under study, but because they do not provide spectral information, thefactors driving changes in UV radiation (e.g., ozone, clouds, and aerosols) cannot be unambiguously separated. Multi-filter instruments
can be used for studying a specific effect and the factors it depends upon, but require elaborate characterisations and calibrations
in order to provide accurate data of solar irradiance [280]. Array spectroradiometers (or spectrographs) use single monochromators
for physical reasons, and measurements at wavelengths shorter than 310 nm are often affected by stray light [281]. An instrument
combining an array spectrometer with narrow-band filters that mitigate this problem has recently been introduced [282] and evaluated[283], indicating good performance at wavelengths longer than 305 nm. Finally, dosimeters are simple, low-cost, small devices thatmeasure the UV dose electronically [284], chemically [285,286], or both [287], and are further discussed in Sect. 10.5.2. Their accuracy
is typically less than that of high-end spectrometers [288]; however, they are frequently used for exposure studies (Sect. ‎10.5.2) where
they can be easily attached, for example, to the forehead, wrist or clothing of test subjects.
The quality of measurements of UV radiation from these systems or sensors has historically been assessed with intercomparison
campaigns where instruments are either compared with each other or a reference instrument. An example of the latter is a campaign
with 75 participating broadband radiometers with erythemal response [277]. The instruments’ solar measurements were first comparedwith data from the QASUME (Quality Assurance of Spectral Ultraviolet Measurements in Europe) reference spectroradiometer

67

Chapter 1[289]. The QASUME instrument has been used since 2002 to assess the quality of UV radiation measurements from more than 250
spectroradiometers at more than 40 stations worldwide (https://www.pmodwrc.ch/en/world-radiation-center-2/wcc-uv/qasumesite-audits/). New calibrations were subsequently transferred from QASUME to the 75 broadband radiometers. Furthermore, theangular and spectral response of the instruments was measured and functions for correcting deviations from the ideal response were
established. With their original calibration applied, measurements of 32 (43%) of the 75 instruments agreed to within ±5% withmeasurements of the reference spectroradiometer while 48 (64%) agreed to within ±10%. Twenty-seven (35%) datasets deviatedby more than ±10% from the reference and two datasets differed by 70%. After instruments were recalibrated, 73 (97%) of the 75
instruments agreed to within ±5% with the reference. This example demonstrates that proper quality control, quality assurance,and calibration procedures are vital for obtaining accurate measurements of UV radiation. A similar intercomparison involving four
broadband radiometers and a reference spectroradiometer was conducted between March 2018 and February 2019 at Saint-Denis, La
Réunion (21° S) [290]. Data from three of the four instruments agreed to within ±3% with the reference while data from one instrument
exhibited a systematic error of 14%.
Even high-end spectroradiometers require meticulous characterisation and calibration for obtaining measurements with low uncertainty[291]. Finally, the development of a rigorous uncertainty budget (i.e., the calculation, tallying and combination of all uncertainty
components) is a demanding task [292], but is necessary for obtaining high quality data.

10.2

Modelling of UV radiation

The transfer of radiation through the Earth’s atmosphere is affected by absorption and scattering by gases, aerosols, and clouds; thereflection of radiation by the Earth’s surface; and several other factors (Sect. ‎6). These factors are taken into account in computer
simulations of UV radiation by radiative transfer models. Physically correct radiative transfer codes for modelling the UV radiation at
the Earth’s surface have been available for many years [e.g., 293,294-297] and can be considered reliable and mature. Most models
assume that the atmosphere is homogeneous in both horizontal directions and only varies in the vertical direction, but newer models(e.g., [298,299]) that are based on the Monte Carlo technique [300] can also account for the three-dimensional structure of theatmosphere, topography, surface condition (e.g., patchy snow) or illumination geometry (e.g., the inhomogeneous irradiation during asolar eclipse). The greatest challenge in radiative transfer calculations is not the physical description of the transfer of radiation throughthe atmosphere but the specification of the input parameters that interact with radiation and are often not completely known, such as
the single scattering albedo (SSA) of aerosols in the UV-B range or the structure of clouds.
One source of uncertainty in determining the UV radiation at the Earth’s surface with models is the uncertainty of the solar spectrum
outside the Earth’s atmosphere. The extraterrestrial solar spectra (ETS) used in legacy model implementations sometimes differed byseveral percent at certain wavelengths [301,302]. These surprisingly large discrepancies for a fundamental quantity such as the ETS canbe explained by the difficulty in measuring this spectrum. In one method, several solar spectra are observed at the Earth’s surface at
different path lengths of the direct solar beam through the atmosphere. These measurements are then extrapolated using the Langleytechnique [303] to a path length of zero for deriving the ETS. The method is subject to large uncertainties at wavelengths where
atmospheric attenuation is large, such as at wavelengths shorter than 310 nm (where ozone absorbs strongly) or in strong water vapour
absorption bands. Another method is the direct measurement from space. The challenge of this method is to prevent changes in an
instrument’s calibration during transport from the calibration laboratory to space. Both methods have advanced greatly during the lastyears.
Gröbner et al. [304] applied the Langley technique to radiometrically accurate measurements of QASUME (Sect. ‎10.1) and a “Fouriertransform spectroradiometer,” which measures spectra at high resolution, to derive an ETS over the wavelength range of 300–500 nm
with a spectral resolution of 0.025 nm, a wavelength accuracy of 0.01 nm, and a radiometric accuracy of 2% (95% CL) between 310
and 500 nm and 4% at 300 nm. Richard et al. [305] measured the ETS from the International Space Station with the Total and Spectral
Solar Irradiance Sensor / Spectral Irradiance Monitor (TSIS-1 SIM) between 200 and 2,400 nm with an accuracy of 0.5% (95% CL) anda spectral resolution of 5 nm between 280 and 400 nm. The high accuracy is achieved by calibrating the system against a cryogenic
radiometer and monitoring the instrument’s stability in space with an on-board, detector-based reference electrical substitution
radiometer. Finally, by combining the superior spectral resolution of the spectrum by Gröbner et al. [304] with the greater radiometricaccuracy of the TSIS-1 SIM spectrum, Coddington et al. [306] developed a composite spectrum (named TSIS-1 HSRS) with a spectral
resolution of 0.025, a sampling resolution of 0.01 nm and a radiometric accuracy of better than 1.3% (68% CL) at wavelengths shorter
than 400 nm, representative of solar minimum conditions between solar cycles 24 and 25. This spectrum can be considered a new
benchmark for modelling applications.
An important application of radiative transfer models is the calculation of UV irradiances at the Earth’s surface from backscatteredradiances measured by satellites (Sect. 10.3). Typically, measurements at different wavelengths by a single space-based instrument suchas OMI are used to first derive the TCO and then apply corrections to account for the effects of clouds and aerosols [307].

10.3

Satellite observations of UV radiation

The TCO and UV radiation at the ground have been estimated from measurements of various space-borne sensors since the 1970s,
starting with the Backscatter Ultraviolet (BUV) experiment on the Nimbus-4 satellite [308]. These measurements have been continued,
amongst others, by several Solar Backscatter UV (SBUV) instruments [309]; Total Ozone Monitoring Spectrometers (TOMS) [310,311];
Global Ozone Monitoring Experiments (GOME and GOME-2) [312,313]; the Ozone Monitoring Instrument (OMI) [314] on the Aura

68

Chapter 1
satellite; and the Earth Polychromatic Imaging Camera (EPIC) installed on the Deep Space Climate Observatory (DSCOVR), which islocated at the Lagrange Point L1 between the Earth and Sun [315].
Several of these types of instruments have been installed on various satellites. Estimates of UV radiation are derived from backscatteredradiances measured by these sensors and radiative transfer model calculations (Sect. 10.2). Uncertainties of these estimates are typicallylarger than those of UV measurements at the Earth’s surface because the conditions on the ground cannot be completely characterised
from space, in particular in the presence of clouds [316], absorbing aerosols in the boundary layer [317], or snow and ice [318]. The
validation of satellite data with ground-based measurements from many sites has been discussed in our previous assessment [9]. In
general, UV data from satellites are accurate within a few percent under low-aerosol and clear-sky conditions, but can be affected bysystematic errors exceeding 50% for less ideal observing conditions.
Data of UV radiation at the Earth’s surface estimated from satellite observations typically have the spatial resolution of the satellite
sensor (e.g., 13 × 24 km at nadir for OMI) and are typically based on one satellite-measured spectrum per day at low and mid latitudes.
As an alternative, Kosmopoulos et al. [319] have used inputs from various data sources to calculate real-time and forecasted UVIs for
Europe with a spatial and temporal resolution of 5 km and 15 min, respectively. The new data product agrees with measurements at 17
ground-based stations distributed across Europe to within ±0.5 UVI units for 80% of clear-sky and 70% of all-sky conditions. Similarly,
Vuilleumier et al. [320] calculated erythemal irradiance for Switzerland with a spatial resolution of 1.5–2 km and a temporal resolutionof one hour for 2004–2018, using data from several European satellites. A validation of these data with ground-based measurements atthree meteorological stations in Switzerland (Locarno, Payerne, and Davos) indicates that the expanded uncertainty of hourly UVI valuesof the new data products is about 0.3 UVI units for UVI <3 and up to 1.5 UVI units for UVI > 6.
Measurements with OMI started in 2004 and their quality has degraded recently [247]. The future of the Aura spacecraft is uncertain
beyond 2023 [321]. Fortunately, several alternative satellite instruments have become operational within the last years to continue
monitoring of ozone and UV radiation from space. For example, the Ozone Mapping and Profiler Suite (OMPS) [322] is installed on
NOAA’s Suomi NPP (launched in 2011) and the NOAA-20 (launched in 2017) satellites. The TROPOspheric Monitoring Instrument(TROPOMI) [323], which is installed on the Sentinel-5 Precursor satellite (launched in 2017), will continue ozone-monitoring efforts by
the European Space Agency. TROPOMI may also fly on future Sentinel satellites [324]. TROPOMI observations of UV radiation haverecently been compared with ground-based measurements at 25 sites [325]. For snow-free surface conditions, the median relative
difference between UVI measurements by TROPOMI and these ground stations was within ±10% at 18 of 25 sites. For 10 sites, theagreement was at the ±5% level. These differences are comparable to those reported for OMI [316,318,326,327]. Larger differenceswere observed at locations with challenging conditions, such as mountainous areas or sites in the Arctic and Antarctic with variablesnow cover. A comprehensive comparison between OMI and TROPOMI surface UV products is planned [314] to ensure that there is no
step-change in the time series of UV radiation measurements when transitioning from OMI to TROPOMI.
In preparation for new satellite missions (e.g., Sentinel-4 and Sentinel-5 of the European Space Agency), Lipponen et al. [328]developed an approach to assimilate input data from geosynchronous and low Earth orbit satellite measurements with the goal toprovide high-resolution UVI and UV-A data. Zhao and He [329] combined TCO data from OMI with top-of-the-atmosphere reflectancedata from MODIS for quantifying attenuation by clouds and aerosols and surface reflectance data from MODIS and used a machinelearning algorithm to calculate erythemal irradiances at 1 km resolution. The system is trained and tested with UV measurements of
NOAA’s Surface Radiation Budget Network (SURFRAD) and UV data from the United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) UV-B
Monitoring and Research Program. For most stations, calculated and measured data agreed to within ±5% (mean bias calculated frommatch-up data). However, the system was trained with data from the continental United States only, and the fidelity of the method forsites that are different in terms of latitude, ozone climatology, pollution levels, and surface albedo has not yet been demonstrated.

10.4

Forecasting of the UV Index

The UVI is now part of weather forecasts in many countries. National weather services and other agencies use models to predict thediurnal course of the UVI (e.g., every hour) for one or several days into the future (e.g., the Israel Meteorological Service (https://ims.
gov.il/en/UVIHourly), the German Meteorological Service (https://kunden.dwd.de/uvi/index.jsp), and the Copernicus Atmosphere
Monitoring Service (https://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu/observatory/evidence/projections-and-tools/cams-uv-index-forecast).
New methods for improving UVI forecasts have recently been proposed based on an “ensemble member” approach, where a model is
executed multiple times with different initial conditions [330], and a machine learning algorithm [331].

10.5

Personal exposure

Our 2014 and 2018 assessments [9,162] discussed advances in the understanding of personal exposure to ambient solar UV radiationand how personal exposure relates to measurements of UV irradiance, which are typically referenced to a horizontal surface. Exposurestudies address needs for both research and public advice and quantify UV radiation on non-horizontal surfaces, and how the effectsof shade, clothing, and human behaviour affect UV doses in real-world settings. Exposure studies have shown that adults working
outdoors receive only about 10% of the total available annual UV radiation dose while indoor-working adults and children get only about
2–4% of the available UV dose [332,333]. This shows that standard irradiance measurements are a poor proxy for realistic exposures.
While there could be a good correlation between ambient and personal UV dose at the population level, exposure of individuals
depends greatly on lifestyle.

69

Chapter 1
Reviews of a large number of studies on personal exposure to UV radiation during non-occupational [334] and occupational [335]activities concluded that understanding of human exposure to UV radiation has greatly increased during the last 4–5 decades. However,for most activities, our ability to accurately calculate the UV exposure of exposed body sites is still limited for many conditions.

10.5.1 Exposure models
Models of human morphology can quantify the protection afforded by attire, for example, from wearing various hats [336] andsunglasses [337]. These models often use the “predictive protection factor” (PPF), which is akin to the sun protection factor (SPF)
developed for sunscreens, except that the PPF also depends on the direct-to-diffuse ratio of incident radiation. These models may bevalidated using mannequin torsos or heads equipped with UV sensors [338]. The sky view factor derived from all-sky imagery in thevisible range together with the calculated clear-sky UV irradiance has recently been utilised to accurately estimate UV irradiance inpartially shaded settings [339].
Doses of erythemal radiation received by the human body during holidays at the beach have recently been modelled [340]. Taking into
account all confounding factors affecting exposure (e.g., clothing, behaviour, photo-protection), these models predict that the forearm
typically receives about 170 standard erythemal doses (SED) in a week, which is comparable with the average annual exposure of acitizen in Europe or North America. Furthermore, for a full day sun-bathing at the beach or pool, multiple body sites can receive morethan 50 SED.

10.5.2 Personal dosimetry
The three types of dosimeters previously identified [162]—polysulphone (a plastic film that changes its transmission following exposure
to UV radiation), biofilm, and electronic devices—are still in use, and their relative merits in different contexts have recently beenreviewed [341,342]. These measurement technologies were further described in a review that also proposes a future course fordevelopment and regulation of wearable UV sensors [343].
Some authors [e.g., 344] distinguish between “radiometers,” which give an instantaneous flux reading such as the UVI, and“dosimeters,” which measure cumulative dose such as the standard erythemal dose (SED). However, the distinction is irrelevant for
many electronic sensors, which measure flux but also accumulate it electronically. The same can apply to photochromic sensors incombination with smartphones or other electronic logging. Hereafter we use the term “dosimeter” for all types of sensors.
The history and characteristics of polysulphone dosimeters have been reviewed by one of their pioneers [285]. They are usefulwhenever water resistance is necessary, as in a study of triathletes [286]. Alternative photochromic sensors have been developed using
the photodegradable dye DTEC46 [345] and xanthomattin [344].
A new development of a biofilm dosimeter that mimics the photoreaction resulting in previtamin D3 synthesis in human skin has recently
been presented [346]. Biofilm sensors of a similar type were used to measure exposure to UV radiation of lifeguards, demonstrating that
this group receives high doses of erythemal UV radiation, averaging over 6 SEDs per day [347].
Electronic dosimeters have some advantages for research involving personal dosimetry compared to other sensors. They can beengineered to have a spectral responsivity and a directional response approaching those of research-grade radiometers measuring
erythemal irradiance [284]. The time resolution and ability to interface wirelessly with smartphones allows feedback to users, andhas supported research on how such information can influence sun exposure amongst melanoma survivors [348], dockworkers andfishermen [349], or young adults in general [350]. In a small study of outdoor workers in Romania, dosimeters measured up to 6 SEDs
per day and led the authors to suggest that UV dosimeters should be compulsory for outdoor workers, similar to personal dosimetry forionising radiation in relevant professions [351].
A 14-year study with electronic dosimeters showed that participants that are in continued employment maintained their sun exposure
behaviour, retirees increased their exposure, and high school students reduced their exposure when starting work [352]. Additional
exposure studies confirmed expectations that outdoor workers [351]; participants in triathlons [286]; and elite surfers, windsurfers, andOlympic sailors [353] are at high risk of overexposure to UV radiation. In general, staying outdoors for long periods, even at low UV
irradiance levels, can result in risk of damage from UV radiation [232].
Airline pilots have long been known to have twice the incidence rate of malignant melanoma and keratinocyte skin cancers than thegeneral population, but UV-B radiation is almost entirely blocked by cockpit windows [354]. Other factors explaining this elevated risk
of skin cancer, like ionising radiation and disrupted circadian rhythms, have been largely ruled out.
Measurements with dosimeters that are sensitive to both erythemal and UV-A radiation suggested that cockpit windows are partiallytransparent to UV-A radiation and pilots are therefore exposed to levels of UV-A radiation that exceed guidelines for eye protection
established by ICNIRP [355], in particular if sunglasses are not worn or visors are not deployed [356].

46

70(2Z,6Z)-2,6-bis(2-(2,6-diphenyl-4H-thiopyran-4-ylidene)ethylidene)cyclohexanone

Chapter 1

10.5.3 Low-cost / crowd-sourced sensors and cell phone apps
Our last assessment [9] described a wide range of new tools for research and for getting information to users, including electronic
sensors, photochromic films with associated software, and forecasts or “nowcasts” of UV radiation using cell phone apps. A review
of developments in this area [357] describes the promise of these new technologies, but a comparison of UV radiation reported bycell phone apps with actual UV measurements found that many of these apps have poor accuracy [358]. For example, of the six apps
reviewed in this study, only one was able to predict the actual UVI to within ±30% in most cases. A further miniaturisation of sensors
to millimetre scale with wireless communication to standard consumer devices [359] will widen the scope of how these sensors canbe deployed. Other studies have also shown that useful personal exposures to UV radiation can be achieved from satellite-based UV
radiation estimates combined with exposure ratio modelling to account for individual factors [360] or by leveraging UV data from local
research stations [361].

11 Action spectra
Action spectra describe the wavelength dependence of biological effects caused by UV radiation. A biological effect is quantified byfirst multiplying the action spectrum for this effect by the spectrum of the incident irradiance and then integrating this product overwavelength. The result is the biologically effective UV irradiance, UVBE. Most action spectra decrease by several orders of magnitude
towards longer wavelengths in the UV-B range. Since solar spectra increase by a similar amount in this wavelength range, a given
biological effect is very sensitive to the wavelength intervals within the UV-B range over which this decrease (action spectrum) or
increase (solar spectrum) occurs. This implies that action spectra must be very accurately measured.
The most widely used action spectrum is that for erythema [10], which is the basis of UVI calculations. In sunlight, the strongest
contribution to erythema is from UV-B wavelengths, peaking near 307 nm. UV-A wavelengths also contribute, especially at the shorterend of the UV-A region (e.g., 315–340 nm). A small-scale study with 10 participants [362] found clinically perceptible erythema after
exposure to UV radiation in the 370–400 nm range plus visible light (400–700 nm), confirming that longer UV-A wavelengths can also
cause erythema. The study also suggests that the erythema action spectrum, which is currently defined only up to 400 nm [10], should
possibly be extended into the visible range. This finding is also supported by a recent assessment by Diffey and Osterwalder [363].
Another important action spectrum for human health defines the wavelength dependence of the conversion of 7-dehydrocholesterolin the skin to previtamin D3, which is subsequently transformed to the active form of vitamin D (1,25-dihydroxycholecalciferol or
calcitriol) involving isomerisation and hydroxylations in the skin, liver, and kidneys. This spectrum was measured 40 years ago [364]and was standardised by the International Commission on Illumination (CIE) [365] by interpolating the original data, plus extending
the end of the spectrum from 315 nm to 330 nm via an exponential extrapolation. The spectrum has been widely used for developing
recommendations for optimal solar exposure [179]; however, its validity has been questioned [179,366]. Specifically, the CIE standard[365] is based on a scanned figure from a single publication that does not include a complete description of the experiment such as
the UV doses used. Furthermore, the source used for irradiation had a large bandwidth of 5 nm, which leads to noticeable broadeningof the spectrum, and the extrapolation from 315 to 330 nm is questionable because there are no experimental data in this wavelength
range.
Young et al. [367] have recently provided evidence that shifting the CIE action spectrum for previtamin D3 synthesis by 5 nm to shorter
wavelengths (Fig. 10) would produce a more realistic action spectrum for the production of previtamin D3 in human skin. They exposed
75 volunteers to five lamp spectra with different spectral composition, and correlated the observed increase in serum 25(OH)D levels(the form of vitamin D used to assess vitamin D status) with the effective UV irradiance, UVBE. The action spectrum for calculating UVBE
was either the CIE spectrum in its unaltered form or a variant shifted in wavelength. The shift by 5 nm is plausible because the absorption
spectrum of 7-dehydrocholesterol is also found to be shifted by about 5 nm to shorter wavelengths relative to the CIE action spectrum,
even after adjusting for the spectral transmission of the skin’s outermost layer, the stratum corneum [366]. Furthermore, results obtainedwith the shifted action spectrum are consistent with calculations using alternative vitamin D action spectra proposed by Bolsée et al.
[368], Olds [369], and van Dijk et al. [370], which are also shifted to shorter wavelengths relative to the CIE spectrum. These results
suggest that the CIE standard [365] may need revision. However, the spectral change of solar spectra observed on the Earth (e.g.,
the difference between summer at the equator and winter in the Northern Hemisphere) is smaller than the difference in the spectral
composition of the various artificial light sources used in the new experiment. The effect of the shift is therefore less important for natural
sunlight, leading to the conclusion by Young et al. [367] that the CIE action spectrum (with no shift) remains adequate for risk-benefit
calculations and the development of recommendations for healthy solar exposure. Along the same line, a recent assessment [371]concluded that the current CIE action spectrum [365] probably needs to be amended, but that it is acceptable to continue using thisaction spectrum for risk-benefits assessments until that work is completed.

71

Chapter 1
An action spectrum for the inhibition of SARS-CoV-2 (the virus responsible for the COVID-19 disease) was recently measured. This
spectrum is discussed in Chapter 2 [2].

10
Relative effect

10

10

CIE erythema action spectrum (1998)
CIE previtamin D action spectrum (2006)
CIE previtamin D action spectrum (2006),
shifted by 5 nm to shorter wavelengths

-1

-2

10
10

0

-3

-4

280

300

320

340

360

Wavelength [nm]

380

400

Fig. 10 Comparison of CIE action spectra for erythema [10] and the cutaneous synthesis of previtamin D3 [365]. The effect of a
5-nm blue shift on the previtamin D3 action spectrum is also shown.

12 Gaps in knowledge
Our assessment identified the following gaps in knowledge:• Most ODSs are also GHGs and have a large effect on global warming. However, since ozone is also a GHG, depletion of ozone
caused by ODSs has a cooling effect (Sect. 4.2). The net effect on temperatures at the Earth’s surface resulting from the direct(warming) effect of ODSs and the indirect (cooling) effect from ozone depletion induced by ODSs is uncertain because climate
models disagree on the magnitude of the latter effect. While the balance of all studies suggests that the Montreal Protocol is highly
effective in limiting temperature rise at the Earth’s surface, the magnitude of the effect remains uncertain.
• The effect of Antarctic ozone depletion on changes in sea ice surrounding Antarctica is not well understood.
• The effect of the Antarctic ozone hole on summertime weather in the Southern Hemisphere is uncertain. In particular, it is difficult toquantify if changes in weather are more affected by the year-to-year variability of the polar vortex, which is partly driven by changes
in sea surface temperature of the Southern Ocean, or by the actual depletion of ozone within the vortex. It is also not clear how the
coupling between the stratosphere and troposphere in weak vortex conditions will evolve under ozone recovery.
• While several studies have identified correlations between Arctic ozone changes and weather in the Northern Hemisphere,
knowledge on how these linkages are mediated is incomplete.
• The paucity of measurements of the properties of aerosols in the UV-B range hampers our ability to accurately assess the effects
of aerosols on a global scale as well as for urban regions. While efforts to improve this situation are underway—for example,
EUBREWNET has recently started to provide AOD in the wavelength range from 306 to 320 nm (Sect. 6.1)—aerosol data in the UV-B
range are currently available only for a few locations.
• Atmospheric blocking systems (stagnant high- or low-pressure synoptic systems) can cause week-long anomalies of UV radiation.
It is not well understood how climate change may alter the frequency, persistence, and geographical extent and location of theseblocking patterns, and their effect on UV radiation.

72

Chapter 1• One of the largest uncertainties in projecting changes to ozone and UV radiation during the 21st century is the evolution of GHG
trajectories, which mostly depend on policy decisions and societal behaviour.
• Uncertainties in projections of UV radiation arising from incomplete knowledge of future changes in aerosol and cloud opticalproperties are significant.
• The number of stations with high-quality spectral UV measurements has been declining during the last decade and the funding formany of the remaining stations is uncertain. If this trend continues, the scientific community may lose the ability to assess changes
of UV radiation at the Earth’s surface and associated impacts, in order to verify new satellite UV data products with ground-based
observations and to validate model projections.

13 Conclusions
Virtually all studies published during the last four years confirmed that changes in UV radiation (typically assessed with the UVI) during
the last 25 years have been small: less than 4% per decade for the UVI at the majority of ground stations, increasing at some sites anddecreasing at others. Changes in the UVI outside the polar regions over the last 2–3 decades were mainly governed by variations inclouds, aerosols, and surface reflectivity (for snow- or ice-covered areas), while changes in TCO are less important. Variability in the UVI
in Antarctica continued to be very large. In spring 2019, the UVI was at the minimum of the historical (1991–2018) range at the South
Pole, while near record-high values were observed in spring 2020 and 2021, which were up to 80% above the historical mean. In
the Arctic, some of the highest UV-B irradiances on record were measured in March and April 2020. For example in March 2020, themonthly average UVI over the Canadian Arctic was up to 70% higher than the historical (2005–2019) average, often exceeding thismean by three standard deviations.
Without the Montreal Protocol, the UVI at northern and southern latitudes of less than 50° would have increased by 10–20% between
1996 and 2020. For southern latitudes exceeding 50°, the UVI would have surged by between 25% (year-round at the southern tip ofSouth America) and more than 100% (South Pole in spring).
Under the presumption that all countries will adhere to the Montreal Protocol in the future and that atmospheric aerosol concentrations
remain constant, the UVI at mid-latitudes (30–60°) is projected to decrease between 2015 and 2090 by 2–5% in the north and by 4–6%
in the south due to recovering ozone. Changes projected for the tropics are smaller than 3%.
Since most substances controlled by the Montreal Protocol are also greenhouse gases, the phase-out of these substances may haveavoided warming by 0.5 to 1.0 °C over mid-latitude regions of the continents, and by more than 1.0 °C in the Arctic. ODSs contributed
one-half of the forced Arctic sea ice loss in the latter half of the 20th century. The uncertainty of changes in temperature and sea ice
simulated by these models is still large.
Assessing the Montreal Protocol’s impact on solar UV radiation and climate, and their interaction, is impeded by several gaps inknowledge. The net temperature change at the Earth’s surface resulting from the direct (warming) effect of ODSs and the indirect(cooling) effect from ozone depletion is uncertain, because climate models disagree on the magnitude of the latter effect. While allstudies support the role of the Montreal Protocol in limiting global warming, the magnitude of increases in temperatures that were
averted remains uncertain. There is evidence that in both hemispheres polar ozone depletion in spring has an influence on weather;
however, the mechanisms and magnitude of the effect are not fully understood. The lack of measurements of absorption properties
of aerosols in the UV-B range hinders the assessment of the aerosols’ impact on UV-B radiation. One of the largest uncertainties
in projecting changes in UV radiation during the 21st century is the incomplete knowledge of how GHGs will increase over time.
Uncertainties in UV projections arising from inadequate understanding of future changes in aerosols and clouds are also significant.
Our assessment addresses several United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and their targets (https://sdgs.un.org/
goals). Owing to the Montreal Protocol, large increases in UV-B radiation have been avoided and global warming reduced. By assessing
how ozone depletion affects climate change, we contribute to SDGs 13.1 (strengthen resilience to climate-related hazards and disasters)
and 13.2 (integrate climate change measures into policy, strategy and planning). Furthermore, by providing up-to-date informationon the interactive effects of ozone depletion on UV radiation and climate, both in this assessment and the companion document titled“Questions and Answers about the effects of ozone depletion on humans and the environment” we address SDGs 13.3 (improveeducation on climate-change mitigation) and 17.14 (enhance policy coherence for sustainable development).

73

Chapter 1

List of abbreviations

74

AAO		

Antarctic Oscillation

AeroCom		

Aerosol Comparisons between Observations and Models

AERONET		

Aerosol Robotic Network

AO		

Arctic Oscillation

AOD		

aerosol optical depthasl		

above sea level

BUV		

Backscatter Ultraviolet

CAMS		

Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service

CAVA		

Central American Volcanic Arc

CCM		

chemistry-climate model

CCMI		

Chemistry-Climate Model Initiative

CFC		

Chlorofluorocarbon

CIE		

Commission Internationale de l’ Éclairage (Eng.: International Commission on Illumination)CL		confidence level

CMIP6		

Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6

COVID-19		

Coronavirus disease 2019DSCOVR		

Deep Space Climate Observatory

DTEC		((2Z,6Z)-2,6-bis(2-(2,6-diphenyl-4H-thiopyran-4-ylidene)ethylidene)cyclohexanone

EEAP		

Environmental Effects Assessment Panel

EMAC		
		European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts–Hamburg (ECHAM)/Modular Earth Submodel System 			(MESSy) Atmospheric Chemistry model

ENSO		El Niño-Southern Oscillation

EPIC		

Earth Polychromatic Imaging Camera

EPP		

energetic particle precipitation

ERA		ECMWF (European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecast) Re-Analysis

ETS		

Extraterrestrial (solar) spectrum

EUBREWNET

European Brewer Network

GeoMIP		

Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project

GHG		

Greenhouse gas

GLENS		

Geoengineering Large Ensemble

GOME		

Global Ozone Monitoring ExperimentGPH		

geopotential height

GWP		

global warming potential

HSRS

Hybrid Solar Reference Spectrum

ICNIRPInternational Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection

IPCC

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

MODIS

Moderate Resolution Imaging SpectroradiometerNASA

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (of the United States)

NDACC

Network for the Detection of Atmospheric Composition Change

NH

Northern Hemisphere

NIWA		

National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research (of New Zealand)

NOAA		

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (of the United States)

NPP		

National Polar-orbiting Partnership

NSF		

National Science Foundation (of the United States)

ODS		

ozone-depleting substances

OMI		

Ozone Monitoring Instrument

OMPS		

Ozone Mapping and Profiler Suite

Chapter 1PAR		

photosynthetically active radiation (400-700 nm)

PM2.5		

particulate matter 2.5 (fine inhalable particles, with diameters that are generally 2.5 µm or smaller)

PPF		

predictive protection factor

PSC		

polar stratospheric clouds

QASUME		

Quality Assurance of Spectral Ultraviolet Measurements in Europe

QBO		

quasi-biennial oscillation

RAF		

Radiation Amplification Factor

RCP		

Representative Concentration Pathways

RF		

Radiative forcing

RSHU		

Russian State Hydrometeorological University

SAI		

stratospheric aerosol injection

SAM		

Southern Annular Mode

SAP		

Scientific Assessment Panel

SARS-CoV-2

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2

SBUV		

Solar Backscatter Ultraviolet Radiometer

SED		standard erythemal dose

SH

Southern Hemisphere

		

SIM		

Spectral Irradiance Monitor

SPE		

solar proton eventsSPF		

sun protection factor

SRM		

solar radiation management

SSA		

single scattering albedo

SSP		

Shared Socioeconomic Pathways

SST		

sea surface temperature

SSW		

sudden stratospheric warming

SURFRAD		

Surface Radiation Budget Network

SZA		

solar zenith angle

TEMIS		

Tropospheric Emission Monitoring Internet Service

TCO		

total column ozone

TOMS		

Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer

TROPOMI		

Tropospheric Monitoring Instrument

TSI		

total solar irradiance

TSIS		

Total and Spectral Solar Irradiance Sensor

UNEP		

United Nations Environment Programme

USDA		

United States Department of Agriculture

UV		

Ultraviolet (100–400 nm)

UV-A		

Ultraviolet-A (315–400 nm)

UV-B		

Ultraviolet-B (280–315 nm)

UV-C		

Ultraviolet-C (100–280 nm)

UVI		Ultraviolet Index

VIS		Visible (radiation)

VSLS		

very short-lived substances

WMO		

World Meteorological Organization

Acknowledgements Generous contributions by UNEP/Ozone Secretariat were provided for the convened author meeting. GHB acknowledges
travel funding provided by the U.S. Global Change Research Program. AFB’s contribution was partly supported by research funds of the Laboratory ofAtmospheric Physics, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece. Figures 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, and 9 were reprinted or adapted from sources published under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0; https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Author contributions All authors contributed to the conception and assessment and carried out extensive revisions of content.
Conflict of interest The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

75

Chapter 1

References76

1.

Neale, R. E., Lucas, R. M., Byrne, S., Hollestein, L., Rhodes, L. E., Yasar, S., Young, A. R., Ireland, R., & Olsen, C. M. (2022). The
effects of exposure to solar radiation on human health. Chapter 3

2.

Bernhard, G. H., Madronich, S., M., L. R., Byrne, S. N., Schikowski, T., & Neale, R. E. (2022). Linkages between COVID-19, solar
UV radiation, and the Montreal Protocol. Chapter 2

3.

Barnes, P. W., Robson, T. M., Zepp, R. G., Bornman, J. F., Jansen, M. A. K., Ossola, R., Wang, Q.-W., Robinson, S. A., Foereid, B.,
Klekociuk, A. R., Martinez-Abaigar, J., Hou, W. C., & Paul, N. D. (2022). Interactive effects of changes in UV radiation and climate
on terrestrial ecosystems, biogeochemical cycles, and feedbacks to the climate system. Chapter 4

4.

Neale, P. J., Williamson, C. E., Banaszak, A. T., Häder, D. P., Hylander, S., Ossola, R., Rose, K. A., Wängberg, S.-Å., & Zepp, R. G.
(2022). The response of aquatic ecosystems to the interactive effects of stratospheric ozone depletion, UV radiation, and climatechange. Chapter 55.

Madronich, S., Sulzberger, B., Longstreth, J., Schikowski, T., Andersen, M. P. S., Solomon, K. R., & Wilson, S. R. (2022). Changes
in tropospheric air quality related to the protection of stratospheric ozone and a changing climate. Chapter 66.

Andrady, A. L., Heikkila, A. M., Pandey, K. K., Bruckman, L. S., White, C. C., Zhu, M., & Zhu, L. (2022). Effects of UV radiation on
natural and synthetic materials. Chapter 7

7.

Jansen, M. A. K., Barnes, P. W., Bornman, J. F., Rose, K. A., Madronich, S., White, C. C., Zepp, R. G., & Andrady, A. L. (2023). The
Montreal Protocol and the fate of environmental plastic debris. Chapter 88.

United Nations. (1987). Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. United Nations Treaty Series, Number
1522. https://treaties.un.org/Pages/showDetails.aspx?objid=080000028003f7f7

9.

Bais, A. F., Bernhard, G., McKenzie, R. L., Aucamp, P. J., Young, P. J., Ilyas, M., Jockel, P., & Deushi, M. (2019). Ozone-climate
interactions and effects on solar ultraviolet radiation. Photochemical & Photobiological Sciences, 18(3), 602–640. https://doi.
org/10.1039/c8pp90059k

10.

CIE. (1998). Erythema reference action spectrum and standard erythema dose. CIE Standard Bureau, Vol. ISO 17166:1999(E),CIE DS 007.1/E-1998. Commission Internationale de l’Eclairage, Vienna, Austria.

11.

WMO. (2022). Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2022, GAW Report No. 278. World Meteorological Organization,
Geneva, Switzerland. https://ozone.unep.org/science/assessment/sap

12.

Weber, M., Arosio, C., Coldewey-Egbers, M., Fioletov, V. E., Frith, S. M., Wild, J. D., Tourpali, K., Burrows, J. P., & Loyola, D.
(2022). Global total ozone recovery trends attributed to ozone-depleting substance (ODS) changes derived from five mergedozone datasets. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 22(10), 6843-6859. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-6843-2022

13.

WMO. (2018). Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2018, Global Ozone Research and Monitoring Project-Report No. 58,
588 pp., Geneva, Switzerland, https://ozone.unep.org/science/assessment/sap

14.

Steinbrecht, W., Hegglin, M. I., Harris, N., & Weber, M. (2018). Is global ozone recovering? Comptes Rendus Geoscience,
350(7), 368-375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crte.2018.07.012

15.

Solomon, S., Ivy, D. J., Kinnison, D., Mills, M. J., Neely, R. R., & Schmidt, A. (2016). Emergence of healing in the Antarctic ozone
layer. Science, 353(6296), 269-274. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aae0061

16.

Kuttippurath, J., Kumar, P., Nair, P. J., & Pandey, P. C. (2018). Emergence of ozone recovery evidenced by reduction in theoccurrence of Antarctic ozone loss saturation. npj Climate and Atmospheric Science, 1(1), 42. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41612018-0052-6

17.

Pazmiño, A., Godin-Beekmann, S., Hauchecorne, A., Claud, C., Khaykin, S., Goutail, F., Wolfram, E., Salvador, J., & Quel, E.
(2018). Multiple symptoms of total ozone recovery inside the Antarctic vortex during austral spring. Atmospheric Chemistry andPhysics, 18(10), 7557-7572. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-7557-201818.

Tully, M. B., Krummel, P. B., & Klekociuk, A. R. (2019). Trends in Antarctic ozone hole metrics 2001–17. Journal of Southern
Hemisphere Earth Systems Science, 69(1), 52-56. https://doi.org/10.1071/es19020

19.

Bodeker, G. E., & Kremser, S. (2021). Indicators of Antarctic ozone depletion: 1979 to 2019. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics,
21(7), 5289-5300. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-5289-2021

20.

Kramarova, N., Newman, P. A., Nash, E. R., Strahan, S. E., Long, C. S., Johnson, B., Pitts, M., Santee, M. L., Petropavlovskikh, I.,
Coy, L., de Laat, J., Bernhard, G. H., Stierle, S., & Lakkala, K. (2021). 2020 Antarctic ozone hole. In J. Blunden, & T. Boyer (Eds.),“State of the Climate in 2020”, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 102(8), S345–S349. https://doi.org/10.1175/
BAMS-D-21-0081.1

Chapter 1
21.

Zambri, B., Solomon, S., Thompson, D. W. J., & Fu, Q. (2021). Emergence of Southern Hemisphere stratospheric circulation
changes in response to ozone recovery. Nature Geoscience, 14(9), 638-644. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-021-00803-3

22.

Kramarova, N., Newman, P. A., Nash, E. R., Strahan, S. E., Long, C. S., Johnson, B., Pitts, M., Santee, M. L., Petropavlovskikh, I.,
Coy, L., & de Laat, J. (2020). 2019 Antarctic ozone hole. In J. Blunden, & D. S. Arndt (Eds.), “State of the Climate in 2019”, Bulletinof the American Meteorological Society, 101(8), S310-S312. https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-20-0090.1

23.

Milinevsky, G., Evtushevsky, O., Klekociuk, A., Wang, Y., Grytsai, A., Shulga, V., & Ivaniha, O. (2019). Early indications ofanomalous behaviour in the 2019 spring ozone hole over Antarctica. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 41(19), 7530-7540.
https://doi.org/10.1080/2150704X.2020.1763497

24.

Shen, X., Wang, L., & Osprey, S. (2020). Tropospheric forcing of the 2019 Antarctic sudden stratospheric warming. GeophysicalResearch Letters, 47(20). https://doi.org/10.1029/2020gl089343

25.

Yamazaki, Y., Matthias, V., Miyoshi, Y., Stolle, C., Siddiqui, T., Kervalishvili, G., Laštovička, J., Kozubek, M., Ward, W., Themens,
D. R., Kristoffersen, S., & Alken, P. (2020). September 2019 Antarctic sudden stratospheric warming: quasi-6-Day wave burst andionospheric effects. Geophysical Research Letters, 47(1). https://doi.org/10.1029/2019gl086577

26.

Safieddine, S., Bouillon, M., Paracho, A. C., Jumelet, J., Tencé, F., Pazmino, A., Goutail, F., Wespes, C., Bekki, S., Boynard, A.,
Hadji-Lazaro, J., Coheur, P. F., Hurtmans, D., & Clerbaux, C. (2020). Antarctic ozone enhancement during the 2019 sudden
stratospheric warming event. Geophysical Research Letters, 47(14). https://doi.org/10.1029/2020gl087810

27.

Stone, K. A., Solomon, S., Kinnison, D. E., & Mills, M. J. (2021). On recent large Antarctic ozone holes and ozone recovery
metrics. Geophysical Research Letters, 48(22). https://doi.org/10.1029/2021gl095232

28.

Yook, S., Thompson, D. W. J., & Solomon, S. (2022). Climate impacts and potential drivers of the unprecedented Antarctic ozone
holes of 2020 and 2021. Geophysical Research Letters, 49(10). https://doi.org/10.1029/2022gl098064

29.

Barnes, P.W., Robson, T.M., Neale, P.J., Williamson, C.E., Madronich, S., Wilson, S.R., Heikkilä, A.M., Bernhard, G.H., Bais, A.F.,
Neale, R.E., Bornman, J. F., Jansen, M. A. K., Klekociuk, A. R., Martinez-Abaigar, J., Robinson, S.A., Wang, Q.-W., Banaszak, A.T.,
Häder, D.-P., Hylander, S., Rose, K.C., Wängberg, S.-Å., Føreid, B., Hou, W.-C., Ossola, R., Paul, N.D., Ukpebor, J.E., Andersen,
M.P.S., Longstreth, J., Schikowski, T., Solomon, K.R., Sulzberger, B., Bruckman, L.S., Pandey, K.K., Zhu, L. & Zhu, M., Aucamp,
P.J., Liley, J.B., McKenzie, R.L., Berwick, M., Byrne, S.N., Hollestein, L. M., Lucas, R.M., Olsen, C.M., Rhodes, L.E., Yazar, S., &Young, A.R. (2022). Environmental effects of stratospheric ozone depletion, UV radiation, and interactions with climate change:
UNEP Environmental Effects Assessment Panel, Update 2021. Photochemical & Photobiological Sciences, 21, 275–301. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43630-022-00176-530.

Zhuo, Z., Kirchner, I., Pfahl, S., & Cubasch, U. (2021). Climate impact of volcanic eruptions: the sensitivity to eruption season
and latitude in MPI-ESM ensemble experiments. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 21(17), 13425-13442. https://doi.
org/10.5194/acp-21-13425-2021

31.

Klekociuk, A. R., Tully, M. B., Krummel, P. B., Henderson, S. I., Smale, D., Querel, R., Nichol, S., Alexander, S. P., Fraser, P. J., &Nedoluha, G. (2022). The Antarctic ozone hole during 2020. Journal of Southern Hemisphere Earth Systems Science, 72(1), 1937. https://doi.org/10.1071/es21015

32.

Ivanciu, I., Matthes, K., Wahl, S., Harlaß, J., & Biastoch, A. (2021). Effects of prescribed CMIP6 ozone on simulating the Southern
Hemisphere atmospheric circulation response to ozone depletion. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 21(8), 5777-5806.
https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-5777-2021

33.

Strahan, S. E., Douglass, A. R., & Damon, M. R. (2019). Why do Antarctic ozone recovery trends vary? Journal of GeophysicalResearch: Atmospheres, 124(15), 8837-8850. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019jd030996

34.

Cordero, R. R., Feron, S., Damiani, A., Redondas, A., Carrasco, J., Sepúlveda, E., Jorquera, J., Fernandoy, F., Llanillo, P., Rowe, P.
M., & Seckmeyer, G. (2022). Persistent extreme ultraviolet irradiance in Antarctica despite the ozone recovery onset. Scientific
Reports, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-05449-8

35.

Manney, G. L., Livesey, N. J., Santee, M. L., Froidevaux, L., Lambert, A., Lawrence, Z. D., Millán, L. F., Neu, J. L., Read, W. G.,
Schwartz, M. J., & Fuller, R. A. (2020). Record-low Arctic stratospheric ozone in 2020: MLS observations of chemical processes
and comparisons with previous extreme winters. Geophysical Research Letters, 47(16). https://doi.org/10.1029/2020gl089063

36.

Lawrence, Z. D., Perlwitz, J., Butler, A. H., Manney, G. L., Newman, P. A., Lee, S. H., & Nash, E. R. (2020). The remarkably strong
Arctic stratospheric polar vortex of winter 2020: Links to record-breaking Arctic oscillation and ozone loss. Journal of GeophysicalResearch: Atmospheres, 125(22), e2020JD033271. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JD033271

37.

Manney, G. L., Santee, M. L., Rex, M., Livesey, N. J., Pitts, M. C., Veefkind, P., Nash, E. R., Wohltmann, I., Lehmann, R.,
Froidevaux, L., Poole, L. R., Schoeberl, M. R., Haffner, D. P., Davies, J., Dorokhov, V., Gernandt, H., Johnson, B., Kivi, R., Kyrö,
E., Larsen, N., et al. (2011). Unprecedented Arctic ozone loss in 2011. Nature, 478(7370), 469-475. https://doi.org/10.1038/
nature10556

38.

Varotsos, C. A., Efstathiou, M. N., & Christodoulakis, J. (2020). The lesson learned from the unprecedented ozone hole in the
Arctic in 2020; a novel nowcasting tool for such extreme events. Journal of atmospheric and solar-terrestrial physics, 207,
105330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jastp.2020.105330

77Chapter 1

78

39.

Dameris, M., Loyola, D. G., Nützel, M., Coldewey-Egbers, M., Lerot, C., Romahn, F., & van Roozendael, M. (2021). Record
low ozone values over the Arctic in boreal spring 2020. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 21(2), 617-633. https://doi.
org/10.5194/acp-21-617-2021

40.

Grooß, J. U., & Müller, R. (2021). Simulation of Record Arctic Stratospheric Ozone Depletion in 2020. Journal of GeophysicalResearch: Atmospheres, 126(12). https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JD033339

41.

Wohltmann, I., Gathen, P., Lehmann, R., Maturilli, M., Deckelmann, H., Manney, G. L., Davies, J., Tarasick, D., Jepsen, N., Kivi, R.,
Lyall, N., & Rex, M. (2020). Near complete local reduction of Arctic stratospheric ozone by severe chemical loss in spring 2020.
Geophysical Research Letters, 47, e2020GL089547. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020gl089547

42.

Lee, S. H. (2021). The January 2021 sudden stratospheric warming. Weather, 76(4), 135-136. https://doi.org/10.1002/
wea.3966

43.

Lu, Q., Rao, J., Liang, Z., Guo, D., Luo, J., Liu, S., Wang, C., & Wang, T. (2021). The sudden stratospheric warming in January 2021.
Environmental Research Letters, 16(8), 084029. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac12f4

44.

Lee, S. H., & Butler, A. H. (2019). The 2018–2019 Arctic stratospheric polar vortex. Weather, 75(2), 52-57. https://doi.
org/10.1002/wea.3643

45.

Butchart, N., & Remsberg, E. E. (1986). The area of the stratospheric polar vortex as a diagnostic for tracer transport
on an isentropic surface. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 43(13), 1319-1339. https://doi.org/10.1175/15200469(1986)0432.0.CO;2

46.

Bernhard, G., Fioletov, V., Grooß, J.-U., Ialongo, I., Johnsen, B., Lakkala, K., Manney, G., & Müller, R. (2020). Ozone andUV radiation. In J. Richter-Menge, & M. L. Druckenmiller (Eds.), “State of the Climate in 2019”, Bulletin of the American
Meteorological Society, 101(8), S274-S277. https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-20-0086.1

47.

Bernhard, G., Fioletov, V., Grooß, J.-U., Ialongo, I., Johnsen, B., Lakkala, K., Manney, G., & Müller, R. (2022). Ozone andUV radiation. In R. Thoman, M. L. Druckenmiller, & T. Moon (Eds.), “State of the Climate in 2021”, Bulletin of the American
Meteorological Society, 103(9), S293-S296. https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-22-0082.1

48.

Feng, W., Dhomse, S. S., Arosio, C., Weber, M., Burrows, J. P., Santee, M. L., & Chipperfield, M. P. (2021). Arctic ozone depletionin 2019/20: Roles of chemistry, dynamics and the Montreal Protocol. Geophysical Research Letters, 48(4). https://doi.
org/10.1029/2020GL091911

49.

von der Gathen, P., Kivi, R., Wohltmann, I., Salawitch, R. J., & Rex, M. (2021). Climate change favours large seasonal loss of Arctic
ozone. Nature Communications, 12(1), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-24089-6

50.

Langematz, U. (2018). Future ozone in a changing climate. Comptes Rendus Geoscience, 350(7), 403-409. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.crte.2018.06.015

51.

Oberländer, S., Langematz, U., & Meul, S. (2013). Unraveling impact factors for future changes in the Brewer-Dobson circulation.
Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 118(18), 10,296-210,312. https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrd.50775

52.

Klobas, J. E., Weisenstein, D. K., Salawitch, R. J., & Wilmouth, D. M. (2020). Reformulating the bromine alpha factor andequivalent effective stratospheric chlorine (EESC): evolution of ozone destruction rates of bromine and chlorine in future climate
scenarios. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 20(15), 9459-9471. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-9459-2020

53.

Falk, S., Sinnhuber, B.-M., Krysztofiak, G., Jöckel, P., Graf, P., & Lennartz, S. T. (2017). Brominated VSLS and their influence onozone under a changing climate. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 17(18), 11313-11329. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-1711313-201754.

Keeble, J., Hassler, B., Banerjee, A., Checa-Garcia, R., Chiodo, G., Davis, S., Eyring, V., Griffiths, P. T., Morgenstern, O., Nowack,P., Zeng, G., Zhang, J., Bodeker, G., Burrows, S., Cameron-Smith, P., Cugnet, D., Danek, C., Deushi, M., Horowitz, L. W., Kubin,A., et al. (2021). Evaluating stratospheric ozone and water vapour changes in CMIP6 models from 1850 to 2100. Atmospheric
Chemistry and Physics, 21(6), 5015-5061. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-5015-2021

55.

Meinshausen, M., Nicholls, Z. R. J., Lewis, J., Gidden, M. J., Vogel, E., Freund, M., Beyerle, U., Gessner, C., Nauels, A., Bauer, N.,
Canadell, J. G., Daniel, J. S., John, A., Krummel, P. B., Luderer, G., Meinshausen, N., Montzka, S. A., Rayner, P. J., Reimann, S.,
Smith, S. J., et al. (2020). The shared socio-economic pathway (SSP) greenhouse gas concentrations and their extensions to 2500.
Geoscientific Model Development, 13(8), 3571-3605. https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-3571-2020

56.

McKenzie, R., Bernhard, G., Liley, B., Disterhoft, P., Rhodes, S., Bais, A., Morgenstern, O., Newman, P., Oman, L., Brogniez, C., &Simic, S. (2019). Success of Montreal Protocol demonstrated by comparing high-quality UV measurements with “World Avoided”
calculations from two chemistry-climate models. Scientific Reports, 9(1), 12332. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-48625-z

57.

Newman, P. A., Oman, L. D., Douglass, A. R., Fleming, E. L., Frith, S. M., Hurwitz, M. M., Kawa, S. R., Jackman, C. H., Krotkov,
N. A., Nash, E. R., Nielsen, J. E., Pawson, S., Stolarski, R. S., & Velders, G. J. M. (2009). What would have happened to the ozone
layer if chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) had not been regulated? Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 9(6), 2113-2128. https://doi.
org/10.5194/acp-9-2113-2009

Chapter 1
58.

Morgenstern, O., Hegglin, M. I., Rozanov, E., O’Connor, F. M., Abraham, N. L., Akiyoshi, H., Archibald, A. T., Bekki, S., Butchart,N., Chipperfield, M. P., Deushi, M., Dhomse, S. S., Garcia, R. R., Hardiman, S. C., Horowitz, L. W., Jöckel, P., Josse, B., Kinnison,D., Lin, M., Mancini, E., et al. (2017). Review of the global models used within phase 1 of the Chemistry–Climate Model Initiative(CCMI). Geoscientific Model Development, 10(2), 639-671. https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-639-2

59.

Polvani, L. M., Previdi, M., England, M. R., Chiodo, G., & Smith, K. L. (2020). Substantial twentieth-century Arctic warming causedby ozone-depleting substances. Nature Climate Change, 10(2), 130-133. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-019-0677-4

60.

Wigley, T. M. L. (1988). Future CFC concentrations under the Montreal Protocol and their greenhouse-effect implications. Nature,335(6188), 333-335. https://doi.org/10.1038/335333a061.

Myhre, G., Shindell, D., Bréon, F. M., Collins, W., Fuglestvedt, J., Huang, J., Koch, D., Lamarque, J. F., Lee, D., Mendoza,
B., Nakajima, T., Robock, A., Stephens, G., Takemura, T., & Zhang, H. (2013). Anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing.
In T. F. Stocker, D. Qin, G. K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S. K. Allen, J. Doschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex, & P. M. Midgley (Eds.),
Climate change 2013: The physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the fifth assessment report of theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 659-740. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/
CBO9781107415324.018

62.

Velders, G. J. M., Andersen, S. O., Daniel, J. S., Fahey, D. W., & McFarland, M. (2007). The importance of the Montreal Protocol
in protecting climate. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104(12), 4814–4819.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0610328104

63.

IPCC. (2021). Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Reportof the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, [V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S. L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger,
N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M. I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J. B. R. Matthews, T. K. Maycock, T. Waterfield, O.
Yelekçi, R. Yu, & B. Zhou (Eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. https://doi.
org/10.1017/9781009157896.

64.

Ramaswamy, V., Schwarzkopf, M. D., & Shine, K. P. (1992). Radiative forcing of climate from halocarbon-induced global
stratospheric ozone loss. Nature, 355(6363), 810-812. https://doi.org/10.1038/355810a0

65.

Shindell, D., Faluvegi, G., Nazarenko, L., Bowman, K., Lamarque, J.-F., Voulgarakis, A., Schmidt, G. A., Pechony, O., & Ruedy, R.
(2013). Attribution of historical ozone forcing to anthropogenic emissions. Nature Climate Change, 3(6), 567-570. https://doi.
org/10.1038/nclimate1835

66.

Morgenstern, O., O’Connor, F. M., Johnson, B. T., Zeng, G., Mulcahy, J. P., Williams, J., Teixeira, J., Michou, M., Nabat, P.,
Horowitz, L. W., Naik, V., Sentman, L. T., Deushi, M., Bauer, S. E., Tsigaridis, K., Shindell, D. T., & Kinnison, D. E. (2020).
Reappraisal of the climate impacts of ozone‐depleting substances. Geophysical Research Letters, 47(20), e2020GL088295.
https://doi.org/10.1029/2020gl088295

67.

Morgenstern, O., Frith, S. M., Bodeker, G. E., Fioletov, V., & A, R. J. (2021). Reevaluation of total-column ozone trends
and of the effective radiative forcing of ozone‐depleting substances. Geophysical Research Letters, 48(21). https://doi.
org/10.1029/2021GL095376

68.

Checa-Garcia, R., Hegglin, M. I., Kinnison, D., Plummer, D. A., & Shine, K. P. (2018). Historical tropospheric and stratosphericozone radiative forcing using the CMIP6 database. Geophysical Research Letters, 45(7), 3264-3273. https://doi.
org/10.1002/2017GL076770

69.

Cionni, I., Eyring, V., Lamarque, J. F., Randel, W. J., Stevenson, D. S., Wu, F., Bodeker, G. E., Shepherd, T. G., Shindell, D. T., &Waugh, D. W. (2011). Ozone database in support of CMIP5 simulations: results and corresponding radiative forcing. Atmospheric
Chemistry and Physics, 11(21), 11267-11292. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-11267-2011

70.

Skeie, R. B., Myhre, G., Hodnebrog, Ø., Cameron-Smith, P. J., Deushi, M., Hegglin, M. I., Horowitz, L. W., Kramer, R. J., Michou,M., Mills, M. J., Olivié, D. J. L., Connor, F. M. O., Paynter, D., Samset, B. H., Sellar, A., Shindell, D., Takemura, T., Tilmes, S., & Wu,
T. (2020). Historical total ozone radiative forcing derived from CMIP6 simulations. npj Climate and Atmospheric Science, 3(1).
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41612-020-00131-0

71.

Conley, A. J., Lamarque, J. F., Vitt, F., Collins, W. D., & Kiehl, J. (2013). PORT, a CESM tool for the diagnosis of radiative forcing.
Geoscientific Model Development, 6(2), 469-476. https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-6-469-2013

72.

Chiodo, G., & Polvani, L. M. (2022). New Insights on the Radiative Impacts of Ozone‐Depleting Substances. GeophysicalResearch Letters, 49(10). https://doi.org/10.1029/2021gl096783

73.

IPCC. (2013). Climate change 2013: The physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the fifth assessment reportof the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, [T. F. Stocker, D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S. K. Allen, J. Boschung, A.
Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex, & P. M. Midgle (Eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, USA.

74.

Goyal, R., England, M. H., Sen Gupta, A., & Jucker, M. (2019). Reduction in surface climate change achieved by the 1987 Montreal
Protocol. Environmental Research Letters, 14(12), 124041. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab4874

79

Chapter 1

80

75.

Liang, Y.-C., Polvani, L. M., Previdi, M., Smith, K. L., England, M. R., & Chiodo, G. (2022). Stronger Arctic amplification fromozone-depleting substances than from carbon dioxide. Environmental Research Letters, 17(2). https://doi.org/10.1088/17489326/ac4a31

76.

United Nations. (2016). Amendment to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. United Nations Treaty
Series, Number C.N.872.2016.TREATIES-XXVII.2.f. https://treaties.un.org/doc/Treaties/2016/10/20161015%2003-23%20
PM/Ch_XXVII-2.f-English%20and%20French.pdf

77.

Velders, G. J. M., Daniel, J. S., Montzka, S. A., Vimont, I., Rigby, M., Krummel, P. B., Muhle, J., O’Doherty, S., Prinn, R. G., Weiss,
R. F., & Young, D. (2022). Projections of hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) emissions and the resulting global warming based on recent
trends in observed abundances and current policies. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 22(9), 6087-6101. https://doi.
org/10.5194/acp-22-6087-2022

78.

Montzka, S. A., Dutton, G. S., Yu, P., Ray, E., Portmann, R. W., Daniel, J. S., Kuijpers, L., Hall, B. D., Mondeel, D., Siso, C., Nance,
J. D., Rigby, M., Manning, A. J., Hu, L., Moore, F., Miller, B. R., & Elkins, J. W. (2018). An unexpected and persistent increase inglobal emissions of ozone-depleting CFC-11. Nature, 557(7705), 413-417. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0106-2

79.

Rigby, M., Park, S., Saito, T., Western, L. M., Redington, A. L., Fang, X., Henne, S., Manning, A. J., Prinn, R. G., Dutton, G. S.,
Fraser, P. J., Ganesan, A. L., Hall, B. D., Harth, C. M., Kim, J., Kim, K. R., Krummel, P. B., Lee, T., Li, S., Liang, Q., et al. (2019).
Increase in CFC-11 emissions from eastern China based on atmospheric observations. Nature, 569(7757), 546-550. https://doi.
org/10.1038/s41586-019-1193-4

80.

Dhomse, S. S., Feng, W., Montzka, S. A., Hossaini, R., Keeble, J., Pyle, J. A., Daniel, J. S., & Chipperfield, M. P. (2019). Delay inrecovery of the Antarctic ozone hole from unexpected CFC-11 emissions. Nature Communications, 10(1), 5781. https://doi.
org/10.1038/s41467-019-13717-x

81.

Lickley, M., Solomon, S., Fletcher, S., Velders, G. J. M., Daniel, J., Rigby, M., Montzka, S. A., Kuijpers, L. J. M., & Stone, K.
(2020). Quantifying contributions of chlorofluorocarbon banks to emissions and impacts on the ozone layer and climate. Nature
Communications, 11(1), 1380. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-15162-7

82.

Park, S., Western, L. M., Saito, T., Redington, A. L., Henne, S., Fang, X., Prinn, R. G., Manning, A. J., Montzka, S. A., Fraser, P. J.,
Ganesan, A. L., Harth, C. M., Kim, J., Krummel, P. B., Liang, Q., Mühle, J., O’Doherty, S., Park, H., Park, M.-K., Reimann, S., et al.
(2021). A decline in emissions of CFC-11 and related chemicals from eastern China. Nature, 590(7846), 433-437. https://doi.
org/10.1038/s41586-021-03277-w

83.

Chipperfield, M. P., Hegglin, M. I., Montzka, S. A., Newman, P. A., Park, S., Reimann, S., Rigby, M., Stohl, A., Velders, G. J.
M., & Walter-Terrinoni, H. (2021). Report on unexpected emissions of CFC-11. WMO Report No. 1268. World MeteorologicalOrganization, Geneva, Switzerland.

84.

Montzka, S. A., Dutton, G. S., Portmann, R. W., Chipperfield, M. P., Davis, S., Feng, W., Manning, A. J., Ray, E., Rigby, M.,
Hall, B. D., Siso, C., Nance, J. D., Krummel, P. B., Mühle, J., Young, D., O’Doherty, S., Salameh, P. K., Harth, C. M., Prinn, R. G.,
Weiss, R. F., et al. (2021). A decline in global CFC-11 emissions during 2018−2019. Nature, 590(7846), 428-432. https://doi.
org/10.1038/s41586-021-03260-5

85.

Solomon, S., Alcamo, J., & Ravishankara, A. R. (2020). Unfinished business after five decades of ozone-layer science and policy.
Nature Communications, 11(1), 4272. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-18052-0

86.

Dameris, M., Jöckel, P., & Nützel, M. (2019). Possible implications of enhanced chlorofluorocarbon-11 concentrations on ozone.
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 19(22), 13759-13771. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-13759-2019

87.

Fleming, E. L., Newman, P. A., Liang, Q., & Daniel, J. S. (2020). The Impact of Continuing CFC‐11 Emissions on Stratospheric
Ozone. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 125(3). https://doi.org/10.1029/2019jd031849

88.

Keeble, J., Abraham, N. L., Archibald, A. T., Chipperfield, M. P., Dhomse, S., Griffiths, P. T., & Pyle, J. A. (2020). Modelling thepotential impacts of the recent, unexpected increase in CFC-11 emissions on total column ozone recovery. Atmospheric Chemistry
and Physics, 20(12), 7153-7166. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-7153-2020

89.

Caldwell, M. M. (1971). Solar UV irradiation and the growth and development of higher plants. In A. C. Giese (Ed.), Current Topics
in Photobiology and Photochemistry, Photophysiology, VI, 131-177. New York, U.S.A.: Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/
B978-0-12-282606-1.50010-6

90.

Young, P. J., Harper, A. B., Huntingford, C., Paul, N. D., Morgenstern, O., Newman, P. A., Oman, L. D., Madronich, S., & Garcia,
R. R. (2021). The Montreal Protocol protects the terrestrial carbon sink. Nature, 596(7872), 384-388. https://doi.org/10.1038/
s41586-021-03737-3

91.

Ballaré, C. L., Caldwell, M. M., Flint, S. D., Robinson, S. A., & Bornman, J. F. (2011). Effects of solar ultraviolet radiation onterrestrial ecosystems. Patterns, mechanisms, and interactions with climate change. Photochemical & Photobiological Sciences,10(2), 226-241. https://doi.org/10.1039/C0PP90035D

92.

Day, T. A. (1993). Relating UV-B radiation screening effectiveness of foliage to absorbing-compound concentration and anatomical
characteristics in a diverse group of plants. Oecologia, 95(4), 542-550. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00317439

Chapter 1
93.

Jansen, M. A. K., Ač, A., Klem, K., & Urban, O. (2022). A meta-analysis of the interactive effects of UV and drought on plants.
Plant, Cell & Environment, 45(1), 41-54. https://doi.org/10.1111/pce.14221

94.

Rozema, J., Björn, L. O., Bornman, J. F., Gaberščik, A., Häder, D. P., Trošt, T., Germ, M., Klisch, M., Gröniger, A., & Sinha, R. P.
(2002). The role of UV-B radiation in aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems—an experimental and functional analysis of the evolutionof UV-absorbing compounds. Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology B: Biology, 66(1), 2-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S1011-1344(01)00269-X

95.

Waterman, M. J., Nugraha, A. S., Hendra, R., Ball, G. E., Robinson, S. A., & Keller, P. A. (2017). Antarctic moss biflavonoids showhigh antioxidant and ultraviolet-screening activity. Journal of Natural Products, 80(8), 2224-2231. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.
jnatprod.7b00085

96.

Williamson, C. E., Zepp, R. G., Lucas, R. M., Madronich, S., Austin, A. T., Ballare, C. L., Norval, M., Sulzberger, B., Bais, A. F.,
McKenzie, R. L., Robinson, S. A., Häder, D.-P., Paul, N. D., & Bornman, J. F. (2014). Solar ultraviolet radiation in a changing climate.
[Review]. Nature Climate Change, 4(6), 434-441. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2225

97.

Son, S.-W., Han, B.-R., Garfinkel, C. I., Kim, S.-Y., Park, R., Abraham, N. L., Akiyoshi, H., Archibald, A. T., Butchart, N.,
Chipperfield, M. P., Dameris, M., Deushi, M., Dhomse, S. S., Hardiman, S. C., Jöckel, P., Kinnison, D., Michou, M.,
Morgenstern, O., O’Connor, F. M., Oman, L. D., et al. (2018). Tropospheric jet response to Antarctic ozone depletion: An
update with Chemistry-Climate Model Initiative (CCMI) models. Environmental Research Letters, 13(5), 054024. https://doi.
org/10.1088/1748-9326/aabf21

98.

Seviour, W. J. M., Codron, F., Doddridge, E. W., Ferreira, D., Gnanadesikan, A., Kelley, M., Kostov, Y., Marshall, J., Polvani, L. M.,
Thomas, J. L., & Waugh, D. W. (2019). The Southern Ocean sea surface temperature response to ozone depletion: a multimodelcomparison. Journal of Climate, 32(16), 5107-5121. https://doi.org/10.1175/jcli-d-19-0109.1

99.

Liu, W., Hegglin, M. I., Checa-Garcia, R., Li, S., Gillett, N. P., Lyu, K., Zhang, X., & Swart, N. C. (2022). Stratospheric ozone
depletion and tropospheric ozone increases drive Southern Ocean interior warming. Nature Climate Change, 12(4), 365-372.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-022-01320-w

100. Lu, X., Zhang, L., Zhao, Y., Jacob, D. J., Hu, Y., Hu, L., Gao, M., Liu, X., Petropavlovskikh, I., McClure-Begley, A., & Querel, R.
(2019). Surface and tropospheric ozone trends in the Southern Hemisphere since 1990: possible linkages to poleward expansionof the Hadley circulation. Science Bulletin, 64(6), 400-409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scib.2018.12.021
101. Turner, J., & Comiso, J. (2017). Solve Antarctica’s sea-ice puzzle. Nature, 547, 275–277. https://doi.org/10.1038/547275a
102. Turner, J., Phillips, T., Marshall, G. J., Hosking, J. S., Pope, J. O., Bracegirdle, T. J., & Deb, P. (2017). Unprecedented springtime
retreat of Antarctic sea ice in 2016. Geophysical Research Letters, 44(13), 6868-6875. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017gl073656
103. Parkinson, C. L. (2019). A 40-y record reveals gradual Antarctic sea ice increases followed by decreases at rates far exceeding therates seen in the Arctic. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(29), 14414-14423. https://doi.org/10.1073/
pnas.1906556116
104. Gillett, Z. E., Arblaster, J. M., Dittus, A. J., Deushi, M., Jöckel, P., Kinnison, D. E., Morgenstern, O., Plummer, D. A., Revell, L. E.,
Rozanov, E., Schofield, R., Stenke, A., Stone, K. A., & Tilmes, S. (2019). Evaluating the relationship between interannual variationsin the Antarctic ozone hole and Southern Hemisphere surface climate in chemistry–climate models. Journal of Climate, 32(11),3131-3151. https://doi.org/10.1175/jcli-d-18-0273.1
105. Fogt, R. L., & Marshall, G. J. (2020). The Southern Annular Mode: Variability, trends, and climate impacts across the Southern
Hemisphere. WIREs Climate Change, 11(4), e652. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.652
106. Morales, M. S., Cook, E. R., Barichivich, J., Christie, D. A., Villalba, R., LeQuesne, C., Srur, A. M., Ferrero, M. E., Gonzalez-Reyes,
A., Couvreux, F., Matskovsky, V., Aravena, J. C., Lara, A., Mundo, I. A., Rojas, F., Prieto, M. R., Smerdon, J. E., Bianchi, L. O.,
Masiokas, M. H., Urrutia-Jalabert, R., et al. (2020). Six hundred years of South American tree rings reveal an increase in severehydroclimatic events since mid-20th century. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,
117(29), 16816-16823. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2002411117
107. Damiani, A., Cordero, R. R., Llanillo, P. J., Feron, S., Boisier, J. P., Garreaud, R., Rondanelli, R., Irie, H., & Watanabe, S. (2020).
Connection between Antarctic ozone and climate: interannual precipitation changes in the Southern Hemisphere. Atmosphere,
11(6). https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos11060579
108. Banerjee, A., Fyfe, J. C., Polvani, L. M., Waugh, D., & Chang, K.-L. (2020). A pause in Southern Hemisphere circulation trends dueto the Montreal Protocol. Nature, 579(7800), 544-548. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2120-4
109. Bracegirdle, T. J., Krinner, G., Tonelli, M., Haumann, F. A., Naughten, K. A., Rackow, T., Roach, L. A., & Wainer, I. (2020). Twenty
first century changes in Antarctic and Southern Ocean surface climate in CMIP6. Atmospheric Science Letters, 21(9), e984.
https://doi.org/10.1002/asl.984
110. Lim, E.-P., Hendon, H. H., Boschat, G., Hudson, D., Thompson, D. W. J., Dowdy, A. J., & Arblaster, J. M. (2019). Australian hot
and dry extremes induced by weakenings of the stratospheric polar vortex. Nature Geoscience, 12(11), 896-901. https://doi.
org/10.1038/s41561-019-0456-x

81

Chapter 1
111. Hendon, H. H., Thompson, D. J. W., Lim, E.-P., Butler, A. H., Newman, P. A., Coy, L., Scaife, A., Polichtchouk, I., Garreaud, R. S.,
T.G., S., & Nakamura, H. (2019). Rare forecasted climate event under way in the Southern Hemisphere. Nature, 573(7775), 495.
https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-02858-0112. Lim, E.-P., Hendon, H. H., Butler, A. H., Garreaud, R. D., Polichtchouk, I., Shepherd, T. G., Scaife, A., Comer, R., Coy, L., Newman,
P. A., Thompson, D. J. W., & Nakamura, H. (2020). The 2019 Antarctic sudden stratospheric warming. SPARC Newsletter, 54, 1013.
113. Noguchi, S., Kuroda, Y., Kodera, K., & Watanabe, S. (2020). Robust enhancement of tropical convective activity by the2019 Antarctic sudden stratospheric warming. Geophysical Research Letters, 47(15), e2020GL088743. https://doi.
org/10.1029/2020GL088743
114. Robinson, S. A., Klekociuk, A. R., King, D. H., Pizarro Rojas, M., Zúñiga, G. E., & Bergstrom, D. M. (2020). The 2019/2020
summer of Antarctic heatwaves. Global Change Biology, 26(6), 3178-3180. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15083
115. Newman, P., Nash, E. R., Kramarova, N., & Butler, A. (2020). The 2019 southern stratospheric warming. In T. Scambos, & S.
Stammerjohn (Eds.), “State of the Climate in 2019”, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 101(8), S297-S298. https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-20-0090.1
116. Lim, E.-P., Hendon, H. H., Butler, A. H., Thompson, D. W. J., Lawrence, Z., Scaife, A. A., Shepherd, T. G., Polichtchouk, I.,
Nakamura, H., Kobayashi, C., Comer, R., Coy, L., Dowdy, A., Garreaud, R. D., Newman, P. A., & Wang, G. (2021). The 2019
Southern Hemisphere stratospheric polar vortex weakening and its impacts. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society,102(6), E1150–E1171. https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-20-0112.1
117. Jucker, M., & Goyal, R. (2022). Ozone-Forced Southern Annular Mode During Antarctic Stratospheric Warming Events.
Geophysical Research Letters, 49(4). https://doi.org/10.1029/2021gl095270
118. Jucker, M., Reichler, T., & Waugh, D. W. (2021). How frequent are Antarctic sudden stratospheric warmings in present and futureclimate? Geophysical Research Letters, 48(11), e2021GL093215. https://doi.org/10.1029/2021GL093215
119. Kablick III, G. P., Allen, D. R., Fromm, M. D., & Nedoluha, G. E. (2020). Australian PyroCb smoke generates synoptic-scale
stratospheric anticyclones. Geophysical Research Letters, 47(13), e2020GL088101. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL088101
120. Ohneiser, K., Ansmann, A., Kaifler, B., Chudnovsky, A., Barja, B., Knopf, D. A., Kaifler, N., Baars, H., Seifert, P., Villanueva, D.,
Jimenez, C., Radenz, M., Engelmann, R., Veselovskii, I., & Zamorano, F. (2022). Australian wildfire smoke in the stratosphere: thedecay phase in 2020/2021 and impact on ozone depletion. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 22(11), 7417-7442. https://doi.
org/10.5194/acp-22-7417-2022
121. Ohneiser, K., Ansmann, A., Baars, H., Seifert, P., Barja, B., Jimenez, C., Radenz, M., Teisseire, A., Floutsi, A., Haarig, M., Foth, A.,
Chudnovsky, A., Engelmann, R., Zamorano, F., Bühl, J., & Wandinger, U. (2020). Smoke of extreme Australian bushfires observedin the stratosphere over Punta Arenas, Chile, in January 2020: optical thickness, lidar ratios, and depolarization ratios at 355 and532 nm. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 20(13), 8003-8015. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-8003-2020
122. Boone, C. D., Bernath, P. F., & Fromm, M. D. (2020). Pyrocumulonimbus stratospheric plume injections measured by the ACE-FTS.
Geophysical Research Letters, 47(15), e2020GL088442. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL088442
123. Khaykin, S., Legras, B., Bucci, S., Sellitto, P., Isaksen, L., Tencé, F., Bekki, S., Bourassa, A., Rieger, L., Zawada, D., Jumelet, J., &Godin-Beekmann, S. (2020). The 2019/20 Australian wildfires generated a persistent smoke-charged vortex rising up to 35 km
altitude. Communications Earth & Environment, 1(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-020-00022-5
124. Hirsch, E., & Koren, I. (2021). Record-breaking aerosol levels explained by smoke injection into the stratosphere. Science,
371(6535), 1269-1274. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abe1415
125. Allen, D. R., Fromm, M. D., Kablick III, G. P., & Nedoluha, G. E. (2020). Smoke with Induced Rotation and Lofting (SWIRL) in thestratosphere. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 77(12), 4297-4316. https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-20-0131.1
126. Yu, P., Davis, S. M., Toon, O. B., Portmann, R. W., Bardeen, C. G., Barnes, J. E., Telg, H., Maloney, C., & Rosenlof, K. H.
(2021). Persistent stratospheric warming due to 2019–2020 Australian wildfire smoke. Geophysical Research Letters, 48(7),e2021GL092609. https://doi.org/10.1029/2021GL092609
127. Schwartz, M. J., Santee, M. L., Pumphrey, H. C., Manney, G. L., Lambert, A., Livesey, N. J., Millán, L., Neu, J. L., Read, W. G., &Werner, F. (2020). Australian new year’s pyroCb impact on stratospheric composition. Geophysical Research Letters, 47(24),e2020GL090831. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL090831
128. Anderson, J. G., Wilmouth, D. M., Smith, J. B., & Sayres, D. S. (2012). UV dosage levels in summer: Increased risk of ozone loss
from convectively injected water vapor. Science, 337(6096), 835-839. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1222978
129. Schwartz, M. J., Read, W. G., Santee, M. L., Livesey, N. J., Froidevaux, L., Lambert, A., & Manney, G. L. (2013). Convectively
injected water vapor in the North American summer lowermost stratosphere. Geophysical Research Letters, 40(10), 2316-2321.
https://doi.org/10.1002/grl.50421
130. Bernath, P., Boone, C., & Crouse, J. (2022). Wildfire smoke destroys stratospheric ozone. Science, 375(6586), 1292-1295.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abm5611

82

Chapter 1
131. Solomon, S., Dube, K., Stone, K., Yu, P., Kinnison, D., Toon, O. B., Strahan, S. E., Rosenlof, K. H., Portmann, R., Davis, S., Randel,W., Bernath, P., Boone, C., Bardeen, C. G., Bourassa, A., Zawada, D., & Degenstein, D. (2022). On the stratospheric chemistry of
midlatitude wildfire smoke. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(10), e2117325119. https://doi.org/10.1073/
pnas.2117325119
132. Santee, M. L., Lambert, A., Manney, G. L., Livesey, N. J., Froidevaux, L., Neu, J. L., Schwartz, M. J., Millán, L. F., Werner, F., Read,
W. G., Park, M., Fuller, R. A., & Ward, B. M. (2022). Prolonged and pervasive perturbations in the composition of the Southern
Hemisphere midlatitude lower stratosphere from the Australian New Year’s fires. Geophysical Research Letters, 49(4). https://doi.org/10.1029/2021GL096270
133. Polvani, L. M., Banerjee, A., Chemke, R., Doddridge, E. W., Ferreira, D., Gnanadesikan, A., Holland, M. A., Kostov, Y., Marshall,J., Seviour, W. J. M., Solomon, S., & Waugh, D. W. (2021). Interannual SAM modulation of Antarctic sea ice extent does notaccount for its long-term trends, pointing to a limited role for ozone depletion. Geophysical Research Letters, 48(21). https://doi.
org/10.1029/2021gl094871
134. Haase, S., & Matthes, K. (2019). The importance of interactive chemistry for stratosphere–troposphere coupling. Atmospheric
Chemistry and Physics, 19(5), 3417-3432. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-3417-2019
135. Zhou, C., Zhang, T., & Zheng, L. (2019). The characteristics of surface albedo change trends over the Antarctic sea ice region
during recent decades. Remote Sensing, 11(7). https://doi.org/10.3390/rs11070821
136. Meehl, G. A., Arblaster, J. M., Chung, C. T. Y., Holland, M. M., DuVivier, A., Thompson, L., Yang, D., & Bitz, C. M. (2019).
Sustained ocean changes contributed to sudden Antarctic sea ice retreat in late 2016. Nature Communications, 10(1), 14. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-07865-9
137. Wang, G., Hendon, H. H., Arblaster, J. M., Lim, E.-P., Abhik, S., & van Rensch, P. (2019). Compounding tropical and stratosphericforcing of the record low Antarctic sea-ice in 2016. Nature Communications, 10(1), 13. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-01807689-7
138. Wang, Z., Turner, J., Wu, Y., & Liu, C. (2019). Rapid decline of total Antarctic sea ice extent during 2014–16 controlled by winddriven sea ice drift. Journal of Climate, 32(17), 5381-5395. https://doi.org/10.1175/jcli-d-18-0635.1
139. Doddridge, E. W., & Marshall, J. (2017). Modulation of the seasonal cycle of Antarctic sea ice extent related to the southern
annular mode. Geophysical Research Letters, 44(19), 9761-9768. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017gl074319
140. Ferreira, D., Marshall, J., Bitz, C. M., Solomon, S., & Plumb, A. (2015). Antarctic ocean and sea ice response to ozone depletion: A
two-time-scale problem. Journal of Climate, 28(3), 1206–1226. https://doi.org/10.1175/jcli-d-14-00313.1
141. Seviour, W. J. M., Codron, F., Doddridge, E. W., Ferreira, D., Gnanadesikan, A., Kelley, M., Kostov, Y., Marshall, J., Polvani,
L.M., Thomas, J. L., & Waugh, D. W. The Southern Ocean sea surface temperature response to ozone depletion: A multimodelcomparison. Journal of Climate, 32(16), 5107–5121. https://doi.org/10.1175/jcli-d-19-0109.1
142. Xia, Y., Hu, Y., Liu, J., Huang, Y., Xie, F., & Lin, J. (2020). Stratospheric ozone-induced cloud radiative effects on Antarctic sea ice.
Advances in Atmospheric Sciences, 37(5), 505-514. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00376-019-8251-6
143. Li, S., Liu, W., Lyu, K., & Zhang, X. (2021). The effects of historical ozone changes on Southern Ocean heat uptake and storage.
Climate Dynamics, 57(7-8), 2269-2285. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-021-05803-y
144. England, M., Polvani, L., & Sun, L. (2018). Contrasting the Antarctic and Arctic atmospheric responses to projected sea ice loss in
the late twenty-first century. Journal of Climate, 31(16), 6353-6370. https://doi.org/10.1175/jcli-d-17-0666.1
145. Doddridge, E. W., Marshall, J., Song, H., Campin, J.-M., & Kelley, M. (2021). Southern Ocean heat storage, reemergence,
and winter sea ice decline induced by summertime winds. Journal of Climate, 34(4), 1403-1415. https://doi.org/10.1175/
jcli-d-20-0322.1
146. Jakobs, C. L., Reijmer, C. H., van den Broeke, M. R., van de Berg, W. J., & van Wessem, J. M. (2021). Spatial variabilityof the snowmelt‐albedo feedback in Antarctica. Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface, 126(2). https://doi.
org/10.1029/2020jf005696
147. Bergstrom, A., Gooseff, M. N., Myers, M., Doran, P. T., & Cross, J. M. (2020). The seasonal evolution of albedo across glaciers andthe surrounding landscape of Taylor Valley, Antarctica. The Cryosphere, 14(3), 769-788. https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-14-7692020
148. Schneider, D. P., Kay, J. E., & Lenaerts, J. (2020). Improved clouds over Southern Ocean amplify Antarctic precipitation response
to ozone depletion in an earth system model. Climate Dynamics, 55(5-6), 1665-1684. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-02005346-8
149. Lenaerts, J. T. M., Fyke, J., & Medley, B. (2018). The signature of ozone depletion in recent Antarctic precipitation change: a study
with the Community Earth System Model. Geophysical Research Letters, 45(23). https://doi.org/10.1029/2018gl078608
150. Friedel, M., Chiodo, G., Stenke, A., Domeisen, D. I. V., Fueglistaler, S., Anet, J. G., & Peter, T. (2022). Springtime arctic ozone
depletion forces northern hemisphere climate anomalies. Nature Geoscience, 15(7), 541-547. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561022-00974-7

83

Chapter 1
151. Domeisen, D. I. V., & Butler, A. H. (2020). Stratospheric drivers of extreme events at the Earth’s surface. Communications Earth &Environment, 1(1), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-020-00060-z
152. Xia, Y., Hu, Y., Huang, Y., Zhao, C., Xie, F., & Yang, Y. (2021). Significant contribution of severe ozone loss to theSiberian-Arctic surface warming in spring 2020. Geophysical Research Letters, 48(8), e2021GL092509. https://doi.
org/10.1029/2021GL092509
153. Overland, J. E., & Wang, M. (2021). The 2020 Siberian heat wave. International Journal of Climatology, 41, E2341-E2346.
https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.6850
154. Zhang, J., Tian, W., Pyle, J. A., Keeble, J., Abraham, N. L., Chipperfield, M. P., Xie, F., Yang, Q., Mu, L., Ren, H.-L., Wang, L., &Xu, M. (2022). Responses of Arctic sea ice to stratospheric ozone depletion. Science Bulletin, 67(11), 1182-1190. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.scib.2022.03.015
155. Baldwin, M. P., Ayarzagüena, B., Birner, T., Butchart, N., Butler, A. H., Charlton-Perez, A. J., Domeisen, D. I. V., Garfinkel, C. I.,
Garny, H., Gerber, E. P., Hegglin, M. I., Langematz, U., & Pedatella, N. M. (2021). Sudden Stratospheric Warmings. Reviews ofGeophysics, 59(1). https://doi.org/10.1029/2020rg000708
156. Butler, A. H., & Lee, S. H. (2022). The 2020 Arctic Sudden Stratospheric Warming. In R. Thoman, M. L. Druckenmiller, & T.
Moon (Eds.), “State of the Climate in 2021”, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 103(8), S296-S298. https://doi.
org/10.1175/BAMS-D-22-0082.1
157. Huang, J., Hitchcock, P., Maycock, A. C., McKenna, C. M., & Tian, W. (2021). Northern hemisphere cold air outbreaks are more
likely to be severe during weak polar vortex conditions. Communications Earth & Environment, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/
s43247-021-00215-6
158. Zhang, M., Yang, X. Y., & Huang, Y. (2022). Impacts of Sudden Stratospheric Warming on extreme cold events in early 2021: An
ensemble‐based sensitivity analysis. Geophysical Research Letters, 49(2). https://doi.org/10.1029/2021GL096840
159. Xie, F., Ma, X., Li, J., Huang, J., Tian, W., Zhang, J., Hu, Y., Sun, C., Zhou, X., Feng, J., & Yang, Y. (2018). An advanced impactof Arctic stratospheric ozone changes on spring precipitation in China. Climate Dynamics, 51(11-12), 4029-4041. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s00382-018-4402-1
160. Stone, K. A., Solomon, S., Kinnison, D. E., Baggett, C. F., & Barnes, E. A. (2019). Prediction of Northern Hemisphere regionalsurface temperatures using stratospheric ozone information. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 124(12), 59225933. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018jd029626
161. Ma, X., Xie, F., Li, J., Zheng, X., Tian, W., Ding, R., Sun, C., & Zhang, J. (2019). Effects of Arctic stratospheric ozone changes
on spring precipitation in the northwestern United States. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 19(2), 861-875. https://doi.
org/10.5194/acp-19-861-2019
162. Bais, A. F., McKenzie, R. L., Bernhard, G., Aucamp, P. J., Ilyas, M., Madronich, S., & Tourpali, K. (2015). Ozone depletion andclimate change: Impacts on UV radiation. Photochemical & Photobiological Sciences, 14(1), 19-52. https://doi.org/10.1039/
c4pp90032d
163. McKenzie, R. L., Aucamp, P. J., Bais, A. F., Björn, L. O., Ilyas, M., & Madronich, S. (2011). Ozone depletion and climate change:
impacts on UV radiation. Photochemical & Photobiological Sciences, 10(2), 182-198. https://doi.org/10.1039/c0pp90034f
164. Campanelli, M., Diémoz, H., Siani, A. M., di Sarra, A., Iannarelli, A. M., Kudo, R., Fasano, G., Casasanta, G., Tofful, L., Cacciani,
M., Sanò, P., & Dietrich, S. (2022). Aerosol optical characteristics in the urban area of Rome, Italy, and their impact on the UV
index. Atmospheric Measurement Techniques, 15(5), 1171-1183. https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-15-1171-2022
165. Mok, J., Krotkov, N. A., Arola, A., Torres, O., Jethva, H., Andrade, M., Labow, G., Eck, T. F., Li, Z., & Dickerson, R. R. (2016).
Impacts of brown carbon from biomass burning on surface UV and ozone photochemistry in the Amazon Basin. Scientific Reports,
6, 36940. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep36940
166. Carlund, T., Kouremeti, N., Kazadzis, S., & Gröbner, J. (2017). Aerosol optical depth determination in the UV using a four-channel
precision filter radiometer. Atmospheric Measurement Techniques, 10(3), 905-923. https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-10-905-2017
167. López-Solano, J., Redondas, A., Carlund, T., Rodriguez-Franco, J. J., Diémoz, H., León-Luis, S. F., Hernández-Cruz, B., GuiradoFuentes, C., Kouremeti, N., Gröbner, J., Kazadzis, S., Carreño, V., Berjón, A., Santana-Díaz, D., Rodríguez-Valido, M., De Bock,V., Moreta, J. R., Rimmer, J., Smedley, A. R. D., Boulkelia, L., et al. (2018). Aerosol optical depth in the European Brewer Network.
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 18(6), 3885-3902. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-3885-2018
168. Mok, J., Krotkov, N. A., Torres, O., Jethva, H., Li, Z., Kim, J., Koo, J.-H., Go, S., Irie, H., Labow, G., Eck, T. F., Holben, B. N.,
Herman, J., Loughman, R. P., Spinei, E., Lee, S. S., Khatri, P., & Campanelli, M. (2018). Comparisons of spectral aerosol single
scattering albedo in Seoul, South Korea. Atmospheric Measurement Techniques, 11(4), 2295-2311. https://doi.org/10.5194/
amt-11-2295-2018
169. Fountoulakis, I., Natsis, A., Siomos, N., Drosoglou, T., & Bais, A. F. (2019). Deriving Aerosol Absorption Properties from Solar
Ultraviolet Radiation Spectral Measurements at Thessaloniki, Greece. Remote Sensing, 11(18), 2179. https://doi.org/10.3390/
rs11182179

84Chapter 1
170. Rimmer, J. S., Redondas, A., & Karppinen, T. (2018). EuBrewNet – A European Brewer network (COST Action ES1207), an
overview. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 18(14), 10347-10353. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-10347-2018
171. Ipiña, A., López-Padilla, G., Retama, A., Piacentini, R. D., & Madronich, S. (2021). Ultraviolet radiation environment of a tropicalmegacity in transition: Mexico City 2000–2019. Environmental Science & Technology, 55(16), 10946-10956. https://doi.
org/10.1021/acs.est.0c08515
172. Wilson, S. R., Madronich, S., Longstreth, J. D., & Solomon, K. R. (2019). Interactive effects of changing stratospheric ozone andclimate on tropospheric composition and air quality, and the consequences for human and ecosystem health. Photochemical &Photobiological Sciences, 18(3), 775-803. https://doi.org/10.1039/c8pp90064g
173. Moses, E., Cardenas, B., Nagpure, A., & Pai, M. (2020). Can An Airshed Governance Framework in India Spur Clean Air for All?
Lessons from Mexico City and Los Angeles: Policy Brief, CCAPC/2020/01, Collaborative Clean Air Policy Centre, New Delhi,
India.
174. Cabrera, S., Ipiña, A., Damiani, A., Cordero, R. R., & Piacentini, R. D. (2012). UV index values and trends in Santiago, Chile(33.5°S) based on ground and satellite data. Journal of Photochemistry & Photobiology B: Biology, 115, 73-84. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jphotobiol.2012.06.013
175. Roshan, D. R., Koc, M., Abdallah, A., Martin-Pomares, L., Isaifan, R., & Fountoukis, C. (2020). UV Index forecasting under the
influence of desert dust: evaluation against surface and satellite-retrieved data. Atmosphere, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.3390/
atmos11010096
176. du Preez, D. J., Bencherif, H., Portafaix, T., Lamy, K., & Wright, C. Y. (2021). Solar ultraviolet radiation in Pretoria and its relations
to aerosols and tropospheric ozone during the biomass burning season. Atmosphere, 12(2). https://doi.org/10.3390/
atmos12020132
177. Diffey, B. L., Jansén, C. T., Urbach, F., & Wulf, H. C. (1997). The standard erythema dose: a new photobiological concept.
Photodermatology, Photoimmunology and Photomedicine, 13(1-2), 64-66. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0781.1997.tb00110.x
178. Fitzpatrick, T. B. (1988). The Validity and Practicality of Sun-Reactive Skin Types I Through VI. Archives of Dermatology, 124(6),869-871. https://doi.org/10.1001/archderm.1988.01670060015008
179. McKenzie, R. L., Liley, J. B., & Björn, L. O. (2009). UV Radiation: Balancing Risks and Benefits. Photochemistry and Photobiology,
85, 88-98. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-1097.2008.00400.x
180. Igoe, D. P., Parisi, A. V., Downs, N. J., & Butler, H. (2022). A case study of UV exposure risk in Sydney during the 2019/2020 New
South Wales bushfires. Photochemistry and Photobiology, 98(5), 1236-1244. https://doi.org/10.1111/php.13603
181. ICNIRP (2010). ICNIRP Statement—Protection of workers against ultraviolet radiation. Health Physics, 99(1), 66-87. https://doi.
org/10.1097/HP.0b013e3181d85908
182. Mortier, A., Gliß, J., Schulz, M., Aas, W., Andrews, E., Bian, H., Chin, M., Ginoux, P., Hand, J., Holben, B., Zhang, H., Kipling, Z.,
Kirkevåg, A., Laj, P., Lurton, T., Myhre, G., Neubauer, D., Olivié, D., von Salzen, K., Skeie, R. B., et al. (2020). Evaluation of climate
model aerosol trends with ground-based observations over the last 2 decades – an AeroCom and CMIP6 analysis. Atmospheric
Chemistry and Physics, 20(21), 13355-13378. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-13355-2020
183. Tong, D., Cheng, J., Liu, Y., Yu, S., Yan, L., Hong, C., Qin, Y., Zhao, H., Zheng, Y., Geng, G., Li, M., Liu, F., Zhang, Y., Zheng, B.,
Clarke, L., & Zhang, Q. (2020). Dynamic projection of anthropogenic emissions in China: methodology and 2015–2050 emission
pathways under a range of socio-economic, climate policy, and pollution control scenarios. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics,
20(9), 5729-5757. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-5729-2020
184. Drugé, T., Nabat, P., Mallet, M., & Somot, S. (2021). Future evolution of aerosols and implications for climate change in the EuroMediterranean region using the CNRM-ALADIN63 regional climate model. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 21(10), 76397669. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-7639-2021
185. Millán, L. F., & Manney, G. L. (2017). An assessment of ozone mini-hole representation in reanalyses over the Northern
Hemisphere. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 17(15), 9277-9289. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-9277-2017
186. Raptis, I.-P., Eleftheratos, K., Kazadzis, S., Kosmopoulos, P., Papachristopoulou, K., & Solomos, S. (2021). The combined effect ofozone and aerosols on erythemal irradiance in an extremely low ozone event during May 2020. Atmosphere, 12(2). https://doi.
org/10.3390/atmos12020145
187. Becherini, F., Vitale, V., Lupi, A., Stone, R. S., Salvatori, R., Salzano, R., di Carlo, P., Viola, A. P., & Mazzola, M. (2021). Surface
albedo and spring snow melt variations at Ny-Ålesund, Svalbard. Bulletin of Atmospheric Science and Technology, 2(1-4).
https://doi.org/10.1007/s42865-021-00043-8
188. Brunt, K. M., Sergienko, O., & MacAyeal, D. R. (2017). Observations of unusual fast-ice conditions in the southwest Ross
Sea, Antarctica: preliminary analysis of iceberg and storminess effects. Annals of Glaciology, 44, 183-187. https://doi.
org/10.3189/172756406781811754
189. Kim, S., Saenz, B., Scanniello, J., Daly, K., & Ainley, D. (2018). Local climatology of fast ice in McMurdo Sound, Antarctica.
Antarctic Science, 30(2), 125-142. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0954102017000578

85

Chapter 1
190. Bernhard, G., & Stierle, S. (2020). Trends of UV radiation in Antarctica. Atmosphere, 11(8), 795. https://doi.org/10.3390/
atmos11080795
191. Gordon, E. M., Seppälä, A., Funke, B., Tamminen, J., & Walker, K. A. (2021). Observational evidence of energetic particle
precipitation NOx (EPP-NOx) interaction with chlorine curbing Antarctic ozone loss. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 21(4),2819-2836. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-2819-2021
192. Gordon, E. M., Seppälä, A., & Tamminen, J. (2020). Evidence for energetic particle precipitation and quasi-biennial oscillation
modulations of the Antarctic NO2 springtime stratospheric column from OMI observations. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics,
20(11), 6259-6271. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-6259-2020
193. Haigh, J. D., Winning, A. R., Toumi, R., & Harder, J. W. (2010). An influence of solar spectral variations on radiative forcing ofclimate. Nature, 467(7316), 696-699. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09426
194. Xiao, Z.-N., Dong, S., & Zhong, Q. (2019). Numerical simulation of climate response to ultraviolet irradiation forcing. Advances in
Climate Change Research, 10(3), 133-142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accre.2019.07.001
195. Roy, I., & Haigh, J. D. (2011). The influence of solar variability and the quasi-biennial oscillation on lower atmospheric temperaturesand sea level pressure. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 11(22), 11679-11687. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-11679-2011
196. Arsenovic, P., Rozanov, E., Anet, J., Stenke, A., Schmutz, W., & Peter, T. (2018). Implications of potential future grand solar
minimum for ozone layer and climate. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 18(5), 3469-3483. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-183469-2018
197. Miyahara, H., Tokanai, F., Moriya, T., Takeyama, M., Sakurai, H., Horiuchi, K., & Hotta, H. (2021). Gradual onset of the Maunder
Minimum revealed by high-precision carbon-14 analyses. Scientific Reports, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-84830-5
198. Ineson, S., Maycock, A. C., Gray, L. J., Scaife, A. A., Dunstone, N. J., Harder, J. W., Knight, J. R., Lockwood, M., Manners, J. C., &Wood, R. A. (2015). Regional climate impacts of a possible future grand solar minimum. Nature Communications, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms853
199. Kitiashvili, I. N. (2020). Application of synoptic magnetograms to global solar activity forecast. The Astrophysical Journal, 890(1).
https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ab64e7
200. Zharkova, V. (2020). Modern grand solar minimum will lead to terrestrial cooling. Temperature, 7(3), 217-222. https://doi.org/1
0.1080/23328940.2020.1796243
201. Stone, K. A., Solomon, S., Kinnison, D. E., Pitts, M. C., Poole, L. R., Mills, M. J., Schmidt, A., Neely, R. R., Ivy, D., Schwartz, M. J.,
Vernier, J.-P., Johnson, B. J., Tully, M. B., Klekociuk, A. R., König-Langlo, G., & Hagiya, S. (2017). Observing the impact of Calbuco
volcanic aerosols on south polar ozone depletion in 2015. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 122(21), 11862-11879.
https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JD026987
202. Arnold, F., Bührke, T., & Qiu, S. (1990). Evidence for stratospheric ozone-depleting heterogeneous chemistry on volcanic aerosols
from El Chichón. Nature, 348(6296), 49-50. https://doi.org/10.1038/348049a0
203. Brasseur, G., & Granier, C. (1992). Mount Pinatubo aerosols, chlorofluorocarbons, and ozone depletion. Science, 257(5074),
1239-1242. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.257.5074.1239
204. Osipov, S., Stenchikov, G., Tsigaridis, K., LeGrande, A. N., Bauer, S. E., Fnais, M., & Lelieveld, J. (2021). The Toba supervolcano
eruption caused severe tropical stratospheric ozone depletion. Communications Earth & Environment, 2(1). https://doi.
org/10.1038/s43247-021-00141-7
205. Labitzke, K., & McCormick, M. P. (1992). Stratospheric temperature increases due to Pinatubo aerosols. Geophysical Research
Letters, 19(2), 207-210. https://doi.org/10.1029/91GL02940
206. Brenna, H., Kutterolf, S., & Krüger, K. (2019). Global ozone depletion and increase of UV radiation caused by pre-industrial
tropical volcanic eruptions. Scientific Reports, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-45630-0
207. Ming, A., Winton, V. H. L., Keeble, J., Abraham, N. L., Dalvi, M. C., Griffiths, P., Caillon, N., Jones, A. E., Mulvaney, R., Savarino,J., Frey, M. M., & Yang, X. (2020). Stratospheric ozone changes from explosive tropical volcanoes: modeling and ice core
constraints. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 125(11). https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JD032290
208. Krüger, K., Kutterolf, S., Hansteen, T. H., Schmidt, A., Fristad, K. E., & Elkins-Tanton, L. T. (2015). Halogen release from Plinian
eruptions and depletion of stratospheric ozone. In Volcanism and Global Environmental Change, 244-259: Cambridge Univ.
Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781107415683.020
209. Mankin, W. G., Coffey, M. T., & Goldman, A. (1992). Airborne observations of SO2, HCl, and O3 in the stratospheric plume of the
Pinatubo volcano in July 1991. Geophysical Research Letters, 19(2), 179-182. https://doi.org/10.1029/91gl02942
210. Zaratti, F., Piacentini, R. D., Guillén, H. A., Cabrera, S. H., Liley, J. B., & McKenzie, R. L. (2014). Proposal for a modification of the
UVI risk scale. Photochemical & Photobiological Sciences, 13(7), 980-985. https://doi.org/10.1039/C4PP00006D
211. Norris, J. R., Allen, R. J., Evan, A. T., Zelinka, M. D., O’Dell, C. W., & Klein, S. A. (2016). Evidence for climate change in the satellite
cloud record. Nature, 536(7614), 72-75. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature18273

86

Chapter 1
212. Bodas-Salcedo, A., Hill, P. G., Furtado, K., Williams, K. D., Field, P. R., Manners, J. C., Hyder, P., & Kato, S. (2016). Large
contribution of supercooled liquid clouds to the solar radiation budget of the Southern Ocean. Journal of Climate, 29(11), 42134228. https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0564.1
213. Cherian, R., & Quaas, J. (2020). Trends in AOD, clouds, and cloud radiative effects in satellite data and CMIP5 and CMIP6 model
simulations over aerosol source regions. Geophysical Research Letters, 47(9). https://doi.org/10.1029/2020gl087132
214. Wu, D. L., Lee, J. N., Kim, K.-M., & Lim, Y.-K. (2020). Interannual variations of TOA albedo over the Arctic, Antarctic and Tibetan
Plateau in 2000–2019. Remote Sensing, 12(9). https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12091460
215. Bernhard, G. H., Fioletov, V. E., Grooß, J.-U., Ialongo, I., Johnsen, B., Lakkala, K., Manney, G. L., & Müller, R. (2019). Ozone andUV radiation. In J. Richter-Menge, E. Osborne, M. Druckenmiller, & M. O. Jeffries (Eds.), “State of the Climate in 2018”, Bulletin of
the American Meteorological Society, 100(9), S165-S168. https://doi.org/10.1175/2019BAMSStateoftheClimate.1
216. Rösner, B., Benedict, I., Van Heerwaarden, C., Weerts, A., Hazeleger, W., Bissolli, P., & Trachte, K. (2019). The long heat wave
and drought in Europe in 2018. In “State of the Climate in 2018”, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 100(9),S222-S223. https://doi.org/10.1175/2019BAMSStateoftheClimate.1
217. Marín, J. C., Bozkurt, D., & Barrett, B. S. (2022). Atmospheric blocking trends and seasonality around the Antarctic Peninsula.
Journal of Climate, 35(12), 3803-3818. https://doi.org/10.1175/jcli-d-21-0323.1
218. Wachowicz, L. J., Preece, J. R., Mote, T. L., Barrett, B. S., & Henderson, G. R. (2020). Historical trends of seasonal Greenland
blocking under different blocking metrics. International Journal of Climatology, 41(S1). https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.6923
219. Woollings, T., Barriopedro, D., Methven, J., Son, S.-W., Martius, O., Harvey, B., Sillmann, J., Lupo, A. R., & Seneviratne, S. (2018).
Blocking and its response to climate change. Current Climate Change Reports, 4(3), 287-300. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40641018-0108-z
220. Dobson, G. M. B., Brewer, A. W., & Cwilong, B. M. (1946). Bakerian Lecture: Meteorology of the lower stratosphere. Proceedingsof the Royal Society of London. Series A. Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 185(1001), 144-175. https://doi.
org/10.1098/rspa.1946.0010
221. Steinbrecht, W., Claude, H., Köhler, U., & Hoinka, K. P. (1998). Correlations between tropopause height and total ozone:
Implications for long-term changes. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 103(D15), 19183-19192. https://doi.
org/10.1029/98JD01929
222. Hommel, R., Eichmann, K. U., Aschmann, J., Bramstedt, K., Weber, M., von Savigny, C., Richter, A., Rozanov, A., Wittrock,F., Khosrawi, F., Bauer, R., & Burrows, J. P. (2014). Chemical ozone loss and ozone mini-hole event during the Arctic winter2010/2011 as observed by SCIAMACHY and GOME-2. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 14(7), 3247-3276. https://doi.
org/10.5194/acp-14-3247-2014
223. Fountoulakis, I., Diémoz, H., Siani, A. M., di Sarra, A., Meloni, D., & Sferlazzo, D. M. (2021). Variability and trends in surface
solar spectral ultraviolet irradiance in Italy: on the influence of geopotential height and lower-stratospheric ozone. Atmospheric
Chemistry and Physics, 21(24), 18689-18705. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-18689-2021
224. Lin, P., Paynter, D., Ming, Y., & Ramaswamy, V. (2017). Changes of the tropical tropopause layer under global warming. Journal of
Climate, 30(4), 1245-1258. https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0457.1
225. Meng, L., Liu, J., Tarasick, D. W., Randel, W. J., Steiner, A. K., Wilhelmsen, H., Wang, L., & Haimberger, L. (2021). Continuous riseof the tropopause in the Northern Hemisphere over 1980–2020. Science Advances, 7(45). https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.
abi8065226. Ball, W. T., Alsing, J., Mortlock, D. J., Staehelin, J., Haigh, J. D., Peter, T., Tummon, F., Stübi, R., Stenke, A., Anderson, J., Bourassa,
A., Davis, S. M., Degenstein, D., Frith, S., Froidevaux, L., Roth, C., Sofieva, V., Wang, R., Wild, J., Yu, P., et al. (2018). Evidence
for a continuous decline in lower stratospheric ozone offsetting ozone layer recovery. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 18(2),1379-1394. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-1379-2018
227. McKenzie, R., Liley, B., Kotkamp, M., Geddes, A., Querel, R., Stierle, S., Lantz, K., Rhodes, S., & Madronich, S. (2022).
Relationship between ozone and biologically relevant UV at 4 NDACC sites. Photochemical & Photobiological Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43630-022-00281-5
228. Booth, C. R., Lucas, T. B., Morrow, J. H., Weiler, C. S., & Penhale, P. A. (1994). The United States National Science Foundation’s
polar network for monitoring ultraviolet radiation. In C. S. Weiler, & P. A. Penhale (Eds.), Ultraviolet radiation in Antarctica:
Measurements and biological effects, 62, 17-37: American Geophysical Union, Washington, D.C. https://doi.org/10.1029/
AR062p0017
229. Bernhard, G., Booth, C. R., & Ehramjian, J. C. (2004). Version 2 data of the National Science Foundation’s ultraviolet
radiation monitoring network: South Pole. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 109(D21), D21207. https://doi.
org/10.1029/2004jd004937

87Chapter 1
230. Bernhard, G. H., McKenzie, R. L., Lantz, K., & Stierle, S. (2022). Updated analysis of data from Palmer Station, Antarctica (64°S), and San Diego, California (32° N), confirms large effect of the Antarctic ozone hole on UV radiation. Photochemical &Photobiological Sciences, 21(3), 373-384. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43630-022-00178-3
231. Cordero, R. R., Damiani, A., Jorquera, J., Sepúlveda, E., Caballero, M., Fernandez, S., Feron, S., Llanillo, P. J., Carrasco, J., Laroze,
D., & Labbe, F. (2018). Ultraviolet radiation in the Atacama Desert. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek, 111(8), 1301-1313. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10482-018-1075-z
232. McKenzie, R. L., & Lucas, R. M. (2018). Reassessing impacts of extended daily exposure to low level solar UV radiation. Scientific
Reports, 8(1), 13805. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-32056-3
233. Kirchhoff, V. W. J. H., Sahai, Y., Casiccia S., C. A. R., Zamorano B., F., & Valderrama V., V. (1997). Observations of the 1995 ozone
hole over Punta Arenas, Chile. Journal of Geophysical Research, 102(D13), 16,109-116,120. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.
com/doi/abs/10.1029/97JD00276
234. du Preez, D. J., Ajtić, J. V., Bencherif, H., Bègue, N., Cadet, J.-M., & Wright, C. Y. (2019). Spring and summer time ozone and solar
ultraviolet radiation variations over Cape Point, South Africa. Annales Geophysicae, 37(2), 129-141. https://doi.org/10.5194/
angeo-37-129-2019
235. Bernhard, G. H., Fioletov, V. E., Grooß, J.-U., Ialongo, I., Johnsen, B., Lakkala, K., Manney, G. L., Müller, R., & Svendby, T.
(2021). Ozone and ultraviolet radiation. In J. Blunden, & T. Boyer (Eds.), “State of the Climate in 2020”, Bulletin of the American
Meteorological Society, 102(8), S299–S303. https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-21-0086.1
236. Bernhard, G. H., Fioletov, V. E., Grooß, J. U., Ialongo, I., Johnsen, B., Lakkala, K., Manney, G. L., Müller, R., & Svendby, T. (2020).
Record-Breaking Increases in Arctic Solar Ultraviolet Radiation Caused by Exceptionally Large Ozone Depletion in 2020.
Geophysical Research Letters, 47(24), e2020GL090844. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020gl090844
237. Bhartia, P. K., & Wellemeyer, C. W. (2002). TOMS-V8 total O3 algorithm. In OMI Algorithm Theoretical Basis Document Volume II.,
15–31. NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Tech. Doc. ATBD-OMI-02
238. Parra, R., Cadena, E., & Flores, C. (2019). Maximum UV index records (2010–2014) in Quito (Ecuador) and its trend inferred fromremote sensing data (1979–2018). Atmosphere, 10(12), 787. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos10120787
239. Rivas, M., Rojas, E., & Madronich, S. (2008). Aumento Del Índice Solar Ultravioleta Con La Altura. Ingeniare. Revista chilena deingeniería, 16(2). https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-33052008000200013
240. Fountoulakis, I., Zerefos, C. S., Bais, A. F., Kapsomenakis, J., Koukouli, M.-E., Ohkawara, N., Fioletov, V., De Backer, H., Lakkala,K., Karppinen, T., & Webb, A. R. (2018). Twenty-five years of spectral UV-B measurements over Canada, Europe and Japan: Trends
and effects from changes in ozone, aerosols, clouds, and surface reflectivity. Comptes Rendus Geoscience, 350(7), 393-402.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crte.2018.07.011
241. Zhang, H., Wang, J., Castro García, L., Zeng, J., Dennhardt, C., Liu, Y., & Krotkov, N. A. (2019). Surface erythemal UV irradiance inthe continental United States derived from ground-based and OMI observations: quality assessment, trend analysis and samplingissues. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 19(4), 2165-2181. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-2165-2019242. Chubarova, N. E., Pastukhova, A. S., Zhdanova, E. Y., Volpert, E. V., Smyshlyaev, S. P., & Galin, V. Y. (2020). Effects of ozone andclouds on temporal variability of surface UV radiation and UV resources over Northern Eurasia derived from measurements andmodeling. Atmosphere, 11(1), 59. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos11010059
243. Chubarova, N. E., Pastukhova, A. S., Galin, V. Y., & Smyshlyaev, S. P. (2018). Long-term variability of UV irradiance in the Moscow
region according to measurement and modeling data. Izvestiya, Atmospheric and Oceanic Physics, 54(2), 139-146. https://doi.
org/10.1134/s0001433818020056
244. Aun, M., Eerme, K., Ansko, I., & Aun, M. (2019). Daily, seasonal, and annual characteristics of UV radiation and its influencing
factors in Tõravere, Estonia, 2004–2016. Theoretical and Applied Climatology, 138(1-2), 887-897. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s00704-019-02865-1
245. Fountoulakis, I., Diémoz, H., Siani, A.-M., Laschewski, G., Filippa, G., Arola, A., Bais, A. F., De Backer, H., Lakkala, K., Webb,
A. R., De Bock, V., Karppinen, T., Garane, K., Kapsomenakis, J., Koukouli, M.-E., & Zerefos, C. S. (2020). Solar UV irradiancein a changing climate: Trends in Europe and the significance of spectral monitoring in Italy. Environments, 7(1), 1. https://doi.
org/10.3390/environments7010001
246. Hunter, N., Rendell, R. J., Higlett, M. P., amp, apos, Hagan, J. B., & Haylock, R. G. E. (2019). Relationship between erythemaeffective UV radiant exposure, total ozone, cloud cover and aerosols in southern England, UK. Atmospheric Chemistry andPhysics, 19(1), 683-699. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-683-2019
247. Torres, O., Bhartia, P. K., Jethva, H., & Ahn, C. (2018). Impact of the ozone monitoring instrument row anomaly on the long-term
record of aerosol products. Atmospheric Measurement Techniques, 11(5), 2701-2715. https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-11-27012018

88

Chapter 1
248. Herman, J., Cede, A., Huang, L., Ziemke, J., Torres, O., Krotkov, N., Kowalewski, M., & Blank, K. (2020). Global distribution and
14-year changes in erythemal irradiance, UV atmospheric transmission, and total column ozone for 2005–2018 estimated from
OMI and EPIC observations. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 20(14), 8351-8380. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-83512020
249. Lindfors, A., & Vuilleumier, L. (2005). Erythemal UV at Davos (Switzerland), 1926-2003, estimated using total ozone, sunshine
duration, and snow depth. Journal of Geophysical Research, 110(D2, D02104). https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JD005231
250. Krzyścin, J. W., & Sobolewski, P. S. (2018). Trends in erythemal doses at the Polish Polar Station, Hornsund, Svalbard based on thehomogenized measurements (1996–2016) and reconstructed data (1983–1995). Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 18(1), 1-11.
https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-1-2018251. Posyniak, M., Szkop, A., Pietruczuk, A., Podgórski, J., & Krzyścin, J. (2016). The long-term (1964–2014) variability of aerosol
optical thickness and its impact on solar irradiance based on the data taken at Belsk, Poland. Acta Geophysica, 64(5), 1858-1874.
https://doi.org/10.1515/acgeo-2016-0026
252. Čížková, K., Láska, K., Metelka, L., & Staněk, M. (2018). Reconstruction and analysis of erythemal UV radiation time series from
Hradec Králové (Czech Republic) over the past 50 years. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 18(3), 1805-1818. https://doi.
org/10.5194/acp-18-1805-2018
253. Volpert, E. V., & Chubarova, N. E. (2021). Long-term changes in solar radiation in Northern Eurasia during the warm season
according to measurements and reconstruction model. Russian Meteorology and Hydrology, 46(8), 507-518. https://doi.
org/10.3103/S1068373921080021
254. Malinović-Milićević, S., Radovanović, M. M., Mijatović, Z., & Petrović, M. D. (2022). Reconstruction and variability of high dailyerythemal ultraviolet doses and relationship with total ozone, cloud cover, and albedo in Novi Sad (Serbia). International Journalof Climatology. https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.7803
255. WMO. (2011). Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2010, [A.-L. Ajavon, P. A. Newman, J. A. Pyle, & A. R. Ravishankara(Eds.)]. Global Ozone Research and Monitoring Project – Report No. 52. World Meteorological Organisation, Geneva,
Switzerland.
256. WMO. (2014). Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2014, [A.-L. N. Ajavon, P. A. Newman, J. A. Pyle, & A. R. Ravishankara(Eds.)]. Global Ozone Research and Monitoring Project – Report No. 55. World Meteorological Organisation, Geneva,
Switzerland.
257. Bernhard, G., Dahlback, A., Fioletov, V., Heikkilä, A., Johnsen, B., Koskela, T., Lakkala, K., & Svendby, T. (2013). High levels of
ultraviolet radiation observed by ground-based instruments below the 2011 Arctic ozone hole. Atmospheric Chemistry andPhysics, 13(21), 10573-10590. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-10573-2013258. Kazadzis, S., Founda, D., Psiloglou, B. E., Kambezidis, H., Mihalopoulos, N., Sanchez-Lorenzo, A., Meleti, C., Raptis, P. I., Pierros,F., & Nabat, P. (2018). Long-term series and trends in surface solar radiation in Athens, Greece. Atmospheric Chemistry andPhysics, 18(4), 2395-2411. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-2395-2018259. Wild, M., Wacker, S., Yang, S., & Sanchez-Lorenzo, A. (2021). Evidence for clear-sky dimming and brightening in Central Europe.
Geophysical Research Letters, 48(6). https://doi.org/10.1029/2020gl092216
260. Lamy, K., Portafaix, T., Josse, B., Brogniez, C., Godin-Beekmann, S., Bencherif, H., Revell, L., Akiyoshi, H., Bekki, S., Hegglin, M.
I., Jöckel, P., Kirner, O., Liley, B., Marecal, V., Morgenstern, O., Stenke, A., Zeng, G., Abraham, N. L., Archibald, A. T., Butchart,N., et al. (2019). Clear-sky ultraviolet radiation modelling using output from the Chemistry Climate Model Initiative. Atmospheric
Chemistry and Physics, 19(15), 10087-10110. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-10087-2019
261. Eyring, V., Lamarque, J.-F., Hess, P., Arfeuille, F., Bowman, K., Chipperfiel, M. P., Duncan, B., Fiore, A., Gettelman, A., & Giorgetta,
M. A. (2013). Overview of IGAC/SPARC Chemistry-Climate Model Initiative (CCMI) community simulations in support ofupcoming ozone and climate assessments. SPARC Newsletter, 40(1), 48-66.
262. van Vuuren, D. P., Edmonds, J., Kainuma, M., Riahi, K., Thomson, A., Hibbard, K., Hurtt, G. C., Kram, T., Krey, V., Lamarque, J.-F.,
Masui, T., Meinshausen, M., Nakicenovic, N., Smith, S. J., & Rose, S. K. (2011). The representative concentration pathways: an
overview. Climatic Change, 109(1-2), 5-31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-0148-z
263. Kinne, S., O’Donnel, D., Stier, P., Kloster, S., Zhang, K., Schmidt, H., Rast, S., Giorgetta, M., Eck, T. F., & Stevens, B. (2013).
MAC-v1: A new global aerosol climatology for climate studies. Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems, 5(4), 704-740.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jame.20035
264. Pastukhova, A. S., Chubarova, N. E., Zhdanova, Y. Y., Galin, V. Y., & Smyshlyaev, S. P. (2019). Numerical simulation of variations
in ozone content, erythemal ultraviolet radiation, and ultraviolet resources over Northern Eurasia in the 21st century. Izvestiya,
Atmospheric and Oceanic Physics, 55(3), 242-250. https://doi.org/10.1134/s0001433819030058
265. Eleftheratos, K., Kapsomenakis, J., Zerefos, C. S., Bais, A. F., Fountoulakis, I., Dameris, M., Jöckel, P., Haslerud, A. S., GodinBeekmann, S., Steinbrecht, W., Petropavlovskikh, I., Brogniez, C., Leblanc, T., Liley, J. B., Querel, R., & Swart, D. P. J. (2020).
Possible effects of greenhouse gases to ozone profiles and DNA active UV-B irradiance at ground level. Atmosphere, 11(3), 228.
https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos11030228

89Chapter 1
266. Setlow, R. B. (1974). The wavelengths in sunlight effective in producing skin cancer: a theoretical analysis. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 71(9), 3363-3366. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.71.9.3363
267. Chiodo, G., Polvani, L. M., Marsh, D. R., Stenke, A., Ball, W., Rozanov, E., Muthers, S., & Tsigaridis, K. (2018). The response of theozone layer to quadrupled CO2 concentrations. Journal of Climate, 31(10), 3893-3907. https://doi.org/10.1175/jcli-d-17-0492.1
268. IPCC. (2014). Climate change 2014: synthesis report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the fifth assessment reportof the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, [Core Writing Team, R. K. Pachauri, & L. A. Meyer (Eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva,
Switzerland.
269. Bardeen, C. G., Kinnison, D. E., Toon, O. B., Mills, M. J., Vitt, F., Xia, L., Jägermeyr, J., Lovenduski, N. S., Scherrer, K. J. N., Clyne,M., & Robock, A. (2021). Extreme Ozone Loss Following Nuclear War Results in Enhanced Surface Ultraviolet Radiation. Journal ofGeophysical Research: Atmospheres, 126(18). https://doi.org/10.1029/2021JD035079
270. Tilmes, S., MacMartin, D. G., Lenaerts, J., van Kampenhout, L., Muntjewerf, L., Xia, L., Harrison, C. S., Krumhardt, K. M., Mills, M.
J., & Kravitz, B. (2020). Reaching 1.5 and 2.0 °C global surface temperature targets using stratospheric aerosol geoengineering.
Earth System Dynamics, 11(3), 579-601. https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-11-579-2020
271. Tilmes, S., Richter, J. H., Kravitz, B., MacMartin, D. G., Glanville, A. S., Visioni, D., Kinnison, D. E., & Müller, R. (2021).
Sensitivity of total column ozone to stratospheric sulfur injection strategies. Geophysical Research Letters, 48(19). https://doi.
org/10.1029/2021GL094058
272. Tilmes, S., Visioni, D., Jones, A., Haywood, J., Séférian, R., Nabat, P., Boucher, O., Bednarz, E. M., & Niemeier, U. (2022).
Stratospheric ozone response to sulfate aerosol and solar dimming climate interventions based on the G6 Geoengineering
Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) simulations. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 22(7), 4557-4579. https://doi.
org/10.5194/acp-22-4557-2022
273. Robrecht, S., Vogel, B., Tilmes, S., & Müller, R. (2021). Potential of future stratospheric ozone loss in the midlatitudes under global
warming and sulfate geoengineering. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 21(4), 2427-2455. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-212427-2021
274. Madronich, S., Tilmes, S., Kravitz, B., MacMartin, D., & Richter, J. (2018). Response of Surface Ultraviolet and Visible Radiation toStratospheric SO2 Injections. Atmosphere, 9(11), 432. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos9110432
275. Durand, M., Murchie, E. H., Lindfors, A. V., Urban, O., Aphalo, P. J., & Robson, T. M. (2021). Diffuse solar radiation andcanopy photosynthesis in a changing environment. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
agrformet.2021.108684
276. De Mazière, M., Thompson, A. M., Kurylo, M. J., Wild, J. D., Bernhard, G., Blumenstock, T., Braathen, G. O., Hannigan, J. W.,
Lambert, J.-C., Leblanc, T., McGee, T. J., Nedoluha, G., Petropavlovskikh, I., Seckmeyer, G., Simon, P. C., Steinbrecht, W.,& Strahan, S. E. (2018). The Network for the Detection of Atmospheric Composition Change (NDACC): history, status andperspectives. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 18(7), 4935-4964. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-4935-2018277. Hülsen, G., Gröbner, J., Bais, A., Blumthaler, M., Diémoz, H., Bolsée, D., Diaz, A., Fountoulakis, I., Naranen, E., Schreder,J., Stefania, F., & Manuel Vilaplana Guerrero, J. (2020). Second solar ultraviolet radiometer comparison campaign UVC-II.
Metrologia, 57(3). https://doi.org/10.1088/1681-7575/ab74e5278. Svendby, T. M., Johnsen, B., Kylling, A., Dahlback, A., Bernhard, G. H., Hansen, G. H., Petkov, B., & Vitale, V. (2021). GUV longterm measurements of total ozone column and effective cloud transmittance at three Norwegian sites. Atmospheric Chemistry
and Physics, 21(10), 7881-7899. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-7881-2021
279. Foster, T. M., Weide, E. L., Niedzwiedz, A., Duffert, J., & Seckmeyer, G. (2021). Characterization of the angular response of amulti-directional spectroradiometer for measuring spectral radiance. EPJ Techniques and Instrumentation, 8(1). https://doi.
org/10.1140/epjti/s40485-021-00069280. Johnsen, B., Kjeldstad, B., Aalerud, T. N., Nilsen, L. T., Schreder, J., Blumthaler, M., Bernhard, G., Topaloglou, C., Meinander, O.,
Bagheri, A., Slusser, J. R., & Davis, J. (2008). Intercomparison and harmonization of UV Index measurements from multiband filter
radiometers. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 113(D15). https://doi.org/10.1029/2007jd009731
281. Egli, L., Gröbner, J., Hülsen, G., Bachmann, L., Blumthaler, M., Dubard, J., Khazova, M., Kift, R., Hoogendijk, K., Serrano, A.,
Smedley, A., & Vilaplana, J. M. (2016). Quality assessment of solar UV irradiance measured with array spectroradiometers.
Atmospheric Measurement Techniques, 9(4), 1553-1567. https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-9-1553-2016
282. Zuber, R., Ribnitzky, M., Tobar, M., Lange, K., Kutscher, D., Schrempf, M., Niedzwiedz, A., & Seckmeyer, G. (2018). Global
spectral irradiance array spectroradiometer validation according to WMO. Measurement Science and Technology, 29(10).
https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6501/aada34
283. González, C., Vilaplana, J. M., Bogeat, J. A., & Serrano, A. (2022). Comparison of global UV spectral irradiance measurements
between a BTS CCD-array and a Brewer spectroradiometer. Atmospheric Measurement Techniques, 15(13), 4125-4133. https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-15-4125-2022

90

Chapter 1
284. Allen, M. W., Swift, N., Nield, K. M., Liley, B., & McKenzie, R. L. (2020). Use of electronic UV dosimeters in measuring personal UV
exposures and public health education. Atmosphere, 11(7). https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos11070744
285. Diffey, B. (2020). The early days of personal solar ultraviolet dosimetry. Atmosphere, 11(2), 125. https://doi.org/10.3390/
atmos11020125
286. Downs, N. J., Axelsen, T., Parisi, A. V., Schouten, P. W., & Dexter, B. R. (2020). Measured UV exposures of ironman, sprint andolympic-distance triathlon competitors. Atmosphere, 11(5). https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos11050440
287. Cai, S., Zuo, C., Zhang, J., Liu, H., & Fang, X. (2021). A paper-based wearable photodetector for simultaneous UV intensity anddosage measurement. Advanced Functional Materials, 31(20). https://doi.org/10.1002/adfm.202100026
288. Seckmeyer, G., Klingebiel, M., Riechelmann, S., Lohse, I., McKenzie, R. L., Ben Liley, J., Allen, M. W., Siani, A.-M., & Casale, G. R.
(2012). A critical assessment of two types of personal UV dosimeters. Photochemistry and Photobiology, 88(1), 215-222. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-1097.2011.01018.x
289. Gröbner, J., Schreder, J., Kazadzis, S., Bais, A. F., Blumthaler, M., Görts, P., Tax, R., Koskela, T., Seckmeyer, G., Webb, A. R., &Rembges, D. (2005). Traveling reference spectroradiometer for routine quality assurance of spectral solar ultraviolet irradiancemeasurements. Applied Optics, 44(25), 5321-5331. https://doi.org/10.1364/AO.44.005321
290. Cadet, J.-M., Portafaix, T., Bencherif, H., Lamy, K., Brogniez, C., Auriol, F., Metzger, J.-M., Boudreault, L.-E., & Wright, C. Y. (2020).
Inter-comparison campaign of solar UVR instruments under clear sky conditions at Reunion Island (21°S, 55°E). International
Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(8). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17082867
291. Fountoulakis, I., Diémoz, H., Siani, A. M., Hülsen, G., & Gröbner, J. (2020). Monitoring of solar spectral ultraviolet irradiance in
Aosta, Italy. Earth System Science Data, 12(4), 2787-2810. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-12-2787-2020
292. Schinke, C., Pollex, H., Hinken, D., Wolf, M., Bothe, K., Kröger, I., Nevas, S., & Winter, S. (2020). Calibrating spectrometers formeasurements of the spectral irradiance caused by solar radiation. Metrologia, 57(6). https://doi.org/10.1088/1681-7575/
abafc5293. Mayer, B., & Kylling, A. (2005). Technical note: The libRadtran software package for radiative transfer calculations – description
and examples of use. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 5, 1855-1877. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-5-1855-2005
294. Ricchiazzi, P., Yang, S., Gautier, C., & Sowle, D. (1998). SBDART: A research and teaching software tool for plane-parallel
radiative transfer in the Earth’s atmosphere. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 79(10), 2101-2114. https://doi.
org/10.1175/1520-0477(1998)079<2101:Sarats>2.0.Co;2295. Gueymard, C. A. (2019). The SMARTS spectral irradiance model after 25 years: New developments and validation of reference
spectra. Solar Energy, 187, 233-253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2019.05.048
296. Madronich, S., & Flocke, S. (1997). Theoretical Estimation of Biologically Effective UV Radiation at the Earth’s Surface. In C.
S. Zerefos, & A. F. Bais (Eds.), Solar Ultraviolet Radiation - Modeling, Measurements & Effects, 52, 23-48. Springer, Berlin,
Germany.
297. Madronich, S. (1992). Implications of recent total atmospheric ozone measurements for biologically active ultraviolet radiation
reaching the earth’s surface. Geophysical Research Letters, 19(1), 37-40. https://doi.org/10.1029/91GL02954
298. Emde, C., & Mayer, B. (2007). Simulation of solar radiation during a total eclipse: a challenge for radiative transfer. Atmospheric
Chemistry and Physics, 7(9), 2259-2270. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-7-2259-2007
299. Ockenfuß, P., Emde, C., Mayer, B., & Bernhard, G. (2020). Accurate 3-D radiative transfer simulation of spectral solar
irradiance during the total solar eclipse of 21 August 2017. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 20(4), 1961-1976. https://doi.
org/10.5194/acp-20-1961-2020
300. Noebauer, U. M., & Sim, S. A. (2019). Monte Carlo radiative transfer. Living Reviews in Computational Astrophysics, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41115-019-0004-9
301. Gueymard, C. A. (2018). Revised composite extraterrestrial spectrum based on recent solar irradiance observations. Solar Energy,
169, 434-440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2018.04.067
302. Bak, J., Coddington, O., Liu, X., Chance, K., Lee, H.-J., Jeon, W., Kim, J.-H., & Kim, C.-H. (2021). Impact of using a new highresolution solar reference spectrum on OMI ozone profile retrievals. Remote Sensing, 14(1). https://doi.org/10.3390/
rs14010037
303. Schmid, B., & Wehrli, C. (1995). Comparison of Sun photometer calibration by use of the Langley technique and the standard
lamp. Applied Optics, 34(21), 4500-4512. https://doi.org/10.1364/ao.34.004500
304. Gröbner, J., Kröger, I., Egli, L., Hülsen, G., Riechelmann, S., & Sperfeld, P. (2017). The high-resolution extraterrestrial solar
spectrum (QASUMEFTS) determined from ground-based solar irradiance measurements. Atmospheric Measurement Techniques,10, 3375–3383. https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-10-3375-2017

91

Chapter 1
305. Richard, E., Harber, D., Coddington, O., Drake, G., Rutkowski, J., Triplett, M., Pilewskie, P., & Woods, T. (2020). SI-traceable
spectral irradiance radiometric characterization and absolute calibration of the TSIS-1 Spectral Irradiance Monitor (SIM). Remote
Sensing, 12(11). https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12111818
306. Coddington, O. M., Richard, E. C., Harber, D., Pilewskie, P., Woods, T. N., Chance, K., Liu, X., & Sun, K. (2021). The TSIS‐1 Hybrid
Solar Reference Spectrum. Geophysical Research Letters, 48(12). https://doi.org/10.1029/2020gl091709
307. Arola, A., Wandji Nyamsi, W., Lipponen, A., Kazadzis, S., Krotkov, N. A., & Tamminen, J. (2021). Rethinking the correction forabsorbing aerosols in the OMI- and TROPOMI-like surface UV algorithms. Atmospheric Measurement Techniques, 14(7), 49474957. https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-14-4947-2021
308. Heath, D. F., Mateer, C. L., & Krueger, A. J. (1973). The Nimbus-4 Backscatter Ultraviolet (BUV) atmospheric ozone experiment —tow years’ operation. Pure and Applied Geophysics, 106-108(1), 1238-1253. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00881076
309. Frith, S. M., Kramarova, N. A., Stolarski, R. S., McPeters, R. D., Bhartia, P. K., & Labow, G. J. (2014). Recent changes in total column
ozone based on the SBUV Version 8.6 Merged Ozone Data Set. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 119(16), 97359751. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JD02188
310. Krotkov, N. A., Bhartia, P. K., Herman, J. R., Fioletov, V., & Kerr, J. (1998). Satellite estimation of spectral surface UV irradiance inthe presence of tropospheric aerosols: 1. Cloud-free case. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 103(D8), 8779-8793.
https://doi.org/10.1029/98jd00233
311. Krotkov, N. A., Herman, J. R., Bhartia, P. K., Fioletov, V., & Ahmad, Z. (2001). Satellite estimation of spectral surface UV irradiance:
2. Effects of homogeneous clouds and snow. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 106(D11), 11743-11759. https://doi.org/10.1029/2000jd900721
312. Burrows, J. P., Weber, M., Buchwitz, M., Rozanov, V., Ladstätter-Weißenmayer, A., Richter, A., DeBeek, R., Hoogen, R.,
Bramstedt, K., Eichmann, K.-U., Eisinger, M., & Perner, D. (1999). The Global Ozone Monitoring Experiment (GOME): Mission
concept and first scientific results. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 56(2), 151-175. https://doi.org/10.1175/15200469(1999)056<0151:Tgomeg>2.0.Co;2
313. Kujanpää, J., & Kalakoski, N. (2015). Operational surface UV radiation product from GOME-2 and AVHRR/3 data. AtmosphericMeasurement Techniques, 8(10), 4399-4414. https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-8-4399-2015
314. Levelt, P. F., Joiner, J., Tamminen, J., Veefkind, J. P., Bhartia, P. K., Stein Zweers, D. C., Duncan, B. N., Streets, D. G., Eskes, H., vander A, R., McLinden, C., Fioletov, V., Carn, S., de Laat, J., DeLand, M., Marchenko, S., McPeters, R., Ziemke, J., Fu, D., Liu, X., et al.
(2018). The Ozone Monitoring Instrument: overview of 14 years in space. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 18(8), 5699-5745.
https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-5699-2018
315. Herman, J., Huang, L., McPeters, R., Ziemke, J., Cede, A., & Blank, K. (2018). Synoptic ozone, cloud reflectivity, and erythemal
irradiance from sunrise to sunset for the whole earth as viewed by the DSCOVR spacecraft from the earth–sun Lagrange 1 orbit.
Atmospheric Measurement Techniques, 11(1), 177-194. https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-11-177-2018
316. Brogniez, C., Auriol, F., Deroo, C., Arola, A., Kujanpää, J., Sauvage, B., Kalakoski, N., Pitkänen, M. R. A., Catalfamo, M., Metzger,
J. M., Tournois, G., & Da Conceicao, P. (2016). Validation of satellite-based noontime UVI with NDACC ground-based instruments:
influence of topography, environment and satellite overpass time. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 16(23), 15049-15074.
https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-15049-2016
317. Arola, A., Kazadzis, S., Lindfors, A., Krotkov, N., Kujanpää, J., Tamminen, J., Bais, A., di Sarra, A., Villaplana, J. M., Brogniez, C.,
Siani, A. M., Janouch, M., Weihs, P., Webb, A., Koskela, T., Kouremeti, N., Meloni, D., Buchard, V., Auriol, F., Ialongo, I., et al.
(2009). A new approach to correct for absorbing aerosols in OMI UV. Geophysical Research Letters, 36(22), L22805. https://doi.org/10.1029/2009gl041137
318. Bernhard, G., Arola, A., Dahlback, A., Fioletov, V., Heikkilä, A., Johnsen, B., Koskela, T., Lakkala, K., Svendby, T., & Tamminen,
J. (2015). Comparison of OMI UV observations with ground-based measurements at high northern latitudes. Atmospheric
Chemistry and Physics, 15(13), 7391-7412. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-7391-2015
319. Kosmopoulos, P. G., Kazadzis, S., Schmalwieser, A. W., Raptis, P. I., Papachristopoulou, K., Fountoulakis, I., Masoom, A., Bais,
A. F., Bilbao, J., Blumthaler, M., Kreuter, A., Siani, A. M., Eleftheratos, K., Topaloglou, C., Gröbner, J., Johnsen, B., Svendby, T.
M., Vilaplana, J. M., Doppler, L., Webb, A. R., et al. (2021). Real-time UV index retrieval in Europe using Earth observation-based
techniques: system description and quality assessment. Atmospheric Measurement Techniques, 14(8), 5657-5699. https://doi.
org/10.5194/amt-14-5657-2021
320. Vuilleumier, L., Harris, T., Nenes, A., Backes, C., & Vernez, D. (2021). Developing a UV climatology for public health purposes
using satellite data. Environment International, 146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2020.106177
321. Fisher, D. (2020). Mission Status for Earth Science Constellation. In NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Tech. Doc. Document ID
20205007514, 1-41: Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland.
322. Flynn, L., Long, C., Wu, X., Evans, R., Beck, C. T., Petropavlovskikh, I., McConville, G., Yu, W., Zhang, Z., & Niu, J. (2014).
Performance of the ozone mapping and profiler suite (OMPS) products. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 119(10),6181-6195. https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JD020484

92

Chapter 1
323. Lindfors, A. V., Kujanpää, J., Kalakoski, N., Heikkilä, A., Lakkala, K., Mielonen, T., Sneep, M., Krotkov, N. A., Arola, A., &Tamminen, J. (2018). The TROPOMI surface UV algorithm. Atmospheric Measurement Techniques, 11(2), 997-1008. https://doi.
org/10.5194/amt-11-997-2018324. Cortesi, U., Ceccherini, S., Del Bianco, S., Gai, M., Tirelli, C., Zoppetti, N., Barbara, F., Bonazountas, M., Argyridis, A., Bós,
A., Loenen, E., Arola, A., Kujanpää, J., Lipponen, A., Wandji Nyamsi, W., van der A, R., van Peet, J., Tuinder, O., Farruggia, V.,
Masini, A., et al. (2018). Advanced Ultraviolet Radiation and Ozone Retrieval for Applications (AURORA): A project overview.
Atmosphere, 9(11), 454. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos9110454
325. Lakkala, K., Kujanpää, J., Brogniez, C., Henriot, N., Arola, A., Aun, M., Auriol, F., Bais, A. F., Bernhard, G., De Bock, V., Catalfamo,M., Deroo, C., Diémoz, H., Egli, L., Forestier, J.-B., Fountoulakis, I., Garcia, R. D., Gröbner, J., Hassinen, S., Heikkilä, A., etal. (2020). Validation of the TROPOspheric Monitoring Instrument (TROPOMI) surface UV radiation product. AtmosphericMeasurement Techniques, 13(12), 6999–7024. https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-13-6999-2020
326. Tanskanen, A., Lindfors, A., Maatta, A., Krotkov, N., Herman, J., Kaurola, J., Koskela, T., Lakkala, K., Fioletov, V., Bernhard, G.,
McKenzie, R., Kondo, Y., O’Neill, M., Slaper, H., den Outer, P., Bais, A. F., & Tamminen, J. (2007). Validation of daily erythemal
doses from Ozone Monitoring Instrument with ground-based UV measurement data. Journal of Geophysical Research:
Atmospheres, 112(D24). https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JD008830
327. Zempila, M. M., Fountoulakis, I., Taylor, M., Kazadzis, S., Arola, A., Koukouli, M. E., Bais, A., Meleti, C., & Balis, D. (2018).
Validation of OMI erythemal doses with multi-sensor ground-based measurements in Thessaloniki, Greece. Atmospheric
Environment, 183, 106-121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2018.04.012
328. Lipponen, A., Ceccherini, S., Cortesi, U., Gai, M., Keppens, A., Masini, A., Simeone, E., Tirelli, C., & Arola, A. (2020). Advanced
ultraviolet radiation and ozone retrieval for applications—surface ultraviolet radiation products. Atmosphere, 11(4). https://doi.
org/10.3390/atmos11040324
329. Zhao, R., & He, T. (2022). Estimation of 1-km tesolution all-sky instantaneous erythemal UV-B with MODIS data based on a deeplearning method. Remote Sensing, 14(2). https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14020384
330. Krzyścin, J. W., Guzikowski, J., Pietruczuk, A., & Sobolewski, P. S. (2019). Improvement of the 24 hr forecast of surface UV radiation
using an ensemble approach. Meteorological Applications, 27(1). https://doi.org/10.1002/met.1865
331. Ahmed, A. A. M., Ahmed, M. H., Saha, S. K., Ahmed, O., & Sutradhar, A. (2022). Optimization algorithms as training approachwith hybrid deep learning methods to develop an ultraviolet index forecasting model. Stochastic Environmental Research andRisk Assessment, 36(10), 3011-3039. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-022-02177-3
332. Scragg, R. K. R., Stewart, A. W., McKenzie, R. L., Reeder, A. I., Liley, J. B., & Allen, M. W. (2016). Sun exposure and25-hydroxyvitamin D3 levels in a community sample: quantifying the association with electronic dosimeters. Journal of Exposure
Science & Environmental Epidemiology, 27(5), 471-477. https://doi.org/10.1038/jes.2016.51
333. Godar, D. E. (2005). UV Doses Worldwide. Photochemistry and Photobiology, 81(4). https://doi.org/10.1562/2004-09-07-ir308r.1
334. Schmalwieser, A. W., & Siani, A. M. (2018). Review on nonoccupational personal solar UV exposure measurements.
Photochemistry and Photobiology, 94(5), 900-915. https://doi.org/10.1111/php.12946
335. Schmalwieser, A. W., Casale, G. R., Colosimo, A., Schmalwieser, S. S., & Siani, A. M. (2021). Review on occupational personal
solar UV exposure measurements. Atmosphere, 12(2). https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos12020142
336. Backes, C., Religi, A., Moccozet, L., Vuilleumier, L., Vernez, D., & Bulliard, J. L. (2018). Facial exposure to ultraviolet radiation:
Predicted sun protection effectiveness of various hat styles. Photodermatology, Photoimmunology and Photomedicine, 34(5),330-337.
337. Backes, C., Religi, A., Moccozet, L., Behar-Cohen, F., Vuilleumier, L., Bulliard, J.-L., & Vernez, D. (2019). Sun exposure to the eyes:
predicted UV protection effectiveness of various sunglasses. Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology, 29(6),753-764.
338. Mims III, F. M., McGonigle, A. J. S., Wilkes, T. C., Parisi, A. V., Grant, W. B., Cook, J. M., & Pering, T. D. (2019). Measuring andvisualizing solar UV for a wide range of atmospheric conditions on Hawai’i island. International Journal of Environmental Researchand Public Health, 16(6), 997. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16060997
339. Wester, U., Pagels, P., & Boldemann, C. (2018). Solar ultraviolet radiation exposure proxy‐estimated by sky view fish‐eye
photography—potentials and limitations from an exploratory correlation study. Photochemistry and Photobiology, 95(2), 656661. https://doi.org/10.1111/php.13027
340. Schmalwieser, A. W., Lohr, M. A., Daly, S. M., & Williams, J. D. (2022). Modeling acute and cumulative erythemal sun exposure
on vulnerable body sites during beach vacations utilizing behavior-encoded 3D body models. Photochemical & Photobiological
Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43630-022-00293-1
341. Henning, A., J. Downs, N., & Vanos, J. K. (2021). Wearable ultraviolet radiation sensors for research and personal use.
International Journal of Biometeorology, 66(3), 627-640. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00484-021-02216-8

93Chapter 1
342. Huang, X., & Chalmers, A. N. (2021). Review of wearable and portable sensors for monitoring personal solar UV exposure. Annalsof Biomedical Engineering, 49(3), 964-978. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-020-02710-x
343. Zou, W., Sastry, M., Gooding, J. J., Ramanathan, R., & Bansal, V. (2020). Recent advances and a roadmap to wearable UV sensor
technologies. Advanced Materials Technologies, 5(4). https://doi.org/10.1002/admt.201901036
344. Wilson, D. J., Martín-Martínez, F. J., & Deravi, L. F. (2022). Wearable light sensors based on unique features of a natural biochrome.
ACS Sensors, 7(2), 523-533. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssensors.1c02342
345. Wang, J., Jeevarathinam, A. S., Jhunjhunwala, A., Ren, H., Lemaster, J., Luo, Y., Fenning, D. P., Fullerton, E. E., & Jokerst, J. V.
(2018). A wearable colorimetric dosimeter to monitor sunlight exposure. Advanced Materials Technologies, 3(6). https://doi.
org/10.1002/admt.201800037
346. Terenetskaya, I. (2019). How to provide adequate UV dosimetry to avoid Vitamin D deficiency and related neuropsychiatricdisorders. Archives in Neurology & Neuroscience, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.33552/ANN.2019.06.000629
347. de Troya Martín, M., Blázquez Sánchez, N., García Harana, C., Alarcón Leiva, M. C., Aguilera Arjona, J., Rivas Ruiz, F., & de Gálvez
Aranda, M. V. (2021). Beach lifeguards: sun exposure and sun protection in Spain. Safety and Health at Work, 12(2), 244-248.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shaw.2020.10.003
348. Robinson, J. K., Durst, D. A., Gray, E., Kwasny, M., Heo, S. Y., Banks, A., & Rogers, J. A. (2020). Sun exposure reduction bymelanoma survivors with wearable sensor providing real-time UV exposure and daily text messages with structured goal setting.
Archives of Dermatological Research, 313(8), 685-694. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00403-020-02163-1
349. Modenese, A., Korpinen, L., & Gobba, F. (2018). Solar radiation exposure and outdoor work: an underestimated occupationalrisk. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(10). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15102063
350. Robinson, J. K., Patel, S., Heo, S. Y., Gray, E., Lim, J., Kwon, K., Christiansen, Z., Model, J., Trueb, J., Banks, A., Kwasny, M.,& Rogers, J. A. (2021). Real-time UV measurement with a sun protection system for warning young adults about sunburn:
Prospective cohort study. JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 9(5). https://doi.org/10.2196/25895
351. Moldovan, H. R., Wittlich, M., John, S. M., Brans, R., Tiplica, G. S., Salavastru, C., Voidazan, S. T., Duca, R. C., Fugulyan, E.,
Horvath, G., Alexa, A., & Butacu, A. I. (2020). Exposure to solar UV radiation in outdoor construction workers using personal
dosimetry. Environmental Research, 181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2019.108967
352. Thieden, E., Holm-Schou, A.-S. S., Philipsen, P. A., Heydenreich, J., & Wulf, H. C. (2019). Adult UVR exposure changes with life
stage – a 14-year follow-up study using personal electronic UVR dosimeters. Photochemical & Photobiological Sciences, 18(2),467-476. https://doi.org/10.1039/c8pp00365c
353. De Castro-Maqueda, G., Gutierrez-Manzanedo, J. V., Ponce-González, J. G., Fernandez-Santos, J. R., Linares-Barrios, M., & De
Troya-Martín, M. (2019). Sun protection habits and sunburn in elite aquatics athletes: Surfers, windsurfers and olympic sailors.
Journal of Cancer Education, 35(2), 312-320. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-018-1466-x
354. Nakagawara, V. B., Montgomery, R. W., & Marshall, W. J. (2007). Optical radiation transmittance of aircraft windscreeens and pilot
vision. Vol. DOT/FAA/AM-07/20. Office of Aerospace Medicine, Washington, DC.
355. International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (2004). Guidelines on limits of exposure to ultraviolet radiation of
wavelengths between 180 nm and 400 nm (incoherent optical radiation). Health Physics, 87(2), 171-186.
356. Baczynska, K. A., Brown, S., Chorley, A. C., Lyachev, A., Wittlich, M., & Khazova, M. (2020). Measurements of UV-A exposure ofcommercial pilots using Genesis-UV dosimeters. Atmosphere, 11(5). https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos11050475
357. Turner, J., Igoe, D., Parisi, A. V., McGonigle, A. J., Amar, A., & Wainwright, L. (2020). A review on the ability of smartphones todetect ultraviolet (UV) radiation and their potential to be used in UV research and for public education purposes. Science of the
Total Environment, 706. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135873
358. Salvadori, G., Leccese, F., Lista, D., Burattini, C., & Bisegna, F. (2020). Use of smartphone apps to monitor human exposure tosolar radiation: Comparison between predicted and measured UV index values. Environmental Research, 183. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.envres.2020.109274
359. Kwon, K., Heo, S. Y., Yoo, I., Banks, A., Chan, M., Lee, J. Y., Park, J. B., Kim, J., & Rogers, J. A. (2019). Miniaturized, light-adaptive,
wireless dosimeters autonomously monitor exposure to electromagnetic radiation. Science Advances, 5(12). https://doi.
org/10.1126/sciadv.aay2462
360. Harris, T. C., Vuilleumier, L., Backes, C., Nenes, A., & Vernez, D. (2021). Satellite-based personal UV dose estimation.
Atmosphere, 12(2). https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos12020268
361. Krzyścin, J. W., Lesiak, A., Narbutt, J., Sobolewski, P., & Guzikowski, J. (2018). Perspectives of UV nowcasting to monitor personal
pro-health outdoor activities. Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology B: Biology, 184, 27-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jphotobiol.2018.05.012

94

Chapter 1
362. Kohli, I., Zubair, R., Lyons, A. B., Nahhas, A. F., Braunberger, T. L., Mokhtari, M., Ruvolo, E., Lim, H. W., & Hamzavi, I. H. (2019).
Impact of long-wavelength ultraviolet A1 and visible light on light-skinned individuals. Photochemistry and Photobiology, 95(6),1285-1287. https://doi.org/10.1111/php.13143
363. Diffey, B., & Osterwalder, U. (2017). Labelled sunscreen SPFs may overestimate protection in natural sunlight. Photochemical &Photobiological Sciences, 16(10), 1519-1523. https://doi.org/10.1039/C7PP00260B
364. MacLaughlin, J. A., Anderson, R. R., & Holick, M. F. (1982). Spectral character of sunlight modulates photosynthesis of previtamin
D3 and its photoisomers in human skin. Science, 216(4549), 1001-1003. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.6281884
365. Bouillon, R., Eisman, J., Garabedian, M., Holick, M., Kleinschmidt, J., Suda, T., Terenetskaya, I., & Webb, A. (2006). Action
spectrum for the production of previtamin D3 in human skin. Vol. 174:2006, UDC: 612.014.481-06. CIE, Vienna, Austria.
366. Norval, M., Björn, L. O., & de Gruijl, F. R. (2010). Is the action spectrum for the UV-induced production of previtamin D3 in humanskin correct? Photochemical and Photobiological Sciences, 9(1), 11-17. https://doi.org/10.1039/b9pp00012g
367. Young, A. R., Morgan, K. A., Harrison, G. I., Lawrence, K. P., Petersen, B., Wulf, H. C., & Philipsen, P. A. (2021). A revised action
spectrum for vitamin D synthesis by suberythemal UV radiation exposure in humans in vivo. Proceedings of the National Academyof Sciences, 118(40). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2015867118
368. Bolsée, D., Webb, A. R., Gillotay, D., Dörschel, B., Knuschke, P., Krins, A., & Terenetskaya, I. (2000). Laboratory facilities andrecommendations for the characterization of biological ultraviolet dosimeters. Applied Optics, 39(16), 2813-2822. https://doi.
org/10.1364/ao.39.002813
369. Olds, W. (2010). Elucidating the links between UV radiation and vitamin D synthesis: Using an in vitro model. PhD Thesis,
Queensland University of Technology Brisbane, Australia.
370. van Dijk, A., den Outer, P., van Kranen, H., & Slaper, H. (2016). The action spectrum for vitamin D3: initial skin reaction andprolonged exposure. Photochemical & Photobiological Sciences, 15(7), 896-909. https://doi.org/10.1039/C6PP00034G
371. Webb, A. R., Terenetskaya, I. P., Holick, M. F., van Dijk, A., McKenzie, R. L., Lucas, R. M., Young, A. R., Philipsen, P. A., & de Gruijl,
F. R. (2022). Previtamin D action spectrum: Challenging CIE towards a standard. Lighting Research & Technology. https://doi.
org/10.1177/14771535221122937

95

Chapter 2

2
LINKAGES BETWEEN COVID-19, SOLARUV RADIATION, AND THE MONTREAL
PROTOCOL

G. H. Bernhard47, S. Madronich48, R. M. Lucas49, S. N. Byrne50,
T. Schikowski51, and R. E. Neale52,53

96

47

Biospherical Instruments Inc., San Diego, California, USA.

48

Atmospheric Chemistry Observations and Modeling Laboratory, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, USA.

49

National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.

50

The University of Sydney, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney, Australia.

51

Leibniz Research Institute for Environmental Medicine, Düsseldorf, Germany.

52

Population Health Program, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Brisbane, Australia.

53

School of Public Health, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.

Chapter 2

Table of contents
Summary										98

1Introduction											98

2The action spectrum for the inactivation of SARS-CoV-2						

99

3Inactivation times of SARS-CoV-2 virus particles with solar UV radiation					

101

3.1

Measured inactivation times										101

3.2Calculated inactivation times										103

4

Radiation amplification factors for SARS-CoV-2 action spectra						

104

5Observed relationships between UV radiation and COVID-19 incidence					

105

6Vitamin D and risk and severity of COVID-19								108

7Effect of ambient air pollution and SARS-CoV-2 infections						

109

8Link between the Montreal Protocol and the inactivation of SARS-CoV-2					

110

9Gaps in knowledge										110

10Conclusions											111List of abbreviations										112References											113

97

Chapter 2

Summary
There are several connections between coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), solar UV radiation, and the Montreal Protocol. Exposure
to ambient solar UV radiation inactivates SARS-CoV-2, the virus responsible for COVID-19. An action spectrum describing the
wavelength dependence of the inactivation of SARS-CoV-2 by UV and visible radiation has recently been published. In contrast to action
spectra that have been assumed in the past for estimating the effect of UV radiation on SARS-CoV-2, the new action spectrum has a large
sensitivity in the UV-A (315–400 nm) range. If this “UV-A tail” is correct, solar UV radiation could be much more efficient in inactivating
the virus responsible for COVID-19 than previously thought. Furthermore, the sensitivity of inactivation rates to the total column ozone
would be reduced because ozone absorbs only a small amount of UV-A radiation. By using solar simulators, the times for inactivating
SARS-CoV-2 have been determined by several groups; however, many measurements are affected by poorly defined experimental
setups. The most reliable data suggest that 90% of viral particles embedded in saliva are inactivated within ~7 minutes by solar radiation
for a solar zenith angle (SZA) of 16.5° and within ~13 minutes for a SZA of 63.4°. Slightly longer inactivation times were found foraerosolised virus particles. These times can become considerably longer during cloudy conditions or if virus particles are shieldedfrom solar radiation. Many publications have provided evidence of an inverse relationship between ambient solar UV radiation and theincidence or severity of COVID-19, but the reasons for these negative correlations have not been unambiguously identified and could
also be explained by confounders, such as ambient temperature, humidity, visible radiation, daylength, temporal changes in risk anddisease management, and the proximity of people to other people. Meta-analyses of observational studies indicate inverse associations
between serum 25-hydroxy vitamin D (25(OH)D) concentration and the risk of SARS-CoV-2 positivity or severity of COVID-19, although
the quality of these studies is largely low. Mendelian randomisation studies have not found statistically significant evidence of a causal
effect of 25(OH)D concentration on COVID-19 susceptibility or severity, but a potential link between vitamin D status and disease
severity cannot be excluded as some randomised trials suggest that vitamin D supplementation is beneficial for people admitted toa hospital. Several studies indicate significant positive associations between air pollution and COVID-19 incidence and fatality rates.
Conversely, well-established cohort studies indicate no association between long-term exposure to air pollution and infection with
SARS-CoV-2. By limiting increases in UV radiation, the Montreal Protocol has also suppressed the inactivation rates of pathogens
exposed to UV radiation. However, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that the expected larger inactivation rates without theMontreal Protocol would have had tangible consequences on the progress of the COVID-19 pandemic.

1 Introduction
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an infectious disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARSCoV-2). It was first identified in December 2019 in China and has resulted in a global pandemic. The 2020 Assessment Update [1] by
the Environmental Effects Assessment Panel (EEAP) of the Montreal Protocol under the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
included a section on linkages between COVID-19, solar ultraviolet (UV) radiation, and the Montreal Protocol. At the time the publication
was prepared, COVID-19 had been in existence for less than one year and research on the subject was incomplete with many papers stillin review. The scientific literature is now more mature and we present an update on the current knowledge of the aspects of COVID-19
related to solar UV radiation and the Montreal Protocol.
SARS-CoV-2 is mainly transmitted from person to person through large respiratory droplets and aerosols (small droplets with diameters≥ 5 μm [2]) generated by breathing, talking, sneezing, singing, and coughing in close proximity to another person [3-7]. The relativerole of large droplets vs aerosols is still unclear [8], but aerosols can penetrate more deeply into the lungs than droplets [2]. Indirecttransmission through fomites (defined as inanimate objects carrying pathogens) that have been contaminated by respiratory secretions
is considered possible [9], but research suggests that this path of transmission is unlikely [4,10-12].
A 2021 review article concluded, based on 5 studies, that less than 10% of globally reported SARS-CoV-2 infections occurred outdoors[13]. The odds of indoor transmission was 18.7 (95% confidence interval (CI): 6.0, 57.9) times higher compared to outdoor transmission.
Furthermore, in high- and middle-income countries, about 92% of time is spent indoors or in a vehicle [14]. Hence, it would be expectedthat more than 90% of transmissions occur indoors, even if the likelihood of in- and outdoors transmission were equal. These studies
support the currently prevailing view that most transmissions occur indoors where there is essentially no exposure to solar UV-B
(280–315 nm) radiation and greatly reduced exposure to ambient UV-A (315–400 nm) radiation.

98

Chapter 2
Many publications (see Sect. 5) have provided evidence for an inverse relationship between ambient solar UV radiation and incidenceor severity of COVID-19. However, the reasons for this negative correlation54 are not clear. The following hypotheses may explain thisassociation:
1.

Exposure to ambient solar UV radiation inactivates SARS-CoV-2 particles, and higher intensity of UV radiation (e.g., at latitudes
closer to the Equator) is more effective in inactivating the virus.

2.

UV radiation is merely a proxy for other environmental factors such as air temperature that are responsible for the observed inverse
correlation. For example, when UV radiation is low in winter, temperature is often also low, prompting humans to stay indoors inclose proximity to others, thereby increasing the chance for SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Lower temperatures or other environmental
factors such as air pollution may also compromise the immune system and may have a detrimental effect on disease outcome [15]3.

Higher intensity of UV-B radiation leads to more production of vitamin D (Sect. 6) or other substances produced in the skin upon
exposure to UV radiation, such as nitric oxide, which may have benefits for disease prevention and severity.

These three hypotheses will be discussed in the following subsections.
Many experimental studies (often using unrealistically large virus concentrations) have shown that SARS-CoV-2 particles can remain
viable on porous and non-porous surfaces for several days if they are shielded from UV radiation [16-20]. Survival times on porous
surfaces are generally much shorter than on impermeable surfaces because of the different evaporation mechanisms for the two surface
types [21]. Infectious SARS-CoV-2 viruses have been recovered from plastic, glass, and stainless steel surfaces after 3 days [16], 7 days[17] and 28 days [18]. SARS-CoV-2 virus particles have been shown to remain viable on banknotes for between four [17] and up to 28
days when the ambient temperature was maintained at 20 °C [18]. On the outer layer of a surgical mask, infectious viruses can survive
up to 6 days after contamination. Increasing the ambient temperature greatly reduces the survivability of virus particles on all surfaces to
as little as 24 h at 40 °C [18]. According to a recent study [22], the Alpha, Beta, Delta, and Omicron variants of SARS-CoV-2 exhibit morethan two-fold longer survival on plastic and skin than the original Wuhan strain. As we will show below, these long lifetimes of SARSCoV-2 particles decrease greatly upon exposure to UV radiation.

2 The action spectrum for the inactivation of SARS-CoV-2
Action spectra describe the wavelength dependence of biological effects caused by UV radiation. A biological effect is quantified byfirst multiplying the action spectrum for this effect with the spectrum of the incident radiation and then integrating this product overwavelength. The result is the biologically effective UV irradiance, UVBE.
The action spectrum for the inactivation of SARS-CoV-2 has recently been measured by Biasin et al. [23] using light-emitting diode(LED) sources with ~10 nm bandwidth at wavelengths of 254, 278, 308, 366, and 405 nm. The experiment for establishing the action
spectrum has several weaknesses: the uncertainties of the measurements at these wavelengths were not evaluated; the LED’s bandwidthof 10 nm is large for measuring a function that varies over four decades; and interpolating measurements at only 5 wavelengths over the
150 nm wide wavelength range of interest is subject to large interpolation errors that have not been discussed. While these limitations
are significant, we emphasise that these are the only measurements of the action spectrum for the inactivation of SARS-CoV-2 that areavailable to date (August 2022).
Figure 1 compares the action spectrum by Biasin et al. [23] with action spectra that have been used previously to estimate the effect of
UV radiation on SARS-CoV-2. Of note, the new spectrum has a large sensitivity in the UV-A (315–400 nm) range, while the spectrum forgeneralised virus inactivation [24]—which has been used in several studies (discussed below) to estimate the inactivation times of SARSCoV-2—has no sensitivity beyond 320 nm. If the “UV-A tail” measured by Biasin et al. [23] is correct, solar UV radiation could be much
more efficient in inactivating the virus responsible for COVID-19, and inactivation would be less influenced by parameters that affectthe UV-A and UV-B contributions to solar radiation differently, such as total column ozone55 (TCO), time of the day, season, or latitude.
While this large UV-A tail is missing in the generalised action spectrum for virus inactivation [24], there is evidence that this sensitivity in
the UV-A range is real. First, the recently measured absorption spectrum of RNA of Torula yeast also has a large contribution from the
UV-A range [26]. Second, the H1N1 influenza virus also seems to be highly sensitive to radiation in the UV-A range [27], and even theaction spectrum for erythema [28] has a remarkable resemblance to that measured by Biasin et al. [23]. Third, the dependence of the54

A negative correlation expresses a statistical relationship between two variables whereby higher values of one variable tend to be associated with lower values of the other.
Several essentially equal terms for “negative correlation” are being used, including anticorrelation, inverse correlation, and negative (or inverse) association.

55

Ozone amounts integrated from the Earth’s surface to the top of the atmosphere, measured in Dobson Units (DU). See [25] for more details.

99

Chapter 2

Relative effectivenessinactivation times of SARS-CoV 2 on UV spectra simulated for various solar zenith angles (SZA) discussed below can only be explained
if there is a significant contribution from UV-A wavelengths. This argument is also supported by theoretical calculations [29]. Fourth, it
has recently been shown that exposing human coronavirus 229E (CoV-229E)—a virus associated with a range of respiratory symptoms
including pneumonia and bronchiolitis—to UV-A radiation leads to a significant reduction in coronavirus spike protein and decreased
virus-induced death of infected human tracheal epithelial cells [30]. Fifth, it has also been shown that many viruses can be damaged byperoxides and other reactive oxygen species, which are created by UV-A radiation [31]. However, whether a similar oxidative toxicity
also affects SARS-CoV-2 has not yet been determined. Taken together, these considerations suggest that UV-A-mediated mechanisms
in addition to RNA damage [26], which is predominantly caused by UV-B wavelengths, lead to the inactivation of SARS-CoV-2 upon
exposure to UV radiation.

Inactivation SARS-CoV-2
Biasin et al. (2022)
Generalised virus inactivation
Lytle and Sagripanti (2005)
Parameterisation by
Herman et al. (2020)
Generalised DNA damage
Setlow (1974)

1
-1

10

-2

10

-3

Erythema (sunburn)
CIE (1998)

10

-4

10

10

-5

10

-6

250

H1N1 inﬂuenza virus inactivation
Nishisaka-Nonaka et al. (2018)
RNA Absorption of Torula yeast
Hessling et al. (2020)

275

300

325

350

375

Wavelength [nm]

400

425

450

Fig. 1 Comparison of action spectra and other spectra relevant for discussing the wavelength dependence of inactivationof SARS-CoV-2 by UV radiation. All spectra are arbitrarily normalised at 254 nm. Biasin et al. [23] measured the relative
effectiveness of UV radiation in inactivating SARS-CoV-2 at 278, 308, 366, and 405 nm (blue symbols). Data were interpolatedwith a spline approximation that also included a data point at 254 nm measured by Biasin et al. [32]. Note that this interpolationis uncertain between 280 and 305 nm due to the lack of intermediate measurements in this wavelength range. Lytle andSagripanti [24] give the generalised action spectrum for virus inactivation (red symbols). The spectrum is based on data from up
to 24 viruses (data at some wavelengths are based on fewer viruses). Data were interpolated with a spline approximation withlittle uncertainty (red line). The broken red line is a fit to the same data by Herman et al. [33] using an analytical function. Notethat this function deviates significantly from the data points between 307 and 312 nm. Setlow [34] provides the generalised
action spectrum for DNA damage as parameterised in the Tropospheric Ultraviolet and Visible (TUV) radiative transfer model(https://www.acom.ucar.edu/Models/TUV/Interactive_TUV/) (green line). CIE [28] shows the action spectrum for erythema(black line). The action spectrum from Nishisaka-Nonaka et al. [27] is for the inactivation of the H1N1 influenza virus by inhibiting
replication and transcription of viral RNA in host cells (pink symbols). The spectrum from Heßling et al. [26] is not an action
spectrum but the absorption spectrum of RNA of Torula yeast, normalised at 254 nm. (Absorption and action spectra would be
identical if every absorbed photon were to lead to irreversible damage; however, this is not the case if repair mechanisms are atplay [35].)100

Chapter 2

3 Inactivation times of SARS-CoV-2 virus particles with solar UV
radiation
Several studies have determined the time needed to inactivate 90% of virus particles upon irradiation with UV radiation, based on: (i)direct measurements using solar simulators [36-41]; (ii) the action spectrum for the inactivation of SARS-CoV 2 particles measured by
Biasin et al. [23], followed by theoretical calculations; or (iii) theoretical calculations using the standardised action spectrum for virus
inactivation [33,42-44]. These studies are discussed in more detail below and results are summarised in Table 1.
All studies assume that the number of viable virus particles, N, decreases exponentially when exposed to germicidal radiation (either
from artificial light sources or the Sun) for the time t [45]:						N = N0e-αt(1)where N0 is the number of viable particles at the start of the exposure and a is a decay constant. With t10 and t1 defined as the times that
reduce N to 10% and 1% of N0, respectively, Eq. (1) implies that t1 is twice as long as t10. However, the time difference between t10 and t1
can be considerably longer under certain conditions [46,47] because viruses in a real-world setting are embedded in a matrix of body
fluids (e.g., saliva and mucus) or foreign objects, which partially shield viruses from exposure. Clustered populations of viruses can also
protect each other from exposure to radiation [48]. Hence, there are large uncertainties in extrapolating t10 to t1 and beyond (e.g., 0.1%
and 0.0001% survival for disinfection and sterilisation levels, respectively [44]). This is particularly the case for virus particles that areembedded in porous materials, such as face masks and clothing, or otherwise shielded from UV radiation.

3.1

Measured inactivation times

Ratnesar-Shumate et al. [37] used a solar simulator to determine t10 for SARS-CoV-2 virus particles that were first suspended in either
simulated saliva or a culture medium (gMEM56) and then dried on stainless steel surfaces. The solar simulator produced spectral
irradiance resembling noon-time solar spectra at 40° N latitude (e.g., Philadelphia, Ankara, Beijing) for three days representative ofsummer, spring, and winter: 21 June (SZA=16.5°), 21 February (SZA=50.6°) and 21 December (SZA=63.4°). The three spectra werecompared with spectra modelled with the Tropospheric Ultraviolet and Visible (TUV) radiative transfer model (https://www.acom.ucar.
edu/Models/TUV/Interactive_TUV/), and the agreement was generally excellent. However, the simulated spectrum for 21 June (highsun conditions in summer of the Northern Hemisphere) underestimated the spectrum calculated by TUV at wavelengths less than 308
nm. This difference is significant because the product of the solar spectrum and any action spectra for virus inactivation typically peaks
near 305 nm, but the consequence of this discrepancy cannot be quantitatively assessed from the data provided by Ratnesar-Shumate
et al. [37]. Inactivation times t10 for virus particles embedded in saliva were 6.8, 8.0 and 12.8 minutes for the three spectra, respectively.
For viruses enclosed in the culture medium, t10 was more than twice as long: 14.3, 17.6, and 54.4 minutes for the spectra simulated for
21 June, 21 February, and 21 December, respectively.
Using the same solar simulator, Schuit et al. [36] determined t10 for aerosolised virus particles. For viruses suspended in saliva, t10 was 7.5
and 19 minutes for exposure to simulated noon solar spectra for 21 June (SZA=16.5°) and 7 March (SZA=45.0°), respectively.

56

Glasgow’s Minimum Essential Medium

101Chapter 2

Table 1. Time to inactivate 90% (10% survival) of virus particles at 40° N upon irradiation with UV radiation.
Study

Time t10 = time to inactivate 90% of infectious virus (minutes)

Ratio

Measured inactivation times
21-Jun(Summer)
SZA=16.6°
UV-B=1.83
W m-2
UV-A=58.5
W m-2
UVI=10.2

7-Mar
SZA=45.1°
UV-B=0.92
W m-2
UV-A= 40.5
W m-2
UVI=4.8

21-Feb
SZA=50.8°
UV-B=0.70
W m-2
UV-A= 34.9
W m-2
UVI=3.6

21-Dec(Winter)
SZA=63.4°
UV-B=0.28
W m-2
UV-A= 21.5
W m-2
UVI=1.6

Winter/SummerSaliva on steel [37]

6.8

8.0

12.8

1.9

Growth medium (gMEM) [37]

14.3

17.6

54.4

3.8

Aerosol in saliva [36]

7.5

19

Aerosol in culture medium [36]

12.6

13.6

Calculated inactivation times
Calculated by us, based on the action
spectrum by [23] and D10 inactivationdose of 8.1 J m-2 at 254 nm

4.4

7.4

9.1

16.5

3.8

Calculated by us, based on the action
spectrum by Lytle and Sagripanti [24]and D10 inactivation dose of 3.2 J m-2 at
254 nm.

6.1

18.1

27.2

97.2

15.9

Calculated by Herman et al. [33]. Basedon the action spectrum by Lytle andSagripanti [24] as parameterised byHerman et al. [33] and D10 inactivationdose of 3.2 J m-2 at 254 nm.

4.8

13.4

19.8

69.3

14.6

Calculated by Sagripanti and Lytle [43].
Based on the action spectrum by Lytle
and Sagripanti [24] and D10 inactivationdose of 6.9 J m-2 at 254 nm.

22

63*

> 300

> 14

* refers to spring equinox on 21 March instead of 7 March.

In addition to the two studies discussed above, Sloan et al. [41] determined inactivation times for SARS-CoV-2 using another solar
simulator (SunLite Solar Simulator Model 11002 from Abet Technologies). The simulator was set to “1 Sun”, defined as “full sunlightintensity on a bright clear day on Earth and measuring approximately 1000 W m-2”. According to data provided by the manufacturer,
the simulator produces UV-A and UV-B irradiances of 41.46 W m-2 and 1.28 W m-2, respectively, at these settings. These irradiances arereportedly similar to those measured at the equinox at 40° N latitude during noon. However, the authors do not show a spectrum of
their solar simulator and we therefore could not determine whether the device does indeed simulate the solar spectrum accurately, inparticular in the critical wavelength range of 300–320 nm. Viral solution was suspended in either culture medium or simulated mucus
and then deposited on stainless steel coupons, and desiccated. For virus suspended in culture medium, the inactivation time t10 was 23
minutes under controlled temperature (22.5 °C) and relative humidity (RH=34%). When the virus was suspended in simulated mucus,
the inactivation time was significantly longer (t10 =91 minutes). These inactivation times are longer than those measured by Ratnesar-

102

Chapter 2
Shumate et al. [37]; however, a direct comparison is not possible because of the uncertainty of the solar spectrum used by Sloan etal. [41]. While the study confirms that inactivation times depend on the medium enclosing the virus, the results contradict those by
Ratnesar-Shumate et al. [37], which indicate shorter inactivation times for virus embedded in saliva versus a growth medium.
In another study, Raiteux et al. [39] irradiated stainless steel coupons loaded with a suspension containing SARS-CoV-2 virus with a solar
simulator consisting of a Xenon lamp and a filter. The simulator was set to an illuminance57 of either 10,000 lx, representing “a cloudcovered sky in autumn in France”, or 56,000 lx, representing “a slightly cloudy sky in summer in France”. No further description of thesimulator’s output is given and it is unknown whether the spectrum resembles that of sunlight in the UV-B and UV-A regions. Results ofthe study should therefore be considered only in a qualitative sense. The experiment revealed that no virus was detectable after a 20
minute exposure to an illuminance of 10,000 lx at either 20 or 35 °C and a relative humidity of 50%. For an illuminance of 56,000 lx,
infectious virus was no longer detectable after 5 min of exposure. Ninety percent of viral load was lost every 9.2 minutes at 10,000 lx
and every 2.1 minutes at 56,000 lx. The inactivation time was inversely proportional to the applied illuminance within the measurement
uncertainty. This suggests that the UV-B and UV-A contributions of the lamp spectra scale linearly with illuminance. The results are
qualitatively consistent with those by Ratnesar-Shumate et al. [37] and confirm that simulated sunlight rapidly inactivates SARS-CoV-2 attemperatures ranging from 20 °C to 35 °C.
Using a model 91293 solar simulator from Oriel Instruments, which was equipped with a filter to block visible and infrared radiation,
Wondrak et al. [38] confirmed that “UV radiation at environmentally relevant doses” will inactivate SARS-CoV-2 coronaviruses. However,no inactivation times were calculated and the study therefore cannot be used for a quantitative assessment.

3.2

Calculated inactivation times

All studies discussed in the previous section used a solar simulator to determine inactivation times. In contrast, Carvalho et al. [44],Herman et al. [33], Nicastro et al. [40], and Sagripanti and Lytle [43] used an indirect method to estimate t10 based on the inactivationdose at 254 nm (a wavelength in the UV-C waveband produced by a mercury lamp) and an action spectrum for virus inactivation. The
inactivation time t10 in minutes is then calculated from these quantities:

where D10(λr) is the UV dose at 254 nm that results in 10% survival, A(λ) is the action spectrum, and E(λ) is the spectral irradiance ofsunlight modelled for various SZAs and TCO. The integral is evaluated over a wavelength range where both E(λ) and A(λ) are different
from zero. Of the three studies, the most reliable is the one by Nicastro et al. [40] because it uses the measured action spectrum by
Biasin et al. [23] for the inactivation of SARS-CoV-2 particles and D10(λ r) measured also for SARS-CoV-2. In contrast, Herman et al. [33]and Sagripanti and Lytle [43] use the action spectrum by Lytle and Sagripanti [24]. (See Fig. 1 for comparison of action spectra).
Using the action spectrum and dose D10(254) reported by Nicastro et al. [40], we calculated inactivation times of 3.5 and 12.2 minutes
for noontime spectra on the summer solstice (21 June), and on the winter solstice (21 December) for northern latitudes of 40°. For similar
conditions, Sagripanti and Lytle [43] calculate considerably longer times of 22 minutes and > 300 minutes because calculations are
based on the action spectrum by Lytle and Sagripanti [24], which does not have a UV-A contribution (Fig. 1). Using the same action
spectrum, Herman et al. [33] calculated inactivation times t10 for viruses adhered to fomites oriented horizontally under clear skies. For
SZAs of less than 20°, 40°, and 60°, inactivation times were less than 8, 20, and 60 minutes, respectively. These times are generally
smaller than those determined by Sagripanti and Lytle [43], mostly due to the difference in the inactivation dose at 254 nm assumed
by the two studies. We note that the calculations by Herman et al. [33] are also affected by their poor parameterisation of the action
spectrum (Fig. 1). Likewise, the interpolation of the measurements by Nicastro et al. [40] is uncertain because the action spectrum wasmeasured at only five wavelengths with a relatively large bandwidth of ~10 nm (Sect (2)). We further note that the ratio of inactivation
times for winter and summer (last column of Table 1) calculated by Nicastro et al. [40] agree much better with the times measured byRatnesar-Shumate et al. [37] than the times calculated by Herman et al. [33] and Sagripanti and Lytle [43]. This observation is strong
evidence that the action spectrum by Biasin et al. [23], with its large UV-A tail, is closer to the actual action spectrum.
Carvalho et al. [44] calculated inactivation times for locations across the globe based on UV radiation data from the Tropospheric
Emission Monitoring Internet Service (TEMIS), which uses assimilated UV radiation fields from several space-borne instruments. TheseUV radiation data refer to the daily radiant exposure and were weighted with the DNA action spectrum [34] shown in Fig. 1. Hence,the effect from UV-A wavelengths was likely underestimated. In contrast to the studies discussed above, Carvalho et al. [44] took into

57

Illuminance is expressed in the unit of lux (lx) and is the spectral irradiance weighted with the sensitivity of the human eye under daylight conditions, expressed by thephotopic luminosity function, and scaled with 683.002 lx W-1 m2.

103

Chapter 2
account that virus particles embedded in aerosol are equally sensitive to radiation from all directions. They assumed inactivation doses
D10(254) of 1.8 J m-2 (least conservative, based on [36]) and 7.0 J m-2 (most conservative, based on [37]), and calculated inactivation times
t10 of ~5 minutes for overhead Sun (e.g., São Paulo (24° S), Brazil) for the least conservative scenario. During summer in Iceland, t10 was
calculated to range between 30 to 100 min. These inactivation times are similar in magnitude to those listed in Table 1. Carvalho et al.
[44] performed similar calculations for sterilisation level inactivation, where the fraction of “surviving” viruses is less than one millionthof the initial number of viable virus particles. Associated sterilisation times are naturally much longer than t10; however, these times areof little practical use considering that neither the number of viable particles at the start of the exposure nor the number of virus particles
that result in an infection is well known.
In summary, the uncertainty of inactivation times for SARS-CoV-2 is large and depends on many factors including uncertainties of theexperiments used to determine inactivation times and the matrix in which the virus is embedded. Based on the studies discussed
above we conclude that 90% of SARS-CoV-2 virus particles will be inactivated by solar UV radiation within 4 to 20 minutes under
optimal conditions for SZA ≤ 40°. These times will become considerably larger for SZA > 40°, during cloudy conditions, if surfaces are
not directly irradiated by sunlight, or if virus particles are shielded from solar exposure by other means (absorption by matrix material,
deposition on a porous material, shade). Even inactivation times as short as 5 minutes may be too long to protect against transmission
among people in the outdoors talking to each other in close proximity. Furthermore, most transmissions occur indoors where there isessentially no exposure to solar UV-B radiation (most glass windows do not transmit at UV-B wavelengths), and both UV-A and visible
solar radiation are greatly reduced, in particular when direct sunlight is blocked by window shades or other means. Hence, while solar
radiation helps to disinfect surfaces or exhaled aerosol contaminated with SARS-CoV-2 particles, one cannot rely on the Sun’s germicidal
effect in general and, in particular, early and late in the day, during winter, or at high latitudes during all seasons.

4 Radiation amplification factors for SARS-CoV-2 action spectra
Radiation Amplification Factors (RAFs) are used to approximately assess the sensitivity of effects of UV radiation to changes in thestratospheric ozone layer. Specifically, the dimensionless RAF describes the relative change in effective UV irradiance (UVBE) in response
to a relative change in TCO:

where the symbol Δ expresses a change in UVBE or TCO in absolute units. For example, a RAF of 1.5 means that a 1% change in TCO
would lead to a 1.5% change in UVBE. For larger (> 10%) changes in TCO, such as the decreases in TCO that would have occurred
without the implementation of Montreal Protocol, the power form of Eq. (3) [49] is typically applied, but the definition of the RAF
remains unchanged:

where the subscripts (+ and –) refer to the cases with higher or lower values of ozone and UVBE, respectively.
RAFs for the action spectra by Biasin et al. [23] and Lytle and Sagripanti [24] are shown in Fig. 2. RAFs for the action spectrum of Biasin
et al. [23] range between 0.3 and 1.3 for SZA ≤ 60° and TCO between 200 and 400 DU, which cover the majority of conditions outside
the polar regions. The magnitude and pattern is similar to RAFs for the erythemal action spectrum [28], which is expected given thesimilarity of the two action spectra (Fig. 1). In contrast, RAFs for the action spectrum of Lytle and Sagripanti [24] are between 1.9 and2.7 for the same range of SZAs and TCO, and similar to those of the DNA damage action spectrum [34]. Hence, the effect of changes inozone is more than a factor of two larger on average for the spectrum by Lytle and Sagripanti [24] than for that by Biasin et al. [23].

104

3.5
3.0

Biasin et al. (2022)

(a)

3.5

200 DU300 DU400 DU

2.5
2.0

1.5

3.0

(b) Lytle and Sagripanti (2005)

2.5
2.0

1.5

1.0

200 DU300 DU400 DU

1.0

0.5
0.0

Radiation Ampliﬁcation Factor

Radiation Ampliﬁcation Factor

Chapter 2

0.5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Solar Zenith Angle

70

80

90

0.0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Solar Zenith Angle

70

80

90

Fig. 2 Radiation amplification factors for the action spectra by (a) Biasin et al. [23] and (b) Lytle and Sagripanti [24]. RAFs areshown as a function of SZA for TCO of 200, 300, and 400 Dobson Units (DU).

5 Observed relationships between UV radiation and COVID-19
incidence
Many observational epidemiological studies have demonstrated an inverse relationship between some metric of UV radiation and
COVID-19 incidence rates [50-60]. Most of these studies have flaws as discussed in the following. Many papers also report an inverse
correlation with temperature and humidity; however, these relationships are not further discussed in depth.
Gorman and Weller [54] review the potential of UV radiation to alter morbidity and mortality from COVID-19 based on more than 30
studies from many countries. The article is based on knowledge as of October 2020 (less than one year after the start of the pandemic)
and concludes that inverse associations have been observed between measures of ambient UV radiation and COVID-19 incidence andmortality in most, but not all studies. Depending on the study, UV intensities were quantified by the UV Index58 (UVI); UV-A, UV-B, andUV-A+UV-B irradiance; and vitamin D-weighted UV irradiance. Gorman and Weller [54] also point out that many studies did not adjustfor important confounders such as population demographics, temperature, and humidity.
Carleton et al. [53], Choi et al. [52], and Ma et al. [50] applied sophisticated statistical analyses and adjusted for several confounders
to quantify the relationship between UV radiation and various measures of COVID-19 or SARS-CoV-2 activity. However, the threestudies are based on UV fields from the ERA5 reanalysis [61], which are defined as the integration over wavelengths between 200 nm
and 440 nm (https://docs.meteoblue.com/en/meteo/data-sources/era5). The contribution from the wavelength range 400–440
nm, which is in the visible part of the spectrum, accounts for almost 50% of radiative energy of the “UV” datasets used in thesestudies. Their conclusions that higher UV radiation dose is associated with lower COVID-19 growth rates are therefore questionable.
Furthermore, the three studies analysed data for relatively short periods close to the start of the pandemic (Carleton et al. [53] used
1 January to 10 April 2020, Choi et al. [52] used 1 March 2020 to 13 March 2021, and Ma et al. [50] used 15 March to 31 December2020). Public health policies (e.g., lock-downs, closing of borders, social distancing, and wearing of masks); strategies in managing
the pandemic; and available treatments for COVID-19 changed rapidly during 2020. These changes are important confounding factorsthat are difficult to quantify. Statistical analyses based on data from many countries, as used by Carleton et al. [53] and Choi et al. [52],are further hampered by the heterogeneity of the policies enacted around the world. Nevertheless, the three studies report strong

58

The UV Index is calculated by weighting solar UV spectra with the action spectrum of erythema [28] and scaling the result with 40 m2/W.

105

Chapter 2
inverse associations between solar radiation in the 290–440 nm range and various COVID-19 metrics. For example, Carleton et al. [53]conclude that the increase in seasonal “UV” exposure between January and June 2020 lowered extratropical Northern Hemisphere
COVID-19 growth rates by 7.4%±2.9% (±1 standard deviation). Over the same period, the seasonal decline in exposure to UV radiationin the extratropical Southern Hemisphere raised growth rates by 7.3%±2.9%. However, they also conclude that UV radiation has asubstantially smaller effect on the spread of the disease than social distancing policies. Ma et al. [50] found that the fraction of the
reproduction number Rt (defined as the mean number of new infections caused by a single infected person), which are attributable totemperature, specific humidity, and UV radiation, were 3.73%, 9.35% and 4.44%, respectively. Hence, these meteorological factors
account for a total 17.5% of Rt.
Moozhipurath et al. [56] reported that an increase in the daily maximum UVI by one unit was associated with a 1.2% decline in daily
growth rates of cumulative COVID-19 deaths. UVI data were downloaded from https://darksky.net/ without identifying their source.
The analysis is based on data from 183 countries and the period 22 January 2020 to 8 May 2020. The caveats of using heterogeneous
data from a short period as noted above also apply here. In a follow-on study, Moozhipurath and Kraft [55] posit that reduced exposure
to solar UV radiation during lockdowns, with people confined to their homes, reduced their vitamin D status (Sect. ‎6). This implies thatthe positive effect of lockdowns in reducing transmissions is partly offset by a greater risk of severe illness once an infection occurs.
The authors conclude that lockdowns in conjunction with adequate exposure to UV-B radiation might have reduced the number of
COVID-19 deaths more strongly than lockdowns alone, and estimate that there would be 11% fewer deaths on average with sufficient
exposure to UV B irradiation during the period when people were recommended not to leave their house. However, a major weaknessof the study is the lack of measurement of the vitamin D status at the population level. The vitamin D status was instead estimated fromUVI data used in their earlier study [56] without explicitly describing the assumed relationship between UVI and vitamin D status andwithout taking behavioural changes into account. For example, there is no evidence that lockdowns reduced vitamin D status at the
population level. Indeed the opposite may have occurred in some countries due to reduced office hours. Of note, according to thepaper’s “competing interests” statement, the lead author of the paper is a “full-time employee of a multinational chemical company
involved in vitamin D business and holds shares in the company,” which may have biased the study.
Isaia et al. [60] correlated death rates and incidence rates of infections against vitamin D-weighted UV irradiation, fraction of people innursing homes, air temperature, and comorbidities across Italy. The study is based on the short period of 25 February to 31 May 2020
when policies and treatment options rapidly evolved, coinciding with seasonal increase in UV radiation. The authors found that theamount of solar UV radiation contributed the most to the observed correlation, explaining up to 83.2% of the variance in COVID-19affected cases per population. This very high percentage contradicts the much lower numbers given in the studies discussed above
and is not reconcilable with the fact that most COVID-19 transmissions occur indoors. While Isaia et al. [60] speculate that the effect of
UV radiation is mediated by the synthesis of vitamin D, vitamin D status of the population was not assessed. Considering that vitaminD status is also influenced by individual behaviour (sun exposure, sun protection, and supplementation), the study merely presents ahypothesis.
The inverse correlation between UV radiation and COVID-19 incidence or deaths documented in the studies above is qualitatively
consistent with the virucidal effect of UV radiation and its role in raising 25(OH)D levels. However, each of these studies has major
limitations and none of them provides a clear causative pathway to explain the observed associations quantitatively.
UV radiation strongly covaries with visible radiation, and it is therefore very difficult to determine from observational studies like thosecited above whether the perceived seasonality is driven by UV radiation (e.g., via its germicidal effects or the production of vitaminD); visible radiation, which controls the circadian and circannual rhythms; or other factors that co-vary with UV radiation, such astemperature. This assertion is demonstrated in Fig. 3, which correlates measurements of UV-B and UV irradiance at San Diego, California(32° N), with visible (VIS) irradiance in the 400–600 nm range. The coefficients of determination R2 are 0.868 for UV-B vs VIS and
0.976 for UV vs VIS, suggesting that 86.8% and 97.6% of the variance in UV-B and UV irradiance, respectively, can be explained by thevariance in visible irradiance. Compared to these strong associations, in particular for UV vs VIS, UV radiation and COVID-19 incidence
rates are far less associated with each other; hence, studies that show a strong inverse correlation between the two variables would
likely also show a strong inverse correlation between COVID-19 and visible irradiance even though visible radiation has little effect onvirus survival and does not lead to vitamin D production.
Cherrie et al. [62] demonstrated a significant negative association between deaths from COVID-19 and ambient UV-A radiation andattribute this relationship to the release of nitric oxide (NO) from the skin upon exposure to UV-A radiation. Such release of NO has beenshown to be associated with lower blood pressure [63] and reduced incidence of myocardial infarctions [64]. As there is evidence that
hypertension and cardiometabolic disease also increase the risk of death from COVID-19 [65], Cherrie et al. [62] argue that UV-A-driven
release of NO reduces the mortality from COVID-19. In a commentary to the paper, McKenzie and Liley [66] point out that the data could
equally be explained by production of vitamin D by exposure to solar UV-B radiation considering the strong correlation between UV-A
and UV-B radiation. Interestingly Guasp et al. [57] show a weaker inverse correlation between COVID-19 incidence and the UVI thanwith short-wave irradiance (300–3,000 nm; a wavelength range including UV and visible radiation plus a part of the infrared spectrum).
While this study is based on data from the very beginning of the pandemic only, it suggests that visible radiation may be a stronger
determinant of disease incidence than UV radiation for reasons discussed in more detail below.
When interpreting the studies cited above, it has to be noted that correlation does not imply causation. For example, Martinez [67]pointed out that the incidence of polio, which peaks in the summer, correlates with temperature, daylength, and the sale of bathingsuits. A transmission model using any of the three drivers would capture the seasonal structure of the disease because all drivers containa covariate with the necessary seasonal dependence, even though it is highly unlikely that sales of bathing suits cause polio.

106Chapter 2

(a)

2.0

UV-B irradiance (280 – 315 nm) in W/m2

Applying this thought experiment—combined with the high covariance between UV and visible radiation—to the observed inverse
correlations between UV radiation and COVID-19 incidence rate suggests that these correlations cannot prove that UV radiation is thecausative factor for the perceived seasonality of COVID-19.

.

.

.

.
.. .
. . . ..
..
.
.
. .. . . .
.
. . . . .. .
..
. .
. . . . . .. .. .
.. .. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. . . ..
. . . ... .
.
... . . .. .. . . . .. .. . . ...... ..... .
.
. . ..
. . . .. . . . . ...... .. .
. .
. . . .. . ... .. . . . ... ..........
.. .
..
.
. . . .. ... . . ... . ... .. . ... .. . .. .............
. .
.. .
. . . . . . . . ... ....
.
. . .. .. . ...... ... . . .... ..... . ... ... ................................................
.
.
.
.
.
.
. . .. .......... ....
.
.
. .. . .
..
. . . .. .. .. . ... .... . ................................
.
. . .. ..
. . . .. .. ..... .. .....................................................................
.
. . .. . .. . . . . . . . .. .. . . .. . ... ..... .................................................................
.
. . .... . .. . ... . . ..... ... ................................ .......................................................................................
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .. . . . . . . .. .
..
... . . . .. . ......................................................
.. .. ... ... . .. . ... . .......... .. . .... ...... ......................................................................................................
.
.. . . .
. . . . . . . . . ......... .... .. ... .
..
. .
... . . .. ... .. .... ........ ...... ........................ ... . ..............................................................................................................
. .
. .. .
. . .. . ........ ... . .
.
. .. . .... .. . .. .. .. ... . . ...... ..... .................... .... ........................................................................................................................
.
. .. . .. . . . .. ... . .. . ... .. . .. . . .. . ...................................................... ..........
. ... . .... . . .. .. ................ ... ................... ....................... .....................................................................................................................................
.
.
. . ... .. .. . . . . . . .. .... ........................... . .. .. . . .
.
. . . . . .. . .... .. ..... .. ...................... .... ......... ............................................................................................................................................................ ...........
. . . . . . ..... ............................. ............. ........................................................................... .......
.
.
. . .
. . . ..... ...... . ...... .. .......... ...... ....... ................................................. ................. .. .... .
. . .. . .............. . ............................................................................................................................................................................. ........... ... . .
.
. . . .. . . . ..... ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ........ .
.
..
..
... . .. ... .............................................................................................................................................................................................................. ...................... .. ... .. .. .
. .... .. ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... .... .. . .. .
..
..... .. ........... .... ....................................... .... ............................................................................................................ .... .... .... . ...... . .
.. . . .. ... ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ .... .. ... .... . ..
.. ... . ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ........... .... .. . ... . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
. . .. . .... .. . ... . .... . .. ... .. . .. ..... .. . . . .
. . .. . .. .. ...................................................................................................................................................................... . ...... . .. ... . ...
. . .. ....... ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ .. .... .. . . . .
. . .. .. .................................................................................................................................................................... ............. . .
. ..
. . . ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ............. .. ...... ....
.
.
.
.
.
.... ... .... ......................... . .......... .................... .... ..... . . . . . . .
.
... ... ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ................... .. .. . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. ............................. ................................................................................................................. ....... .. .. . .. . . .
... ... .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... .. . ... . ..
. . ................................................................................................................................................................. ..... ....
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. ..... ...................................... .................................................. ..... .. . . . . .
.
.
. . .. .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ... ...
..
.. . .
. . ..
..
..................................................................................................................................................... ......... . . ..
. ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ..... ... . . . .
. .... .................................................................... . . ....
.
.
..................................................................................................................................... ........ . . . . .
..................................................................................................................................................................................................... .. . .
.............. .... .
.

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0

0

100

200

300

400

(b)

ad ance 280 – 400 nm n W m

2

70

2

R = 0 868

60

F g 3 Sca er p o o a UV B rrad ance 280–315
nm and b UV rrad ance 280–400 nm versus
v s b e rrad ance 400–600 nm Da a were
measured n San D ego 32° N be ween 2005 and2008 by a SUV 100 spec rorad ome er o he ormer
Na ona Sc ence Founda on s NSF UV mon or ng
ne work 68 The coeffic en o de erm na on R2 s
0 868 or a and 0 976 or b Some o he sca er
s caused by he ac ha he SUV 100 s a scann ng
ns rumen wh ch requ res abou 15 m nu es ome o comp e e a spec rum be ween 280 and 600
nm C oud cond ons may change over h s per od
hereby exacerba ng he sca er be ween he woquan es
he who e spec rum had been measured
a he same me he sca er be ween he quan es
wou d be sma er and R2 arger sugges ng ha heac ua covar ance be ween UV and v s b e rrad ances even h gher han nd ca ed n he wo p o s

50
40
30
20

UV

10

2

0

R = 0 976
0

Vsbe

100

200

300

400
2

ad ance 400 – 600 nm n W m

The p o phase o a p ospec ve doub e b nded andom sed p acebo con o ed a nvo v ng 30 pa en s has ecen y beencomp e ed ha a med o de e m ne whe he pho o he apy w h na ow band UV ad a on NB UVB a 311 nm has an effec on hemo a y o hosp a sed h gh sk COV D 19 pa en s 69 The a was mo va ed by he obse va on ha NB UVB ea men s ab ses
he mmune sys em e evan o au o mmune d seases Cons de ng ha COV D 19 mo b d y and mo a y a e pa y d ven by poo
mmune egu a on Sec 6s he e o e conce vab e ha ea men s w h NB UVB may affec COV D 19 d sease ou comes The 30
en o ed pa en s we e andom sed 1 1 o NB UVB o p acebo pho o he apy and ea ed da y w h sub e y hema doses o up o e gh
consecu ve days A hough h s p o s udy was p ma y o es sa e y and eas b y ound ha he wen y e gh day mo a y was
13 3% 2 pa en s n he ea men and 33 3% 5 pa en s o hose ece v ng he p acebo Howeve he d ffe ence was no s a s ca ys gn fican p=0 39 Resu s o a p anned o ow on s udy w h a a ge samp e s ze a e no ye ava ab e such a a ge s udy we e odemons a e he efficacy o NB UVB ea men he effec o UV ad a on on COV D 19 d sease ou come cou d be fi m y es ab shed
Such an ou come wou d a so n o m he assessmen o he effec s o so a UV ad a on on COV D 19
Afte many yea s o esea ch he ac o s ha d ve he seasona y o common d seases and he e a ve mpo ance o he ac o scaus ng seasona y have s no been unamb guous y de e m ned Fo examp e hum d y empe a u e c oseness o peop echanges n d e s and v am n D s a us have been sugges ed o exp a n why nfluenza s mo e p eva en n w n e han summe 15 n
add on he human mmune sys em may change w h season becom ng mo e es s an o mo e suscep b e o d ffe en n ec ons
based on day eng h and he d sease bu den s he e o e pa y d ven by he c cannua hy hm 70 wh ch s n u n pa y d ven byv s b e ad a on Fo examp e n one Ge man coho exp ess on n wh e b ood ce s o nea y one n ou genes n he en e genomed ffe ed be ween seasons Genes n he No he n Hem sphe e ended o sw ch on when hey we e sw ched off sou h o he Equa oand v ce ve sa 71 O he ac o s ha a e po en a y espons b e o seasona y nc ude pa hogen su v va n he env onmen andansm ss b y changes ove me n pa hogen ese vo s human and non human equency o pa hogen hos n e ac ons cu u a107

Chapter 2socioeconomic, linked to lifestyle and temperature); host susceptibility to infection; indoor heating systems that generate conditions of
low relative humidity; and difference between indoor and outdoor temperatures [54,70,72-75]. Many of these factors co-vary with UVradiation. Diseases from enveloped viruses, such as SARS-CoV-2 and influenza viruses, generally have a stronger seasonality than thosefrom viruses without an envelope, such as the rhinoviruses that cause the common cold [15]. It is therefore plausible that the factors thatdrive the seasonality of influenza are also predominantly responsible for the seasonality of SARS-CoV-2.
As mentioned in the introduction (Sect. 1), there is strong evidence that most SARS-CoV-2 infections occur indoors [13] where there
is essentially no exposure to solar UV-B radiation. Furthermore, exposure studies have shown that adults working outdoors receive
only about 10% of the total available annual UV radiation dose, while indoor-working adults and children get only about 2–4% of theavailable UV dose [76,77]. These fractions were likely even lower during lockdowns. Despite the observed inverse correlations between
UV radiation and COVID-19 incidence, and after considering the many other factors that correlate with UV radiation discussed above, we
conclude that it is premature to establish UV radiation as the key factor driving the seasonality of the COVID-19 pandemic.

6 Vitamin D and risk and severity of COVID-19
Vitamin D has important modulatory effects on the immune system that might reduce the risk and severity of COVID-19. The active
form of vitamin D upregulates innate immunity by stimulating release of antimicrobial peptides, such as cathelicidin, which leads to an
early defence against infection [78]. Vitamin D also influences the adaptive immune system, dampening down overproduction of proinflammatory cytokines, which can result in severe complications and organ damage (a cytokine storm). Vitamin D might also influence
outcomes from COVID-19 through effects on the renin angiotensin aldosterone system, with important effects on vascular function,
hypertension and cardiovascular remodelling [79]. Observational studies [80] and randomised controlled trials [81,82] suggest abeneficial effect of vitamin D supplementation on the incidence and severity of acute respiratory tract infection, but there is relatively
limited high-quality information about SARS-CoV-2 infection and/or COVID-19.
Meta-analyses of observational studies indicate inverse associations between 25(OH)D concentration and risk of SARS-CoV-2 positivity
or COVID-19 disease or severity [83-86]. However, the quality of the observational studies has largely been low and heterogeneity high.
Notable potential biases relate to lack of adequate control of confounders, self-reported SARS-CoV-2 positivity, and measurement of25(OH)D concentration many years before the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak. In addition, a range of assays, with potentially variable accuracy
and precision, have been used to measure 25(OH)D concentration; thus, even if the association is causal, an optimal 25(OH)D
concentration cannot be defined.
Mendelian randomisation (MR) studies can overcome the bias introduced by confounding factors and timing of measurement. Thesestudies assess associations between genetically determined, rather than measured, 25(OH)D concentration. The relatively small
proportion of variability in 25(OH)D concentration explained by genetic variants necessitates a large sample size to give sufficient
statistical power to detect small effect sizes. There have been two MR studies conducted within the COVID-19 host genetics initiative[87,88]. The sample size and genetic instruments used varied somewhat, but both arrived at the same conclusions; that is, there is no
statistically significant evidence of a causal effect of 25(OH)D concentration on COVID-19 susceptibility or severity, but small effects
cannot be ruled out. In the larger of the two studies (total cases 17,964) [88], the odds ratio (OR) for risk of infection for each standard
deviation increase in 25(OH)D (using the genetic instrument that explained the most variability) was 1.04 (95% CI: 0.92, 1.18). The OR
for severe disease (n=4336 cases) compared with population controls was 0.96 (95% CI: 0.64, 1.43). While there was no association
with having 25(OH)D concentration <50 or <75 nmol/L (commonly used cut-points to define vitamin D deficiency or insufficiency,
respectively) [88], a link with more severe vitamin D deficiency (e.g., 25(OH)D < 30 nmol/L) cannot be excluded.
Several randomised trials have examined the effect of supplementing hospitalised COVID-19 patients with vitamin D on disease
outcomes, with heterogeneous findings. A randomised placebo-controlled trial in Brazil supplemented patients (n=240) with a large
single oral dose of 200,000 IU of vitamin D3 or placebo59 [89]. There was no difference in the length of stay (primary outcome; median
7 days in both groups) and no statistically significant difference in any of the secondary outcomes, specifically in-hospital mortality(vitamin D 7.6% vs placebo 5.1%; p=0.43), admission to the intensive care unit (16.0% vs 21.2%; p=0.30) or mechanical ventilation(7.6% vs 14.4%; p=0.09). Similarly, a study in Argentina did not find any benefit of high-dose vitamin D supplementation [90]. In thismulticentre randomised controlled trial, 218 hospitalised patients with confirmed COVID-19, mild-to-moderate symptoms, and risk
factors for progression were randomised to a single oral dose of 500,000 IU of vitamin D3 or placebo. There was no significant effecton the respiratory score of Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment (p=0.93), in-hospital mortality (4.3% vitamin D vs 1.9% placebo,
p=0.45) or other secondary outcomes (length of stay and intensive care unit admission). In contrast, a pilot trial in Spain, in which 76

59

108

For comparison, the recommended daily intake of vitamin D3 ranges from 400 IU to 800 IU/day in many countries.

Chapter 2
hospitalised patients were randomised to control (usual care) or supplementation with 0.532 mg of 25(OH)D (calcifediol) on the day ofadmission60, day 3, and day 7, followed by a weekly dose of 0.266 mg until discharge, observed reduced admission to intensive carein the supplemented group (2% vs 50%; p<0.001) [91]. An open-label trial61 in France, in which 254 hospitalised patients aged ≥65
years were randomised to a single oral dose of 400,000 IU or 50,000 IU of vitamin D3, found reduced deaths at 14 days in the highdose group (6%) compared with the lower-dose group (11%) (p=0.049) [92]. In addition to the inconsistency in the findings, and some
limitations related to trial design in some studies, all used very large bolus doses (i.e., a single dose given all at once) of vitamin D, which
are largely uninformative about the effects of vitamin D obtained through sunlight or usual supplementation doses.
In conclusion, the evidence supporting a role of vitamin D in the risk or severity of COVID-19 is currently inconsistent. In addition,
there is limited information about the effect of severe vitamin D deficiency. Given the laboratory evidence supporting a role of vitamin
D in the immune system, and the indications of benefit for other acute respiratory tract infections, it would be prudent to adopt a
precautionary principle and develop policies to avoid vitamin D deficiency. However, routine supplementation of populations that are
not experiencing vitamin D deficiency is currently not warranted.

7 Effect of ambient air pollution on SARS-CoV-2 infections
Ambient air quality is affected by pollutants that are emitted into the air. Photochemical smog is formed when these pollutants are
exposed to solar UV radiation [93]. Several studies reported a decrease in air pollution following the enforcement of lockdowns in many
countries worldwide resulting in a reduction of excess mortality [94,95]. The progression of the COVID-19 pandemic may also havebeen affected by changes in ambient air pollution. A study that analysed the effect of air pollution on the 2002–2004 outbreak of severe
acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), a disease which predated COVID-19 and was caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome
coronavirus 1 (SARS-CoV-1), yielded mixed and inconclusive results [96]. On the other hand, several recent studies indicate significant
associations between air pollution and COVID-19 incidence and fatality rates [97-100]. While factors associated with infection have been
well established, such as the proximity to infected persons in indoor spaces through airborne transmission [101], the question of the roleof ambient air pollution in the spread of SARS-CoV-2 and the development of the pandemic is still unclear. For the USA, Wu et al. [102]found that higher historical exposures to PM2.5 (particles with a diameter of ≤ 2.5 micrometres) were positively associated with higher
county-level COVID-19 mortality rates after accounting for many area-level confounders. Specifically, an increase of 1 µg m-3 in the longterm average of PM2.5 was associated with a statistically significant 11% (95% CI: 6%, 17%) increase in the county’s COVID-19 mortality
rate. Similarly, by analysing data from China for the period 19 January 2020 to 15 March 2020 and applying a lag of 21 days between
COVID-19 diagnosis and death, Yao et al. [103] found that a higher case-fatality rate of COVID-19 was associated with higher (historical,
2000-2016) daily concentrations of PM2.5 and PM10 (particles with a diameter of ≤ 10 micrometres). There are several biological pathways
that have been proposed whereby exposure to outdoor air pollution may relate to transmission, host susceptibility, and disease severity[104,105]. Air pollution has been postulated to aﬀect the viability and transport of viral particles in the air [106] and hence increase
respiratory infections. It is also possible that air pollution could increase severity of COVID-19 through its contribution to chronic
conditions—such as chronic respiratory disease, diabetes, and heart disease—and through long-term eﬀects on immune system function[107]. However, the first results in well-established cohort studies indicate no direct association between exposure to air pollution andinfection with SARS-CoV-2 [108]. Hence, the role of air pollution in the transmission and severity of the disease is still not well establishedand results from epidemiological and experimental studies that could elucidate this issue further are still lacking.

60

For comparison, the typical recommended dose in clinical settings is 50–100 µg (0.05–0.1 mg).

61

An open-label trial is a medical study in which both investigators and trial participants are fully aware of which treatment group the participants are in and what treatments
are assigned to them.

109Chapter 2

8 Link between the Montreal Protocol and the inactivation of SARSCoV-2
While the Montreal Protocol has prevented run-away increases in solar UV radiation [Sect. 4.1 of Chapter 1, it may have also affected
the inactivation rate of pathogens exposed to UV radiation. According to McKenzie et al. [109], the Montreal Protocol has averted
increases of erythemal (sunburning) irradiances by approximately 20% between the early 1990s and 2018 at mid-latitudes. Under thepresumption that the action spectrum measured by Biasin et al. [23] is correct, the sensitivity to changes in TCO should be similar forerythemal irradiance and the effective irradiance for the inactivation of SARS-CoV-2 virus particles (Sect. 4). This conclusion implies
that inactivation times of SARS-CoV-2 viruses would be about 20% shorter today if the Montreal Protocol had not been implemented.
However, a larger effect would be expected if the actual action spectrum were closer to that reported by Lytle and Sagripanti [24].
Whatever the actual sensitivity to changes in TCO may be, it is unlikely that this effect has any tangible consequences on the progressof the COVID-19 pandemic considering that: (i) fomites in the outdoors that are exposed to solar UV radiation provide the least likely
mode of transmission; (ii) outdoor infections via exhaled droplets or aerosol are the exception; (iii) outdoor transmission in the few
cases that have occurred were likely between people talking or acting in close proximity where inactivation times even in full sunlight
are too long to have a significant effect; and (iv) the role of UV-B radiation in raising 25(OH)D levels, which may protect from severe
disease progression, have not been convincingly documented (Sect. 6). On the other hand, the far-reaching, positive outcomes of thesuccessful implementation of the Montreal Protocol for life on Earth [25,93,110-114] outweigh any potential advantage for disinfection
by higher amounts of solar UV radiation.

9 Gaps in knowledge
Our assessment identified the following gaps in knowledge:• To date, the action spectrum for the inactivation of SARS-CoV-2 has been measured by only one group [23] and the experiment forestablishing this spectrum has several weaknesses (Sect. 2). Furthermore, this action spectrum has a relatively large contribution fromwavelengths in the UV-A range, in contrast to action spectra published for many other viruses [24]. The reason for this discrepancy ispresently unknown and the measurements by Biasin et al. [23] have not been independently confirmed.
• Several groups have measured inactivation times of SARS-CoV-2 upon exposure to simulated UV radiation. While all studies
confirmed the germicidal effects of UV radiation, the measured inactivation times vary widely and depend on many factors, including
experimental setup, sample preparation, and the medium in which the sample is embedded (e.g., saliva, growth medium, oraerosol). Inactivation times have not been measured yet under solar radiation and the extrapolation of the laboratory studies to realworld settings is therefore subject to large uncertainties.
• While many studies demonstrate inverse correlations between UV radiation and COVID-19 incidence or severity of disease, aconvincing theory explaining these associations is still missing and the causative factors at play, and their relative contributions, arestill unknown.
• It is not clear how research on the seasonality of common virus-caused diseases such as the common cold and influenza can be best
applied to augment our understanding of the observed seasonality of COVID-19.
• While observational studies indicate inverse associations between 25(OH)D concentration and risk of SARS-CoV-2 positivity or
COVID-19 severity, Mendelian randomisation studies have not found statistically significant evidence of a causal effect of 25(OH)D
concentration on COVID-19 susceptibility or severity. Furthermore, randomised trials have generated mixed results. Hence, there iscurrently no reliable quantification of the role of vitamin D in reducing the susceptibility or severity of COVID-19.
• While several observational studies indicate significant associations between air pollution and COVID-19 incidence and fatality rates,
results of well-established cohort studies indicate no association between long-term exposure to air pollution and infection with
SARS-CoV-2. Hence, the role of air pollution in the transmission and severity of disease is still not well established.

110Chapter 2

10 Conclusions
By preventing large increases in UV radiation, the Montreal Protocol may have also affected the inactivation rates of SARS-CoV-2
exposed to solar UV radiation. Without the Montreal Protocol, these rates would have been larger; however, it is unlikely that thiswould have significantly changed the progression of the COVID-19 pandemic. The most reliable experimental data suggest that 90%
of SARS-CoV-2 particles are inactivated by solar radiation within ~7 minutes for high sun and ~13 minutes for low sun. However, one
cannot rely on the Sun’s germicidal effect in general and, in particular, early and late in the day, during winter, or at high latitudes during
all seasons. There is evidence of an inverse relationship between ambient solar UV radiation and the incidence or severity of COVID-19,
but the reasons for this inverse correlation have not been unambiguously identified as they can also be explained by confounders, suchas ambient temperature, humidity, visible radiation, daylength, temporal changes in risk and disease management, and the proximityof people to other people. Observational studies indicate that higher concentrations of vitamin D (specifically 25(OH)D) in the blood
are correlated with lower risk of SARS-CoV-2 positivity or severity of COVID-19. While reasons for this inverse relationship have not been
established, a potential link between vitamin D status and disease severity cannot be excluded at this time. Considering that laboratory
studies support the role of vitamin D in the immune system, it would be prudent to advocate policies to avoid vitamin D deficiency.
However, routine supplementation of populations that are not experiencing vitamin D deficiency is currently not warranted.
Assessments on the effect of solar UV radiation on COVID-19 prevalence and severity are impeded by: the uncertainty of the action
spectrum for the inactivation of SARS-CoV-2; the lack of measurements of inactivation rates of SARS-CoV-2 under solar radiation; thedearth of controlled clinical trials investigating the causes of the inverse association between ambient UV radiation and incidence orseverity of COVID-19, which is indicated by observational studies; and the inconsistency between the results of observational studies
and randomised trials concerning the role of vitamin D and air pollution in the incidence and progression of COVID-19.

111

Chapter 2

List of abbreviations
25(OH)D 25

25-hydroxy vitamin DCI		

confidence interval

CIE		

Commission Internationale de l’ Éclairage (engl.: International Commission on Illumination)

COVID-19

coronavirus disease 2019DNA		deoxyribonucleic acid

EEAP		

Environmental Effects Assessment PanelgMEM		

Glasgow’s Minimum Essential MediumLED		

light-emitting diodeNB-UVB		

narrow-band ultraviolet-B

PM2.5		

particulate matter composed of particles that have a diameter less than 2.5 micrometres

PM10		

particulate matter composed of particles that have a diameter less than 10 micrometres

RAF		

Radiation Amplification Factor

RH		

relative humidityRNA		ribonucleic acid

SARS-CoV-1

severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 1

SARS-CoV-2

severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2

SZA		

solar zenith angle

TCO		

total column ozone

TEMIS		

Tropospheric Emission Monitoring Internet Service

TUV		

Tropospheric Ultraviolet and Visible

UV-A		

Ultraviolet-A (315–400 nm)

UV-B		

Ultraviolet-B (280–315 nm)

UV-C		

Ultraviolet-C (100–280 nm)

UVI		Ultraviolet Index

VIS		Visible (radiation)

WMO		

World Meteorological Organization

Acknowledgements Generous contributions by UNEP/Ozone Secretariat were provided for the convened author meeting. GHB and
SM acknowledge travel funding provided by the U.S. Global Change Research Program.
Author contributions All authors contributed to the conception and assessment, and carried out extensive revisions of content.
Conflict of interest The authors have no conflict of interest.

112

Chapter 2

References
1.

Neale, R. E., Barnes, P. W., Robson, T. M., Neale, P. J., Williamson, C. E., Zepp, R. G., Wilson, S. R., Madronich, S., Andrady,
A. L., Heikkilä, A. M., Bernhard, G. H., Bais, A. F., Aucamp, P. J., Banaszak, A. T., Bornman, J. F., Bruckman, L. S., Byrne, S. N.,
Foereid, B., Häder, D. P., Hollestein, L. M., et al. (2021). Environmental effects of stratospheric ozone depletion, UV radiation, andinteractions with climate change: UNEP Environmental Effects Assessment Panel, Update 2020. Photochemical & Photobiological
Sciences, 20(1), 1-67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43630-020-00001-x

2.

Prather, K. A., Wang, C. C., & Schooley, R. T. (2020). Reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Science, 368(6498), 1422-1424.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abc6197

3.

Stadnytskyi, V., Bax, C. E., Bax, A., & Anfinrud, P. (2020). The airborne lifetime of small speech droplets and their potential
importance in SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(22), 11875-11877. https://doi.
org/10.1073/pnas.2006874117

4.

The Lancet Respiratory Medicine (2020). COVID-19 transmission—up in the air. The Lancet Respiratory Medicine, 8(12). https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-2600(20)30514-2

5.

Rahman, H. S., Aziz, M. S., Hussein, R. H., Othman, H. H., Salih Omer, S. H., Khalid, E. S., Abdulrahman, N. A., Amin, K., &Abdullah, R. (2020). The transmission modes and sources of COVID-19: a systematic review. International Journal of Surgery
Open, 26, 125-136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijso.2020.08.017

6.

Zhou, L., Ayeh, S. K., Chidambaram, V., & Karakousis, P. C. (2021). Modes of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and evidence forpreventive behavioral interventions. BMC Infectious Diseases, 21(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-021-06222-4

7.

Zhang, R., Li, Y., Zhang, A. L., Wang, Y., & Molina, M. J. (2020). Identifying airborne transmission as the dominant route for the
spread of COVID-19. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(26), 14857-14863. https://doi.org/10.1073/
pnas.2009637117

8.

Klompas, M., Baker, M. A., & Rhee, C. (2020). Airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Journal of the American Medical
Association, 324(5). https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.12458

9.

Cai, J., Sun, W., Huang, J., Gamber, M., Wu, J., & He, G. (2020). Indirect virus transmission in cluster of COVID-19 cases,
Wenzhou, China, 2020. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 26(6), 1343-1345. https://doi.org/10.3201/eid2606.200412

10.

Colaneri, M., Seminari, E., Novati, S., Asperges, E., Biscarini, S., Piralla, A., Percivalle, E., Cassaniti, I., Baldanti, F., Bruno, R.,
Mondelli, M. U., Bruno, R., Mondelli, M. U., Brunetti, E., Di Matteo, A., Seminari, E., Maiocchi, L., Zuccaro, V., Pagnucco, L.,
Ludovisi, S., et al. (2020). Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 RNA contamination of inanimate surfaces and virus
viability in a health care emergency unit. Clinical Microbiology and Infection, 26(8), 1094.e1091-1094.e1095. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.cmi.2020.05.009

11.

Harvey, A. P., Fuhrmeister, E. R., Cantrell, M. E., Pitol, A. K., Swarthout, J. M., Powers, J. E., Nadimpalli, M. L., Julian, T. R., &Pickering, A. J. (2020). Longitudinal monitoring of SARS-CoV-2 RNA on high-touch surfaces in a community setting. Environmental
Science & Technology Letters, 8(2), 168-175. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.0c00875

12.

Rocha, A. L. S., Pinheiro, J. R., Nakamura, T. C., da Silva, J. D. S., Rocha, B. G. S., Klein, R. C., Birbrair, A., & Amorim, J. H. (2021).
Fomites and the environment did not have an important role in COVID-19 transmission in a Brazilian mid-sized city. Scientific
Reports, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-95479-5

13.

Bulfone, T. C., Malekinejad, M., Rutherford, G. W., & Razani, N. (2021). Outdoor transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and otherrespiratory viruses: a systematic review. The Journal of Infectious Diseases, 223(4), 550-561. https://doi.org/10.1093/infdis/
jiaa74214.

Klepeis, N. E., Nelson, W. C., Ott, W. R., Robinson, J. P., Tsang, A. M., Switzer, P., Behar, J. V., Hern, S. C., & Engelmann, W. H.
(2001). The National Human Activity Pattern Survey (NHAPS): a resource for assessing exposure to environmental pollutants.
Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology, 11(3), 231-252. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.jea.7500165

15.

Cohen, J. (2020). Sick time. Science, 367(6484), 1294-1297. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.367.6484.1294

16.

van Doremalen, N., Bushmaker, T., Morris, D. H., Holbrook, M. G., Gamble, A., Williamson, B. N., Tamin, A., Harcourt, J. L.,
Thornburg, N. J., Gerber, S. I., Lloyd-Smith, J. O., de Wit, E., & Munster, V. J. (2020). Aerosol and surface stability of SARS-CoV-2 ascompared with SARS-CoV-1. New England Journal of Medicine, 382(16), 1564-1567. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMc2004973

17.

Chin, A. W. H., Chu, J. T. S., Perera, M. R. A., Hui, K. P. Y., Yen, H.-L., Chan, M. C. W., Peiris, M., & Poon, L. L. M. (2020).
Stability of SARS-CoV-2 in different environmental conditions. The Lancet Microbe, 1(1), e10. https://doi.org/10.1016/s26665247(20)30003-3

18.

Riddell, S., Goldie, S., Hill, A., Eagles, D., & Drew, T. W. (2020). The effect of temperature on persistence of SARS-CoV-2 oncommon surfaces. Virology Journal, 17(1), 145. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12985-020-01418-7

113

Chapter 2

114

19.

Kampf, G., Todt, D., Pfaender, S., & Steinmann, E. (2020). Persistence of coronaviruses on inanimate surfaces and theirinactivation with biocidal agents. Journal of Hospital Infection, 104(3), 246-251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2020.01.022

20.

Pastorino, B., Touret, F., Gilles, M., de Lamballerie, X., & Charrel, R. N. (2020). Prolonged infectivity of SARS-CoV-2 in fomites.
Emerging Infectious Diseases, 26(9). https://doi.org/10.3201/eid2609.201788

21.

Chatterjee, S., Murallidharan, J. S., Agrawal, A., & Bhardwaj, R. (2021). Why coronavirus survives longer on impermeable thanporous surfaces. Physics of Fluids, 33(2). https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0037924

22.

Hirose, R., Itoh, Y., Ikegaya, H., Miyazaki, H., Watanabe, N., Yoshida, T., Bandou, R., Daidoji, T., & Nakaya, T. (2022). Differencesin environmental stability among SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern: both omicron BA.1 and BA.2 have higher stability. ClinicalMicrobiology and Infection, 28(11), 1486-1491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmi.2022.05.020

23.

Biasin, M., Strizzi, S., Bianco, A., Macchi, A., Utyro, O., Pareschi, G., Loffreda, A., Cavalleri, A., Lualdi, M., Trabattoni, D.,
Tacchetti, C., Mazza, D., & Clerici, M. (2022). UV and violet light can neutralize SARS-CoV-2 infectivity. Journal of Photochemistry
and Photobiology, 10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpap.2021.100107

24.

Lytle, C. D., & Sagripanti, J. L. (2005). Predicted inactivation of viruses of relevance to biodefense by solar radiation. Journal of
Virology, 79(22), 14244-14252. https://doi.org/10.1128/JVI.79.22.14244-14252.2005

25.

Bernhard, G. H., Bais, A. F., Aucamp, P. J., Klekociuk, A. R., Liley, J. B., & McKenzie, R. L. (2022). Stratospheric ozone, UV
radiation, and climate interactions. Chapter 1

26.

Heßling, M., Hönes, K., Vatter, P., & Lingenfelder, C. (2020). Ultraviolet irradiation doses for coronavirus inactivation–review andanalysis of coronavirus photoinactivation studies. GMS hygiene and infection control, 15. https://doi.org/10.3205/dgkh000343

27.

Nishisaka-Nonaka, R., Mawatari, K., Yamamoto, T., Kojima, M., Shimohata, T., Uebanso, T., Nakahashi, M., Emoto, T., Akutagawa,
M., Kinouchi, Y., Wada, T., Okamoto, M., Ito, H., Yoshida, K.-i., Daidoji, T., Nakaya, T., & Takahashi, A. (2018). Irradiation by
ultraviolet light-emitting diodes inactivates influenza a viruses by inhibiting replication and transcription of viral RNA in host cells.
Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology B: Biology, 189, 193-200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jphotobiol.2018.10.017

28.

CIE. (1998). Erythema reference action spectrum and standard erythema dose. CIE Standard Bureau, Vol. ISO 17166:1999(E),CIE DS 007.1/E-1998. Commission Internationale de l’Eclairage, Vienna, Austria.

29.

Luzzatto-Fegiz, P., Temprano-Coleto, F., Peaudecerf, F. J., Landel, J. R., Zhu, Y., & McMurry, J. A. (2021). UVB radiation alone may
not explain sunlight inactivation of SARS-CoV-2. The Journal of Infectious Diseases, 223(8), 1500-1502. https://doi.org/10.1093/
infdis/jiab070

30.

Rezaie, A., Leite, G. G. S., Melmed, G. Y., Mathur, R., Villanueva-Millan, M. J., Parodi, G., Sin, J., Germano, J. F., Morales, W.,
Weitsman, S., Kim, S. Y., Park, J. H., Sakhaie, S., & Pimentel, M. (2020). Ultraviolet A light effectively reduces bacteria and viruses
including coronavirus. PloS One, 15(7), e0236199. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0236199

31.

Wigginton, K. R., Pecson, B. M., Sigstam, T., Bosshard, F., & Kohn, T. (2012). Virus inactivation mechanisms: impact ofdisinfectants on virus function and structural integrity. Environmental Science & Technology, 46(21), 12069-12078. https://doi.
org/10.1021/es3029473

32.

Biasin, M., Bianco, A., Pareschi, G., Cavalleri, A., Cavatorta, C., Fenizia, C., Galli, P., Lessio, L., Lualdi, M., Tombetti, E., Ambrosi,A., Redaelli, E. M. A., Saulle, I., Trabattoni, D., Zanutta, A., & Clerici, M. (2021). UV-C irradiation is highly effective in inactivating
SARS-CoV-2 replication. Scientific Reports, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-85425-w

33.

Herman, J., Biegel, B., & Huang, L. (2020). Inactivation times from 290 to 315 nm UVB in sunlight for SARS coronaviruses CoV and
CoV-2 using OMI satellite data for the sunlit Earth. Air Quality, Atmosphere & Health, 14(2), 217-233. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11869-020-00927-2

34.

Setlow, R. B. (1974). The wavelengths in sunlight effective in producing skin cancer: a theoretical analysis. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 71(9), 3363-3366. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.71.9.3363

35.

Aas, P. A., Otterlei, M., Falnes, P. Ø., Vågbø, C. B., Skorpen, F., Akbari, M., Sundheim, O., Bjørås, M., Slupphaug, G., Seeberg,E., & Krokan, H. E. (2003). Human and bacterial oxidative demethylases repair alkylation damage in both RNA and DNA. Nature,421(6925), 859-863. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01363

36.

Schuit, M., Ratnesar-Shumate, S., Yolitz, J., Williams, G., Weaver, W., Green, B., Miller, D., Krause, M., Beck, K., Wood, S.,
Holland, B., Bohannon, J., Freeburger, D., Hooper, I., Biryukov, J., Altamura, L. A., Wahl, V., Hevey, M., & Dabisch, P. (2020).
Airborne SARS-CoV-2 is rapidly inactivated by simulated sunlight. Journal of Infectious Diseases, 222(4), 564-571. https://doi.
org/10.1093/infdis/jiaa334

37.

Ratnesar-Shumate, S., Williams, G., Green, B., Krause, M., Holland, B., Wood, S., Bohannon, J., Boydston, J., Freeburger, D.,
Hooper, I., Beck, K., Yeager, J., Altamura, L. A., Biryukov, J., Yolitz, J., Schuit, M., Wahl, V., Hevey, M., & Dabisch, P. (2020).
Simulated sunlight rapidly inactivates SARS-CoV-2 on surfaces. Journal of Infectious Diseases, 222(2), 214-222. https://doi.
org/10.1093/infdis/jiaa274

Chapter 2
38.

Wondrak, G. T., Jandova, J., Williams, S. J., & Schenten, D. (2021). Solar simulated ultraviolet radiation inactivates HCoV-NL63
and SARS-CoV-2 coronaviruses at environmentally relevant doses. Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology B: Biology, 224.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jphotobiol.2021.112319

39.

Raiteux, J., Eschlimann, M., Marangon, A., Rogée, S., Dadvisard, M., Taysse, L., Larigauderie, G., & Sinclair, A. (2021). Inactivationof SARS-CoV-2 by simulated sunlight on contaminated surfaces. Microbiology Spectrum, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1128/
Spectrum.00333-21

40.

Nicastro, F., Sironi, G., Antonello, E., Bianco, A., Biasin, M., Brucato, J. R., Ermolli, I., Pareschi, G., Salvati, M., Tozzi, P., Trabattoni,D., & Clerici, M. (2021). Solar UV-B/A radiation is highly effective in inactivating SARS-CoV-2. Scientific Reports, 11(1). https://doi.
org/10.1038/s41598-021-94417-9

41.

Sloan, A., Cutts, T., Griffin, B. D., Kasloff, S., Schiffman, Z., Chan, M., Audet, J., Leung, A., Kobasa, D., Stein, D. R., Safronetz,
D., & Poliquin, G. (2021). Simulated sunlight decreases the viability of SARS-CoV-2 in mucus. PloS One, 16(6). https://doi.
org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253068

42.

Herman, J., & Piacentini, R. D. (2021). UVB (290–315 nm) inactivation of the SARS CoV-2 virus as a function of the standard UV
index. Air Quality, Atmosphere & Health, 15(1), 85-90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11869-021-01099-3

43.

Sagripanti, J. L., & Lytle, C. D. (2020). Estimated inactivation of coronaviruses by solar radiation with special reference to
COVID-19. Photochemistry and Photobiology, 96(4), 731-737. https://doi.org/10.1111/php.13293

44.

Carvalho, F. R. S., Henriques, D. V., Correia, O., & Schmalwieser, A. W. (2021). Potential of solar UV radiation for inactivation ofcoronaviridae family estimated from satellite data. Photochemistry and Photobiology, 97(1), 213-220. https://doi.org/10.1111/
php.13345

45.

Blatchley, E. R. I., & Coohill, T. P. (2021). Ultraviolet disinfection. In G. McDonnell, & J. Hansen (Eds.), Block’s disinfection,sterilization, and preservation, 171-191. Wolters Kluwer Health, Philadelphia, USA

46.

Weiss, M., & Horzinek, M. C. (1986). Resistance of Berne virus to physical and chemical treatment. Veterinary Microbiology, 11(12), 41-49. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-1135(86)90005-2

47.

Kariwa, H., Fujii, N., & Takashima, I. (2006). Inactivation of SARS coronavirus by means of povidone-iodine, physical conditions
and chemical reagents. Dermatology, 212, 119-123. https://doi.org/10.1159/000089211

48.

Kowalski, W. J., Bahnfleth, W. P., Raguse, M., & Moeller, R. (2020). The cluster model of ultraviolet disinfection explains tailingkinetics. Journal of Applied Microbiology, 128(4), 1003-1014. https://doi.org/10.1111/jam.14527

49.

Micheletti, M. I., Piacentini, R. D., & Madronich, S. (2003). Sensitivity of biologically active UV radiation to stratospheric ozone
changes: effects of action spectrum shape and wavelength range. Photochemistry and Photobiology, 78(5), 456-461. https://doi.org/10.1562/0031-8655(2003)0780456SOBAUR2.0.CO2

50.

Ma, Y., Pei, S., Shaman, J., Dubrow, R., & Chen, K. (2021). Role of meteorological factors in the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in the
United States. Nature Communications, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-23866-7

51.

Sfîcă, L., Bulai, M., Amihăesei, V.-A., Ion, C., & Ștefan, M. (2020). Weather conditions (with focus on UV radiation) associated with
COVID-19 outbreak and worldwide climate-based prediction for future prevention. Aerosol and Air Quality Research, 20(9),1862-1873. https://doi.org/10.4209/aaqr.2020.05.0206

52.

Choi, Y. W., Tuel, A., & Eltahir, E. A. B. (2021). On the environmental determinants of COVID-19 seasonality. GeoHealth, 5(6).
https://doi.org/10.1029/2021GH000413

53.

Carleton, T., Cornetet, J., Huybers, P., Meng, K. C., & Proctor, J. (2020). Global evidence for ultraviolet radiation decreasing
COVID-19 growth rates. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(1). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2012370118

54.

Gorman, S., & Weller, R. B. (2020). Investigating the potential for ultraviolet light to modulate morbidity and mortality fromCOVID-19: a narrative review and update. Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine, 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2020.616527

55.

Moozhipurath, R. K., & Kraft, L. (2021). Association of lockdowns with the protective role of ultraviolet-B (UVB) radiation in
reducing COVID-19 deaths. Scientific Reports, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-01908-w

56.

Moozhipurath, R. K., Kraft, L., & Skiera, B. (2020). Evidence of protective role of Ultraviolet-B (UVB) radiation in reducing
COVID-19 deaths. Scientific Reports, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-74825-z

57.

Guasp, M., Laredo, C., & Urra, X. (2020). Higher solar irradiance is associated with a lower incidence of COVID-19. Clinical
Infectious Diseases, 71(16), 2269-2271. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciaa575

58.

Nandin de Carvalho, H. (2022). Latitude impact on pandemic SARS-CoV-2 2020 outbreaks and possible utility of UV indexes in
predictions of regional daily infections and deaths. Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology, 10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jpap.2022.100108

59.

Falzone, Y. M., Bosco, L., Sferruzza, G., Russo, T., Vabanesi, M., & Filippi, M. (2021). Evaluation of the combined effect of mobility
and seasonality on the COVID-19 pandemic: a Lombardy-based study. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/
ssrn.3778753

115

Chapter 2

116

60.

Isaia, G., Diémoz, H., Maluta, F., Fountoulakis, I., Ceccon, D., di Sarra, A., Facta, S., Fedele, F., Lorenzetto, G., Siani, A. M., &Isaia, G. (2021). Does solar ultraviolet radiation play a role in COVID-19 infection and deaths? An environmental ecological study in
Italy. Science of the Total Environment, 757. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.143757

61.

Hersbach, H., Bell, B., Berrisford, P., Hirahara, S., Horányi, A., Muñoz-Sabater, J., Nicolas, J., Peubey, C., Radu, R., Schepers, D.,
Simmons, A., Soci, C., Abdalla, S., Abellan, X., Balsamo, G., Bechtold, P., Biavati, G., Bidlot, J., Bonavita, M., Chiara, G., et al.
(2020). The ERA5 global reanalysis. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 146(730), 1999-2049. https://doi.
org/10.1002/qj.3803

62.

Cherrie, M., Clemens, T., Colandrea, C., Feng, Z., Webb, D. J., Weller, R. B., & Dibben, C. (2021). Ultraviolet A radiation and
COVID-19 deaths in the USA with replication studies in England and Italy. British Journal of Dermatology, 185(2), 363-370.
https://doi.org/10.1111/bjd.20093

63.

Weller, R. B., Wang, Y., He, J., Maddux, F. W., Usvyat, L., Zhang, H., Feelisch, M., & Kotanko, P. (2020). Does incident solar
ultraviolet radiation lower blood pressure? Journal of the American Heart Association, 9(5). https://doi.org/10.1161/
JAHA.119.013837

64.

Mackay, D. F., Clemens, T. L., Hastie, C. E., Cherrie, M. P. C., Dibben, C., & Pell, J. P. (2019). UVA and seasonal patterning of
56 370 myocardial infarctions across Scotland, 2000–2011. Journal of the American Heart Association, 8(23). https://doi.
org/10.1161/jaha.119.012551

65.

Li, F., Tao, L., Serruys, P. W., Onuma, Y., Soliman, O., McEvoy, J. W., Wijns, W., Hui, C., Yang, M., Wang, R., Zhang, R., Yin, Z., Liu,Y., Wang, H., Zhao, Y., Zhao, X., Yang, S., Li, W., Li, Q., Zhang, X., et al. (2020). Association of hypertension and antihypertensive
treatment with COVID-19 mortality: a retrospective observational study. European Heart Journal, 41(22), 2058-2066. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehaa433

66.

McKenzie, R. L., & Liley, J. B. (2021). Yet another benefit from sunlight in the fight against COVID-19? British Journal of
Dermatology, 185(2), 246-247. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjd.20516

67.

Martinez, M. E. (2018). The calendar of epidemics: seasonal cycles of infectious diseases. PLoS Pathogens, 14(11). https://doi.
org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1007327

68.

Booth, C. R., Lucas, T. B., Morrow, J. H., Weiler, C. S., & Penhale, P. A. (1994). The United States National Science Foundation’s
polar network for monitoring ultraviolet radiation. In C. S. Weiler, & P. A. Penhale (Eds.), Ultraviolet radiation in Antarctica:
Measurements and biological effects, 62, 17-37: American Geophysical Union, Washington, D.C. https://doi.org/10.1029/
AR062p0017

69.

Lau, F. H., Powell, C. E., Adonecchi, G., Danos, D. M., DiNardo, A. R., Chugden, R. J., Wolf, P., & Castilla, C. F. (2022). Pilot phaseresults of a prospective, randomized controlled trial of narrowband ultraviolet B phototherapy in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.
Experimental Dermatology, 31(7), 1109-1115. https://doi.org/10.1111/exd.14617

70.

Kronfeld-Schor, N., Stevenson, T. J., Nickbakhsh, S., Schernhammer, E. S., Dopico, X. C., Dayan, T., Martinez, M., & Helm, B.
(2021). Drivers of infectious disease seasonality: potential implications for COVID-19. Journal of Biological Rhythms, 36(1), 35-54.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0748730420987322

71.

Dopico, X. C., Evangelou, M., Ferreira, R. C., Guo, H., Pekalski, M. L., Smyth, D. J., Cooper, N., Burren, O. S., Fulford, A.
J., Hennig, B. J., Prentice, A. M., Ziegler, A.-G., Bonifacio, E., Wallace, C., & Todd, J. A. (2015). Widespread seasonal gene
expression reveals annual differences in human immunity and physiology. Nature Communications, 6(1). https://doi.
org/10.1038/ncomms8000

72.

Lal, A., Hales, S., French, N., & Baker, M. G. (2012). Seasonality in human zoonotic enteric diseases: a systematic review. PloS
One, 7(4). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0031883

73.

Moriyama, M., Hugentobler, W. J., & Iwasaki, A. (2020). Seasonality of respiratory viral infections. Annual Review of Virology, 7(1),83-101. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-virology-012420-022445

74.

Nguyen, J. L., Schwartz, J., & Dockery, D. W. (2014). The relationship between indoor and outdoor temperature, apparent
temperature, relative humidity, and absolute humidity. Indoor Air, 24(1), 103-112. https://doi.org/10.1111/ina.12052

75.

Nelson, R. J., Demas, G. E., Klein, S. L., & Kriegsfeld, L. J. (2002). Seasonal patterns of stress, immune function, and disease.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

76.

Scragg, R. K. R., Stewart, A. W., McKenzie, R. L., Reeder, A. I., Liley, J. B., & Allen, M. W. (2016). Sun exposure and25-hydroxyvitamin D3 levels in a community sample: quantifying the association with electronic dosimeters. Journal of Exposure
Science & Environmental Epidemiology, 27(5), 471-477. https://doi.org/10.1038/jes.2016.51

77.

Godar, D. E. (2005). UV Doses Worldwide. Photochemistry and Photobiology, 81(4). https://doi.org/10.1562/2004-09-07-ir308r.1

78.

Pahar, B., Madonna, S., Das, A., Albanesi, C., & Girolomoni, G. (2020). Immunomodulatory role of the antimicrobial LL-37
peptide in autoimmune diseases and viral infections. Vaccines, 8(3). https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines8030517

Chapter 2
79.

Bae, J. H., Choe, H. J., Holick, M. F., & Lim, S. (2022). Association of vitamin D status with COVID-19 and its severity. Reviews in
Endocrine and Metabolic Disorders, 23(3), 579-599. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11154-021-09705-6

80.

Pham, H., Rahman, A., Majidi, A., Waterhouse, M., & Neale, R. E. (2019). Acute respiratory tract infection and 25-Hydroxyvitamin
D concentration: a systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health,16(17), 3020. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16173020

81.

Pham, H., Waterhouse, M., Baxter, C., Duarte Romero, B., McLeod, D. S. A., Armstrong, B. K., Ebeling, P. R., English, D. R.,
Hartel, G., Kimlin, M. G., Martineau, A. R., O’Connell, R., van der Pols, J. C., Venn, A. J., Webb, P. M., Whiteman, D. C., & Neale,
R. E. (2021). The effect of vitamin D supplementation on acute respiratory tract infection in older Australian adults: an analysis ofdata from the D-Health Trial. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol, 9(2), 69-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-8587(20)30380-6

82.

Jolliffe, D. A., Camargo, C. A., Sluyter, J. D., Aglipay, M., Aloia, J. F., Ganmaa, D., Bergman, P., Bischoff-Ferrari, H. A., Borzutzky,A., Damsgaard, C. T., Dubnov-Raz, G., Esposito, S., Gilham, C., Ginde, A. A., Golan-Tripto, I., Goodall, E. C., Grant, C. C.,
Griffiths, C. J., Hibbs, A. M., Janssens, W., et al. (2021). Vitamin D supplementation to prevent acute respiratory infections: asystematic review and meta-analysis of aggregate data from randomised controlled trials. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol, 9(5), 276292. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-8587(21)00051-6

83.

Petrelli, F., Luciani, A., Perego, G., Dognini, G., Colombelli, P. L., & Ghidini, A. (2021). Therapeutic and prognostic role of vitamin
D for COVID-19 infection: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 43 observational studies. The Journal of Steroid Biochemistry
and Molecular Biology, 211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsbmb.2021.105883

84.

Liu, N., Sun, J., Wang, X., Zhang, T., Zhao, M., & Li, H. (2021). Low vitamin D status is associated with coronavirus disease2019 outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Infectious Diseases, 104, 58-64. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijid.2020.12.077

85.

Bassatne, A., Basbous, M., Chakhtoura, M., El Zein, O., Rahme, M., & El-Hajj Fuleihan, G. (2021). The link between COVID-19 andVItamin D (VIVID): A systematic review and meta-analysis. Metabolism, 119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.metabol.2021.154753

86.

Akbar, M. R., Wibowo, A., Pranata, R., & Setiabudiawan, B. (2021). Low serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (Vitamin D) level is associatedwith susceptibility to COVID-19, severity, and mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Frontiers in Nutrition, 8, 660420.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2021.660420

87.

Butler-Laporte, G., Nakanishi, T., Mooser, V., Morrison, D. R., Abdullah, T., Adeleye, O., Mamlouk, N., Kimchi, N., Afrasiabi,
Z., Rezk, N., Giliberti, A., Renieri, A., Chen, Y., Zhou, S., Forgetta, V., & Richards, J. B. (2021). Vitamin D and COVID-19
susceptibility and severity in the COVID-19 Host Genetics Initiative: a Mendelian randomization study. PLoS Medicine, 18(6),e1003605-e1003605. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1003605

88.

Patchen, B. K., Clark, A. G., Gaddis, N., Hancock, D. B., & Cassano, P. A. (2021). Genetically predicted serum vitamin D and
COVID-19: a Mendelian randomisation study. British Medical Journal Nutrition, Prevention & Health, 4(1), 213-225. https://doi.
org/10.1136/bmjnph-2021-000255

89.

Murai, I. H., Fernandes, A. L., Sales, L. P., Pinto, A. J., Goessler, K. F., Duran, C. S. C., Silva, C. B. R., Franco, A. S., Macedo, M. B.,
Dalmolin, H. H. H., Baggio, J., Balbi, G. G. M., Reis, B. Z., Antonangelo, L., Caparbo, V. F., Gualano, B., & Pereira, R. M. R. (2021).
Effect of a single high dose of vitamin D3 on hospital length of stay in patients with moderate to severe COVID-19: a randomized
clinical trial. Journal of the American Medical Association, 325(11), 1053-1060. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.26848

90.

Mariani, J., Antonietti, L., Tajer, C., Ferder, L., Inserra, F., Sanchez Cunto, M., Brosio, D., Ross, F., Zylberman, M., López, D. E., Luna
Hisano, C., Maristany Batisda, S., Pace, G., Salvatore, A., Hogrefe, J. F., Turela, M., Gaido, A., Rodera, B., Banega, E., Iglesias,
M. E., et al. (2022). High-dose vitamin D versus placebo to prevent complications in COVID-19 patients: Multicentre randomized
controlled clinical trial. PloS One, 17(5). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267918

91.

Entrenas Castillo, M., Entrenas Costa, L. M., Vaquero Barrios, J. M., Alcalá Díaz, J. F., López Miranda, J., Bouillon, R., & Quesada
Gomez, J. M. (2020). Effect of calcifediol treatment and best available therapy versus best available therapy on intensive careunit admission and mortality among patients hospitalized for COVID-19: a pilot randomized clinical study. The Journal of Steroid
Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, 203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsbmb.2020.105751

92.

Annweiler, C., Beaudenon, M., Gautier, J., Gonsard, J., Boucher, S., Chapelet, G., Darsonval, A., Fougère, B., Guérin, O., Houvet,M., Ménager, P., Roubaud-Baudron, C., Tchalla, A., Souberbielle, J.-C., Riou, J., Parot-Schinkel, E., & Célarier, T. (2022). Highdose versus standard-dose vitamin D supplementation in older adults with COVID-19 (COVIT-TRIAL): A multicenter, open-label,randomized controlled superiority trial. PLoS Medicine, 19(5). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1003999

93.

Madronich, S., Sulzberger, B., Longstreth, J., Schikowski, T., Andersen, M. P. S., Solomon, K. R., & Wilson, S. R. (2022). Changes
in tropospheric air quality related to the protection of stratospheric ozone and a changing climate. Chapter 6

94.

Vicedo-Cabrera, A. M., Sera, F., Liu, C., Armstrong, B., Milojevic, A., Guo, Y., Tong, S., Lavigne, E., Kyselý, J., Urban, A., Orru,
H., Indermitte, E., Pascal, M., Huber, V., Schneider, A., Katsouyanni, K., Samoli, E., Stafoggia, M., Scortichini, M., Hashizume,M., et al. (2020). Short term association between ozone and mortality: global two stage time series study in 406 locations in 20
countries. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m108

117

Chapter 2
95.

Schneider, R., Masselot, P., Vicedo-Cabrera, A. M., Sera, F., Blangiardo, M., Forlani, C., Douros, J., Jorba, O., Adani, M.,
Kouznetsov, R., Couvidat, F., Arteta, J., Raux, B., Guevara, M., Colette, A., Barré, J., Peuch, V.-H., & Gasparrini, A. (2022).
Differential impact of government lockdown policies on reducing air pollution levels and related mortality in Europe. Scientific
Reports, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-04277-6

96.

Cui, Y., Zhang, Z.-F., Froines, J., Zhao, J., Wang, H., Yu, S.-Z., & Detels, R. (2003). Air pollution and case fatality of SARS in the
People’s Republic of China: an ecologic study. Environmental Health, 2(1), 15. https://doi.org/10.1186/1476-069X-2-15

97.

Chen, C., Wang, J., Kwong, J., Kim, J., van Donkelaar, A., Martin, R. V., Hystad, P., Su, Y., Lavigne, E., Kirby-McGregor, M.,
Kaufman, J. S., Benmarhnia, T., & Chen, H. (2022). Association between long-term exposure to ambient air pollution and
COVID-19 severity: a prospective cohort study. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 194(20), E693-E700. https://doi.
org/10.1503/cmaj.220068

98.

Sheridan, C., Klompmaker, J., Cummins, S., James, P., Fecht, D., & Roscoe, C. (2022). Associations of air pollution with COVID-19
positivity, hospitalisations, and mortality: Observational evidence from UK Biobank. Environmental Pollution, 308. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.envpol.2022.119686

99.

Nobile, F., Michelozzi, P., Ancona, C., Cappai, G., Cesaroni, G., Davoli, M., Di Martino, M., Nicastri, E., Girardi, E., Beccacece,A., Scognamiglio, P., Sorge, C., Vairo, F., & Stafoggia, M. (2022). Air pollution, SARS-CoV-2 incidence and COVID-19 mortality in
Rome: a longitudinal study. European Respiratory Journal, 60(3). https://doi.org/10.1183/13993003.00589-2022

100. English, P. B., Von Behren, J., Balmes, J. R., Boscardin, J., Carpenter, C., Goldberg, D. E., Horiuchi, S., Richardson, M.,
Solomon, G., Valle, J., & Reynolds, P. (2022). Association between long-term exposure to particulate air pollution with
SARS-CoV-2 infections and COVID-19 deaths in California, U.S.A. Environmental Advances, 9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envadv.2022.100270
101. Azimi, P., Keshavarz, Z., Cedeno Laurent, J. G., Stephens, B., & Allen, J. G. (2021). Mechanistic transmission modeling of
COVID-19 on the Diamond Princess cruise ship demonstrates the importance of aerosol transmission. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 118(8). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2015482118
102. Wu, X., Nethery, R. C., Sabath, M. B., Braun, D., & Dominici, F. (2020). Air pollution and COVID-19 mortality in the United States:
Strengths and limitations of an ecological regression analysis. Science Advances, 6(45). https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.
abd4049
103. Yao, Y., Pan, J., Liu, Z., Meng, X., Wang, W., Kan, H., & Wang, W. (2020). Temporal association between particulate matter
pollution and case fatality rate of COVID-19 in Wuhan. Environmental Research, 189, 109941. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envres.2020.109941
104. Woodby, B., Arnold, M. M., & Valacchi, G. (2021). SARS-CoV-2 infection, COVID-19 pathogenesis, and exposure to air pollution:
What is the connection? Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1486(1), 15-38. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/
nyas.14512
105. Stieb, D. M., Evans, G. J., To, T. M., Lakey, P. S. J., Shiraiwa, M., Hatzopoulou, M., Minet, L., Brook, J. R., Burnett, R. T., &Weichenthal, S. A. (2021). Within-city variation in reactive oxygen species from fine particle air pollution and COVID-19. American
Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 204(2), 168-177. https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.202011-4142OC
106. Martelletti, L., & Martelletti, P. (2020). Air pollution and the novel Covid-19 disease: a putative disease risk factor. SN
Comprehensive Clinical Medicine, 2(4), 383-387. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42399-020-00274-4
107. Bourdrel, T., Annesi-Maesano, I., Alahmad, B., Maesano, C. N., & Bind, M.-A. (2021). The impact of outdoor air pollution on
COVID-19: a review of evidence from in vitro, animal, and human studies. European Respiratory Review, 30(159), 200242.
https://doi.org/10.1183/16000617.0242-2020
108. Kogevinas, M., Castaño-Vinyals, G., Karachaliou, M., Espinosa, A., de Cid, R., Garcia-Aymerich, J., Carreras, A., Cortés, B.,
Pleguezuelos, V., Jiménez, A., Vidal, M., O’Callaghan-Gordo, C., Cirach, M., Santano, R., Barrios, D., Puyol, L., Rubio, R.,
Izquierdo, L., Nieuwenhuijsen, M., Dadvand, P., et al. (2021). Ambient air pollution in relation to SARS-CoV-2 infection, antibody
response, and COVID-19 disease: A cohort study in Catalonia, Spain (COVICAT study). Environmental Health Perspectives,
129(11), 117003. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp9726
109. McKenzie, R., Bernhard, G., Liley, B., Disterhoft, P., Rhodes, S., Bais, A., Morgenstern, O., Newman, P., Oman, L., Brogniez, C., &Simic, S. (2019). Success of Montreal Protocol demonstrated by comparing high-quality UV measurements with “World Avoided”
calculations from two chemistry-climate models. Scientific Reports, 9(1), 12332. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-48625-z
110. Neale, R. E., Lucas, R. M., Byrne, S., Hollestein, L., Rhodes, L. E., Yasar, S., Young, A. R., Ireland, R., & Olsen, C. M. (2022). The
effects of exposure to solar radiation on human health. Chapter 3
111. Barnes, P. W., Robson, T. M., Zepp, R. G., Bornman, J. F., Jansen, M. A. K., Ossola, R., Wang, Q.-W., Robinson, S. A., Foereid, B.,
Klekociuk, A. R., Martinez-Abaigar, J., Hou, W. C., & Paul, N. D. (2022). Interactive effects of changes in UV radiation and climate
on terrestrial ecosystems, biogeochemical cycles, and feedbacks to the climate system. Chapter 4112. Andrady, A. L., Heikkila, A. M., Pandey, K. K., Bruckman, L. S., White, C. C., Zhu, M., & Zhu, L. (2022). Effects of UV radiation on
natural and synthetic materials. Chapter 7

118

Chapter 2
113. Jansen, M. A. K., Barnes, P. W., Bornman, J. F., Rose, K. A., Madronich, S., White, C. C., Zepp, R. G., & Andrady, A. L. (2022). The
Montreal Protocol and the fate of environmental plastic debris. Chapter 8114. Neale, P. J., Williamson, C. E., Banaszak, A. T., Häder, D. P., Hylander, S., Ossola, R., Rose, K. A., Wängberg, S.-Å., & Zepp, R. G.
(2022). The response of aquatic ecosystems to the interactive effects of stratospheric ozone depletion, UV radiation, and climatechange. Chapter 5119Chapter 3

3
THE EFFECTS OF EXPOSURE TO SOLAR
RADIATION ON HUMAN HEALTH

R.E. Neale62,63, R.M. Lucas64, S.N. Byrne65, L. Hollestein66,67,
L.E. Rhodes68, S. Yazar69, A.R. Young70, M. Berwick71, R.A. Ireland64,
and C.M. Olsen61,72

62

Population Health Program, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, QLD, Australia

63

School of Public Health, University of Queensland, QLD, Australia

64

National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, Australian National University, ACT, Australia

65

University of Sydney, School of Medical Science, Faculty of Medicine and Health, NSW Australia

66

Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, The Netherlands

67

Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation, The Netherlands

68

Dermatology Research Centre, School of Biological Sciences, University of Manchester, and Salford Royal Hospital, Northern Care Alliance NHS Trust, Manchester, UK

69

Garvan Medical Research Institute, NSW, Australia

70

Kings College London, United Kingdom

71

University of New Mexico Comprehensive Cancer Center, United States

72

Frazer Institute, University of Queensland, QLD, Australia

120

Chapter 3

Table of contents
Summary											1221

Introduction											1222

New knowledge about mechanisms underpinning the effects of UV radiation on health			2.1

Genes and skin cancer										123

2.2The role of UV radiation-induced immune modulation in the harms and benefits of sun exposure			

124

2.3

Mechanisms and consequences of UV radiation-induced modulation of immunity				124

3Harms of exposure to UV radiation									126

3.1Skin cancer											126

3.1.1The association between exposure to UV radiation and skin cancer						3.1.2Skin cancers avoided by the Montreal Protocol								127

3.1.3Geographic variability in the incidence of melanoma							

127

3.1.4

Trends in the incidence of melanoma, based on published reports						

128

3.1.5

Trends in incidence of melanoma according to age: analysis of Global Cancer Observatory data			

128

3.1.6

Trends in melanoma mortality									129

3.1.7Trends in the incidence of Merkel cell carcinoma								3.1.8Trends in incidence of keratinocyte cancer								130

3.1.9Risks of skin cancer in people who are immunosuppressed						3.1.10Costs associated with skin cancer management								131

3.2Sunburn												132

3.2.1Trends in rates of sunburn										132

3.2.2Sunburn prevalence in people of darker skin type							

3.3Photodermatoses											133

3.3.1The burden of photodermatoses and their impact on health and psychological wellbeing			

133

3.3.2

The association between commonly used photosensitizing drugs and photodermatoses and skin cancer		

133

3.4

Eye diseases associated with exposure to UV radiation							

134

3.4.1

Trends in the prevalence and incidence of cataract							

134

3.4.2

Prevalence of pterygium										135

3.4.3The link between exposure to UV radiation and intraocular melanoma					

135

3.4.4

Damage to the eye from drug-induced phototoxicity							

136

3.5

Non skin cancer-related harms of UV-induced immune suppression						

137

3.5.1

Increased risk of systemic infections and reduced vaccine effectiveness					

137

3.5.2

UV radiation and reactivation of viruses								137

4

Benefits of exposure to UV radiation									138

4.1Health benefits of greater time outdoors and sun exposure						

4.2Vitamin D											139

4.2.1The role of vitamin D in health outcomes								4.2.2Revised action spectrum for vitamin D									140

4.2.3Effect of clothing, sunscreen, and skin pigmentation on vitamin D production					4.2.4Prevalence of vitamin D deficiency									141

4.3Climate change, depletion of stratospheric ozone, and human health					

5Gaps in knowledge										142

6

Conclusions											143

123

126

130
131

132

138
139
140
142

References											144Appendix											161References											166

121

Chapter 3

SummaryThis assessment by the Environmental Effects Assessment Panel (EEAP) of the Montreal Protocol under the United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP) evaluates the effects of UV (UV) radiation on human health within the context of the Montreal Protocol and its
Amendments. We assess work published since our last comprehensive assessment in 2018. Over the last four years gains have been
made in knowledge of the links between sun exposure and health outcomes, mechanisms, and estimates of disease burden, including
economic impacts. Of particular note, there is new information about the way in which exposure to UV radiation modulates the immune
system, causing both harms and benefits for health. The burden of skin cancer remains high, with many lives lost to melanoma and many
more people treated for keratinocyte cancer, but it has been estimated that the Montreal Protocol will have prevented 11 million casesof melanoma and 432 million cases of keratinocyte cancer that would otherwise have occurred in the United States in people born
between 1890 and 2100. While the incidence of skin cancer continues to rise, rates have stabilised in younger populations in somecountries. Mortality has also plateaued, partly due to the use of systemic therapies for advanced disease. However, these therapies arevery expensive, contributing to the extremely high economic burden of skin cancer, and emphasising the importance and comparative
cost-effectiveness of prevention. Photodermatoses, inflammatory skin conditions induced by exposure to UV radiation, can have amarked detrimental impact on the quality of life of sufferers. More information is emerging about their potential link with commonlyused drugs, particularly anti-hypertensives. The eyes are also harmed by over-exposure to UV radiation. The incidence of cataract
and pterygium is continuing to rise, and there is now evidence of a link between intraocular melanoma and sun exposure. It has been
estimated that the Montreal Protocol will have prevented 63 million cases of cataract that would otherwise have occurred in the UnitedStates in people born between 1890 and 2100. Despite the clearly established harms, exposure to UV radiation also has benefits forhuman health. While the best recognised benefit is production of vitamin D, beneficial effects mediated by factors other than vitamin
D are emerging. For both sun exposure and vitamin D, there is increasingly convincing evidence of a positive role in diseases related
to immune function, including both autoimmune diseases and infection. With its influence on the intensity of UV radiation and global
warming, the Montreal Protocol has, and will have, both direct and indirect effects on human health, potentially changing the balance ofthe risks and benefits of spending time outdoors.

1 Introduction
The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer and its Amendments (most recently Kigali in 2016) have prevented
substantial depletion of stratospheric ozone and facilitated its recovery, with a marked effect on ultraviolet (UV) radiation and reduction
in global warming. In the absence of the Montreal Protocol the erythemally weighted UV irradiance, indicated by the UV Index, would
have increased by up to 20% between 1996 and 2020 in the region where most of the world’s population lives (between 50 °N and
50 °S of the equator) [1]. With the Montreal Protocol it is projected that UV radiation will decline at mid-latitudes over the remainderof the 21st century, although in urban areas where air quality is improving, UV radiation at the Earth’s surface is likely to increase. The
Montreal Protocol has contributed to a reduction in global warming, as the ozone-depleting chemicals controlled under the Protocol
are also potent greenhouse gases.
The changes brought about by the Montreal Protocol have important effects on human wellbeing, both directly and indirectly. In thisassessment we focus largely on direct effects due to human exposure to UV radiation, but human health is also influenced by air quality[2] and impacts of UV radiation on terrestrial [3] and aquatic [4] ecosystems, and materials [5]. Direct effects occur due to ozone-drivenchanges in the intensity of UV radiation, influencing the time outdoors before damage to the skin and eyes occurs. These changes in
UV irradiance, along with climate change, influence sun exposure and sun protection behaviour. However, changes in health outcomes
linked to UV radiation also need be considered within the context of broader societal influences and changes in health service use. For
example, over the past several decades day-to-day occupational and recreational activities have moved predominantly indoors, but inmany countries with temperate climates, annual holidays in regions with high ambient UV radiation have become common and use ofsunbeds has increased. Alongside this, the sun protection factor of sunscreens has increased and the public has been educated about
how to protect the skin from the sun. In developed countries, changing practices in screening and diagnosis, particularly for skin cancer,
make a considerable contribution to the observed trends. It is thus challenging to attribute trends in human health solely to changes inambient UV radiation. However, with the increases in UV radiation that would have occurred in the absence of the Montreal Protocol,balancing the risks and benefits of sun exposure would have presented a far greater challenge.

122Chapter 3
We present an assessment of findings regarding the effect of UV radiation on health published since our previous Quadrennial
Assessment [6]. This assessment is not a systematic literature review. Rather, we conducted a broad critical assessment of the literature to
identify publications containing information that may be of interest to policy makers whose remit is to make decisions about controls ofozone-depleting substances.

2 New knowledge about mechanisms underpinning the effects of UV
radiation on health
2.1

Genes and skin cancer

Skin cancer arises primarily as a consequence of UV-induced DNA damage that remains unrepaired, combined with immune
suppression (Fig. 1). The past decade has seen an in-depth discovery of the genetic basis of skin cancers. Cutaneous melanomas carry
distinct UV radiation mutational signatures (C>T substitutions at TpC dinucleotides (mutated base underlined), C>T substitutions at CpC
and CpC dinucleotides, and high levels of T>C and T>A mutations (Appendix Fig. 1); the latter mutations may be caused by indirect
DNA damage following exposure to UV radiation [7]. Melanocytes, from which melanomas arise, contain over 2000 genomic sitesthat are up to 170-fold more susceptible to UV radiation-induced damage than the average site in the genome [8]. These may serve as
genetic dosimeters (i.e., indicators of UV radiation dose), which could be developed as a tool to determine risk of melanoma and thus
the need for surveillance.
Until recently it was believed that cyclobutane pyrimidine dimers (CPDs) could only be formed during exposure to UV radiation.
New studies have shown that CPDs can be formed after UV radiation exposure has ended, with maximal expression 2-3 hours postirradiation, including in human skin in vivo [9]. These “dark CPDs” are formed by chemiexcitation, in which energy from UV radiation
photons is transferred to chemical intermediates, including melanin intermediates, which then transfer energy to DNA, resulting in CPD
formation. The biological significance of dark CPDs is unknown.
Many genetic loci associated with the risk of melanoma have been discovered. Additional variants have been identified through theuse of multi-trait analysis of genome-wide association studies. Of note, new variants include those related to autoimmune traits; further
functional analyses of these may identify new targets for chemoprevention of melanoma [10]. This method has also been used to identify
new loci underpinning risk of keratinocyte cancer. Most variants affect both basal cell carcinoma (BCC) and squamous cell carcinoma(SCC) (collectively called keratinocyte cancer (KC)), demonstrating their shared susceptibility [11]. Loci in pigmentation, DNA repair andcell-cycle control, telomere length and immune response pathways have been identified.

Fig. 1 Skin cancer arises primarily as a consequence of direct and indirect (via reactive oxygen species) DNA damage andimmune suppression. (Figure created by Rachael Ireland).

123

Chapter 3

2.2

The role of UV radiation-induced immune modulation in the harms and benefits of sun
exposure

Many of the harmful and beneficial effects of exposure to UV radiation are mediated through UV-induced effects on the immune system,
both locally and systemically. Our immune system is responsible for protecting us from pathogens and destroying aberrant (potentiallymalignant) cells. At the same time, it must self-regulate to avoid over-reactions to pathogens, and to tolerate ‘self’ by not attacking
self-antigens that could lead to autoimmune diseases. In most people, exposing the skin to UV radiation suppresses local (skin) immune
processes, enabling malignant cells to escape immune control, but it also upregulates antimicrobial processes in the skin. It also
suppresses aberrant immune responses systemically; i.e. in other, non-sun exposed, parts of the body. Exposure to UV radiation is thus
‘immune modulatory’ rather than solely ‘immune suppressive’.

2.3

Mechanisms and consequences of UV radiation-induced modulation of immunity

Modulation of the immune system occurs through the direct or indirect activation of cells that reside within the epidermis and dermis,
including epidermal keratinocytes, dendritic cells such as Langerhans’s cells, dermal lymphocytes, nerves, and mast cells [12]. Indirect
pathways include UV radiation-induced changes in the action of cytokines and other mediators of the immune response, such as nitricoxide, cis-urocanic acid, ligands of the aryl hydrocarbon receptor, platelet-activating factor (PAF), prostaglandin E2, antimicrobial
peptides, and vitamin D [13]. Some of these mediators lead to the recruitment of circulating immune cells from the blood. For example,
following a sunburn (see Sect. 3.2), the skin is rapidly infiltrated by neutrophils, the most abundant leucocyte (white blood cell) in thecirculation. Neutrophil infiltration peaks at ~24 hours after exposure to an inflammatory (3 minimal erythema dose (MED)) dose ofbroadband UV-B radiation, returning to baseline 7-14 days later [14]. Neutrophils perform important anti-bacterial functions which,
together with the induction of anti-microbial peptides, partly explains why skin infections are uncommon following exposure of theskin to UV radiation. UV-recruited neutrophils also produce anti-inflammatory cytokines such as IL-4 which leads to local immune
suppression.
Dendritic cells in the skin capture, process and present antigens to other immune cells, initiating an immune response. They are versatileand ‘plastic’ in their ability to take up, process and present foreign and tumour antigens to T cells. It is this property that makes dendritic
cells the ‘conductors’ of the adaptive immune response. In response to UV radiation, dendritic cells and mast cells migrate from thesite of exposure to the lymph nodes that drain the skin. There, they regulate T cell-dependent responses (reviewed in [15]) and activate
immune regulatory B cells (BRegs – Fig. 2) [16]. Importantly, in mouse models and using solar-simulated UV radiation, blocking this UV
radiation-induced migration of mast cells [17] and/or the activity of UV-activated B cells [18] prevents carcinogenesis induced by UV
radiation. Other regulatory immune cells are also activated and may migrate back to UV-irradiated skin [14]. There they suppress the skinand anti-tumour immune responses, modulate inflammation, potentially enhancing wound healing [19], and/or proliferate and migrate
into the circulation (reviewed in [12]). Together, these events explain why UV radiation is considered a complete carcinogen; it is able toboth mutate DNA and suppress the anti-tumour immune response.
Research published since our last assessment [6] has highlighted new mechanisms by which exposing the skin to UV radiation influences
immunity, including upregulation of lipids, changes in white blood cells, and alterations in the skin microbiome and transcriptome.
Exposing the skin to solar-simulated UV radiation causes an increase in the production of immunomodulatory lipids such as plateletactivating factor (PAF) and PAF-like species [20]. These bioactive lipids, and changes in lipid metabolism, directly affect immune-cell
phenotype and function, including increasing the production of cytokines that suppress the immune system (Fig. 2). In addition,
activation of the PAF receptor in human skin induces the release of large numbers of microvesicle particles [21]. These may transport PAF
and other bioactive chemicals from epidermal keratinocytes to distant immune cells and organs, thus effecting UV-B-mediated systemic
immune modulation [21]. This discovery provides crucial insight into the mechanism by which exposure to UV-B radiation alters theimmune system at sites that are not directly exposed to the radiation.
The effects of exposure to UV radiation on white blood cell (leukocyte) subsets in blood have been recently reviewed [13]. Exposureof mice to a single 8 kJ m-2 dose of solar-simulated UV radiation induces changes in the number, phenotype and function of these cells
in both the innate and adaptive immune systems that typically lead to reduced activity and capacity to recirculate [22], consistent with
benefits for immune-mediated disorders such as multiple sclerosis (MS) and potentially COVID-19 [23].
Several studies have identified seasonal changes in the number of leukocytes and have found the overall inflammatory milieu to be more
pro-inflammatory in winter and anti-inflammatory in summer. While vitamin D is known to have effects on immune function, the effects
on leukocytes were independent of vitamin D status (reviewed in [13]). In support of this work, a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of
low dose (400 IU/day) vitamin D3 supplementation (compared to placebo) in vitamin D-deficient (mean 25-hydroxy vitamin D [25(OH)D73] blood concentration=36.1 nmol L-1) but otherwise healthy participants in Aberdeen, Scotland, found seasonal variation in natural
T-regulatory cell populations and functions that was independent of blood 25(OH)D concentration [24].
UV irradiation of the skin causes changes in the skin microbiome [25] and transcriptome (the set of coding and non-coding RNA in cells)[26]. In people with atopic dermatitis (the most common type of eczema), 12 to 25 treatments over 6 to 8 weeks with narrowband
UV-B radiation caused a shift to greater microbial diversity accompanied by reduced skin inflammation [25]. Irradiation of the skin of

73

124

25(OH)D is the metabolite measured to determine vitamin D status

Chapter 3
seven healthy male volunteers (skin type II) using solar-simulated UV radiation and doses equivalent to 0, 3 and 6 standard erythemal
doses (SED) led to altered expression, mainly upregulation, of multiple genes (primarily related to DNA repair and apoptosis, immunity
and inflammation, pigmentation, and vitamin D synthesis) [26]. The number of genes affected increased with increasing dose of UV
radiation. UV-B (280-320 nm) and UV-A1 (340-400 nm) had similar effects on gene expression.
An abnormal cutaneous response to exposure to UV radiation may result in overactive immune responses to substances in the skin,resulting in UV-induced allergic skin conditions [27]. Evidence is also accruing to suggest that dysfunction of the skin’s innate immune
system contributes to some photodermatoses, including conditions aggravated by sun exposure such as systemic lupus erythematosus(SLE) [28] and rosacea [29] (Sect. 4.3). Abnormalities of innate immunity can explain the enhanced UV-B-induced keratinocyte damage
observed in cutaneous manifestations of SLE [28], and the inflammatory response to UV-B-induced keratinocyte damage in rosacea [29].
Recent studies show that irradiating the skin of mice with UV-B radiation can lead to changes in distant organs. One study demonstratedchanges in gene expression in the kidney, upregulating inflammatory responses [30]. This may be one mechanism by which sun
exposure in people with SLE causes acute exacerbation of nephritis (inflammation of the kidney). In another study in mice, chronic
exposure of the skin to broadband UV-B radiation (100–300 m J cm-2 for 3 days per week for 10 weeks) significantly reduced levels of
dopamine and related enzymes (tyrosine hydroxylase and dopamine beta-hydroxylase) in the blood and adrenal glands and induced
marked damage in the adrenal medulla [31]. These studies add to our emerging understanding of wide-ranging systemic effects of
exposing the skin to UV radiation, noting that studies in mice do not always translate to humans but also that similar studies in humans
may not be feasible.

Fig. 2 Ultraviolet radiation is immunomodulatory. The absorption of UV radiation by chromophores in the skin directly andindirectly activates cells in the epidermis and dermis, including keratinocytes, Langerhans cells (LCs), mast cells and dermal
lymphocytes. Exposing the skin to UV radiation stimulates keratinocytes and mast cells to release microvesicle particles,
cytokines and immunomodulatory lipids such as platelet activating factor (PAF), which induce neutrophil and monocyte
infiltration into the skin and can affect distant, non-skin cells. Skin mast cells and dendritic cells migrate into the skin-draining
lymph nodes where they activate regulatory phenotypes (e.g. Breg). Elevated sphingosine-1-phosphate (S1P) lipid levelsin the draining lymph nodes after exposure of the skin to UV radiation also contribute to systemic immune suppression by
preventing lymphocyte circulation. UCA, urocanic acid; 5-HT, 5-hydroxytryptamine; PG, prostaglandin. (Figure created by
Rachael Ireland).

125

Chapter 3

3 Harms of exposure to UV radiation
Human exposure to UV radiation causes harms to the skin and eyes. For the skin in particular, the risks vary according to skinpigmentation. People with deeply pigmented skin are at particularly low risk of UV-induced skin cancer, due to the type of melanin andthe degree of pigmentation. In contrast, people with lightly pigmented skin are at markedly increased risk of skin cancer, particularly ifthey reside in areas with high ambient UV radiation. Low-dose repeated exposures to UV radiation can increase pigmentation and skin
thickness, offering some protection against skin damage during subsequent exposures, a concept called habituation. However, theprotection afforded is modest, with photoprotection factors (interpreted similarly to the sun protection factor (SPF) used for sunscreens)of 2-3 for people with darker skin at high northern latitudes and 10-12 for people with lighter skin types at lower European latitudes (e.g.
35°North) [32].

3.1

Skin cancer

3.1.1 The association between exposure to UV radiation and skin cancer
Exposing the skin to UV radiation is the primary modifiable cause of melanoma and KC. The main mechanisms underlying UV-induced
tumourigenesis are DNA mutation, suppression of anti-tumour immune responses, and promotion of cutaneous inflammation. However,the patterns of exposure that give rise to these tumours, and the proportion estimated to be attributable to exposure to UV radiation,differ by geographic location, skin type, and tumour type.
The association between sun exposure and melanoma is complex, and appears to differ according to the site of the tumour. A recent
study supports the dual pathway hypothesis, where melanoma on sites that are less frequently exposed to the sun occurs in people
with many naevi (moles), whereas melanomas on the head and neck are associated with cumulative sun exposure [33,34]. Despite theircomplex association with pattern and dose of sun exposure, 75% of melanomas globally are estimated to be attributable to population
exposure to excess UV radiation compared with a reference population [35]. This figure is higher in countries with higher ambient UV
radiation, particularly Australia and New Zealand (96%) [35], than in those where the intensity of UV radiation is lower, such as Canada(62%) [36] and France (83%) [37]. In people with skin of colour, melanomas tend to occur on the palms of the hands, soles of the feet,and mucosal surfaces, and UV radiation is not a risk factor for these lesions [38].
With respect to KCs, SCCs have a straightforward association with cumulative exposure to UV radiation. The pattern of exposure thatgives rise to BCC is less well established, but intermittent exposure in both childhood and adulthood appears to play an important role.
This notion is supported by a recent meta-analysis that found stronger associations between sunburns and sunbathing in adulthood andBCC than was apparent for SCC. Sunburn in adulthood was associated with a 1.85-fold increased risk of BCC (95% CI 1.15-3.00) and a
1.41-fold increased risk of SCC (95% CI 0.91-2.18). Similar findings were reported for sunbathing in adulthood [39]. Nevertheless, one
study did find that cumulative sun exposure was associated with BCC but the association with exposure before the age of 25 years ofage was stronger than the association with exposure in adulthood [40]. There is little information about the link between exposure to UV
radiation and risk of KC in people with skin of colour. Studies in east Asia suggest associations with measures of sun exposure, such as
UV Index, outdoors occupational exposure, and lifetime exposure, but the quality of the studies is low to moderate. There are no studies
in people with black skin [41].
The strong association between exposure to UV radiation and KC, combined with high prevalence of exposure, translates into avery high proportion of KCs being attributable to this exposure factor. In Canada, estimates suggested that 81% of BCCs and 83% of
SCCs diagnosed in 2015 were attributable to exposure to UV radiation [39]. Easily modifiable risk factors were responsible for BCC in
particular; 19% of BCCs were attributable to sunburn in adulthood and 28% to adult sunbathing (the equivalent values for SCC were 10%
and 17%).
Outdoor workers are at particular risk of developing KC [42]. In a systematic review, 18 of the 19 included studies suggested anincreased risk of KC among outdoors workers, although estimates were imprecise in many studies [43]. In Canada 6% of KCs in 2011were attributed to occupational exposure to UV radiation [44]. This is similar to previous studies, where in women 1% of skin cancer (i.e.,
KCs and rare skin cancers) cases and 4% of skin cancer deaths were attributable to exposure to UV radiation in an occupational setting.
The equivalent numbers for men were 7% of cases and 13% of deaths [45,46].
A possible synergistic effect of simultaneous exposure to UV radiation and excessive alcohol consumption on sunburn and skin damage
has previously been raised in epidemiological studies (reviewed in [47]). New work in mouse models and using human skin explants
suggests that this is not due to alcohol-induced risky sun exposure behaviour, but rather that synergistic metabolic pathways induce
more DNA mutations and immune dysfunction [47].

126Chapter 3

3.1.2 Skin cancers avoided by the Montreal Protocol
Estimates from the United States Environmental Protection Agency indicate that the Montreal Protocol will have prevented 11 million
cases of melanoma and 432 million cases of KC that would have occurred in the United States in people born between 1890 and 2100
[48]. The model estimated that cohorts born in 2040 or later will not experience any excess incidence of skin cancer caused by theeffects of ozone depletion, assuming continued compliance with the Montreal Protocol. While this highlights the critical importanceof the Montreal Protocol, an important limitation is that these estimates assume no changes in sun exposure behaviour and skin cancer
surveillance, and no changes in population structure, such as in the distribution of skin types. Other limitations include uncertainty
regarding stratospheric ozone trends, the impacts of climate change, and the action spectrum for skin cancer development.

3.1.3 Geographic variability in the incidence of melanoma
Worldwide in 2020 an estimated 325,000 new cases of invasive melanoma were diagnosed and 57,000 people died from melanoma[49]. The estimated age-standardised (World Standard) incidence per 100,000 people per year of invasive cutaneous melanoma was
3.8 for men and 3.0 for women. Incidence was highest in Oceania (30.1) and lowest in Africa (0.9) and Asia (0.42). Australia and New
Zealand continue to report the highest incidence of all countries (Fig. 3), and the highest burden in terms of disability-adjusted life years(DALYs) lost, followed by North America and Europe [50,51].
In 2018 it was estimated that melanoma accounted for 1.6% of all new cancer cases and was responsible for 0.6% of all cancer deaths
worldwide [52]. In comparison, the most common cancer at that time (lung), excluding keratinocyte cancer, was responsible for 11.6%
of cases and 18.4% of deaths. The cumulative risk of developing melanoma (birth to age 74 years, globally) was estimated to be 0.39%
in men and 0.31% in women (noting that this is an average of the markedly different risks in people with light and dark skin); estimatesof the cumulative risk of death from melanoma were 0.08% for men and 0.05% for women [52]. Melanoma constituted 11% of all cancer
cases in Australia in 2019, and was responsible for 2.7% of deaths from cancer [53]. In Europe in 2018, melanoma accounted for 3.7% of
all cancer cases (men: 3.5%; women: 3.9%), and was responsible for 2.5% of deaths from cancer (men: 3.2%; women: 1.9%) [54].
By 2040 the number of new melanoma cases globally is predicted to increase to 510,000 per year and deaths to 96,000, assumingchanges in population size and age structure but no change in the incidence rates [49].

Fig. 3 Estimated age-standardised incidence rate (world-standard population) of invasive cutaneous melanoma in the year
2020, by world region: (A) men; and (B) women (Data from the Global Cancer Observatory Database).

127

Chapter 3

3.1.4 Trends in the incidence of melanoma, based on published reports
Trends in melanoma incidence need to be interpreted in light of changing surveillance practices. In the United States [55,56],
Australia [57], and Europe [58,59] there has been a much greater increase in the incidence of in situ (confined to the epidermis) andthin melanomas compared with thick melanomas. The increase in melanoma incidence has also greatly outstripped increases in themortality rate. These patterns are thought to reflect the detection of lesions that are unlikely to cause significant morbidity or mortality
within a person’s lifetime, a phenomenon known as over-diagnosis, which is occurring due to the combined effect of an increase inskin examinations, lower clinical thresholds for taking a biopsy of pigmented lesions, and lower pathological thresholds for diagnosing
melanomas [60,61]. Over-diagnosis of melanomas could lead to an under-estimate of the impact of the Montreal Protocol.
Recent trends in incidence of melanoma vary across populations. Incidence increased in the United Kingdom, Norway, Sweden andCanada (1982-2015) [62], particularly the Eastern Newfoundland and Labrador provinces (2007-2015) [63], and in France (1990-2018)[64]. Of recent reports from Eastern Europe, those from Lithuania (1991-2015) [65], Ukraine (2002-2013) [66], and the Czech Republic(1977-2018) [67] described increases for all age groups and in both men and women, while a study from Hungary found increases
between 2011 and 2015 followed by a significant decrease between 2015 and 2019 [68]. For Australia, New Zealand and Denmark(1982-2015) there is a recent trend of stabilising or even declining incidence, likely due to concerted efforts in primary prevention overthe past 2-4 decades [62].
While incidence is very low in China and South Korea, small increases in incidence were noted (from 0.4/100,000 in 1990 to
0.9/100,000 in 2019) in China [69] and in South Korea (from 2.6/100,000 in 2004 to 3.0/100,000 in 2017) [70]. In China in 2017, thehighest incidence rates were recorded for the eastern and northeast provinces compared with the western provinces, a trend which
may be due to heightened awareness and greater access to medical services in these regions [71]. A study from Singapore reported
very low incidence among Chinese, Malay and Indian Singaporeans [72].
A study of trends in melanoma incidence using data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program in the UnitedStates showed that across all ethnicities incidence stabilised between 2010 and 2018 (average annual percent change [AAPC], 0.39%;
95% CI, -0.40% to 1.18%), following five decades of continuous increases [73]. However, the incidence of the thickest melanomas(T4, >4.0 mm) continued to rise (AAPC 3.32%; 95% CI, 2.06%-4.60%). Populations with lower socioeconomic status or from minority
groups were more likely to have thicker melanomas over the time period examined, likely due to poorer access to screening and early
detection activities. While the incidence of melanoma in children is very low, between 2000 and 2015 in the United States declines inincidence were reported for children aged 10-19 years, while incidence in younger children remained stable [74].
Several studies have reported different trends according to age. Studies from Canada [75], Italy [76], and England [77] report increases
in incidence in older age groups, possibly at least partly due to longer life-span, but a stabilisation or decline in younger age groups.
In contrast, a Finnish study of melanoma incidence in children and adolescents reported a four-fold increase between 1990 and 2014,
most notable among adolescents [78]. It is unclear whether this represents a true increase or is due to changes in diagnostic criteria
and/or cancer registry coverage.

3.1.5 Trends in incidence of melanoma according to age: analysis of Global Cancer
Observatory data
It is difficult to compare trends in incidence of melanoma based on reports from the published literature due to the use of different
populations for standardising age, as has been noted in the Panel’s annual assessments 2019-2021 [79-81]. We therefore extracted
population-based registry statistics for six high-risk populations with data available for the period 1982-2016 (namely Australia, UnitedStates Whites, Norway, Sweden, Denmark and the United Kingdom) from the Global Cancer Observatory (age standardised to theWorld Standard Population) [82]. While incidence began to stabilise in Australia after 2005, it continues to increase in the othercountries for both men (Fig. 4A) and women (Fig. 4B). However, there is marked variation with age, with modest increases amongpeople aged less than 50 years (Fig. 4C and 4D) and much more notable increases among older age groups (50 years and over) (Fig.
4E and 4F). For Australia only, there has been a decline in incidence among younger age groups that began around 2007. In the mostrecent 10-year period, the estimated average annual percent change in incidence was highest for Norway (4.0% for men and 4.2%
for women) and Sweden (3.8% for men and 4.0% for women). These trends are attributable to population-specific changes in time
outdoors and implementation of sun-protection programs; these will influence trends into the future as younger cohorts, who have been
exposed to these behavioural changes from a younger age, enter middle and older age.

128

Chapter 3

Fig. 4 Age standardised incidence rate (ASIR, World) of invasive cutaneous melanoma 1982-2016 in 6 populations [Australia,
United States Whites, Norway, Sweden, Denmark and United Kingdom (England and Wales)] from 1982-2016. Trends
presented separately for men and women, and for all ages and separately for those <50 years and ≥50 years.

3.1.6 Trends in melanoma mortality
Trends in mortality are underpinned by changes in incidence and case-fatality rates. The latter has been decreasing markedly in somecountries in recent years due to the introduction of new and highly effective systemic therapies for advanced melanoma [83], and thiswill continue to affect mortality rates with increasing use for earlier stage disease.
A study using data from the WHO Mortality Database covering 31 countries over the time period 1985 to 2015 reported an overall
increase in melanoma mortality for men in all countries, in contrast with stable or declining rates in women [84]. For the most recent
time period (2013-2015) the median mortality rate was 2.6 deaths per 100,000 for males and 1.6 per 100,000 for females; the highest
mortality rates were recorded for Australia and Norway for men, and Norway and Slovenia for women (noting that New Zealand, which
has the highest mortality globally, was not included in the report). The increase in most countries reflected increasing mortality rates in

129

Chapter 3
people aged 50 years or older; mortality rates were generally stable or declining in younger age groups. The latter trend likely reflects
lower incidence among younger birth cohorts exposed to lower cumulative exposure to damaging UV radiation. A separate report for
Spain over the period 1982-2016 showed a similar trend, with mortality rates stabilising in men and women younger than 64 years fromthe mid-90s, while rates continued to rise in older age groups [85].
Recent declines in melanoma mortality have been reported for New Zealand (2015-2018) [86] and China (1990-2019) [69], but
increases were reported for the Netherlands (1950-2018) [87] and Brazil (1996-2016) [88], while mortality was stable in France (19902018) [64] and South Korea (2014-2017) [70]. These disparate trends are difficult to interpret given heterogeneity in the introduction(and timing thereof) of new systemic treatments (particularly immunotherapy about 10 years ago) across jurisdictions.

3.1.7 Trends in the incidence of Merkel cell carcinoma
Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) is a rare skin cancer that may be associated with exposure to UV radiation. An increase in the incidence of
MCC between 1997 and 2016 has been reported for the United States, Norway, Scotland, New Zealand, and Queensland, Australia at
a rate of 2 to 4% per year [89]. Increases have been greater in Brazil, with average annual percent change from 2000 to 2017 of 9.4% for
men and 3.1% for women [90]. These findings are consistent with an earlier report covering 20 countries for the period 1990-2007 [91].
The increase in the United States has been attributed to three factors: increased detection, an ageing population, and higher exposure
to UV radiation in more recent birth cohorts [92].
The cause of MCC is not well understood; the Merkel cell polyomavirus (MCPyV) is clonally integrated in up to 80% of tumours [93].
While several studies have reported more mutations in MCPyV-negative tumours (dominated by UV signature mutations) [93,94], a new
study based on 9 tumours reported more mutations in MCPyV-positive compared to MCPyV-negative tumours [95]. Because MCC issuch a rare tumour, all existing studies are based on limited tumour series, and further studies using larger sample sizes are needed tounderstand the role of exposure to UV radiation in the aetiology of these cancers.
Survival from MCC is much lower than for melanoma (50% at 5-years for local and <14% for metastatic disease [96]), althoughimmunotherapy trials are reporting improved outcomes [97-99]; the costs of treatment are likely to increase if these therapies are widelyadopted.

3.1.8 Trends in incidence of keratinocyte cancer
Accurately reporting the burden, incidence, and trends in KC remains a challenge. KCs are not routinely reported in most cancer
registries. Further, people frequently experience more than one lesion, but this multiplicity is often not considered, with only the firstlesion in a person being reported. Accounting for multiple KCs per person results in an approximately 50% increase in incidence rates[100,101].
An analysis of Global Burden of Disease data found that in 2019 KC was the most common cancer globally, affecting almost 3 times as
many people as the next most common cancer (lung – 2.2 million people) [102,103]; there were ~6.4 million new patients with KC.
Death due to BCC is very rare, but ~56,000 people died due to SCC. The burden of disease, as measured by DALYs, increased byalmost 25% between 2010 and 2019.
Age-standardised incidence rates of KC are highest and increasing in Australia and New Zealand [104-107], with age-standardised rates
as high as 1907/100,000 (standardised to the 2001 Australian population). In Europe, increasing incidence of KC has been reported.
For example, in Iceland there was a 2 to 4-fold increase in the incidence of BCC [108] and a 16-fold increase in incidence of SCC
between 1981 and 2017 [109], attributed to increased holidays to destinations with high ambient UV radiation and use of sunbeds. In
Serbia between 1999 and 2015 there was an annual increase in KCs of 2.3% [110]. In the United Kingdom, SCC incidence increased by
31% and BCC by 21% between 2004 and 2014 [111]. In the United States the incidence of KC increased from 1990 to 2004, but thenremained fairly stable from 2005 to 2019 [112].
Among populations with predominantly light skin, the lifetime risk of KC is much higher in areas with high ambient UV radiation. In the
United Kingdom, where ambient UV radiation is comparatively low, lifetime risk is estimated to be 20% [113]. In contrast, lifetime risk inAustralia, where the ambient UV radiation is high, is estimated at 69% (73% for men and 65% for women) [114].
Benign and premalignant keratinocyte lesions caused by sun exposure add an additional burden to the already high cost of skin cancer
for healthcare systems and individuals. The prevalence of actinic keratosis (benign lesions) is high and estimated to be between 25%(in a general practice population in Switzerland) and 29% (in patients attending dermatology outpatient clinics in Spain) in European
populations [115,116]. The incidence of in situ skin cancers (premalignant lesions) is also increasing, and in some countries the incidenceof these lesions is increasing more rapidly than that of invasive cancers. For example, in the Netherlands the incidence of SCC increasedby 6-8% per year between 2002 and 2017, compared with a 12-14% annual increase since 2010 for SCC in situ [101,117].

130

Chapter 3

3.1.9 Risks of skin cancer in people who are immunosuppressed
Immunosuppression is a risk factor for melanoma, BCC and SCC. Populations with compromised immunity at increased risk include
organ transplant recipients [118], those diagnosed with HIV/AIDS (4-fold increased risk of melanoma) [119,120], and those treated forrheumatoid arthritis (~1.3-fold increased risk of KC and melanoma) [121], inflammatory bowel disease (~1.5-fold increased risk of KC),and some lymphoproliferative disorders including non-Hodgkin lymphoma and chronic lymphocytic leukemia (~2-fold increased riskof melanoma) [122]. In solid-organ transplant recipients the magnitude of the increased risk differs between skin cancer types: theincreased risk in a high ambient UV radiation environment is 2- to 3-fold for melanoma, 6- to 10-fold for BCC, and as high as 100-fold for
SCC [123].

3.1.10 Costs associated with skin cancer management
The average paid and unpaid productivity loss per premature death from melanoma in Europe is estimated to be €450,694 [124], thesecond highest loss of all cancer types after Hodgkin's lymphoma, likely due to the relatively earlier age of onset (and thus greater paid
productivity losses).
The introduction of new systemic treatments for advanced melanoma and their increasing use as an adjuvant treatment for nonmetastatic disease is causing a rise in the overall cost per capita associated with melanoma treatment globally. In the United States
between 1997 and 2015, total expenditure for treatment of melanoma increased at a faster rate than for other cancers [125]. In the
Netherlands malignant skin tumours were the 4th most costly cancer in 2017; drug costs increased from €0.7 million to €121 million from2007 to 2017 [126]. The largest cost drivers in France, Germany and the United Kingdom are medications and hospitalisation and/or
emergency department treatment [127]. Adverse events from the use of new treatments are also responsible for a sizable cost burden[128,129].
A modelling study on the cost of melanoma in Europe estimated national costs ranging between €1.1 million in Iceland and €543.8
million in Germany (€2.7 billion for all European Union states) [130]. A recent study estimated the national costs of treating newly
diagnosed melanoma in Australia and New Zealand for the year 2021, and reported total costs of AUD 481.6 million (€310 million[73]),and NZD 74.5 million (€43 million), respectively [131]. In Australia, the mean cost per patient was AUD 14,268 (€9,198), ranging
from AUD 644 (€415) for in situ melanoma to AUD 100,725 (€64,930) for stage III/IV (advanced) disease. These costs will increase
as expensive immunotherapy becomes a therapy of choice for earlier stage melanoma, either alone or in combination with targeted
therapies [132].
Examining the skin to identify melanoma can lead to the detection of benign lesions, often resulting in additional treatments that may
or may not be needed. A study in the United States reported on the costs of diagnosis and treatment of actinic keratoses and otherbenign lesions associated with screening for melanoma via total body skin examination [133]. In an analysis of 36,647 total bodyskin examinations in 20,270 adults, the estimated cost of treatment (including consultation, biopsy and pathology charges) for eachmelanoma detected was USD 32,594 (€33,614), with an additional cost of USD 7,840 (€8,085) to treat actinic keratoses and otherbenign lesions.
Given the very high and escalating costs of treatment, public health agencies have strengthened their focus on primary prevention,
for which there is evidence of cost-effectiveness. A modelling study to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of prevention compared withearly detection for melanoma control [134] used data from two randomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in Australia [135,136].
Compared with annual clinical skin examinations (early detection), and no intervention, advice to use sunscreen daily (prevention)
resulted in lower numbers of melanoma and KC cases, and significantly lower costs associated with diagnosis and treatment [134].
However, these findings may not be applicable to locations with lower ambient UV radiation, and potential costs of over-diagnosis have
not yet been considered.
In Canada, the costs of KC and other rare skin cancers due to occupational exposure to UV radiation were estimated to be CAD (2011)
29 million (€22 million) in direct and indirect costs, and CAD (2011) 6 million (€4.5 million) in intangible (due to effects on quality of life)
costs in 2011 [137]. These costs can be mitigated; estimates suggest that for every dollar invested in personal protective equipment andshade structures, CAD 0.49 and CAD 0.35 will be returned, respectively [138]. Another modelling study of cost-effectiveness showedthat primary prevention by systematic use of sunscreen at a population level would prevent substantial numbers of new skin tumours(26% less excised KC), and save healthcare costs [134]. Among people at high risk of KC, costs for treatment of KC and actinic keratoses
were reduced one year after treatment with topical 5-fluorouracil, showing that chemoprevention may be an option to reduce theincidence of skin cancer in this subgroup [139].
The very high and increasing costs of managing skin cancer underscore the need to protect the stratospheric ozone layer; in theabsence of control of ozone-depleting substances, the intensity of UV radiation in some regions would increase to the point where many
more people would be exposed to sufficient UV radiation to initiate skin cancers.

131Chapter 3

3.2

Sunburn

Sunburn is an acute inflammatory skin reaction caused by over-exposing the skin to UV radiation, primarily the UV-B wavelengths; itis clinically manifest as erythema (redness) in people with Fitzpatrick skin types I to IV74 (modified from [140]), and may cause pain andblistering.
Despite the definition of sunburn varying between studies, it is a well-established risk factor for the development of cutaneous
melanoma and KC [141,142], and number of severe sunburns may be associated with increased risk of herpes zoster (i.e., shingles)[143]. Moreover, inflammation from sunburn is a health burden, independently of its association with other conditions. In the UnitedStates National Emergency Department Sample, including information about presentations to 950 hospital emergency departmentsfrom 2013 to 2015, there were 82,048 visits for sunburn, with 21% classified as severe sunburn (second or third degree burns and/or
requiring inpatient admission) [144]. The average cost of an emergency department visit for sunburn was USD 1132. Presentation for all
sunburns and for severe sunburns showed highest frequency in lower-income young men, and the incidence was higher in the sunnier
states.

3.2.1 Trends in rates of sunburnData from the United States National Health Interview Surveys reveal that 34% of community-dwelling adults reported one or moresunburns in the prior 12 months in both 2005 and 2015 (sample sizes 29,250 and 31,399 respectively) [145]. The percentage ofadolescents reporting sunburn was considerably higher. Between 2015 and 2017, 57% of 21,894 people aged 14 to 18 years reported
being sunburnt at least once in the previous 12 months [146]. Sunburn was also more common in adolescents than in adults in Spain;
75% of 776 adolescents reported being sunburnt in the previous year compared with ~54% of 632 adults and 44% of 324 children[147]. In Germany, 22% of children aged 1-10 years surveyed in 2020 had been sunburnt in the previous year, and there was a positive
association with age [148].
In some countries there has been a reduction in the prevalence of sunburn, coinciding with increased use of sun protection behaviours.
In Australia, a comprehensive skin cancer prevention campaign, SunSmart, began in 1988. Surveys conducted in the state of Victoria
over the subsequent three decades, in which participants were asked about their sun protection behaviour on the weekend prior to theinterview, showed a marked increase in the percentage of people using at least one sun protection behaviour (seeking shade, or using
hat or sunscreen) in the first decade after SunSmart began (from 29% to 65%) and more modest increases thereafter [149]. Sunscreen
use increased from 11% pre SunSmart to 68% in the 2010s. In the state of New South Wales, the percentage of people reporting often
or always using sunscreen increased from ~30% in 2003 to ~40% in 2016, but there was no increase in use of hats [150]. The increasein sun protection is evident in sunburn trends. In Australian adults (n=3614), the percentage reporting sunburn during the previous
weekend in summer decreased from 14% to 11% between 2003/2004 and 2016/2017 [151], accompanied by an increase in thepercentage of people using two more sun protection behaviours (from 41% to 45%). Sunburn occurred more frequently in Australianadolescents than in adults, but there was a decline from 20% to 15% across this period. In adults in Denmark (n=33,315) a 1% annual
decrease in sunburn in the previous 12 months was seen across 2007-2015, coinciding with a national sun safety campaign [152].
A birth cohort analysis of melanoma-prone families demonstrates changes in sun protection behaviour and sunburns over time. People
from 17 centres in Europe, North and South America, Australia and the Middle East (n=2407) were questioned about sun exposureand sunburns at various anchor points across their lives [153]. These behaviours were analysed according to birth cohort (in decades
from those born in the 1910s and 20s through to those born in the 1980s). There was a clear secular trend in the reported frequency ofsunscreen use; people born more recently were more likely to use sunscreen at a younger age than those born earlier. Time outdoors
on weekends at less than 20 years of age was lower in more recent birth cohorts. Within each birth cohort sunburn occurred more
frequently in early vs later life, but more recent cohorts were less likely to experience early life sunburns.
Changes in sun exposure and prevention behaviour in some countries have been marked, which may be underpinned, at least in part,by sun protection campaigns. In the absence of the Montreal Protocol, however, it is likely that the benefits of these changes would havebeen less evident, as the time to sunburn would have been markedly shorter.

3.2.2 Sunburn prevalence in people of darker skin type
Skin melanisation provides some protection against sunburn and UV radiation-induced skin cancer. Traditionally, people with dark skin
(skin types V-VI) have been thought to be at very low risk of sunburn [154]. However, the difficulties of detecting sunburn erythema inpeople with dark skin can contribute to an over-estimation of the amount of UV radiation required to cause sunburn, and an underestimation of sunburn prevalence [155]. Known differences in sun protection behaviours between ethnically diverse populations could
also influence sunburn prevalence [156].
In a survey of people of Black African or Black Caribbean heritage living in the United Kingdom (n=222 respondents), over 50%
reported a lifetime history of sunburn [157], with frequencies of 47%, 54% and 71% in those self-classifying as dark, medium and lightskin tone. In the United States, nearly 10% of 4,157 Non-Hispanic Black participants in the National Health Interview Survey 2015

74

132

Fitzpatrick Skin Types: Type 1: Light white skin, always burns, never tans; Type 2: Light white skin, usually burns, tans minimally; Type 3: White skin, sometimes burns, tansmoderately; Type 4: Olive-light brown skin, rarely burns, tans moderately-heavily; Type 5: Medium brown skin, rarely burns; Type 6: Dark brown-black skin, rarely to neverburns.

Chapter 3
reported being sunburnt in the previous year, compared with nearly 25% of Hispanic people (n=5208) and 42% of non-Hispanic
Whites (n=19,784) [145]. These surveys suggest that sunburn occurs more frequently in people with darker skin types than traditionallyappreciated, but in light of the lower severity of sunburn compared with that in people with light skin, and the extremely low risk of UVinduced skin cancer in these populations, the significance of this is unclear.

3.3

Photodermatoses

Photodermatoses are inflammatory skin disorders that are induced or exacerbated by exposure to UV radiation and, in certain
conditions, visible light [27]. Both UV-B and UV-A radiation can contribute to the development of photodermatoses. Photodermatoses
fall into aetiological groups: dysregulated immune responses to UV radiation; disorders of DNA repair; intrinsic biochemical defects;
photosensitivity reactions to drugs and/or exogenous chemicals; and photoaggravated disorders.

3.3.1 The burden of photodermatoses and their impact on health and psychological wellbeing
The lack of registry data and of consistent case definition for the most common dermatoses make it very challenging to estimate thepopulation prevalence of photodermatoses. However, some photodermatoses, such as the immune-mediated condition, polymorphic
light eruption (PLE), have been reported commonly from dermatology clinics in light-skinned populations in temperate regions,particularly during spring [158]. Comprehensive reviews of data from photodiagnostic units in dermatology departments indicate thatthe photodermatoses most commonly seen are PLE, photoaggravated atopic dermatitis, actinic prurigo, chronic actinic dermatitis,
solar urticaria and drug-induced photosensitivity. Photodermatoses occur in dark-skin populations, although with differing frequencies
and characteristics from light-skin populations [159]. In a systematic review of population-based and dermatology outpatient studies ofrosacea, a photoaggravated chronic inflammatory facial condition, a global prevalence of up to 5% was estimated; however studies inwhich rosacea was self-reported yielded higher prevalence than in those where the condition was determined by examination [160].
Studies of the prevalence of most photodermatoses are scarce; for example, there are no reported population-based studies in solar
urticaria.
Photodermatoses involve a wide range of clinical features, which vary according to the individual condition; these include pain in theskin within a few minutes of sun exposure, severe itching, erythema, blistering, and scarring. The adverse impact on sufferers occurs
both directly due to symptoms, and indirectly through restrictions imposed by sun avoidance. In a systematic review of 20 studies (2487
adult and 119 child participants), in which an assessment of quality of life or psychological wellbeing was performed, one-third of adults
and children with photodermatoses were found to experience a very large negative impact on quality of life (Dermatology Life Quality
index >10), and anxiety and depression occurred twice as frequently as in the unaffected population [161].

3.3.2 The association between commonly used photosensitising drugs and photodermatoses
and skin cancer
The pathologic mechanisms underlying drug photosensitivity are broadly classified as phototoxic or photoallergic. Oral medicationinduced photosensitivity commonly involves phototoxicity, which can theoretically occur in anyone upon exposure to sufficient doseof a drug and UV radiation. Clinically, drug phototoxicity most often manifests as skin redness, swelling and burning, and can be
misdiagnosed as severe sunburn.
An analysis of more than 745 million drugs dispensed in Germany and Austria between 2010 and 2017 indicated that nearly 50% had
photosensitising potential, with diuretics and anti-inflammatory drugs being primarily responsible [162]. However, the global incidenceof drug photosensitivity is uncertain. Analysis of the Japanese Adverse Drug Event Report database (2004-2016) found less than 0.1%
of 430,587 reports concerned photosensitivity reactions [163]. A systematic review identified 1134 reported cases of suspected drug
phototoxicity associated with 129 oral drugs [164]. However, the quality of the evidence for an association with drugs is low; fewer than
25% of studies performed phototesting, and only 10% confirmed the diagnosis with drug challenge-rechallenge testing. In a report of2243 patients with photodermatosis evaluated at a photodiagnostic unit, 5% were diagnosed with photodermatosis induced by oral
medication. All underwent broadband UV radiation testing and monochromatic testing to wavelengths from 300 to 600 nm (i.e., in theUV-B, UV-A, and visible spectra). UV-A was the main provoking waveband with UV-B contributing in 15% of cases [165].
It is possible that commonly prescribed photosensitising drugs may induce skin cancer. Some mechanisms by which drugs induce
acute photosensitivity are also relevant for skin cancer induction, such as promotion of UV-induced DNA damage. In a nested casecontrol study, using data from the Danish Cancer Registry, of people with their first diagnosis of BCC (n=71,533) or SCC (n=8,629) andpopulation controls (n=1,430,883), there was an increased risk of KC with long-term use of hydrochlorothiazide (a diuretic medicationcommonly used for treatment of high blood pressure); adjusted odds ratios (ORs) for high use vs never use were 1.29 (95% CI 1.231.35) for BCC and 3.98 (95% CI 3.68-4.31) for SCC [166]. This led to the European Medicines Agency recommending that advice on
increased risk of KC should be included in hydrochlorothiazide product information [167]. Further studies, based in different geographic
locations and demographic groups, reveal heterogeneous and conflicting results for an increased risk of KC and melanoma withhydrochlorothiazide use [168-172]. Given its potential public health significance, this issue needs to be resolved.

133

Chapter 3

3.4

Eye diseases associated with exposure to UV radiation

Exposure to UV radiation, either directly or through intermediate factors, is associated with increased risk of cataract of the lens,pterygium, squamous cell carcinoma of the cornea and/or conjunctiva, photokeratitis (affecting the cornea) and photoconjunctivitis,
pinguecula, and possibly intra-ocular melanomas, macular degeneration and glaucoma. This section assesses evidence available since
our last assessment [6] on conditions that are directly related to exposure to UV radiation.
The superficial layers of the eye are exposed to UV radiation and incur damage through the same pathways of DNA damage andproduction of reactive oxygen species as is seen in the skin. When the individual is in an upright position and the sun is overhead, there
is some inherent protection from exposure to UV radiation provided by the protrusion of the brow, the eyebrows, and the eyelids. These
provide less protection at other body positions (e.g., lying down), or when the sun is at a lower angle [173,174]. Wearing a hat and using
shade can also reduce exposure, while high surface albedo can increase exposure; large and wraparound sunglasses that block both
UV-A and UV-B radiation provide good sun protection [175-177]. UV wavelengths also penetrate to the deeper structures of the eye(reviewed in a previous assessment [178]). The cornea absorbs wavelengths below 295 nm, but allows longer wavelengths to reach theiris and lens. In adults, the lens of the eye absorbs all wavelengths below 370 nm, and greater than 98% of wavelengths between 370
and 400 nm, with higher absorbance in the posterior part of the lens [179]. Over time, the chemical changes induced by that absorption– direct UV-B induced damage and (indirect) UV-A induced photo-oxidation of soluble lens proteins – cause clouding of the lens; i.e.,
cataract [179]. In young children, the lens may transmit a greater proportion of shorter UV wavelengths, allowing these to reach, andpotentially damage, the retina.

3.4.1 Trends in the prevalence and incidence of cataract
Cataract is the major eye condition associated with long-term exposure to UV radiation. The main types of cataracts, as defined by theirlocation in the lens, are nuclear, cortical, or posterior subcapsular. In many cases, there is a mixed phenotype and, within any individual,
the two eyes may contain cataracts with a different predominant phenotype. The two subtypes most clearly associated with exposure to
UV radiation are nuclear and cortical cataracts.
According to the latest reports of the Vision Loss Expert Group of the Global Burden of Disease Study, cataract was the leading causeof blindness between 1990 and 2015 around the world, accounting for 35% (95% CI 26 - 44) of the total blindness in 2015 [180-184].
Projections to 2020 from several countries/regions indicate that cataract would remain the main cause of blindness in 2020 [180-185].
Compared with global figures, the proportion of moderate to severe vision impairment caused by cataract was estimated to be higher
in East Asia [180], South-east Asia [182], Oceania [182] and Sub-Saharan Africa [184] where exposure to sunlight may be higher andaccess to suitable medical care may be limited. The disability from cataract (measured in DALYs) increased from 3.5 million in 1990 to
6.7 million in 2019 - an increase of 191% [186].
New studies further demonstrate the high prevalence of cataract. In the cross-sectional Ural Eye and Medical Study set in a rural areaof Russia, the prevalence of cataract was 45% in people aged ≥ 40 years (of 5899 participants, 81% of eligible residents). Nuclear andcortical cataracts affected 38% and 15% of participants, respectively [187]. A population-based study conducted in Finland found thatthe prevalence of cataracts increased from 8.1% (95% CI 7.8-8.5) to 11.4% (95% CI 10.9-11.9) among individuals ≥ 30 years between
2000 and 2011 [188]. The annual average incidence over the 11-year period was estimated to be 109 cases per year per 10,000 people(95% CI 104-114) [188]. The cumulative incidence over a similar time period (baseline 2004-2006; follow-up 2011-2013) was greater in
Singapore; in the Malay Eye Study the age-standardised cumulative incidence of nuclear and cortical cataract over this time period wasestimated to be 13.6% and 14.1% (equating to an annual average crude incidence of 227 and 189 cases per year per 10,000 individuals),
respectively [189].
Greater exposure to UV radiation has been clearly linked to an increased risk of cataract (reviewed in [179]). A recent study provides
additional supporting evidence. In a population-based cross-sectional study in three different rural areas of India (n=12,021), 33% ofparticipants aged 40 years and older had a cataract in at least one eye [190]. Compared with the lowest quintile of a lifetime effective
sun exposure score (calculated taking into account the years of exposure, hours of sun exposure accounting for type of headgear used(none, caps, hats, umbrellas, veils, sunglasses)), the prevalence of cataract was significantly higher in the 3rd, 4th and 5th quintiles of
exposure. Those in the fifth quintile were 9 times more likely to have cataracts than those in the first quintile (adjusted OR 9.4; 95% CI
7.9-11.2), rising to nearly 26 times more likely in analyses confined to the highest altitude region (Guwahati/Hills region). Differencesin exposure to UV radiation, solar angle and sun protection behaviours each had an additional influence on prevalence of cataracts.
Nevertheless, in data from the 2008-12 Korea National Health and Nutritional Examination Survey of economically active people, there
was no significant association between higher sunlight exposure (≥ 5 hours vs <5 hours/day in the sun without sunglasses or hat) andmedically diagnosed cataract (adjusted OR=0.88, 95% CI 0.77-1.00) [191].
Globally, and across diverse individual regions for which there are recent data, the incidence of cataract continues to increase, at least
partly due to ageing populations. Where there is good access to high quality medical care, including cataract surgery, this may notcontribute greatly to the burden of disability. However, in many regions, cataract remains a leading cause of blindness, resulting inconsiderable morbidity due to vision loss and its sequelae (e.g., falls) [192].

134

Chapter 3
A recent study has estimated the effectiveness of the Montreal Protocol in preventing eye diseases, with a focus on cataract. It wasestimated that the implementation of the Montreal Protocol with all of its Amendments and adjustments compared to a scenario ofno control of ozone-depleting substances, will have prevented 63 million cataract cases in people born in the United States between
1890 and 2100. When the comparison scenario is the original Montreal Protocol, this figure is 33 million fewer cases of cataract,
demonstrating the importance of the ongoing strengthening of the Protocol [48].

3.4.2 Prevalence of pterygium
Pterygium is a non-cancerous, self-limiting pink, fleshy tissue growth on the conjunctiva, that is initially induced by exposure to both
UV-B and UV-A radiation. The mechanisms of how and why pterygium is self-limiting have been clarified by recent studies [193]. As thiscondition commonly occurs in surfers who are exposed to significant amounts of sunlight it is often referred to as ‘surfer’s eye’. The
impact of pterygium on vision is minimal unless it reaches the cornea, but it is painful to remove and often recurs after surgical removal.
Evidence suggests that the prevalence of pterygium has slightly increased in recent years. In a recent meta-analysis of 55 studies(including data from >400,000 people in 24 countries), the overall prevalence of pterygium was estimated at 12% (95% CI 11-14) [194].
However, studies included a diverse range of age groups and not all were population based. The reported prevalence was higher thanthat from a 2013 meta-analysis based on 20 articles from 12 countries (10.2%; 95% CI 6.3-16.1%) [195].
Studies from Brazil demonstrate the high variability in prevalence estimates according to location and study methods. In a populationbased study in the Brazilian Amazon, including 2041 people (86% of those eligible to participate) aged 45 years and over, theprevalence was 58% [196]. The recent meta-analysis estimated prevalence in Brazil to be 52.0% (in an ophthalmic clinic-based studyin Manaus, age range 21-61 years); 21.2% in the Amazon rainforest (population-based study of people 11 years and older); 18.4% in
the Brazilian rainforest (population-based, no age data); and 8.1% in São Paulo (population-based, median age 49.6 years) [194]. Suchvariability challenges the simple combining of estimates across studies. However, the prevalence of pterygium seems to be modest
and consistent across various regions of China, estimated to be approximately 6% [197,198]. A population-based cohort study, theGutenberg Health Study, including the German city of Mainz and the surrounding regions (latitude 50°N), found a very low prevalenceof pterygium with an estimate for the weighted prevalence of 0.9% (95% CI 0.8-1.2) in people aged 40 to 80 years [199]. The presenceof pterygium was associated with male sex, higher age, and migration from Arabic-Islam countries, the former Soviet Union, and former
Yugoslavia. In a slightly higher latitude region, including both an urban and rural multi-ethnic population in Ufa city and surrounds in
Russia, the prevalence of pterygium was 2.3% (95% CI 2.0-2.7) among people over 40 years [200]. Risk factors for pterygium were rural
residence, higher age, and lower level of education.
The incidence of pterygium has been reported in two longitudinal studies. In Southern India, which lies within the ‘pterygium belt’(37° north and south of the equator where pterygia are most common [201]), the age- and sex-adjusted incidence was 25.4 per 100
person years (95% CI 24.8, 25.7) over a 15-year period in residents (n=2290) of rural areas aged 30 years and older at baseline [202].
The overall incidence rate in 6122 adults aged 40 years and over was considerably lower (age-adjusted 6-year incidence=1.2%; 95% CI
1.0%-1.6%) over six years of follow-up in the Singapore Epidemiology of Eye Diseases Study [203].
In a meta-analysis of risk factors for pterygium several factors associated with solar exposure of the eyes increased the risk of pterygium,including spending more vs less than 5 hours outdoors per day (OR 1.24; 95% CI 1.11-1.36), or having outdoor vs indoor occupations(OR 1.46; 95% CI 1.36, 1.55). Furthermore, in a recent study reporting on findings from the Korean National Health and Nutritional
Examination Survey, an average of ≥ 5 hours/day in the sun without sunglasses or hat, compared to <5 hours, was associated withan increased risk of pterygium in women (OR=1.47, 95% CI 1.16-1.73) but not men (OR=0.88, 95% CI 0.70, 1.10) [191]. There was adose response apparent, with greater time outdoors associated with higher risk. Importantly, in the meta-analysis, wearing sunglasses
reduced the odds of pterygium by approximately 50% (OR 0.47; 95% CI 0.19-0.74) [194]. In support of this finding, in a longitudinal
study of young adults in Australia, wearing sunglasses for at least half of the time outdoors resulted in a significantly greater decline in
the area of conjunctival UV fluorescence, a biomarker of sun exposure, over 8 years compared to never or seldom use [204].

3.4.3 The link between exposure to UV radiation and intraocular melanoma
Intraocular melanoma is the most common type of cancer that develops within the eyeball, but it is rare compared to cutaneous
melanoma. Intraocular melanomas predominantly occur on the uvea and conjunctiva, but uveal are considerably more common than
conjunctival melanomas.
Exposure to sunlight, light pigmentation of the eye and skin, and living at high latitudes are often reported as risk factors for bothtypes of intraocular melanoma, akin to melanoma of the skin. We have previously assessed the epidemiological and genetic evidence
regarding the role of UV radiation in the etiology of intraocular melanoma, with more convincing evidence for conjunctival vs uveal
melanoma [178]. Recent genetic studies provide further evidence of similarity of intraocular to cutaneous melanoma and thus a possible
causal role of exposure to UV radiation. A study comparing the genetic changes in uveal melanomas with those in cutaneous melanomas
has shown many shared mutations, including UV signature mutations, suggesting that some uveal melanomas may be UV-dependent[205]. In a similar study, tissue samples from conjunctival melanomas displayed evidence of genetic changes consistent with UV-related
damage similar to those found in melanoma of the skin [206].
Published recent incidence data for intraocular melanoma are available from four developed countries that have well-established cancer
registries: United States, Canada, Australia and Ireland (Table 1). The age-standardised incidence rate ranged from 3.3 per million in
Canada [207] to 9.5 per million in Ireland [208], but rates are not directly comparable due to the use of different populations for age

135Chapter 3
standardisation and different periods of observation. On average the age-adjusted incidence increased by 0.5% per year in the UnitedStates between 1973 and 2013 (p<0.05) [209]. In Canada there was minimal change from 1992 to 2010 [207]. In Australia there was anincrease of 2.5% per year from 1982-1993, followed by a decrease of 1.2% per year from 1993-2014 [210]. Thus, in these countries, theincidence of intraocular melanomas has remained relatively constant over time, in contrast to that of cutaneous melanomas.
The incidence of conjunctival melanoma was substantially lower compared to uveal melanoma in incidence studies from Canada andEurope, replicating previous findings. The age-standardised incidence rate of conjunctival melanoma was 0.32 cases per million people
per year (age-standardised to the World Standard Population) between 1992 and 2010 in Canada [211], while it was 0.42 cases per
million people per year (age-standardised to the European Standard Population) in Europe [212].
Table 1 Age-standardised incidence rates of intraocular melanomas across developed countries and regions.
Study

Country/Region

PeriodAge-standardised incidence
rate per million person years(95% CI)

United States

1973 to 2013

5.2 (5.0, 5.4) a

Ireland2010 to 2015

9.5 (8.4, 10.7)b

Canada1992 to 2010

3.3 (3.2, 3.5)cAustralia

1982 to 2014

7.6 (7.3, 7.9)dCanada1992 to 2010

0.32 (0.28, 0.37) c

Europe1995 to 2007

overall 0.42e

Northern Europe

1995 to 2007

0.81 (0.59, 1.09) e

UK and Ireland

1995 to 2007

0.40 (0.36, 0.45) e

Central Europe

1995 to 2007

0.59 (0.51, 0.68) e

Southern Europe

1995 to 2007

0.35 (0.26, 0.47) e

Eastern Europe

1995 to 2007

0.27 (0.22, 0.33) e

Uveal melanoma
Aronow et al (2018) [209]Baily et al (2018) [208]Ghazawi et al (2019) [207]Beasley et al (2021) [210]Conjunctival melanoma
Ghawazi et al (2020) [211]
Virgili et al (2020) [212]
Virgili et al (2020) [212]
Virgili et al (2020) [212]
Virgili et al (2020) [212]
Virgili et al (2020) [212]
Virgili et al (2020) [212]Age-adjusted to the US population 2000; bage-standardised using the 1976 European standard population; cage-standardisedusing the World Standard Population; dage-standardised using the 2001 Australian standard population; eage-standardisedusing the European standard population.
a3.4.4 Damage to the eye from drug-induced phototoxicity
A number of drugs absorb in the UV range and have phototoxic side effects affecting various structures in the eye [213]. For example,
fluoroquinolone antibiotics such as ciprofloxacin and norfloxacin (used to treat ocular infections), in the presence of UV-A radiation,
caused damage to epithelial cells (in cell culture) and proteins of the lens. Exposure of the eye to UV-A radiation while using thesecompounds could accelerate the development of cataract [214]. Use of ophthalmic formulations containing ketoconazole, diclofenac,
or sulphacetamide were found to be toxic or irritating in the presence of UV-A radiation [215]. While there is growing awareness of
cutaneous photosensitivity in relation to systemic drugs, the focus for eyes appears to have been on exposure to UV-A radiation in
conjunction with topical medications.

136

Chapter 3
It will be important to better understand the potential photosensitisation resulting from both topical and systemic drugs for the eye,given its vulnerability to damage from exposure to UV-radiation and the clear protection that sunglasses provide.

3.5

Non-skin cancer-related harms of UV-induced immune suppression

3.5.1 Increased risk of systemic infections and reduced vaccine effectivenessHart and Norval [12] hypothesised that vaccination through acutely or chronically sun-exposed skin (e.g., the upper arm, a commonsite for intramuscular vaccination) may result in a less effective immune response compared to unexposed skin (e.g., buttock). However,there remains little confirmatory evidence for this at present. In a cluster randomised trial in children in rural South Africa, an intervention
to protect vaccinees from solar UV radiation did not result in higher antibody levels following a measles booster [216]. However, in asmall clinical trial testing the immune response to a novel antigen (keyhole limpet hemocyanin) — although higher natural exposure to
UV radiation was not associated with a change in antigen-specific antibodies — there was a reduced T-cell response [217]. Any effect of
exposure to UV radiation may be more important for vaccines that rely on a cell-mediated, rather than humoral (antibody), response tovaccination; e.g. Bacille Calmette Guerin (BCG) for tuberculosis, particularly in low latitude (higher UV radiation) locations.

3.5.2 UV radiation and reactivation of viruses
The association of intense exposure to UV radiation with subsequent reactivation of Herpes simplex virus 1 (HSV), causing cold soresof the lip, is well-described (reviewed in [178]). The presence of IgM class antibodies to HSV reflects recent viral activity, either primaryor recurrent infection [218]. In a recent study from Sweden, the odds for anti-HSV IgM positivity were nearly two-fold higher (oddsratio=1.99 per mean MED difference) in summer than in winter (mean MED difference was 9.967 equivalent to 2093.1 J m -2), consistent
with UV-induced reactivation of HSV, with or without the manifestation of cold sores [218].
There is considerable current interest in another herpes virus, Epstein Barr virus (EBV), in relation to risk of multiple sclerosis (MS),nasopharyngeal carcinoma and other diseases. Results from a recent study from Hong Kong [219] suggest that higher personal sun
exposure is associated with reactivation of EBV. The measures of personal exposure included ambient UV radiation at the date of bloodcollection, serum 25(OH)D concentration, and self-reported duration of sunlight exposure (hours/day) over four life periods (6-12 years,
13-18 years, 19-30 years, and 10 years prior to recruitment). EBV reactivation was measured as seropositivity to EBV viral capsid antigen(VCA) IgA. Only duration of sunlight exposure at 19-30 years and 10 years prior to recruitment (for ≥ 8 hours compared to <2 hours,
OR=2.44, 95% CI 1.04-5.73, OR=3.59, 95% CI 1.46-8.77, respectively) were associated with increased odds of VCA-IgA seropositivity(inferred as evidence of reactivation). Reactivation of EBV may be a trigger of relapses in MS [220]. Thus, higher levels of sun exposure,leading to EBV reactivation, might be expected to also be associated with relapse. However, previous research suggests that higher
sun exposure (over the life-course prior to MS onset) is associated with fewer relapses in people with MS [221]. Nevertheless, the timecourse of sun exposure may be of importance; higher sun exposure earlier in life may be protective for the development of MS throughimmune mechanisms, but after EBV infection higher sun exposure may be associated with increased risk of relapse through reactivationof EBV. Datasets are available that could test this hypothesis.
Varicella zoster virus is a herpesvirus that causes chicken pox during primary infection and shingles on reactivation. Using data fromThailand, a recent study examined seasonal variation in case reports of chickenpox and shingles [222]. Both chickenpox and shingles
showed strong seasonality. Chickenpox was characterised by outbreaks beginning during November and December, with seasonal
peaks in February and March (with deep troughs from June to October). The amplitude of the seasonal effect decreased closer to theequator. Shingles showed a peak in May-June, with a shallow trough in February-March and a deep trough in October-December.
Again, higher latitudes had more pronounced seasonal cycles. Changes in ambient UV radiation were the main driver of the seasonal
cycle for shingles reactivation, but not chickenpox, consistent with an effect of UV radiation on reactivation but not primary infection
with Varicella zoster virus.

137Chapter 3

4 Benefits of exposure to UV radiation
Sun exposure has numerous benefits, many of which are mediated by exposure to UV radiation, and some by exposure to otherwavelengths. People need to be able to safely spend time outdoors to gain these benefits. The Montreal Protocol has likely enabled thebenefits to be gained, by preventing the intensity of ambient UV radiation from increasing to an extent where it would have been very
difficult for light-skinned people in particular to spend time outdoors without markedly increasing their risk of UV-induced skin and eye
diseases.

4.1

Health benefits of greater time outdoors and sun exposure

We have previously reported on the evidence of health benefits of exposure to sunlight for autoimmune and cardiovascular diseases, aswell as myopia and some cancers [6]. It is challenging to generate high-quality evidence from human studies of benefits of exposure to
UV radiation, primarily because it is difficult to capture accurate exposure data over a relevant time period. In addition, it is challenging
to determine which wavelengths of sunlight are most important and further, how much of any effect of exposure to the sun is throughvitamin D vs non-vitamin D pathways. Determining whether associations are causal, and thus whether the balance of risks and benefitsof sun exposure needs to be reconsidered, will require accumulation of evidence across epidemiological and mechanistic studies [223].
Recent studies have been largely cross-sectional, and/or used population-level exposures such as sunshine duration [224], ambient
UV radiation or location [225], or remote sensing of green space coverage [226]. From these studies, benefits of higher green spacecoverage, longer duration of sunshine, or higher individual levels of sun exposure have included lower blood pressure in adults [227]and children [226], and reduced prevalence of obesity [224] and depression [228].
In a large study (n=342,457) of patients undergoing dialysis in 2189 facilities across the United States, monthly average ambient UV
irradiation at the clinic location had a linear inverse association with monthly average pre-dialysis systolic blood pressure, including
after adjustment for ambient temperature [225]. The effect size was greater in Whites than in Blacks. These data are consistent withnew analyses of the Melanoma in Southern Sweden study in which women with low or moderate past sun exposure (assessed byquestionnaire including items on deliberate sun bathing, use of a sun bed, and travel for sunny holidays) had a greater risk of beingprescribed anti-hypertensive medication by their physician than those with higher sun exposure; the association persisted after
adjustment for being a smoker, exercise category, BMI, and education (adjusted OR=1.41, 95% CI 1.3-1.6; adjusted OR=1.15, 95% CI
1.1-1.2, respectively, for low and moderate sun exposure) [229]. In a recent study from South Korea, there were fewer cardiovascular(adjusted hazard ratio (HR)=0.68, 95% CI 0.49-0.94) and cerebrovascular (adjusted HR=0.60, 95% CI 0.47-0.77) events over 11 years
in patients with vitiligo who had received long-term narrow-band UV-B phototherapy (≥ 100 sessions) compared with those who hadreceived <3 phototherapy sessions [230]. There is accumulating evidence, including from small clinical trials, that UV-A (and possibly
UV-B) irradiation influences blood pressure (and cardiovascular disease risk) through release of nitric oxide from stores in skin [231-233].
There is compelling evidence from multiple studies supporting reduced risk of myopia with greater exposure to UV radiation and/or
high intensity visible light. Longitudinal cohort studies from China [234], the Netherlands [235], and Australia [236] show that moretime spent outdoors during childhood, measured using a variety of metrics, was associated with reduced risk of developing myopia inchildhood and young adulthood. Furthermore, two studies found that greater outdoor activity in childhood could reduce the adverse
effect of higher levels of screen time [234,235]. Another study showed that lower area of conjunctival autofluorescence was associatedwith a greater risk of developing myopia between ages 20 and 28 years [237], suggesting that the protective effects of sun exposure
may continue into young adulthood. In a cross-sectional analysis within the Singapore birth cohort study, more time outdoors, but
not light levels or the timing and frequency of light exposure, was associated with lower odds of myopia [238]. Another study foundthat greater green space coverage was associated with lower prevalence of myopia [239]. While more time outdoors seems wellestablished as protective for the development of myopia, details of optimal exposure to minimise myopia are not fully elucidated. Of
note, the effect of greater exposure to UV radiation appears to be distinct from any effect of varying focal length during time outdoors[240].
There is now considerable evidence that there may be benefits of spending more time outdoors/sun exposure for the onset andprogression of MS in addition to those ascribed to vitamin D (see below). A recent multi-ethnic case-control study confirmed aprotective effect of higher sun exposure on risk of developing MS in white populations, and extended this to show the benefits werealso apparent for blacks and Hispanics [241]. In contrast, benefits of higher 25(OH)D concentration were apparent only in United States
Whites, possibly because 25(OH)D concentration is a better indicator of recent sun exposure in people with lighter skin. A case-control
study in Canada, Italy, and Norway demonstrated that an accumulation model for sun exposure to age 15 years, rather than a critical
periods model, provided the best fit for the protective effects of higher sun exposure on risk of MS in adulthood [242]. Importantly,
among those who spent a lot of time outdoors in summer, use of sun protection did not alter MS risk. These findings highlight the needto provide balanced sun exposure messages that take account of geographical differences in weather patterns, skin pigmentation, andcultural practices [242]. Another case-control study showed a strong protective effect of greater time outdoors in the summer prior to
diagnosis or during the first year of life, as well as higher ambient UV radiation, on the risk of developing paediatric MS [243].
The focus in relation to MS has been largely on the risk of developing the disease. There is new evidence that higher sun exposure prior
to developing MS, and increasing sun exposure post-diagnosis, are associated with a more favourable post-diagnostic disease course[221,244] [245], although there is some evidence that sun exposure may be detrimental for people with MS who have a sun-sensitive138

Chapter 3
genotype [244]. A trial of narrow-band UV-B radiation in people with clinically isolated syndrome to prevent the development of MS[246] found a lower risk of progression to MS in people receiving phototherapy than in the control group, although in this small study
this was not statistically significant. Analyses of data from this trial have since revealed some novel potential pathways activated bynarrowband (311 nm) UV-B, including transient changes in both the number of circulating leukocytes [247] and the production of proinflammatory cytokines [248]. Given the non-solar spectrum used, this is likely to be most relevant to a treatment setting, but it does
indicate the possible importance of UV-B radiation for this condition.
There is also recent evidence that exposure to higher intensity of UV radiation during early life may protect from the development oftype 1 diabetes – an autoimmune disease of the pancreas. In a data-linkage based cohort study of 29,078 children in Western Australia(~6% of whom were diagnosed with type 1 diabetes by age 16), higher ambient (erythemally weighted) UV radiation was associatedwith reduced risk of developing type 1 diabetes, but only in males and only for UV radiation during the 3rd trimester and 1st year of life[249]. The authors concluded, assuming a causal association, that for every 100 kJ m-2 increase in total lifetime dose of ambient UV
radiation dose, the relative risk of developing type 1 diabetes in males decreased by 29%.
Emerging evidence suggests that higher antenatal sun exposure may reduce the risk of pre-term birth [250] and learning disabilities[251]. However, higher pre-delivery ambient temperatures have been linked to increased risk of pre-term birth [252,253], complicating
analyses where data on personal exposures and potential confounders are not available, and multiple environmental exposures acting
at different time-points during pregnancy need to be considered. Additional research will be required to clarify the role of personal sun
exposure during pregnancy on the many facets of the health of the offspring.
Exposing the skin to UV radiation enhances feelings of well-being, possibly through the release of beta-endorphins following UV-B
induced DNA damage in keratinocytes [254]. This could provide a biological underpinning to an ‘addiction’ to tanning. In addition,
serotonin is produced in the brain in response to bright sunlight [255], with this pathway potentially important for seasonal variability
in mood and seasonal affective disorder. Observational studies show links between higher exposure to sunlight and reduced risk ofdepressive disorders, but confounding and reverse causation are possible explanations for these findings. However, artificial lighttherapy is established as a treatment for disorders such as seasonal affective disorder [256], and a recent experimental study confirms
the benefit of sunlight. The single-blind clinical trial tested the effect of sunlight therapy (exposure of sun-protected forearms or calves
to sunlight on sunny days (at least 10,000 lux) in Taiwan for an accumulated minimum of 30 min/day for a total of 14 days in four weeks)
on depression in participants who were at least one month post-stroke. Testing at one month after the completion of the intervention
showed a significant reduction in the depression score in the group receiving the sunlight therapy compared to a control (usual
treatment) group [257].
There is growing interest in better understanding the potential benefits of sun exposure and the pathways and wavelengths involved.
This information is critical to providing appropriate messaging to different populations on safe sun exposure to balance harms andbenefits.

4.2

Vitamin D

Perhaps the best known benefit of sun exposure to the skin, driven by UV-B radiation, is the synthesis in the skin of vitamin D. Most
populations derive very little of their vitamin D needs from diet, thus relying primarily on this UV-B induced synthesis.

4.2.1 The role of vitamin D in health outcomes
Vitamin D is best known for its role in musculoskeletal health. Vitamin D status is defined according to the blood concentration of25(OH)D, with a concentration of <50 nmol L-1 commonly considered vitamin D deficient (including here unless specifically statedotherwise). Vitamin D deficiency as defined at this concentration is associated with increased risk of hip fractures in people aged 60
years and over [258]. It has been estimated that, assuming this association is causal, approximately 8% of hip fractures occurring in
adults aged ≥ 65 years in Australia are attributable to vitamin D deficiency (25(OH)D <50 nmol L-1) [259]. Falls in older adults have also
been linked to 25(OH)D concentration <50 nmol L-1 [260]. Despite the established link between vitamin D and musculoskeletal health,the optimal 25(OH)D concentration to minimize fractures and falls is uncertain. Meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials (RCTs)
show that vitamin D supplementation alone is only of benefit in people who are vitamin D deficient (<50 nmol L-1) [261] or that it has noeffect [262]. The Vitamin D and Omega-3 Trial in the United States did not find any benefit of supplementing older adults with vitamin D
for 5 years on fractures, including in people whose baseline 25(OH)D concentration was <50 nmol L-1 [263], but there was insufficient
power to assess the effect in people with more severe vitamin D deficiency. These findings collectively suggest that the risk of falls andfractures may not increase until 25(OH)D concentration drops to the range currently considered to be severely deficient (<25 nmol L-1).
The importance of vitamin D for other health outcomes remains unclear. Observational studies are prone to confounding or reverse
causality. This can be overcome by Mendelian randomisaton (MR) studies (which examine the association between geneticallydetermined, rather than measured 25(OH)D concentration, and health outcomes), although most MR studies have not allowed for nonlinear associations between genetically predicted 25(OH)D concentration and disease, and are mostly silent on the consequences ofsevere vitamin D deficiency. RCTs provide additional information regarding the causality of associations. However, RCTs test the effectof a particular supplement dose and dosing regimen in a specific population for a set length of time during one life period. The absenceof effect in an RCT cannot therefore be used as proof of lack of a causal association. With these cautions in mind, we present below asummary of recent evidence for some common disease conditions.

139

Chapter 3
Low 25(OH)D concentration has been consistently linked with increased risk of depression in observational studies [264]. MR studies
suggest that this association may not be causal [265,266], and it is likely that adequate vitamin D status is a good marker of exposure toother beneficial wavelengths in sunlight that have an important effect on mood. Data from RCTs are somewhat inconsistent. A metaanalysis revealed an effect of vitamin D on negative emotion, but with very high heterogeneity, and the effect was predominantly seen
in people who were vitamin D deficient or who were depressed at study baseline [267]. In support of this, a very large trial in the UnitedStates among adults without depression at baseline did not find any benefit of 5 years of vitamin D supplementation [268].
There are similarly inconsistent findings for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). A meta-analysis of observational studies found thateach 1 standard deviation (SD) higher 25(OH)D concentration was associated with a 20% lower risk of T2DM (p<0.001), but agenetically predicted 1 SD increase was not significantly associated with T2DM [269]. An MR study in a Chinese population also
found no association between genetically predicted 25(OH)D and T2DM [270]. An RCT in which 2423 people with prediabetes were
supplemented with 4000 IU of vitamin D per day for ~2.5 years did not find a statistically significant reduction in the incidence ofT2DM, although it is important to note that the mean 25(OH)D concentration at baseline was in the sufficient range (70 nmol L-1) andonly 22% of participants were vitamin D deficient (<50 nmol L-1) [271,272]. In a meta-analysis of RCTs in people without T2DM, vitamin D
supplementation significantly reduced fasting glucose and fasting insulin but had no effect on incident T2DM overall or in progression
from prediabetes to T2DM [273]. It is plausible that the findings in the observational studies reflect a non-vitamin D pathway of sun
exposure, whereby higher 25(OH)D concentration is an indicator of having received sufficient sun exposure to gain the other benefits.
This hypothesis is supported by mouse studies that suggest UV radiation-induced release of nitric oxide from the skin can suppress thedevelopment of glucose intolerance and hepatic lipid accumulation [274].
Observational studies consistently demonstrate inverse associations between 25(OH)D concentration and cancer incidence [275], butconfounding and reverse causality are possible explanations for this finding, and this is not supported by MR studies [276] or RCTs [275].
Evidence is emerging, however, for a possible beneficial effect of vitamin D supplementation on cancer mortality [275,277].
Case-control and cohort studies support an increased risk of MS with low 25(OH)D concentration [278], and this is supported by MR
studies [279]. The association is less clear for other autoimmune diseases such as type 1 diabetes mellitus [280] and inflammatory bowel
disease [279]; although there are suggestive protective effects, confidence intervals are wide and small effects cannot be ruled out. In
terms of infectious diseases, observational studies [281], RCTs [282], and MR studies [283] indicate that low 25(OH)D increases risk andseverity [284] of respiratory tract infection.
A recent analysis including over 500,000 participants found strong evidence for a nonlinear association between serum 25(OH)D
concentration and coronary heart disease, stroke, and all-cause mortality. This was supported by an MR analysis, which suggested therisk associated with low genetically predicted 25(OH)D was only evident in those with measured 25(OH)D below 40 nmol L-1 [285].
However, a recent re-analysis, using different model assumptions, found no significant association with genetically predicted 25(OH)
D and mortality outcomes, irrespective of 25(OH)D concentration, suggesting that the earlier analysis may have generated incorrect
findings (see https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36528346/).
Collectively, these findings suggest that vitamin D plays a causal role in some health outcomes, in addition to falls and fractures.
However, there is no strong evidence to support increasing the recommended 25(OH)D target concentration to greater than 50 nmol L-1[285], which is the concentration recommended by many organisations internationally.

4.2.2 Revised action spectrum for vitamin D
Action spectra are biological weighting functions that are used to assess the risks and benefits of exposure to different wavelengthsof UV radiation. An action spectrum for the production of pre-vitamin D in the skin was produced by the Commission Internationalel’Éclairage (CIE) in 1982, showing a maximum effect at 297 nm, with essentially no production above 315 nm. However, the validityof this has been questioned because it is based on the use of human skin ex vivo. A recently published study calculated the action
spectrum for serum 25(OH)D, the accepted molecule to determine vitamin D status, using an in vivo experiment [286]. The action
spectrum was shifted 5 nm towards shorter wavelengths, suggesting that the CIE action spectrum may need to be revised. However,
the effect of the shift is likely to be less relevant for natural sunlight than for artificial light sources [1]. Thus while further research isneeded to elucidate the implications of a revised action spectrum for calculating the ratio of harms vs benefits of exposure to sunlight,
the CIE action spectrum is likely to be adequate for risk benefit calculations.

4.2.3 Effect of clothing, sunscreen, and skin pigmentation on vitamin D production
Clothing provides good protection against erythema but also has a strong inhibitory effect on vitamin D synthesis. Full body clothing
cover, especially in females, may contribute to the high prevalence of vitamin D deficiency in many countries with high insolation. Recent
studies confirm the influence of clothing on 25(OH)D concentration [287,288].
Sunscreen reduces the risk of skin cancer and premalignant lesions and is a mainstay of sun protection globally, but concerns havebeen raised that regular application of sunscreen may increase the risk of vitamin D deficiency. Two reviews suggest this is not the case[289,290], although there are no RCTs of the effect of routine application of high SPF sunscreen on 25(OH)D concentration. Studies
conducted since these reviews continue to suggest that sunscreen users have higher 25(OH)D concentration than those who do notuse sunscreen [291,292]. This is most likely because sunscreen users spend more time outdoors, but these studies suggest that using
sunscreen does not obviate the benefits for vitamin D of spending more time outdoors.

140

Chapter 3
Dark-skinned immigrants to northern European countries tend to have lower 25(OH)D concentration than those with lighter skin. This is
likely due to a combination of reduced vitamin D production in darker compared with lighter skins, and to behavioural differences. For
example, an observational study comparing Danes with dark and light skin found that those with dark skin received a lower UV radiationdose and exposed less body surface area than those with lighter skin. There was only minimal difference in the increase in 25(OH)
D concentration per joule of UV radiation exposure (light=0.63 nmol L-1 joule-1; dark=0.53 nmol L-1 joule-1) [293], although the analysis
assumed a proportional response in 25(OH)D concentration with increasing body surface area exposed, which may not be the case.
Experimental studies have generated discrepant estimates of the inhibitory effect of melanin. One study examined the effect on 25(OH)
D concentration of exposing people with different skin types to five serial whole-body sub-erythemal exposures of solar-simulated UV
radiation [294]. Comparing people with very light and very dark skin, the melanin inhibitory factor was estimated at ~1.3. In contrast,
in a study in which the dose of solar-simulated radiation was given as a function of minimum erythemal dose (i.e., people with darker
skins received a higher dose), and UV radiation was delivered to commonly exposed skin sites only, the melanin inhibitory factor was
estimated to be ~8 [295]. This issue needs to be resolved as it has implications for public health advice for people with darker skin.

4.2.4 Prevalence of vitamin D deficiency
Vitamin D deficiency is prevalent across many parts of the world. However, obtaining accurate estimates is hampered by unreliable
laboratory assays used in many studies. The prevalence of deficiency also depends on the 25(OH)D concentration used to define
deficiency and on the time of year when samples were collected; these factors must be considered when interpreting these data. Figure
5 (with detailed data in Appendix Table 1) shows the prevalence of vitamin D deficiency ( 25(OH)D concentration < 50 nmol L-1) derived
from national studies (albeit using a range of assays, not all standardised to an international standard reference method) as well as somerecent population studies. The results of these prevalence studies emphasise the apparent high prevalence of vitamin D deficiency inmany parts of the world. With recovery of stratospheric ozone under the Montreal Protocol, projections are for lower UV-B radiation
at high-latitude locations [1], which could increase the prevalence of vitamin D deficiency. This effect may be ameliorated by warming
temperatures due to climate change, resulting in greater time outdoors, as demonstrated by a study from Germany, which foundsignificantly higher 25(OH)D concentration in two extreme summers (2018 and 2019) compared with the preceding 4 summers [296].
However, in lower-latitude locations where the temperature is already high, warming temperatures due to climate change may reducetime outdoors and exacerbate the problem of vitamin D deficiency, particularly in urban populations.

Fig. 5 Prevalence of vitamin D deficiency (25(OH)D<50 nmol/L). Figures for south-Asian countries (Sri Lanka, Nepal,
Bangladesh, Pakistan, and India) are derived from a meta-analysis of studies (see Appendix Table 2) that included a range ofdifferent populations and 25(OH)D assays. Similarly, figures for African countries are derived from a meta-analysis of studies (seeAppendix Table 3 ) that included a range of different populations and 25(OH)D assays. All other figures are based on population
surveys. Data for Chile and Fiji are restricted to women. Data for Mongolia are restricted to men. Data for Denmark, Norway,
Greece, Mexico, Ireland, and Iran are restricted to children and/or adolescents. For details of the adult age ranges for othercountries see Appendix Table 1.

141

Chapter 3

4.3

Climate change, depletion of stratospheric ozone, and human healthIn a previous assessment [79] we comprehensively reviewed the links between climate change, stratospheric ozone depletion andrecovery, and human health. Little has been published on this topic in the last four years. The Sixth Assessment of the IPCC Working
Group II on the effects of climate change on human health does not mention skin cancer, or other UV-induced health outcomes.
Projections for ambient UV radiation in the coming years [1] suggest that with recovery of stratospheric ozone there will be a reductionin the UVI of 2-5% in northern mid-latitudes, a reduction of 4-6% in southern mid-latitudes, and no change in the tropics. Althoughlarge reductions in the UV Index in southern high latitudes (>60°S) as stratospheric ozone recovers are projected, this is in a region
with no resident populations (Ushuaia in southern Argentina has latitude of 55°S). However, with a growing number of tourists to
Antarctica each summer season (approximately 170,000/season in recent years [297]) as well as base staff and researchers, the highvariability in the UV Index, including maxima reaching UV Index of 14 [1] may pose risks to health. In addition to the effects of recovery
of stratospheric ozone, reductions in cloud cover are projected to increase DNA-weighted UV radiation levels by 1.3% per decade from2050, based on data from 1998-2016 at four mid-latitude sites (Lauder, New Zealand; Table Mountain, South Africa; Haute Provence,France; Hohenpeissenberg, Germany) and one tropical high altitude site (Mauna Loa, Hawaii) [298].
In an extension of a previous analysis [299], Piacentini and colleagues applied a temperature modification to the carcinogenicity of
UV radiation (‘effective carcinogenicity’) to estimate the incidence of KC in current and next centuries as a result of rising ambient
temperature under different climate change scenarios (RCP2.6, RCP4.5, RCP6.0, RCP 8.5) [300]. The model projects increases inincidence for SCC for 2100 of 5.8%, 10.4%, 13.8% and 21.4% (for respective RCPs), and for BCC, 2.1%, 4.9%, 6.5% and 9.9%. The
model does not take account of changing UV radiation (as a result of changes in stratospheric ozone and/or cloud cover), or changes insun exposure behaviour in relation to temperature.

5 Gaps in knowledge
During our assessment of the literature we identified the following gaps in knowledge:• Dynamic modelling is needed to better quantify the benefits of the Montreal Protocol: Trends in skin cancer in different
countries are likely to be due to a combination of: (1) immigration patterns, leading to changed distribution of skin types; (2) changing
recreational and occupational exposures; (3) concerted efforts to encourage populations to adopt sun-protective behaviours; and(4) changing surveillance habits, potentially resulting in over-diagnosis. Importantly, any predictions will need to take account of theinfluence of climate change on human behaviour, which will be an increasingly important driver of exposure to UV radiation.
• Better methods are needed to estimate prevalence of health conditions, including keratinocyte cancer, related to UV
radiation: Other than internal cancers and melanoma, the lack of population-based registries makes it extremely challenging toestimate the population incidence or prevalence of conditions, including keratinocyte cancers, related to exposure to sunlight.
Harnessing the power of data linkage may be one way of resolving this problem, recognising that this may under-estimate the burdenof conditions that present less frequently in the health system.
• Photobiological studies to define the dose and pattern of UV radiation that confers minimal harm are required: There iscurrently no known UV radiation dose or exposure pattern that confers minimal harm to the skin and eyes. Related to this, overexposure is poorly defined and, in some settings, sunburn is considered the only relevant indicator of over-exposure. A greater
understanding of this issue would enable messages to be developed that balance the benefits and harms of exposure to sunlight.
• The extent of the problem relating to the use of photosensitising medications needs to be elucidated: Photosensitising
medications can result in damage to skin and eyes. However, the extent of the problem, particularly for the eyes, is unclear.
• Studies are needed to better understand beneficial effects of exposure to UV radiation: Exposing the skin and eyes to the sun
is likely to have benefits beyond those mediated by production of vitamin D. However, while evidence of benefit and mechanisms ismaturing, it is still in its infancy. Clearly defined non-vitamin D biomarkers of benefit are needed so that studies can be conducted to
identify the mechanisms, along with the dose and pattern of exposure needed to confer benefits.
• Public health messaging to guide personal sun exposure to minimise harms and maximise any benefits requires more detailon the relative effective doses of UV radiation: In particular, we need to quantify the effect on the balance of risks and harms ofsmaller doses of UV radiation to a greater body surface area. For example, a comparison of the effect of exposure to UV radiation with
5% and 85% of the body surface area exposed suggests that there may not be a linear increase in 25(OH)D concentration, but there
is little information about percentages between these extremes.

142Chapter 3• Current public health messages focus on lightly pigmented populations, with doses of UV radiation for harms and benefits
uncertain for deeply pigmented skin: Skin cancers are rare, but vitamin D deficiency common, in those with deeply pigmented
skin. Skin melanin protects the skin from UV-B-induced harms (e.g., DNA damage) and reduces vitamin D production, but the UV
radiation dose at which these events occur needs to be quantified. Further, the action spectrum for vitamin D production may varywith skin type, but this is not currently known. Resolving these questions is important, enabling the development of evidence-based
messages that recognise the increasing diversity of populations within countries.

6 Conclusions
Exposure to UV radiation has multiple harms and benefits. By preventing large increases in UV-B radiation, the Montreal Protocol has
avoided many adverse health outcomes, consistent with Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 3 (Ensure healthy lives and promote wellbeing for all at all ages). Further, the costs of the adverse effects of exposure to UV radiation are high and increasing, and occupational
exposures represent a considerable economic burden. The Montreal Protocol plays a role in protecting outdoor workers, consistent
with SDG 8 (Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all).
In addition to avoiding large increases in UV radiation, the Montreal Protocol has stimulated research into the harms and benefits ofsunlight exposure. The resulting knowledge has enabled harms to the skin and eyes to be ameliorated through the use of sun protection
strategies. For the skin, this has been particularly important for people with lightly pigmented skin, and is evident in the plateauing
trends in skin cancer seen in younger age groups in some countries. For the eyes, blindness caused by cataracts disproportionately
affects people in developing countries due to lack of access to lens replacement surgery. These diverse effects are consistent with SDG
10 (Reduce inequality within and among countries).
Alongside the harms, increasing recognition of the benefits is informing public health and clinical practice. For people with lightly
pigmented skin, this underpins strategies to balance the risks and benefits of sun exposure. For those with deeply pigmented skin,knowledge of the importance of sun exposure may be particularly relevant for those living in areas with low ambient UV radiation forwhom the benefits of sun exposure for most people (with the exception of those at risk of inflammatory skin disorders) are likely tooutweigh the harms.
In conclusion, sun exposure is critical for human life on Earth. The Montreal Protocol and its Amendments have prevented large
increases in ambient UV-B radiation. This has both mitigated the adverse effects and enabled access to the beneficial effects of sun
exposure, thus playing a vital role globally in health and economies.

Acknowledgements Generous contributions by UNEP/Ozone Secretariat were provided for the convened author meeting. SNB
and RAI’s research was supported by the Neil & Norma Hill Foundation. RAI is the recipient of an Australian Postgraduate Award. LER
acknowledges the support of the NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre.
Author contributions All authors contributed to the conception and assessment, and carried out extensive revisions of content.
Conflict of interest The authors declare no conflict of interest.

143

Chapter 3

References
1.

Bernhard, G. H., Bais, A. F., Aucamp, P. J., Klekociuk, A. R., Liley, J. B., & McKenzie, R. L. (2022). Stratospheric ozone, UV
radiation, and climate interactions. Chapter 1

2.

Madronich, S., Sulzberger, B., Longstreth, J., Schikowski, T., Sulbæk Andersen, M.P., Solomon, K. R., & Wilson, S. R. (2022).
Changes in tropospheric air quality related to the protection of stratospheric ozone and a changing climate. Chapter 6

3.

Barnes, P. W., Robson, T. M., Zepp, R. G., Bornman, J. F., Jansen, M. A. K., Ossola, R., Wang, Q.-W., Robinson, S. A., Foereid, B.,
Klekociuk, A. R., Martinez-Abaigar, J., Hou, W. C., & Paul, N. D. (2022). Interactive effects of changes in UV radiation and climate
on terrestrial ecosystems, biogeochemical cycles, and feedbacks to the climate system. Chapter 4

4.

Neale, P. J., Williamson, C. E., Banaszak, A. T., Häder, D. P., Hylander, S., Ossola, R., Rose, K. A., Wängberg, S.-Å., & Zepp, R. G.
(2022). The response of aquatic ecosystems to the interactive effects of stratospheric ozone depletion, UV radiation, and climatechange. Chapter 55.

Andrady, A. L., Heikkilä, A. M., Pandey, K. K., Bruckman, L. S., White, C. C., Zhu, M., & Zhu, L. (2022). Effects of UV radiation on
natural and synthetic materials. Chapter 7

6.

Lucas, R. M., Yazar, S., Young, A. R., Norval, M., de Gruijl, F. R., Takizawa, Y., Rhodes, L. E., Sinclair, C. A., & Neale, R. E. (2019).
Human health in relation to exposure to solar ultraviolet radiation under changing stratospheric ozone and climate. Photochemical& Photobiological Sciences, 18(3), 641-680. https://doi.org/10.1039/c8pp90060d

7.

Hayward, N. K., Wilmott, J. S., Waddell, N., Johansson, P. A., Field, M. A., Nones, K., Patch, A. M., Kakavand, H., Alexandrov,
L. B., Burke, H., Jakrot, V., Kazakoff, S., Holmes, O., Leonard, C., Sabarinathan, R., Mularoni, L., Wood, S., Xu, Q., Waddell, N.,
Tembe, V., et al. (2017). Whole-genome landscapes of major melanoma subtypes. Nature, 545(7653), 175-180. https://doi.
org/10.1038/nature22071

8.

Premi, S., Han, L., Mehta, S., Knight, J., Zhao, D., Palmatier, M. A., Kornacker, K., & Brash, D. E. (2019). Genomic sites
hypersensitive to ultraviolet radiation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 116(48),24196-24205. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1907860116

9.

Lawrence, K. P., Delinasios, G. J., Premi, S., Young, A. R., & Cooke, M. S. (2022). Perspectives on cyclobutane pyrimidine
dimers—rise of the dark dimers. Photochemistry and Photobiology, 98(3), 609-616. https://doi.org/10.1111/php.13551

10.

Liyanage, U. E., MacGregor, S., Bishop, D. T., Shi, J., An, J., Ong, J. S., Han, X., Scolyer, R. A., Martin, N. G., Medland, S. E.,
Byrne, E. M., Green, A. C., Saw, R. P. M., Thompson, J. F., Stretch, J., Spillane, A., Jiang, Y., Tian, C., Agee, M., Aslibekyan, S., etal. (2022). Multi-trait genetic analysis identifies autoimmune loci associated with cutaneous melanoma. Journal of Investigative
Dermatology, 142(6), 1607-1616. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jid.2021.08.449

11.

Liyanage, U. E., Law, M. H., Han, X., An, J., Ong, J.-S., Gharahkhani, P., Gordon, S., Neale, R. E., Olsen, C. M., MacGregor, S.,& Whiteman, D. C. (2019). Combined analysis of keratinocyte cancers identifies novel genome-wide loci. Human Molecular
Genetics 28(18), 3148-3160. https://doi.org/10.1093/hmg/ddz121

12.

Hart, P. H., & Norval, M. (2020). Are there differences in immune responses following delivery of vaccines through acutely or
chronically sun-exposed compared with sun-unexposed skin? Immunology, 159(2), 133-141. https://doi.org/10.1111/imm.13128

13.

Hart, P. H., & Norval, M. (2021). More than effects in skin: Ultraviolet radiation-induced changes in immune cells in human blood.
Frontiers in Immunology, 12, 694086. https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2021.694086

14.

Hawkshaw, N. J., Pilkington, S. M., Murphy, S. A., Al-Gazaq, N., Farrar, M. D., Watson, R. E. B., Nicolaou, A., & Rhodes, L. E.
(2020). UV radiation recruits CD4+GATA3+ and CD8+GATA3+ T cells while altering the lipid microenvironment following
inflammatory resolution in human skin in vivo. Clinical & Translational Immunology, 9(4), e01104-n/a. https://doi.org/10.1002/
cti2.1104

15.

Bernard, J. J., Gallo, R. L., & Krutmann, J. (2019). Photoimmunology: how ultraviolet radiation affects the immune system. Nature
Reviews Immunology, 19(11), 688-701. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41577-019-0185-916.

Byrne, S. N., Limon-Flores, A. Y., & Ullrich, S. E. (2008). Mast cell migration from the skin to the draining lymph nodes uponultraviolet irradiation represents a key step in the induction of immune suppression. Journal of Immunology, 180(7), 4648-4655.
https://doi.org/10.4049/jimmunol.180.7.4648

17.

Sarchio, S. N. E., Scolyer, R. A., Beaugie, C., McDonald, D., Marsh-Wakefield, F., Halliday, G. M., & Byrne, S. N. (2014).
Pharmacologically antagonizing the CXCR4-CXCL12 chemokine pathway with AMD3100 inhibits sunlight-induced skin cancer.
Journal of Investigative Dermatology, 134(4), 1091-1100. https://doi.org/10.1038/jid.2013.424

18.

Kok, L.-F., Ferguson, A. L., Marshall, J. E., Tse, B. C. Y., Halliday, G. M., & Byrne, S. N. (2020). B cell-targeted immunotherapy limits
tumor growth, enhances survival, and prevents lymph node metastasis of UV-induced keratinocyte cancers in mice. Journal of
Investigative Dermatology, 140(7), 1459-1463. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jid.2019.12.018

144

Chapter 3
19.

Shime, H., Odanaka, M., Tsuiji, M., Matoba, T., Imai, M., Yasumizu, Y., Uraki, R., Minohara, K., Watanabe, M., Bonito, A. J.,
Fukuyama, H., Ohkura, N., Sakaguchi, S., Morita, A., & Yamazaki, S. (2020). Proenkephalin(+) regulatory T cells expanded byultraviolet B exposure maintain skin homeostasis with a healing function. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of theUnited States of America, 117(34), 20696-20705. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2000372117

20.

Tse, B. C. Y., & Byrne, S. N. (2020). Lipids in ultraviolet radiation-induced immune modulation. Photochemical & Photobiological
Sciences, 19(7), 870-878. https://doi.org/10.1039/d0pp00146e

21.

Liu, L., Awoyemi, A. A., Fahy, K. E., Thapa, P., Borchers, C., Wu, B. Y., McGlone, C. L., Schmeusser, B., Sattouf, Z., Rohan, C.
A., Williams, A. R., Cates, E. E., Knisely, C., Kelly, L. E., Bihl, J. C., Cool, D. R., Sahu, R. P., Wang, J., Chen, Y., Rapp, C. M., et al.
(2021). Keratinocyte-derived microvesicle particles mediate ultraviolet B radiation-induced systemic immunosuppression. Journalof Clinical Investigation, 131(10), e144963. https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI144963

22.

Tse, B. C. Y., Ireland, R. A., Lee, J. Y., Marsh-Wakefield, F., Kok, L. F., Don, A. S., & Byrne, S. N. (2021). Exposure to systemic
immunosuppressive ultraviolet radiation alters T cell recirculation through sphingosine-1-phosphate. Journal of Immunology
207(9), 2278-2287. https://doi.org/10.4049/jimmunol.2001261

23.

Lau, F. H., Powell, C. E., Adonecchi, G., Danos, D. M., DiNardo, A. R., Chugden, R. J., Wolf, P., & Castilla, C. F. (2022). Pilot phaseresults of a prospective, randomized controlled trial of narrowband ultraviolet B phototherapy in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.
Experimental Dermatology, 31(7), 1109-1115. https://doi.org/10.1111/exd.14617

24.

Maboshe, W., Macdonald, H. M., Wassall, H., Fraser, W. D., Tang, J. C. Y., Fielding, S., Barker, R. N., Vickers, M. A., Ormerod,A., & Thies, F. (2021). Low-dose vitamin D3 supplementation does not affect natural regulatory T cell population but attenuates
seasonal changes in T cell-produced IFN-gamma: Results from the D-SIRe2 randomized controlled trial. Frontiers in Immunology,
12, 623087. https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2021.623087

25.

Lossius, A. H., Sundnes, O., Ingham, A. C., Edslev, S. M., Bjornholt, J. V., Lilje, B., Bradley, M., Asad, S., Haraldsen, G., SkyttAndersen, P., Holm, J. O., & Berents, T. L. (2022). Shifts in the skin microbiota after UVB treatment in adult atopic dermatitis.
Dermatology, 238(1), 109-120. https://doi.org/10.1159/000515236

26.

Bustamante, M., Hernandez-Ferrer, C., Tewari, A., Sarria, Y., Harrison, G. I., Puigdecanet, E., Nonell, L., Kang, W., Friedlander,
M. R., Estivill, X., Gonzalez, J. R., Nieuwenhuijsen, M., & Young, A. R. (2020). Dose and time effects of solar-simulated ultraviolet
radiation on the in vivo human skin transcriptome. British Journal of Dermatology, 182(6), 1458-1468. https://doi.org/10.1111/
bjd.18527

27.

Hart, P. H., Norval, M., Byrne, S. N., & Rhodes, L. E. (2019). Exposure to ultraviolet radiation in the modulation of human diseases.
Annual Review of Pathology, 14(1), 55-81. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-pathmechdis-012418-012809

28.

Sarkar, M. K., Hile, G. A., Tsoi, L. C., Xing, X., Liu, J., Liang, Y., Berthier, C. C., Swindell, W. R., Patrick, M. T., Shao, S., Tsou, P.-S.,
Uppala, R., Beamer, M. A., Srivastava, A., Bielas, S. L., Harms, P. W., Getsios, S., Elder, J. T., Voorhees, J. J., Gudjonsson, J. E., et al.
(2018). Photosensitivity and type I IFN responses in cutaneous lupus are driven by epidermal-derived interferon kappa. Annals of
Rheumatic Diseases, 77(11), 1653-1664. https://doi.org/10.1136/annrheumdis-2018-213197

29.

Kulkarni, N. N., Takahashi, T., Sanford, J. A., Tong, Y., Gombart, A. F., Hinds, B., Cheng, J. Y., & Gallo, R. L. (2020). Innate
immune dysfunction in rosacea promotes photosensitivity and vascular adhesion molecule expression. Journal of Investigative
Dermatology, 140(3), 645-655.e646. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jid.2019.08.436

30.

Skopelja-Gardner, S., Tai, J., Sun, X., Tanaka, L., Kuchenbecker, J. A., Snyder, J. M., Kubes, P., Mustelin, T., & Elkon, K. B. (2021).
Acute skin exposure to ultraviolet light triggers neutrophil-mediated kidney inflammation. Proceedings of the National Academyof Sciences of the United States of America, 118(3), e2019097118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2019097118

31.

Lim, H.-S., Yoon, K.-N., Chung, J. H., Lee, Y.-S., Lee, D. H., & Park, G. (2021). Chronic ultraviolet irradiation to the skindysregulates adrenal medulla and dopamine metabolism in vivo. Antioxidants, 10(6), 920. https://doi.org/10.3390/
antiox10060920

32.

Diffey, B. (2021). Erythema and acclimatization following repeated sun exposure: A modeling study. Photochemistry andPhotobiology, 97(6), 1558-1567. https://doi.org/10.1111/php.13466

33.

Laskar, R., Ferreiro-Iglesias, A., Bishop, D. T., Iles, M. M., Kanetsky, P. A., Armstrong, B. K., Law, M. H., Goldstein, A. M., Aitken,
J. F., Giles, G. G., Australian Melanoma Family Study, I., Leeds Case-Control Study, I., Robbins, H. A., & Cust, A. E. (2021). Risk
factors for melanoma by anatomical site: an evaluation of aetiological heterogeneity. British Journal of Dermatology, 184(6), 10851093. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjd.19705

34.

Ghiasvand, R., Robsahm, T. E., Green, A. C., Rueegg, C. S., Weiderpass, E., Lund, E., & Veierød, M. B. (2018). Association ofphenotypic characteristics and UV radiation exposure with risk of melanoma on different body sites. JAMA Dermatology, 155(1),39-49. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamadermatol.2018.3964

35.

Arnold, M., de Vries, E., Whiteman, D. C., Jemal, A., Bray, F., Parkin, D. M., & Soerjomataram, I. (2018). Global burden of
cutaneous melanoma attributable to ultraviolet radiation in 2012. International Journal of Cancer, 143(6), 1305-1314. https://doi.
org/10.1002/ijc.31527

145

Chapter 3
36.

O'Sullivan, D. E., Brenner, D. R., Villeneuve, P. J., Walter, S. D., Demers, P. A., Friedenreich, C. M., King, W. D., & Com, P. S.
T. (2019). Estimates of the current and future burden of melanoma attributable to ultraviolet radiation in Canada. Preventive
Medicine, 122, 81-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2019.03.012

37.

Arnold, M., Kvaskoff, M., Thuret, A., Guenel, P., Bray, F., & Soerjomataram, I. (2018). Cutaneous melanoma in France in 2015
attributable to solar ultraviolet radiation and the use of sunbeds. Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and
Venereology, 32(10), 1681-1686. https://doi.org/10.1111/jdv.15022

38.

Lopes, F. C. P. S., Sleiman, M. G., Sebastian, K., Bogucka, R., Jacobs, E. A., & Adamson, A. S. (2021). UV exposure and the riskof cutaneous melanoma in skin of color: A systematic review. JAMA Dermatology, 157(2), 213-219. https://doi.org/10.1001/
jamadermatol.2020.4616

39.

O'Sullivan, D. E., Brenner, D. R., Villeneuve, P. J., Walter, S. D., Demers, P. A., Friedenreich, C. M., King, W. D., & Com, P. S.
T. (2021). The current burden of non-melanoma skin cancer attributable to ultraviolet radiation and related risk behaviours in
Canada. Cancer Causes & Control, 32(3), 279-290. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10552-020-01382-1

40.

Little, M. P., Linet, M. S., Kimlin, M. G., Lee, T., Tatalovich, Z., Sigurdson, A. J., & Cahoon, E. K. (2019). Cumulative solar ultraviolet
radiation exposure and basal cell carcinoma of the skin in a nationwide US cohort using satellite and ground-based measures.
[Article]. Environmental Health: A Global Access Science Source, 18(1), 114. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-019-0536-9

41.

Kolitz, E., Lopes, F. C. P. S., Arffa, M., Pineider, J., Bogucka, R., & Adamson, A. S. (2022). UV exposure and the risk ofkeratinocyte carcinoma in skin of color: A systematic review. JAMA Dermatology, 158(5), 542-546. https://doi.org/10.1001/
jamadermatol.2022.0263

42.

World Health Organisation. (2021). The effect of occupational exposure to solar ultraviolet radiation on malignant skinmelanoma and non-melanoma skin cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis from the WHO/ILO joint estimates of thework-related burden of disease and injury. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/350569.

43.

Loney, T., Paulo, M. S., Modenese, A., Gobba, F., Tenkate, T., Whiteman, D. C., Green, A. C., & John, S. M. (2021). Global
evidence on occupational sun exposure and keratinocyte cancers: a systematic review. British Journal of Dermatology, 184(2),208-218. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjd.19152

44.

Peters, C. E., Kim, J., Song, C., Heer, E., Arrandale, V. H., Pahwa, M., Labreche, F., McLeod, C. B., Davies, H. W., Ge, C. B., &Demers, P. A. (2019). Burden of non-melanoma skin cancer attributable to occupational sun exposure in Canada. International
Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 92(8), 1151-1157. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-019-01454-z

45.

Nurminen, M., & Karjalainen, A. (2001). Epidemiologic estimate of the proportion of fatalities related to occupational factors inFinland. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 27(3), 161-213. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40967134

46.

Young, C., Rushton, L., & British Occupational Cancer Burden Study Group (2012). Occupational cancer in Britain. Skin cancer.
British Journal of Cancer, 107 Suppl 1, S71-75. https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2012.120

47.

Brand, R. M., Stottlemyer, J. M., Paglia, M. C., Carey, C. D., & Falo, L. D. (2021). Ethanol consumption synergistically increases
ultraviolet radiation induced skin damage and immune dysfunction. Journal of Dermatological Science, 101(1), 40-48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdermsci.2020.11.001

48.

Madronich, S., Lee-Taylor, J. M., Wagner, M., Kyle, J., Hu, Z., & Landolfi, R. (2021). Estimation of skin and ocular damage avoided
in the United States through implementation of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. ACS Earthand Space Chemistry, 5(8), 1876-1888. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsearthspacechem.1c00183

49.

Arnold, M., Singh, D., Laversanne, M., Vignat, J., Vaccarella, S., Meheus, F., Cust, A. E., de Vries, E., Whiteman, D. C., & Bray, F.
(2022). Global burden of cutaneous melanoma in 2020 and projections to 2040. JAMA Dermatology, 158(5), 495-503. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamadermatol.2022.0160

50.

Urban, K., Mehrmal, S., Uppal, P., Giesey, R. L., & Delost, G. R. (2021). The global burden of skin cancer: A longitudinal analysis
from the Global Burden of Disease Study, 1990-2017. JAAD International, 2, 98-108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdin.2020.10.013

51.

Li, Z., Fang, Y., Chen, H., Zhang, T., Yin, X., Man, J., Yang, X., & Lu, M. (2022). Spatiotemporal trends of the global burden ofmelanoma in 204 countries and territories from 1990 to 2019: Results from the 2019 global burden of disease study. Neoplasia,
24(1), 12-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neo.2021.11.013

52.

Bray, F., Ferlay, J., Soerjomataram, I., Siegel, R. L., Torre, L. A., & Jemal, A. (2018). Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN
estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 68(6), 394424. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21492

53.

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW). (2021). Cancer in Australia 2021. Cancer series no. 133. Cat. no. CAN 144, 172
pp, Canberra: AIHW, https://doi.org/10.25816/ye05-nm50. Accessed 01 April 2022. Canberra, Australia.

54.

Ferlay, J., Colombet, M., Soerjomataram, I., Dyba, T., Randi, G., Bettio, M., Gavin, A., Visser, O., & Bray, F. (2018). Cancer
incidence and mortality patterns in Europe: Estimates for 40 countries and 25 major cancers in 2018. European Journal of Cancer,
103, 356-387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2018.07.005

146

Chapter 3
55.

Lashway, S. G., Harris, R. B., Farland, L. V., O'Rourke, M. K., & Dennis, L. K. (2021). Age and cohort trends of malignant melanoma
in the United States. Cancers (Basel), 13(15), 3866. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13153866

56.

Kurtansky, N. R., Dusza, S. W., Halpern, A. C., Hartman, R. I., Geller, A. C., Marghoob, A. A., Rotemberg, V. M., & Marchetti,
M. A. (2022). An epidemiologic analysis of melanoma overdiagnosis in the United States, 1975-2017. Journal of Investigative
Dermatology, 142(7), 1804-1811. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jid.2021.12.003

57.

Aitken, J. F., Youlden, D. R., Baade, P. D., Soyer, H. P., Green, A. C., & Smithers, B. M. (2018). Generational shift in melanoma
incidence and mortality in Queensland, Australia, 1995-2014. International Journal of Cancer, 142(8), 1528-1535. https://doi.
org/10.1002/ijc.31141

58.

Eriksson, H., Nielsen, K., Vassilaki, I., Lapins, J., Mikiver, R., Lyth, J., & Isaksson, K. (2021). Trend shifts in age-specific incidence forin situ and invasive cutaneous melanoma in Sweden. Cancers (Basel), 13(11), 2838. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13112838

59.

Sacchetto, L., Zanetti, R., Comber, H., Bouchardy, C., Brewster, D. H., Broganelli, P., Chirlaque, M. D., Coza, D., Galceran, J.,
Gavin, A., Hackl, M., Katalinic, A., Laronningen, S., Louwman, M. W. J., Morgan, E., Robsahm, T. E., Sanchez, M. J., Tryggvadottir,L., Tumino, R., Van Eycken, E., et al. (2018). Trends in incidence of thick, thin and in situ melanoma in Europe. European Journal ofCancer, 92, 108-118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2017.12.024

60.

Welch, H. G., Mazer, B. L., & Adamson, A. S. (2021). The rapid rise in cutaneous melanoma diagnoses. The New England Journalof Medicine, 384(1), 72-79. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsb2019760

61.

Matsumoto, M., Wack, S., Weinstock, M. A., Geller, A., Wang, H., Solano, F. X., Kirkwood, J. M., & Ferris, L. K. (2022). Five-year
outcomes of a melanoma screening initiative in a large health care system. JAMA Dermatology, 158(5), 504-512. https://doi.
org/10.1001/jamadermatol.2022.0253

62.

Olsen, C. M., Thompson, J. F., Pandeya, N., & Whiteman, D. C. (2020). Evaluation of sex-specific incidence of melanoma. JAMA
Dermatology, 156(5), 553-560. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.0470

63.

Gulliver, W., Gulliver, S., Power, R. J., Penney, M., & Lane, D. (2021). The incidence of cutaneous malignant melanoma in Eastern
Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada, from 2007 to 2015. Dermatology, 238(3), 527-533. https://doi.org/10.1159/000519193

64.

Defossez, G., Uhry, Z., Delafosse, P., Dantony, E., d'Almeida, T., Plouvier, S., Bossard, N., Bouvier, A. M., Molinié, F., Woronoff,
A. S., Colonna, M., Grosclaude, P., Remontet, L., & Monnereau, A. (2021). Cancer incidence and mortality trends in France over
1990-2018 for solid tumors: the sex gap is narrowing. BMC Cancer, 21(1), 726. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-021-08261-1

65.

Dulskas, A., Cerkauskaite, D., Vincerževskiene, I., & Urbonas, V. (2021). Trends in incidence and mortality of skin melanoma in
Lithuania 1991-2015. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(8), 4165. https://doi.org/10.3390/
ijerph18084165

66.

Korovin, S., Fedorenko, Z., Michailovich, Y., Kukushkina, M., Sekerija, M., & Ryzhov, A. (2020). Burden of malignant melanoma
in Ukraine in 2002-2013: incidence, mortality and survival. Experimental Oncology, 42(4), 324-329. https://doi.org/10.32471/
exp-oncology.2312-8852.vol-42-no-4.15334

67.

67. Pehalova, L., Krejci, D., Snajdrova, L., & Dusek, L. (2021). Cancer incidence trends in the Czech Republic. Cancer
Epidemiology, 74, 101975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.canep.2021.101

68.

Liszkay, G., Kiss, Z., Gyulai, R., Oláh, J., Holló, P., Emri, G., Csejtei, A., Kenessey, I., Benedek, A., Polányi, Z., Nagy-Erdei, Z.,
Daniel, A., Knollmajer, K., Várnai, M., Vokó, Z., Nagy, B., Rokszin, G., Fábián, I., Barcza, Z., & Polgár, C. (2020). Changing trends
in melanoma incidence and decreasing melanoma mortality in Hungary between 2011 and 2019: A nationwide epidemiologicalstudy. Frontiers in Oncology, 10, 612459. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2020.612459

69.

Bai, R., Huang, H., Li, M., & Chu, M. (2021). Temporal trends in the incidence and mortality of skin malignant melanoma in China
from 1990 to 2019. Journal of Oncology, 2021, 9989824. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/9989824

70.

Kim, T., Yoon, S., Shin, D. E., Lee, S. C., Oh, J., Lee, S. Y., Kim, D. K., Kim, S., Jung, B., Kim, M., & Lee, S. (2021). Incidence andsurvival rates of cutaneous melanoma in South Korea using nationwide health insurance claims data. Cancer Research andTreatment, 54(3), 937-949. https://doi.org/10.4143/crt.2021.871

71.

Wu, Y., Wang, Y., Wang, L., Yin, P., Lin, Y., & Zhou, M. (2020). Burden of melanoma in China, 1990-2017: Findings from the 2017global burden of disease study. International Journal of Cancer, 147(3), 692-701. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.32764

72.

Oh, C. C., Jin, A., & Koh, W. P. (2021). Trends of cutaneous basal cell carcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, and melanoma
among the Chinese, Malays, and Indians in Singapore from 1968-2016. JAAD International, 4, 39-45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jdin.2021.05.006

73.

Chen, M. L., de Vere Hunt, I. J., John, E. M., Weinstock, M. A., Swetter, S. M., & Linos, E. (2022). Differences in thickness-specificincidence and factors associated with cutaneous melanoma in the US from 2010 to 2018. JAMA Oncology, 8(5), 755-759. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2022.0134

147

Chapter 374.

Kelm, R. C., Ali, Y., Orrell, K., Rangel, S. M., Kruse, L., Wagner, A. M., Gerami, P., West, D. P., & Nardone, B. (2021). Age and sex
differences for malignant melanoma in the pediatric population-childhood versus adolescence: analysis of current nationwide
data from the National Cancer Institute Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program. JAMA Dermatology, 84(3),862-864. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2020.10.050

75.

Heer, E. V., Harper, A. S., Sung, H., Jemal, A., & Fidler-Benaoudia, M. M. (2020). Emerging cancer incidence trends in Canada:
The growing burden of young adult cancers. Cancer, 126(20), 4553-4562. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.33050

76.

Bucchi, L., Mancini, S., Crocetti, E., Dal Maso, L., Baldacchini, F., Vattiato, R., Giuliani, O., Ravaioli, A., Caldarella, A., Carrozzi, G.,
Ferretti, S., Filiberti, R. A., Fusco, M., Gatti, L., Gili, A., Magoni, M., Mangone, L., Mazzoleni, G., Michiara, M., Panato, C., et al.
(2021). Mid-term trends and recent birth-cohort-dependent changes in incidence rates of cutaneous malignant melanoma in Italy.
International Journal of Cancer, 148(4), 835-844. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.33259

77.

Memon, A., Banniser, P., Rogers, I., Sundin, J., Al-Ayadhy, B., James, P. W., & McNally, R. J. Q. (2021). Changing epidemiology
and age-specific incidence of cutaneous malignant melanoma in England: An analysis of the national cancer registration databy age, gender and anatomical site, 1981–2018. The Lancet Regional Health - Europe, 2, 100024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
lanepe.2021.100024

78.

Rousi, E. K., Kallionpää, R. A., Kallionpää, R. E., Juteau, S. M., Talve, L. A. I., Hernberg, M. M., Vihinen, P. P., Kähäri, V. M., &Koskivuo, I. O. (2022). Increased incidence of melanoma in children and adolescents in Finland in 1990-2014: nationwide reevaluation of histopathological characteristics. Annals of Medicine, 54(1), 244-252. https://doi.org/10.1080/07853890.2022.
2026001

79.

Bernhard, G. H., Neale, R. E., Barnes, P. W., Neale, P. J., Zepp, R. G., Wilson, S. R., Andrady, A. L., Bais, A. F., McKenzie, R. L.,
Aucamp, P. J., Young, P. J., Liley, J. B., Lucas, R. M., Yazar, S., Rhodes, L. E., Byrne, S. N., Hollestein, L. M., Olsen, C. M., Young, A.
R., Robson, T. M., et al. (2020). Environmental effects of stratospheric ozone depletion, UV radiation and interactions with climatechange: UNEP Environmental Effects Assessment Panel, update 2019. Photochemical & Photobiological Sciences, 19, 542-584.
https://doi.org/10.1039/d0pp90011g

80.

Neale, R. E., Barnes, P. W., Robson, T. M., Neale, P. J., Williamson, C. E., Zepp, R. G., Wilson, S. R., Madronich, S., Andrady,
A. L., Heikkilä, A. M., Bernhard, G. H., Bais, A. F., Aucamp, P. J., Banaszak, A. T., Bornman, J. F., Bruckman, L. S., Byrne, S. N.,
Foereid, B., Häder, D. P., Hollestein, L. M., et al. (2021). Environmental effects of stratospheric ozone depletion, UV radiation, andinteractions with climate change: UNEP Environmental Effects Assessment Panel, Update 2020. Photochemical & Photobiological
Sciences, 20(1), 1-67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43630-020-00001-x

81.

Barnes, P. W., Robson, T. M., Neale, P. J., Williamson, C. E., Zepp, R. G., Madronich, S., Wilson, S. R., Andrady, A. L., Heikkilä,
A. M., Bernhard, G. H., Bais, A. F., Neale, R. E., Bornman, J. F., Jansen, M. A. K., Klekociuk, A. R., Martinez-Abaigar, J., Robinson,
S. A., Wang, Q. W., Banaszak, A. T., Häder, D. P., et al. (2022). Environmental effects of stratospheric ozone depletion, UV
radiation, and interactions with climate change: UNEP Environmental Effects Assessment Panel, Update 2021. Photochemical &Photobiological Sciences, 21(3), 275-301. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43630-022-00176-5

82.

Ferlay, J., Colombet, M., Soerjomataram, I., Parkin, D. M., Piñeros, M., Znaor, A., & Bray, F. (2021). Cancer statistics for the year
2020: An overview. International Journal of Cancer, 149(4), 778-789. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.33588

83.

Berk-Krauss, J., Stein, J. A., Weber, J., Polsky, D., & Geller, A. C. (2020). New systematic therapies and trends in cutaneous
melanoma deaths among US Whites, 1986-2016. American Journal of Public Health, 110(5), 731-733. https://doi.org/10.2105/
AJPH.2020.305567

84.

Yang, D. D., Salciccioli, J. D., Marshall, D. C., Sheri, A., & Shalhoub, J. (2020). Trends in malignant melanoma mortality in 31
countries from 1985 to 2015. British Journal of Dermatology, 183(6), 1056-1064. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjd.19010

85.

Gutierrez-Gonzalez, E., Lopez-Abente, G., Aragones, N., Pollan, M., Pastor-Barriuso, R., Sanchez, M. J., & Perez-Gomez, B.
(2019). Trends in mortality from cutaneous malignant melanoma in Spain (1982-2016): sex-specific age-cohort-period effects.
Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, 33(8), 1522-1528. https://doi.org/10.1111/jdv.15565

86.

Environmental Health Intelligence New Zealand (ehinz) (2020). Fact sheet: Melanoma mortality. https://www.ehinz.ac.nz/
indicators/uv-exposure/melanoma/. Accessed 14 January 2021.

87.

van Niekerk, C. C., Groenewoud, H. M. M., & Verbeek, A. L. M. (2021). Trends and projections in cutaneous melanoma death in
the Netherlands from 1950 to 2045. Medicine Open, 100(48), e27784.

88.

Nader Marta, G., Munhoz, R. R., Teixeira, M. P., Waldvogel, B. C., Pires de Camargo, V., Feher, O., & Sanches, J. A. (2020).
Trends in melanoma mortality in Brazil: A registry-based study. JCO Global Oncology, 6, 1766-1771. https://doi.org/10.1200/
go.20.00426

89.

Olsen, C. M., Pandeya, N., & Whiteman, D. C. (2021). International increases in Merkel cell carcinoma incidence rates between
1997 and 2016. Journal of Investigative Dermatology, 141(11), 2596-2601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jid.2021.04.007

90.

de Melo, A. C., & Santos Thuler, L. C. (2021). Trends in the incidence and morbidity of Merkel cell carcinoma in Brazil. Future
Oncology 17(22), 2857-2865. https://doi.org/10.2217/fon-2020-1313

148

Chapter 3
91.

Stang, A., Becker, J. C., Nghiem, P., & Ferlay, J. (2018). The association between geographic location and incidence of Merkel
cell carcinoma in comparison to melanoma: An international assessment. European Journal of Cancer, 94, 47-60. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ejca.2018.02.003

92.

Jacobs, D., Huang, H., Olino, K., Weiss, S., Kluger, H., Judson, B. L., & Zhang, Y. (2021). Assessment of age, period, and birthcohort effects and trends in Merkel cell carcinoma incidence in the United States. JAMA Dermatology, 157(1), 59-65. https://doi.
org/10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.4102

93.

Feng, H., Shuda, M., Chang, Y., & Moore, P. S. (2008). Clonal integration of a polyomavirus in human Merkel cell carcinoma.
Science, 319(5866), 1096-1100. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1152586

94.

Goh, G., Walradt, T., Markarov, V., Blom, A., Riaz, N., Doumani, R., Stafstrom, K., Moshiri, A., Yelistratova, L., Levinsohn, J.,
Chan, T. A., Nghiem, P., Lifton, R. P., & Choi, J. (2016). Mutational landscape of MCPyV-positive and MCPyV-negative Merkel cell
carcinomas with implications for immunotherapy. Oncotarget, 7(3), 3403-3415. https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.6494

95.

Mokánszki, A., Méhes, G., Csoma, S. L., Kollár, S., & Chang Chien, Y. C. (2021). Molecular profiling of Merkel cell polyomavirusassociated Merkel cell carcinoma and cutaneous melanoma. Diagnostics (Basel), 11(2), 212. https://doi.org/10.3390/
diagnostics11020212

96.

Harms, K. L., Healy, M. A., Nghiem, P., Sober, A. J., Johnson, T. M., Bichakjian, C. K., & Wong, S. L. (2016). Analysis of prognostic
factors from 9387 Merkel cell carcinoma cases forms the basis for the new 8th edition AJCC Staging System. Annals of Surgical
Oncology 23(11), 3564-3571. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-016-5266-4

97.

D'Angelo, S. P., Bhatia, S., Brohl, A. S., Hamid, O., Mehnert, J. M., Terheyden, P., Shih, K. C., Brownell, I., Lebbé, C., Lewis, K.
D., Linette, G. P., Milella, M., Georges, S., Shah, P., Ellers-Lenz, B., Bajars, M., Güzel, G., & Nghiem, P. T. (2020). Avelumab inpatients with previously treated metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma: long-term data and biomarker analyses from the single-arm
phase 2 JAVELIN Merkel 200 trial. Journal for Immunotherapy of Cancer, 8(1), e000674. https://doi.org/10.1136/jitc-2020000674

98.

Chang, W. C., Lin, A. Y., Hsu, J. C., Wu, C. E., Goh, C., Chou, P., Kuo, K., Chang, A., & Palencia, R. (2021). A cost-utility analysis of
avelumab for metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma in Taiwan. Cancer Reports 4(6), e1399. https://doi.org/10.1002/cnr2.1399

99.

Garza-Davila, V. F., Valdespino-Valdes, J., Barrera, F. J., Ocampo-Candiani, J., & Garza-Rodríguez, V. (2022). Clinical impact of
immunotherapy in Merkel cell carcinoma patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Dermatology, 87(1), 121-130.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2021.04.024

100. Venables, Z. C., Nijsten, T., Wong, K. F., Autier, P., Broggio, J., Deas, A., Harwood, C. A., Hollestein, L. M., Langan, S. M.,
Morgan, E., Proby, C. M., Rashbass, J., & Leigh, I. M. (2019). Epidemiology of basal and cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma in
the U.K. 2013–15: a cohort study. [Article in Press]. British Journal of Dermatology, 181(3), 474-482. https://doi.org/10.1111/
bjd.17873
101. Tokez, S., Hollestein, L., Louwman, M., Nijsten, T., & Wakkee, M. (2020). Incidence of multiple vs first cutaneous squamous cell
carcinoma on a nationwide scale and estimation of future incidences of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma. JAMA Dermatology,156(12), 1300-1306. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.3677
102. Global Burden of Disease 2019 Cancer Collaboration (2021). Cancer incidence, mortality, Years of Life Lost, Years Lived With
Disability, and Disability-Adjusted Life Years for 29 cancer groups from 2010 to 2019: A systematic analysis for the Global Burdenof Disease Study 2019. JAMA Oncology, 8(2), 420. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2021.6987
103. Zhang, W., Zeng, W., Jiang, A., He, Z., Shen, X., Dong, X., Feng, J., & Lu, H. (2021). Global, regional and national incidence,mortality and disability-adjusted life-years of skin cancers and trend analysis from 1990 to 2019: An analysis of the Global Burdenof Disease Study 2019. Cancer Medicine, 10(14), 4905-4922. https://doi.org/10.1002/cam4.4046
104. Pondicherry, A., Martin, R., Meredith, I., Rolfe, J., Emanuel, P., & Elwood, M. (2018). The burden of non-melanoma skin cancers in
Auckland, New Zealand. [Article]. Australasian Journal of Dermatology, 59(3), 210-213. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajd.12751
105. Pandeya, N., Olsen, C. M., & Whiteman, D. C. (2017). The incidence and multiplicity rates of keratinocyte cancers in Australia.
Medical Journal of Australia, 207(8), 339-343. https://doi.org/10.5694/mja17.00284 [pii]106. Staples, M. P., Elwood, M., Burton, R. C., Williams, J. L., Marks, R., & Giles, G. G. (2006). Non-melanoma skin cancer
in Australia: the 2002 national survey and trends since 1985. Medical Journal of Australia, 184(1), 6-10. https://doi.
org/10.5694/j.1326-5377.2006.tb00086.x
107. Adelson, P., Sharplin, G. R., Roder, D. M., & Eckert, M. (2018). Keratinocyte cancers in South Australia: incidence, geographicalvariability and service trends. [Article]. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 42(4), 329-333. https://doi.
org/10.1111/1753-6405.12806
108. Adalsteinsson, J. A., Ratner, D., Olafsdottir, E., Grant-Kels, J., Ungar, J., Silverberg, J. I., Kristjansson, A. K., Jonasson, J. G., &Tryggvadottir, L. (2020). Basal cell carcinoma: an emerging epidemic in women in Iceland. British Journal of Dermatology, 183(5),847-856. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjd.18937

149

Chapter 3
109. Adalsteinsson, J. A., Olafsdottir, E., Ratner, D., Waldman, R., Feng, H., Ungar, J., Silverberg, J. I., Kristjansson, A. K., Jonasson,
J. G., & Tryggvadottir, L. (2021). Invasive and in situ squamous cell carcinoma of the skin: a nationwide study in Iceland. British
Journal of Dermatology, 185(3), 537-547. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjd.19879
110. Ilić, D., Videnović, G., Kozomara, R., Radaković, S. S., Vlahović, Z., Matvijenko, V., & Živković, S. (2020). Non-melanoma skincancers in Serbia (1999-2015) - the need for national prevention and control strategy. [Article]. Vojnosanitetski Pregled, 77(11),1154-1160. https://doi.org/10.2298/vsp181112201i
111. Mirza, F. N., Yumeen, S., & Walter, F. M. (2021). The epidemiology of malignant melanoma, squamous cell carcinoma and basal
cell carcinoma in the UK from 2004 to 2014: a population-based cohort analysis using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink.
[Article]. British Journal of Dermatology, 184(2), 365-367. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjd.19542
112. Aggarwal, P., Knabel, P., & Fleischer, A. B., Jr. (2021). United States burden of melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancer from1990 to 2019. JAMA Dermatology, 85(2), 388-395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2021.03.109
113. Kwiatkowska, M., Ahmed, S., Ardern-Jones, M. R., Bhatti, L. A., Bleiker, T. O., Gavin, A., Hussain, S., Huws, D. W., Irvine, L.,
Langan, S. M., Millington, G. W. M., Mitchell, H., Murphy, R., Paley, L., Proby, C. M., Thomson, C. S., Thomas, R., Turner,
C., Vernon, S., & Venables, Z. C. (2022). A summary of the updated report on the incidence and epidemiological trends ofkeratinocyte cancers in the UK 2013–2018. [Letter]. British Journal of Dermatology, 186(2), 367-369. https://doi.org/10.1111/
bjd.20764
114. Olsen, C. M., Pandeya, N., Green, A. C., Ragaini, B. S., Venn, A. J., & Whiteman, D. C. (2022). Keratinocyte cancer incidence inAustralia: a review of population-based incidence trends and estimates of lifetime risk. Public Health Research and Practice, 32(1),e3212203. https://doi.org/10.17061/phrp3212203
115. Dziunycz, P. J., Schuller, E., & Hofbauer, G. F. L. (2018). Prevalence of actinic keratosis in patients attending general practitioners in
Switzerland. [Article]. Dermatology, 234(5-6), 186-191. https://doi.org/10.1159/000491820
116. Ferrándiz-Pulido, C., Lera-Imbuluzqueta, M., Ferrándiz, C., & Plazas-Fernandez, M. J. (2018). Prevalence of actinic keratosis indifferent regions of Spain: The EPIQA Study. [Article]. Actas Dermo-Sifiliográficas, 109(1), 83-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
adengl.2017.05.023
117. Tokez, S., Wakkee, M., Louwman, M., Noels, E., Nijsten, T., & Hollestein, L. (2020). Assessment of cutaneous squamouscell carcinoma (cSCC) in situ incidence and the risk of developing invasive cSCC in patients with prior cSCC in situ vs
the general population in the Netherlands, 1989-2017. JAMA Dermatology, 156(9), 973-981. https://doi.org/10.1001/
jamadermatol.2020.1988
118. Friman, T. K., Jäämaa-Holmberg, S., Åberg, F., Helanterä, I., Halme, M., Pentikäinen, M. O., Nordin, A., Lemström, K. B.,
Jahnukainen, T., Räty, R., & Salmela, B. (2022). Cancer risk and mortality after solid organ transplantation: A population-based 30year cohort study in Finland. International Journal of Cancer, 150(11), 1779-1791. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.33934
119. Poizot-Martin, I., Lions, C., Delpierre, C., Makinson, A., Allavena, C., Fresard, A., Brégigeon, S., Rojas, T. R., & Delobel, P. (2022).
Prevalence and spectrum of second primary malignancies among people living with HIV in the French Dat'AIDS Cohort. Cancers(Basel), 14(2), 401. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14020401
120. Yuan, T., Hu, Y., Zhou, X., Yang, L., Wang, H., Li, L., Wang, J., Qian, H.-Z., Clifford, G. M., & Zou, H. (2022). Incidence andmortality of non-AIDS-defining cancers among people living with HIV: A systematic review and meta-analysis. eClinicalMedicine,52, 101613. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2022.101613
121. D'Arcy, M. E., Beachler, D. C., Pfeiffer, R. M., Curtis, J. R., Mariette, X., Seror, R., Mahale, P., Rivera, D. R., Yanik, E. L., & Engels,
E. A. (2021). Tumor necrosis factor inhibitors and the risk of cancer among older Americans with rheumatoid arthritis. Cancer
Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, 30(11), 2059-2067. https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-21-0125
122. Turk, T., Saad, A. M., Al-Husseini, M. J., & Gad, M. M. (2020). The risk of melanoma in patients with chronic lymphocytic
leukemia: a population-based study. Current Problems in Cancer, 44(2), 100511-100511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
currproblcancer.2019.100511
123. Plasmeijer, E., Jiyad, Z., Way, M., Marquart, L., Miura, K., Campbell, S., Isbel, N., Fawcett, J., Ferguson, L. E., Davis, M.,
Whiteman, D. C., Soyer, H. P., O'Rourke, P., & Green, A. C. (2019). Extreme incidence of skin cancer in kidney and liver yransplant
recipients living with high sun exposure. Acta Dermato-Venereologica, 99(10), 929-930. https://doi.org/10.2340/000155553234
124. Ortega-Ortega, M., Hanly, P., Pearce, A., Soerjomataram, I., & Sharp, L. (2021). Paid and unpaid productivity losses due topremature mortality from cancer in Europe in 2018. International Journal of Cancer, 150(4), 580-593. https://doi.org/10.1002/
ijc.33826
125. Yang, J. J., Maloney, N. J., Cheng, K., & Bach, D. Q. (2021). Financial burden in US patients with melanoma from 1997 to 2015:
Racial disparities, trends, and predictors of high expenditures. JAMA Dermatology, 84(3), 819-821. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jaad.2020.07.051

150

Chapter 3
126. Noels, E., Hollestein, L., Luijkx, K., Louwman, M., de Uyl-de Groot, C., van den Bos, R., van der Veldt, A., Grunhagen, D., &Wakkee, M. (2020). Increasing costs of skin cancer due to increasing incidence and introduction of pharmaceuticals, 2007-2017.
Acta Dermato-Venereologica, 100(10), adv00147. https://doi.org/10.2340/00015555-3463
127. Grange, F., Mohr, P., Harries, M., Ehness, R., Benjamin, L., Siakpere, O., Barth, J., Stapelkamp, C., Pfersch, S., McLeod, L. D.,
Kaye, J. A., Wolowacz, S., & Kontoudis, I. (2017). Economic burden of advanced melanoma in France, Germany and the UK:a retrospective observational study (Melanoma Burden-of-Illness Study). Melanoma Research, 27(6), 607-618. https://doi.
org/10.1097/cmr.0000000000000372
128. Fernandes, J., Bregman, B., Combemale, P., Amaz, C., de Leotoing, L., Vainchtock, A., & Gaudin, A. F. (2017). Hospitalisation
costs of metastatic melanoma in France; the MELISSA study (MELanoma In hoSpital coSts Assessment). BMC Health Services
Research, 17(1), 542. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-017-2472-0
129. Copley-Merriman, C., Stevinson, K., Liu, F. X., Wang, J., Mauskopf, J., Zimovetz, E. A., & Chmielowski, B. (2018). Direct costs
associated with adverse events of systemic therapies for advanced melanoma: Systematic literature review. Medicine (Baltimore),
97(31), e11736. https://doi.org/10.1097/md.0000000000011736
130. Krensel, M., Schafer, I., & Augustin, M. (2019). Cost-of-illness of melanoma in Europe - a modelling approach. Journal of theEuropean Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, 33 Suppl 2, 34-45. https://doi.org/10.1111/jdv.15308
131. Gordon, L. G., Leung, W., Johns, R., McNoe, B., Lindsay, D., Merollini, K. M. D., Elliott, T. M., Neale, R. E., Olsen, C. M.,
Pandeya, N., & Whiteman, D. C. (2022). Estimated healthcare costs of melanoma and keratinocyte skin cancers in Australia andAotearoa New Zealand in 2021. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(6), 3178. https://doi.
org/10.3390/ijerph19063178
132. Luke, J. J., Ascierto, P. A., Carlino, M. S., Gershenwald, J. E., Grob, J.-J., Hauschild, A., Kirkwood, J. M., Long, G., Mohr, P., Robert,
C., Ross, M., Scolyer, R. A., Yoon, C. H., Poklepovic, A., Rutkowski, P., Anderson, J. R., Ahsan, S., Ibrahim, N., & Eggermont, A.
M. M. (2020). KEYNOTE-716: Phase III study of adjuvant pembrolizumab versus placebo in resected high-risk stage II melanoma.
Future Oncology 16(3), 4429-4438. https://doi.org/10.2217/fon-2019-0666
133. Anderson, A., Matsumoto, M., Secrest, A., Saul, M. I., Ho, J., & Ferris, L. K. (2021). Cost of treatment of benign and premalignant
lesions during skin cancer screening. JAMA Dermatology, 157(7), 876-879. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamadermatol.2021.1953
134. Gordon, L., Olsen, C., Whiteman, D. C., Elliott, T. M., Janda, M., & Green, A. (2020). Prevention versus early detection for
long-term control of melanoma and keratinocyte carcinomas: a cost-effectiveness modelling study. BMJ Open, 10(2), e034388.
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-034388
135. van der Pols, J. C., Williams, G. M., Neale, R. E., Clavarino, A., & Green, A. C. (2006). Long-term increase in sunscreen use in
an Australian community after a skin cancer prevention trial. Preventive Medicine, 42(3), 171-176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ypmed.2005.10.007
136. Janda, M., Youl, P., Neale, R., Aitken, J., Whiteman, D., Gordon, L., & Baade, P. (2014). Clinical skin examination outcomes after avideo-based behavioral intervention: analysis from a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Dermatology, 150(4), 372-379. https://doi.
org/10.1001/jamadermatol.2013.9313
137. Mofidi, A., Tompa, E., Spencer, J., Kalcevich, C., Peters, C. E., Kim, J., Song, C., Mortazavi, S. B., & Demers, P. A. (2018). The
economic burden of occupational non-melanoma skin cancer due to solar radiation. Journal of Occupational and Environmental
Hygiene, 15(6), 481-491. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/15459624.2018.1447118
138. Mofidi, A., Tompa, E., Song, C., Tenkate, T., Arrandale, V., J Jardine, K., Davies, H., & Demers, P. A. (2021). Economic evaluationof interventions to reduce solar ultraviolet radiation (UVR) exposure among construction workers. Journal of Occupational andEnvironmental Hygiene, 18(6), 250-264. https://doi.org/10.1080/15459624.2021.1910278
139. Yoon, J., Phibbs, C. S., Chow, A., & Weinstock, M. A. (2018). Impact of topical fluorouracil cream on costs of treating keratinocyte
carcinoma (nonmelanoma skin cancer) and actinic keratosis. [Article]. JAMA Dermatology, 79(3), 501-507.e502. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jaad.2018.02.058
140. Fitzpatrick, T. B. (1988). The validity and practicality of sun-reactive skin types I through VI. Archives of Dermatology, 124(6), 869871. https://doi.org/10.1001/archderm.124.6.869
141. Olsen, C. M., Pandeya, N., Law, M. H., MacGregor, S., Iles, M. M., Thompson, B. S., Green, A. C., Neale, R. E., & Whiteman,
D. C. (2020). Does polygenic risk influence associations between sun exposure and melanoma? A prospective cohort analysis.
British Journal of Dermatology, 183(2), 303-310. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjd.18703
142. Savoye, I., Olsen, C. M., Whiteman, D. C., Bijon, A., Wald, L., Dartois, L., Clavel-Chapelon, F., Boutron-Ruault, M.-C., & Kvaskoff,
M. (2018). Patterns of ultraviolet radiation exposure and skin cancer risk: the E3N-SunExp Study. Journal of Epidemiology, 28(1),27-33. https://doi.org/10.2188/jea.JE20160166
143. Kawai, K., VoPham, T., Drucker, A., Curhan, S. G., & Curhan, G. C. (2020). Ultraviolet radiation exposure and the risk of
Herpes zoster in three prospective cohort studies. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 95(2), 283-292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
mayocp.2019.08.022

151

Chapter 3
144. Tripathi, R., Mazmudar, R. S., Knusel, K. D., Ezaldein, H. H., Bordeaux, J. S., & Scott, J. F. (2021). Trends in emergency department
visits due to sunburn and factors associated with severe sunburns in the United States. Archives of Dermatological Research,
313(2), 79-88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00403-020-02073-2
145. Holman, D. M., Ding, H., Berkowitz, Z., Hartman, A. M., & Perna, F. M. (2019). Sunburn prevalence among US adults,
National Health Interview Survey 2005, 2010, and 2015. JAMA Dermatology, 80(3), 817-820. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jaad.2018.10.044
146. Wei, G., Farooq, J., Castelo-Soccio, L., & Mhaskar, R. (2021). Correlates between physical activity and sunburn prevalence amonga nationally representative sample of US high school students, 2015-2017. Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 18(9), 11131119. https://doi.org/10.1123/jpah.2020-0711
147. Blazquez-Sanchez, N., Rivas-Ruiz, F., Bueno-Fernandez, S., Fernandez-Morano, M. T., Arias-Santiago, S., Rodriguez-Martinez,
A., DeCastro-Maqueda, G., & DeTroya-Martin, M. (2021). Photoprotection habits, attitudes and knowledge among schoolcommunities in the Costa del sol (Spain). European Journal of Public Health, 31(3), 508-514. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/
ckab010148. Goerig, T., Soedel, C., Pfahlberg, A. B., Gefeller, O., Breitbart, E. W., & Diehl, K. (2021). Sun protection and sunburn inchildren aged 1-10 years in Germany: prevalence and determinants. Children (Basel), 8(8), 668. https://doi.org/10.3390/
children8080668
149. Tabbakh, T., Volkov, A., Wakefield, M., & Dobbinson, S. (2019). Implementation of the SunSmart program and population sun
protection behaviour in Melbourne, Australia: Results from cross-sectional summer surveys from 1987 to 2017. PLoS Medicine,
16(10), e1002932-e1002932. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002932
150. Liew, A. Y. S., & Cust, A. E. (2021). Changes in sun protection behaviours, sun exposure and shade availability among adults,
children and adolescents in New South Wales, 2003–2016. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 45(5), 462468. https://doi.org/10.1111/1753-6405.13112
151. Cancer Australia (2019). National Cancer Control Indicators: Sunburn and Sun Protection. https://ncci.canceraustralia.gov.au/prevention/sun-exposure/sunburn-and-sun-protection. Accessed 30/3/2022.
152. Køster, B., Meyer, M., Andersson, T., Engholm, G., & Dalum, P. (2018). Development in sunburn 2007-2015 and skin cancer
projections 2007-2040 of campaign results in the Danish population. Medicine (Baltimore), 97(41), e12738-e12738. https://doi.
org/10.1097/MD.0000000000012738
153. Lacson, J. C. A., Zamani, S. A., Froes Jr, L. A. R., Mitra, N., Qian, L., Doyle, S. H., Azizi, E., Balestrini, C., Bishop, D. T., Bruno,
W., Carlos-Ortega, B., Cuellar, F., Cust, A. E., Elder, D. E., Gerdes, A.-M., Ghiorzo, P., Grazziotin, T. C., Gruis, N. A., Hansson,
J., Hocevar, M., et al. (2021). Birth cohort-specific trends of sun-related behaviors among individuals from an international
consortium of melanoma-prone families. BMC Public Health, 21(1), 692-692. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-10424-5
154. Fitzpatrick, T. B. (1988). The validity and practicality of sun-reactive skin types I through VI. Archives of Dermatology, 124(6), 869871. https://doi.org/10.1001/archderm.1988.01670060015008
155. Shih, B. B., Allan, D., de Gruijl, F. R., & Rhodes, L. E. (2015). Robust detection of minimal sunburn in pigmented skin by 785 nm
laser speckle contrast imaging of blood flux. Journal of Investigative Dermatology, 135(4), 1197-1199. https://doi.org/10.1038/
jid.2014.507
156. Calderón, T. A., Bleakley, A., Jordan, A. B., Lazovich, D., & Glanz, K. (2019). Correlates of sun protection behaviors in racially andethnically diverse U.S. adults. Preventive Medicine Reports, 13, 346-353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmedr.2018.12.006
157. Bello, O., Sudhoff, H., & Goon, P. (2021). Sunburn prevalence is underestimated in UK-based people of African ancestry. Clinical,
Cosmetic and Investigational Dermatology, 14, 1791-1797. https://doi.org/10.2147/CCID.S334574
158. Rhodes, L. E., Bock, M., Soe Janssens, A., Ling, T. C., Anastasopoulou, L., Antoniou, C., Aubin, F., Bruckner, T., Faivre, B., Gibbs,
N. K., Jansen, C., Pavel, S., Stratigos, A. J., de Gruijl, F. R., & Diepgen, T. L. (2010). Polymorphic light eruption occurs in 18%
of Europeans and does not show higher prevalence with increasing latitude: Multicenter survey of 6,895 individuals residingfrom the Mediterranean to Scandinavia. Journal of Investigative Dermatology, 130(2), 626-628. https://doi.org/10.1038/
jid.2009.250
159. Gutierrez, D., Gaulding, J. V., Motta Beltran, A. F., Lim, H. W., & Pritchett, E. N. (2018). Photodermatoses in skin of colour. Journalof the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, 32(11), 1879-1886. https://doi.org/10.1111/jdv.15115
160. Gether, L., Overgaard, L. K., Egeberg, A., & Thyssen, J. P. (2018). Incidence and prevalence of rosacea: a systematic review andmeta-analysis. British Journal of Dermatology, 179(2), 282-289. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjd.16481
161. Rutter, K. J., Ashraf, I., Cordingley, L., & Rhodes, L. E. (2020). Quality of life and psychological impact in the photodermatoses: asystematic review. British Journal of Dermatology, 182(5), 1092-1102. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjd.18326
162. Hofmann, G. A., Gradl, G., Schulz, M., Haidinger, G., Tanew, A., & Weber, B. (2020). The frequency of photosensitizing drug
dispensings in Austria and Germany: a correlation with their photosensitizing potential based on published literature. Journal of
the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, 34(3), 589-600. https://doi.org/10.1111/jdv.15952

152

Chapter 3
163. Nakao, S., Hatahira, H., Sasaoka, S., Hasegawa, S., Motooka, Y., Ueda, N., Abe, J., Fukuda, A., Naganuma, M., Kanoh, H.,
Seishima, M., Ishiguro, M., Kinosada, Y., & Nakamura, M. (2017). Evaluation of drug-induced photosensitivity using the JapaneseAdverse Drug Event Report (JADER) Database. Biological and Pharmaceutical Bulletin, 40(12), 2158-2165. https://doi.
org/10.1248/bpb.b17-00561
164. Kim, W. B., Shelley, A. J., Novice, K., Joo, J., Lim, H. W., & Glassman, S. J. (2018). Drug-induced phototoxicity: A systematic review.
JAMA Dermatology, 79(6), 1069-1075. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2018.06.061
165. Alrashidi, A., Rhodes, L. E., Sharif, J. C. H., Kreeshan, F. C., Farrar, M. D., & Ahad, T. (2020). Systemic drug photosensitivity—
Culprits, impact and investigation in 122 patients. Photodermatology, Photoimmunology & Photomedicine, 36(6), 441-451.
https://doi.org/10.1111/phpp.12583
166. Pedersen, S. A., Gaist, D., Schmidt, S. A. J., Holmich, L. R., Friis, S., & Pottegard, A. (2018). Hydrochlorothiazide use and risk ofnonmelanoma skin cancer: A nationwide case-control study from Denmark. JAMA Dermatology, 78(4), 673-681 e679. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2017.11.042
167. Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee PRAC recommendations on signals, European Medicines Agency 2018. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/prac-recommendation/prac-recommendations-signals-adopted-3-6-september-2018prac-meeting_en-0.pdf. Accessed 30/3/2022.
168. Pottegård, A., Pedersen, S. A., Schmidt, S. A. J., Lee, C.-N., Hsu, C.-K., Liao, T.-C., Shao, S.-C., & Lai, E. C.-C. (2019). Use ofhydrochlorothiazide and risk of skin cancer: a nationwide Taiwanese case-control study. British Journal of Cancer, 121(11), 973978. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41416-019-0613-4
169. Gallelli, L., Cione, E., Siniscalchi, A., Vasta, G., Guerra, A., Scaramuzzino, A., Longo, L., Muraca, L., De Sarro, G., Leuzzi, G.,
Gerace, A., Scuteri, A., Vasapollo, P., Natale, V., Zampogna, S., & Luciani, F. (2021). Is there a link between non-melanoma skincancer and hydrochlorothiazide? Current Drug Safety, 17(3), 211-216. https://doi.org/10.2174/1574886316666211103164412
170. Daniels, B., Pearson, S. A., Vajdic, C. M., Pottegård, A., Buckley, N. A., & Zoega, H. (2020). Risk of squamous cell carcinoma of
the lip and cutaneous melanoma in older Australians using hydrochlorothiazide: A population-based case-control study. Basicand Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology, 127(4), 320-328. https://doi.org/10.1111/bcpt.13463
171. Bendinelli, B., Masala, G., Garamella, G., Palli, D., & Caini, S. (2019). Do thiazide diuretics increase the risk of skin cancer?
A critical review of the scientific evidence and updated meta-analysis. Current Cardiology Reports, 21(9), 92. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11886-019-1183-z
172. Williams, N. M., Vincent, L. T., Rodriguez, G. A., & Nouri, K. (2020). Antihypertensives and melanoma: An updated review.
Pigment Cell & Melanoma Research, 33(6), 806-813. https://doi.org/10.1111/pcmr.12918
173. Hatsusaka, N., Seki, Y., Mita, N., Ukai, Y., Miyashita, H., Kubo, E., Sliney, D., & Sasaki, H. (2021). UV Index does not predict ocularultraviolet exposure. Translational Vision Science & Technology, 10(7), 1. https://doi.org/10.1167/tvst.10.7.1
174. Marro, M., Moccozet, L., & Vernez, D. (2022). Assessing human eye exposure to UV light: A narrative review. Frontiers in Public
Health, 10, 900979-900979. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.900979
175. Lanca, C., Teo, A., Vivagandan, A., Htoon, H. M., Najjar, R. P., Spiegel, D. P., Pu, S.-H., & Saw, S.-M. (2019). The effects ofdifferent outdoor environments, sunglasses and hats on light levels: Implications for myopia prevention. Translational Vision
Science & Technology, 8(4), 7-7. https://doi.org/10.1167/tvst.8.4.7
176. Backes, C., Religi, A., Moccozet, L., Behar-Cohen, F., Vuilleumier, L., Bulliard, J. L., & Vernez, D. (2019). Sun exposure to the eyes:
predicted UV protection effectiveness of various sunglasses. Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology, 29(6),753-764. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41370-018-0087-0
177. Rabbetts, R., & Sliney, D. (2019). Technical report: Solar ultraviolet protection from sunglasses. Optometry and Vision Science,96(7), 523-530. https://doi.org/10.1097/OPX.0000000000001397
178. Lucas, R. M., Norval, M., Neale, R. E., Young, A. R., de Gruijl, F. R., Takizawa, Y., & van der Leun, J. C. (2014). The consequences
for human health of stratospheric ozone depletion in association with other environmental factors. Photochemical &Photobiological Sciences, 14(1), 53-87. https://doi.org/10.1039/c4pp90033b
179. Lofgren, S. (2017). Solar ultraviolet radiation cataract. Experimental Eye Research, 156, 112-116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
exer.2016.05.026
180. Cheng, C.-Y., Wang, N., Wong, T. Y., Congdon, N., He, M., Wang, Y. X., Braithwaite, T., Casson, R. J., Cicinelli, M. V., Das, A.,
Flaxman, S. R., Jonas, J. B., Keeffe, J. E., Kempen, J. H., Leasher, J., Limburg, H., Naidoo, K., Pesudovs, K., Resnikoff, S., Silvester,A. J., et al. (2020). Prevalence and causes of vision loss in East Asia in 2015: magnitude, temporal trends and projections. British
Journal of Ophthalmology, 104(5), 616-622. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2018-313308

153

Chapter 3
181. Kahloun, R., Khairallah, M., Resnikoff, S., Cicinelli, M. V., Flaxman, S. R., Das, A., Jonas, J. B., Keeffe, J. E., Kempen, J. H., Leasher,J., Limburg, H., Naidoo, K., Pesudovs, K., Silvester, A. J., Tahhan, N., Taylor, H. R., Wong, T. Y., Bourne, R. R. A., & Vision Loss
Expert Group of the Global Burden of Disease, S. (2019). Prevalence and causes of vision loss in North Africa and Middle East in
2015: magnitude, temporal trends and projections. British Journal of Ophthalmology, 103(7), 863-870. https://doi.org/10.1136/
bjophthalmol-2018-312068
182. Keeffe, J. E., Casson, R. J., Pesudovs, K., Taylor, H. R., Cicinelli, M. V., Das, A., Flaxman, S. R., Jonas, J. B., Kempen, J. H., Leasher,J., Limburg, H., Naidoo, K., Silvester, A. J., Stevens, G. A., Tahhan, N., Wong, T. Y., Resnikoff, S., & Bourne, R. R. A. (2019).
Prevalence and causes of vision loss in South-east Asia and Oceania in 2015: magnitude, temporal trends and projections. British
Journal of Ophthalmology, 103(7), 878-884. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2018-311946
183. Leasher, J. L., Braithwaite, T., Furtado, J. M., Flaxman, S. R., Lansingh, V. C., Silva, J. C., Resnikoff, S., Taylor, H. R., Bourne, R. R. A.,& Vision Loss Expert Group of the Global Burden of Disease, S. (2019). Prevalence and causes of vision loss in Latin America andthe Caribbean in 2015: magnitude, temporal trends and projections. British Journal of Ophthalmology, 103(7), 885-893. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2017-311746
184. Naidoo, K., Kempen, J. H., Gichuhi, S., Braithwaite, T., Casson, R. J., Cicinelli, M. V., Das, A., Flaxman, S. R., Jonas, J. B., Keeffe,
J. E., Leasher, J., Limburg, H., Pesudovs, K., Resnikoff, S., Silvester, A. J., Tahhan, N., Taylor, H. R., Wong, T. Y., Bourne, R. R. A.,& Vision Loss Expert Group of the Global Burden of Disease, S. (2020). Prevalence and causes of vision loss in sub-SaharanAfrica in 2015: magnitude, temporal trends and projections. British Journal of Ophthalmology, 104(12), 1658-1668. https://doi.
org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2019-315217
185. Foreman, J., Keel, S., McGuiness, M., Liew, D., Wijngaarden, P., Taylor, H. R., & Dirani, M. (2020). Future burden of vision loss inAustralia: Projections from the National Eye Health Survey. Clinical & Experimental Ophthalmology, 48(6), 730-738. https://doi.
org/10.1111/ceo.13776
186. GBD results tool Available from: https://ghdx.healthdata.org/gbd-results-tool. Accessed Accessed 11 April 22.
187. Bikbov, M. M., Kazakbaeva, G. M., Gilmanshin, T. R., Zainullin, R. M., Nuriev, I. F., Zaynetdinov, A. F., Israfilova, G. Z., PandaJonas, S., Arslangareeva, I. I., Rakhimova, E. M., Rusakova, I. A., & Jonas, J. B. (2020). Prevalence and associated factors ofcataract and cataract-related blindness in the Russian Ural Eye and Medical Study. Scientific Reports, 10(1), 18157. https://doi.
org/10.1038/s41598-020-75313-0
188. Purola, P. K. M., Nättinen, J. E., Ojamo, M. U. I., Koskinen, S. V. P., Rissanen, H. A., Sainio, P. R. J., & Uusitalo, H. M. T. (2021).
Prevalence and 11-year incidence of common eye diseases and their relation to health-related quality of life, mental health, andvisual impairment. Quality of Life Research, 30(8), 2311-2327. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-021-02817-1
189. Tan, A. G., Tham, Y. C., Chee, M. L., Mitchell, P., Cumming, R. G., Sabanayagam, C., Wong, T. Y., Wang, J. J., & Cheng, C. Y.
(2020). Incidence, progression and risk factors of age-related cataract in Malays: The Singapore Malay Eye Study. Clinical &Experimental Ophthalmology, 48(5), 580-592. https://doi.org/10.1111/ceo.13757
190. Vashist, P., Tandon, R., Murthy, G. V. S., Barua, C. K., Deka, D., Singh, S., Gupta, V., Gupta, N., Wadhwani, M., Singh, R.,
Vishwanath, K., & Group, I.-E. S. S. (2020). Association of cataract and sun exposure in geographically diverse populations ofIndia: The CASE study. First Report of the ICMR-EYE SEE Study Group. PLoS One, 15(1), e0227868. https://doi.org/10.1371/
journal.pone.0227868
191. Lee, J., Kim, U. J., Lee, Y., Han, E., Ham, S., Lee, W., Choi, W. J., & Kang, S. K. (2021). Sunlight exposure and eye disorders in an
economically active population: data from the KNHANES 2008-2012. Annals of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 33,
e24. https://doi.org/10.35371/aoem.2021.33.e24
192. Global Burden of Disease Blindness and Vision Impairment Collaborators, & Vision Loss Expert Group of the Global Burden of
Disease, S. (2021). Causes of blindness and vision impairment in 2020 and trends over 30 years, and prevalence of avoidable
blindness in relation to VISION 2020: the Right to Sight: an analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study. The Lancet Global
Health, 9(2), e144-e160. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(20)30489-7
193. Van Acker, S. I., van den Bogerd, B., Haagdorens, M., Siozopoulou, V., Ni Dhubhghaill, S., Pintelon, I., & Koppen, C. (2021).
Pterygium - the good, the bad, and the ugly. Cells (Basel), 10(7), 1567. https://doi.org/10.3390/cells10071567
194. Rezvan, F., Khabazkhoob, M., Hooshmand, E., Yekta, A., Saatchi, M., & Hashemi, H. (2018). Prevalence and risk factors ofpterygium: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Survey of Ophthalmology, 63(5), 719-735. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
survophthal.2018.03.001
195. Liu, L., Wu, J., Geng, J., Yuan, Z., & Huang, D. (2013). Geographical prevalence and risk factors for pterygium: a systematic review
and meta-analysis. BMJ Open, 3(11), e003787. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003787
196. Fernandes, A. G., Salomão, S. R., Ferraz, N. N., Mitsuhiro, M. H., Furtado, J. M., Muñoz, S., Cypel, M. C., Cunha, C. C.,
Vasconcelos, G. C., Sacai, P. Y., Morales, P. H., Cohen, M. J., Cohen, J. M., Watanabe, S. S., Campos, M., Belfort Junior, R., &Berezovsky, A. (2020). Pterygium in adults from the Brazilian Amazon Region: Prevalence, visual status and refractive errors. British
Journal of Ophthalmology, 104(6), 757-763. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2019-314131

154

Chapter 3
197. Pan, Z., Cui, J., Shan, G., Chou, Y., Pan, L., Sun, Z., Cui, Z., Sun, J., Cao, Y., Zhao, J., Ma, X., Ma, J., He, H., Ma, J., & Zhong, Y.
(2019). Prevalence and risk factors for pterygium: a cross-sectional study in Han and Manchu ethnic populations in Hebei, China.
BMJ Open, 9(2), e025725. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-025725
198. Wang, Y., Shan, G., Gan, L., Qian, Y., Chen, T., Wang, H., Pan, X., Wang, W., Pan, L., Zhang, X., Wang, M., Ma, J., & Zhong, Y.
(2020). Prevalence and associated factors for pterygium in Han and Mongolian adults: a cross-sectional study in inner Mongolian,
China. BMC Ophthalmology, 20(1), 45. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-020-1324-6
199. Hampel, U., Wasielica-Poslednik, J., Ries, L., Faysal, R., Schulz, A., Nickels, S., Wild, P. S., Schmidtmann, I., Münzel, T., Beutel, M.
E., Lackner, K. J., Pfeiffer, N., & Schuster, A. K. (2021). Prevalence of pterygium and identification of associated factors in a German
population - results from the Gutenberg Health Study. Acta Ophthalmologica, 99(1), e130-e131. https://doi.org/10.1111/
aos.14505
200. Bikbov, M. M., Zainullin, R. M., Kazakbaeva, G. M., Gilmanshin, T. R., Salavatova, V. F., Arslangareeva, I. I., Nikitin, N. A., PandaJonas, S., Zaynetdinov, A. F., Kazakbaev, R. A., Nuriev, I. F., Khikmatullin, R. I., Uzianbaeva, Y. V., Yakupova, D. F., Aminev, S. K., &Jonas, J. B. (2019). Pterygium prevalence and Its associations in a Russian population: The Ural Eye and Medical Study. American
Journal of Ophthalmology, 205, 27-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2019.02.031
201. Cameron, M. E. (1965). Pterygium Throughout the World: Thomas.
202. Khanna, R. C., Marmamula, S., Cicinelli, M. V., Mettla, A. L., Giridhar, P., Banerjee, S., Shekhar, K., Chakrabarti, S., Murthy, G.
V. S., Gilbert, C. E., & Rao, G. N. (2021). Fifteen-year incidence rate and risk factors of pterygium in the Southern Indian state ofAndhra Pradesh. British Journal of Ophthalmology, 105(5), 619-624. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2020-316359
203. Fang, X. L., Chong, C. C. Y., Thakur, S., Da Soh, Z., Teo, Z. L., Majithia, S., Lim, Z. W., Rim, T. H., Sabanayagam, C., Wong, T.
Y., Cheng, C.-Y., & Tham, Y.-C. (2021). Ethnic differences in the incidence of pterygium in a multi-ethnic Asian population: theSingapore Epidemiology of Eye Diseases Study. Scientific Reports, 11(1), 501. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-79920-9
204. Lingham, G., Kugelman, J., Charng, J., Lee, S. S., Yazar, S., McKnight, C. M., Coroneo, M. T., Lucas, R. M., Brown, H., Stevenson,
L. J., Mackey, D. A., & Alonso-Caneiro, D. (2021). Conjunctival ultraviolet autofluorescence area decreases with age andsunglasses use. British Journal of Ophthalmology, epub ahead of print. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2021-320284
205. Goh, A. Y., Ramlogan-Steel, C. A., Jenkins, K. S., Steel, J. C., & Layton, C. J. (2020). Presence and prevalence of UV related genetic
mutations in uveal melanoma: similarities with cutaneous melanoma. Neoplasma, 67(5), 958-971. https://doi.org/10.4149/
neo_2020_190815N768
206. Mundra, P. A., Dhomen, N., Rodrigues, M., Mikkelsen, L. H., Cassoux, N., Brooks, K., Valpione, S., Reis-Filho, J. S., Heegaard,
S., Stern, M.-H., Roman-Roman, S., & Marais, R. (2021). Ultraviolet radiation drives mutations in a subset of mucosal melanomas.
Nature Communications, 12(1), 259. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-20432-5
207. Ghazawi, F. M., Darwich, R., Le, M., Rahme, E., Zubarev, A., Moreau, L., Burnier, J. V., Sasseville, D., Burnier, M. N., & Litvinov,
I. V. (2019). Uveal melanoma incidence trends in Canada: a national comprehensive population-based study. British Journal of
Ophthalmology, bjophthalmol-2018. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2018-312966
208. Baily, C., O'Neill, V., Dunne, M., Cunningham, M., Gullo, G., Kennedy, S., Walsh, P. M., Deady, S., & Horgan, N. (2019). Uveal
melanoma in Ireland. Ocular Oncology and Pathology, 5(3), 195-204. https://doi.org/10.1159/000492391
209. Aronow, M. E., Topham, A. K., & Singh, A. D. (2018). Uveal melanoma: 5-Year update on incidence, treatment, and survival (SEER
1973-2013). Ocular Oncology and Pathology, 4(3), 145-151. https://doi.org/10.1159/000480640
210. Beasley, A. B., Preen, D. B., McLenachan, S., Gray, E. S., & Chen, F. K. (2021). Incidence and mortality of uveal
melanoma in Australia (1982–2014). British Journal of Ophthalmology, epub ahead of print. https://doi.org/10.1136/
bjophthalmol-2021-319700
211. Ghazawi, F. M., Darwich, R., Le, M., Jfri, A., Rahme, E., Burnier, J. V., Sasseville, D., Burnier, M. N., Jr., & Litvinov, I. V. (2020).
Incidence trends of conjunctival malignant melanoma in Canada. British Journal of Ophthalmology, 104(1), 23-25. https://doi.
org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2019-313977
212. Virgili, G., Parravano, M., Gatta, G., Capocaccia, R., Mazzini, C., Mallone, S., Botta, L., & Group, R. A. W. (2020). Incidence andsurvival of patients with conjunctival melanoma in Europe. JAMA Ophthalmology, 138(6), 601-608. https://doi.org/10.1001/
jamaophthalmol.2020.0531
213. Roberts, J. E. (2002). Screening for ocular phototoxicity. International Journal of Toxicology, 21(6), 491-500. https://doi.
org/10.1080/10915810290169918
214. Zhao, B., Chignell, C. F., Rammal, M., Smith, F., Hamilton, M. G., Andley, U. P., & Roberts, J. E. (2010). Detection and preventionof ocular phototoxicity of ciprofloxacin and other fluoroquinolone antibiotics. Photochemistry and Photobiology, 86(4), 798-805.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-1097.2010.00755.x
215. Sahu, R. K., Singh, B., Saraf, S. A., Kaithwas, G., & Kishor, K. (2014). Photochemical toxicity of drugs intended for ocular use.
Archives of Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology, 65(2), 157-167. https://doi.org/10.2478/10004-1254-65-2014-2461

155

Chapter 3
216. Wright, C. Y., Lucas, R. M., D'Este, C., Kapwata, T., Kunene, Z., Swaminathan, A., Mathee, A., & Albers, P. N. (2019). Effectof a sun protection intervention on the immune response to measles booster vaccination in infants in rural South Africa.
Photochemistry and Photobiology, 95(1), 446-452. https://doi.org/10.1111/php.13004
217. Swaminathan, A., Harrison, S. L., Ketheesan, N., van den Boogaard, C. H. A., Dear, K., Allen, M., Hart, P. H., Cook, M., & Lucas,
R. M. (2019). Exposure to solar UVR suppresses cell-mediated immunization responses in humans: The Australian Ultraviolet
Radiation and Immunity Study. Journal of Investigative Dermatology, 139(7), 1545-1553.e1546. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jid.2018.12.025
218. Lopatko Lindman, K., Lockman-Lundgren, J., Weidung, B., Olsson, J., Elgh, F., & Lövheim, H. (2022). Long-term time trends
in reactivated herpes simplex infections and treatment in Sweden. BMC Infectious Diseases, 22(1), 547-547. https://doi.
org/10.1186/s12879-022-07525-w
219. Mai, Z.-M., Lin, J.-H., Ngan, R. K.-C., Kwong, D. L.-W., Ng, W.-T., Ng, A. W.-Y., Ip, K.-M., Chan, Y.-H., Lee, A. W.-M., Ho, S.Y., Lung, M. L., & Lam, T.-H. (2020). Solar ultraviolet radiation and vitamin D deficiency on Epstein-Barr Virus reactivation:
Observational and genetic evidence from a nasopharyngeal carcinoma-endemic population. Open Forum Infectious Diseases,
7(10), ofaa426. https://doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofaa426
220. Bar-Or, A., Pender, M. P., Khanna, R., Steinman, L., Hartung, H. P., Maniar, T., Croze, E., Aftab, B. T., Giovannoni, G., & Joshi, M.
A. (2020). Epstein-Barr virus in multiple sclerosis: Theory and emerging immunotherapies. Trends in Molecular Medicine, 26(3),296-310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molmed.2019.11.003
221. Simpson, S., van der Mei, I., Lucas, R. M., Ponsonby, A.-L., Broadley, S., Blizzard, L., & Taylor, B. (2018). Sun exposure across thelife course significantly modulates early multiple sclerosis clinical course. Frontiers in Neurology, 9, 16. https://doi.org/10.3389/
fneur.2018.00016
222. Bakker, K. M., Eisenberg, M. C., Woods, R., & Martinez, M. E. (2021). Exploring the seasonal drivers of Varicella zoster virustransmission and reactivation. American Journal of Epidemiology, 190(9), 1814-1820. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwab073
223. Lucas, R. M., & Rodney Harris, R. (2018). On the nature of evidence and ‘proving’ causality: Smoking and lung cancer vs. sun
exposure, vitamin D and multiple sclerosis. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(8), 1726.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15081726
224. Chen, R., Yang, C., Li, P., Wang, J., Liang, Z., Wang, W., Wang, Y., Liang, C., Meng, R., Wang, H. Y., Peng, S., Sun, X., Su, Z.,
Kong, G., Wang, Y., & Zhang, L. (2021). Long-term exposure to ambient PM2.5, sunlight, and obesity: A nationwide study in China.
Frontiers in Endocrinology, 12, 790294. https://doi.org/10.3389/fendo.2021.790294
225. Weller, R. B., Wang, Y., He, J., Maddux, F. W., Usvyat, L., Zhang, H., Feelisch, M., & Kotanko, P. (2020). Does incident solar
ultraviolet radiation lower blood pressure? Journal of the American Heart Association, 9(5), e013837. https://doi.org/10.1161/
JAHA.119.013837
226. Luo, Y. N., Yang, B. Y., Zou, Z., Markevych, I., Browning, M., Heinrich, J., Bao, W. W., Guo, Y., Hu, L. W., Chen, G., Ma, J., Ma,
Y., Chen, Y. J., & Dong, G. H. (2022). Associations of greenness surrounding schools with blood pressure and hypertension:
A nationwide cross-sectional study of 61,229 children and adolescents in China. Environmental Research, 204(Pt A), 112004.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2021.112004
227. Twohig-Bennett, C., & Jones, A. (2018). The health benefits of the great outdoors: A systematic review and meta-analysis
of greenspace exposure and health outcomes. Environmental Research, 166, 628-637. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envres.2018.06.030
228. Cui, Y., Gong, Q., Huang, C., Guo, F., Li, W., Wang, Y., & Cheng, X. (2021). The relationship between sunlight exposure durationand depressive symptoms: A cross-sectional study on elderly Chinese women. PLoS One, 16(7), e0254856. https://doi.
org/10.1371/journal.pone.0254856
229. Lindqvist, P. G., Landin-Olsson, M., & Olsson, H. (2021). Low sun exposure habits is associated with a dose-dependent increased
risk of hypertension: a report from the large MISS cohort. Photochemical & Photobiological Sciences, 20(2), 285-292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43630-021-00017-x
230. Bae, J. M., Kim, Y.-S., Choo, E. H., Kim, M.-Y., Lee, J. Y., Kim, H.-O., & Park, Y. M. (2021). Both cardiovascular and cerebrovascular
events are decreased following long-term narrowband ultraviolet B phototherapy in patients with vitiligo: a propensity scorematching analysis. Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, 35(1), 11-12. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/jdv.17073
231. Mackay, D. F., Clemens, T. L., Hastie, C. E., Cherrie, M. P. C., Dibben, C., & Pell, J. P. (2019). UVA and seasonal patterning of 56
370 myocardial infarctions across Scotland, 2000-2011. Journal of the American Heart Association, 8(23), e012551. https://doi.
org/10.1161/JAHA.119.012551
232. Liddle, L., Monaghan, C., Burleigh, M. C., Baczynska, K. A., Muggeridge, D. J., & Easton, C. (2022). Reduced nitric oxide
synthesis in winter: A potential contributing factor to increased cardiovascular risk. Nitric Oxide, 127, 1-9. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.niox.2022.06.007

156

Chapter 3
233. Weller, R. B., Macintyre, I. M., Melville, V., Farrugia, M., Feelisch, M., & Webb, D. J. (2022). The effect of daily UVA phototherapy
for 2 weeks on clinic and 24-h blood pressure in individuals with mild hypertension. Journal of Human Hypertension. https://doi.
org/10.1038/s41371-022-00729-2
234. Huang, L., Schmid, K. L., Yin, X. N., Zhang, J., Wu, J., Yang, G., Ruan, Z. L., Jiang, X. Q., Wu, C. A., & Chen, W. Q. (2021).
Combination effect of outdoor activity and screen exposure on risk of preschool myopia: Findings from Longhua Child Cohort
Study. Frontiers in Public Health, 9, 607911. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2021.607911
235. Enthoven, C. A., Tideman, J. W. L., Polling, J. R., Yang-Huang, J., Raat, H., & Klaver, C. C. W. (2020). The impact of computer use
on myopia development in childhood: The Generation R study. Preventive Medicine, 132, 105988. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ypmed.2020.105988
236. Lingham, G., Yazar, S., Lucas, R. M., Milne, E., Hewitt, A. W., Hammond, C. J., MacGregor, S., Rose, K. A., Chen, F. K., He,
M., Guggenheim, J. A., Clarke, M. W., Saw, S. M., Williams, C., Coroneo, M. T., Straker, L., & Mackey, D. A. (2021). Timespent outdoors in childhood is associated with reduced risk of myopia as an adult. Scientific Reports, 11(1), 6337. https://doi.
org/10.1038/s41598-021-85825-y237. Lee, S. S.-Y., Lingham, G., Sanfilippo, P. G., Hammond, C. J., Saw, S.-M., Guggenheim, J. A., Yazar, S., & Mackey, D. A. (2022).
Incidence and progression of myopia in early adulthood. JAMA Ophthalmology, 140(2), 162-169. https://doi.org/10.1001/
jamaophthalmol.2021.5067
238. Li, M., Lanca, C., Tan, C. S., Foo, L. L., Sun, C. H., Yap, F., Najjar, R. P., Sabanayagam, C., & Saw, S. M. (2021). Association of time
outdoors and patterns of light exposure with myopia in children. British Journal of Ophthalmology, epub ahead of print. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2021-318918
239. Yang, X., Yang, Y., Wang, Y., Wei, Q., Ding, H., & Zhong, X. (2021). Protective effects of sunlight exposure against PRK-induced
myopia in infant rhesus monkeys. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics, 41(4), 911-921. https://doi.org/10.1111/opo.12826
240. Lingham, G., Mackey, D. A., Lucas, R., & Yazar, S. (2020). How does spending time outdoors protect against myopia? A review.
British Journal of Ophthalmology, 104(5), 593-599. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2019-314675
241. Langer-Gould, A., Lucas, R., Xiang, A. H., Chen, L. H., Wu, J., Gonzalez, E., Haraszti, S., Smith, J. B., Quach, H., & Barcellos, L.
F. (2018). MS Sunshine Study: Sun exposure but not vitamin D is associated with multiple sclerosis risk in Blacks and Hispanics.
Nutrients, 10(3), 268. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu10030268
242. Magalhaes, S., Pugliatti, M., Riise, T., Myhr, K. M., Ciampi, A., Bjornevik, K., & Wolfson, C. (2019). Shedding light on thelink between early life sun exposure and risk of multiple sclerosis: results from the EnvIMS Study. International Journal of
Epidemiology, 48(4), 1073-1082. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy269
243. Sebastian, P., Cherbuin, N., Barcellos, L. F., Roalstad, S., Casper, C., Hart, J., Aaen, G. S., Krupp, L., Benson, L., Gorman, M.,
Candee, M., Chitnis, T., Goyal, M., Greenberg, B., Mar, S., Rodriguez, M., Rubin, J., Schreiner, T., Waldman, A., WeinstockGuttman, B., et al. (2022). Association between time spent outdoors and risk of multiple sclerosis. Neurology, 98(3), e267-e278.
https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000013045
244. Ostkamp, P., Salmen, A., Pignolet, B., Goerlich, D., Andlauer, T. F. M., Schulte-Mecklenbeck, A., Gonzalez-Escamilla, G.,
Bucciarelli, F., Gennero, I., Breuer, J., Antony, G., Schneider-Hohendorf, T., Mykicki, N., Bayas, A., Bergh, F. T., Bittner, S.,
Hartung, H.-P., Friese, M. A., Linker, R. A., Luessi, F., et al. (2021). Sunlight exposure exerts immunomodulatory effects to
reduce multiple sclerosis severity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 118(1),e2018457118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2018457118
245. Chapman, C., Lucas, R. M., Ponsonby, A. L., Taylor, B., & Ausimmune Investigator, G. (2022). Predictors of progression from afirst demyelinating event to clinically definite multiple sclerosis. Brain Communications, 4(4), fcac181. https://doi.org/10.1093/
braincomms/fcac181
246. Hart, P. H., Jones, A. P., Trend, S., Cha, L., Fabis-Pedrini, M. J., Cooper, M. N., d’Este, C., Geldenhuys, S., Carroll, W. M., Byrne,
S. N., Booth, D. R., Cole, J. M., Lucas, R. M., & Kermode, A. G. (2018). A randomised, controlled clinical trial of narrowband UVBphototherapy for clinically isolated syndrome: The PhoCIS study. Multiple Sclerosis Journal - Experimental, Translational andClinical, 4(2), 2055217318773112. https://doi.org/10.1177/2055217318773112
247. Trend, S., Jones, A. P., Cha, L., Cooper, M. N., Geldenhuys, S., Fabis-Pedrini, M. J., Carroll, W. M., Cole, J. M., Booth, D. R.,
Lucas, R. M., French, M. A., Byrne, S. N., Kermode, A. G., & Hart, P. H. (2019). Short-term changes in frequencies of circulating
leukocytes associated with narrowband UVB phototherapy in people with clinically isolated syndrome. Scientific Reports, 9(1),7980. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-44488-6
248. Trend, S., Leffler, J., Cooper, M. N., Byrne, S. N., Kermode, A. G., French, M. A., & Hart, P. H. (2020). Narrowband UVBphototherapy reduces TNF production by B‐cell subsets stimulated via TLR7 from individuals with early multiple sclerosis. Clinical& Translational Immunology, 9(10), e1197-n/a. https://doi.org/10.1002/cti2.1197
249. Miller, K. M., Hart, P. H., Lucas, R. M., Davis, E. A., & de Klerk, N. H. (2021). Higher ultraviolet radiation during early life isassociated with lower risk of childhood type 1 diabetes among boys. Scientific Reports, 11(1), 18597. https://doi.org/10.1038/
s41598-021-97469-z

157

Chapter 3
250. Megaw, L., Clemens, T., Daras, K., Weller, R. B., Dibben, C., & Stock, S. J. (2021). Higher sun exposure in the first trimester Is
associated with reduced preterm birth. A Scottish population cohort study using linked maternity and meteorological records.
Frontiers in Reproductive Health, 3. https://doi.org/10.3389/frph.2021.674245
251. Hastie, C. E., Mackay, D. F., Clemens, T. L., Cherrie, M. P. C., King, A., Dibben, C., & Pell, J. P. (2019). Antenatal exposure to solar
radiation and learning disabilities: Population cohort study of 422,512 children. Scientific Reports, 9(1), 9356-9356. https://doi.
org/10.1038/s41598-019-45562-9
252. Chersich, M. F., Pham, M. D., Areal, A., Haghighi, M. M., Manyuchi, A., Swift, C. P., Wernecke, B., Robinson, M., Hetem, R.,
Boeckmann, M., & Hajat, S. (2020). Associations between high temperatures in pregnancy and risk of preterm birth, low birthweight, and stillbirths: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ-British Medical Journal, 371, m3811. https://doi.org/10.1136/
bmj.m3811
253. Sun, S., Weinberger, K. R., Spangler, K. R., Eliot, M. N., Braun, J. M., & Wellenius, G. A. (2019). Ambient temperature and preterm
birth: A retrospective study of 32 million US singleton births. Environment International, 126, 7-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envint.2019.02.023
254. Yardman-Frank, J. M., & Fisher, D. E. (2021). Skin pigmentation and its control: From ultraviolet radiation to stem cells.
Experimental Dermatology, 30(4), 560-571. https://doi.org/10.1111/exd.14260
255. Lambert, G. W., Reid, C., Kaye, D. M., Jennings, G. L., & Esler, M. D. (2002). Effect of sunlight and season on serotonin turnover inthe brain. Lancet, 360(9348), 1840-1842. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(02)11737-5
256. Wirz-Justice, A., Skene, D. J., & Münch, M. (2021). The relevance of daylight for humans. Biochemical Pharmacology, 191,
114304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bcp.2020.114304
257. Wang, S.-J., & Chen, M.-Y. (2020). The effects of sunlight exposure therapy on the improvement of depression and quality of life inpost-stroke patients: A RCT study. Heliyon, 6(7), e04379-e04379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e04379
258. Wang, N., Chen, Y., Ji, J., Chang, J., Yu, S., & Yu, B. (2020). The relationship between serum vitamin D and fracture risk in theelderly: a meta-analysis. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, 15(1), 81-81. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-02001603-y259. Neale, R. E., Wilson, L. F., Black, L. J., Waterhouse, M., Lucas, R. M., & Gordon, L. G. (2021). Hospitalisations for falls and hip
fractures attributable to vitamin D deficiency in older Australians. British Journal of Nutrition, 126(11), 1682-1686. https://doi.
org/10.1017/S0007114521000416
260. Annweiler, C., & Beauchet, O. (2015). Questioning vitamin D status of elderly fallers and nonfallers: a meta-analysis to address a‘forgotten step’. Journal of Internal Medicine, 277(1), 16-44. https://doi.org/10.1111/joim.12250
261. Ling, Y., Xu, F., Xia, X., Dai, D., Xiong, A., Sun, R., Qiu, L., & Xie, Z. (2021). Vitamin D supplementation reduces the risk of fall inthe vitamin D deficient elderly: An updated meta-analysis. Clinical Nutrition, 40(11), 5531-5537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
clnu.2021.09.031
262. Chakhtoura, M., Bacha, D. S., Gharios, C., Ajjour, S., Assaad, M., Jabbour, Y., Kahale, F., Bassatne, A., Antoun, S., Akl, E. A.,
Bouillon, R., Lips, P., Ebeling, P. R., & el-Hajj Fuleihan, G. (2022). Vitamin D supplementation and fractures in adults: A systematicumbrella review of meta-analyses of controlled trials. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, 107(3), 882-898. https://doi.org/10.1210/clinem/dgab742
263. LeBoff, M. S., Chou, S. H., Ratliff, K. A., Cook, N. R., Khurana, B., Kim, E., Cawthon, P. M., Bauer, D. C., Black, D., Gallagher, J. C.,
Lee, I. M., Buring, J. E., & Manson, J. E. (2022). Supplemental vitamin D and incident fractures in midlife and older adults. The New
England Journal of Medicine, 387(4), 299-309. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2202106
264. Li, H., Sun, D., Wang, A., Pan, H., Feng, W., Ng, C. H., Ungvari, G. S., Tao, L., Li, X., Wang, W., Xiang, Y.-T., & Guo, X. (2019).
Serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels and depression in older adults: A dose–response meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies.
American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 27(11), 1192-1202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jagp.2019.05.022
265. Libuda, L., Laabs, B.-H., Ludwig, C., Bühlmeier, J., Antel, J., Hinney, A., Naaresh, R., Föcker, M., Hebebrand, J., König, I. R., &Peters, T. (2019). Vitamin D and the risk of depression: A causal relationship? Findings from a Mendelian randomization study.
Nutrients, 11(5), 1085. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu11051085
266. Arathimos, R., Ronaldson, A., Howe, L. J., Fabbri, C., Hagenaars, S., Hotopf, M., Gaughran, F., Lewis, C. M., & Dregan, A. (2021).
Vitamin D and the risk of treatment-resistant and atypical depression: A Mendelian randomization study. Translational Psychiatry,
11(1), 561-561. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-021-01674-3
267. Cheng, Y. C., Huang, Y. C., & Huang, W. L. (2020). The effect of vitamin D supplement on negative emotions: A systematic review
and meta‐analysis. Depression and Anxiety, 37(6), 549-564. https://doi.org/10.1002/da.23025
268. Okereke, O. I., Reynolds, C. F., Mischoulon, D., Chang, G., Vyas, C. M., Cook, N. R., Weinberg, A., Bubes, V., Copeland, T.,Friedenberg, G., Lee, I. M., Buring, J. E., & Manson, J. E. (2020). Effect of long-term vitamin D3 supplementation vs placebo on
risk of depression or clinically relevant depressive symptoms and on change in mood scores: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA.
Journal of the American Medical Association, 324(5), 471-480. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.10224

158

Chapter 3269. Zheng, J.-S., Luan, J. a., Sofianopoulou, E., Sharp, S. J., Day, F. R., Imamura, F., Gundersen, T. E., Lotta, L. A., Sluijs, I., Stewart, I. D.,
Shah, R. L., van der Schouw, Y. T., Wheeler, E., Ardanaz, E., Boeing, H., Dorronsoro, M., Dahm, C. C., Dimou, N., El-Fatouhi, D.,
Franks, P. W., et al. (2020). The association between circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D metabolites and type 2 diabetes in European
populations: A meta-analysis and Mendelian randomisation analysis. PLoS Medicine, 17(10), e1003394-e1003394. https://doi.
org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1003394
270. Wang, N., Wang, C., Chen, X., Wan, H., Chen, Y., Chen, C., Han, B., & Lu, Y. (2019). Vitamin D, prediabetes and type 2 diabetes:
bidirectional Mendelian randomization analysis. European Journal of Nutrition, 59(4), 1379-1388. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s00394-019-01990-x
271. Pittas, A. G., Dawson-Hughes, B., Sheehan, P., Ware, J. H., Knowler, W. C., Aroda, V. R., Brodsky, I., Ceglia, L., Chadha, C.,
Chatterjee, R., Desouza, C., Dolor, R., Foreyt, J., Fuss, P., Ghazi, A., Hsia, D. S., Johnson, K. C., Kashyap, S. R., Kim, S., LeBlanc,
E. S., et al. (2019). Vitamin D supplementation and prevention of type 2 diabetes. The New England Journal of Medicine, 381(6),520-530. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1900906
272. Pittas, A., Dawson-Hughes, B., & Staten, M. (2019). Vitamin D supplementation and prevention of type 2 diabetes. Reply. The
New England Journal of Medicine, 381(18), 1785-1786. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMc1912185
273. Tang, H., Li, D., Li, Y., Zhang, X., Song, Y., & Li, X. (2018). Effects of vitamin D supplementation on glucose and insulin homeostasis
and incident diabetes among nondiabetic adults: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. International Journal of
Endocrinology, 2018, 7908764-7908769. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/7908764
274. Dhamrait, G. K., Panchal, K., Fleury, N. J., Abel, T. N., Ancliffe, M. K., Crew, R. C., Croft, K., Fernandez, B. O., Minnion, M., Hart,
P. H., Lucas, R. M., Mark, P. J., Feelisch, M., Weller, R. B., Matthews, V., & Gorman, S. (2019). Characterising nitric oxide-mediatedmetabolic benefits of low-dose ultraviolet radiation in the mouse: a focus on brown adipose tissue. Diabetologia, 63(1), 179-193.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00125-019-05022-5
275. Sluyter, J. D., Manson, J. E., & Scragg, R. (2021). Vitamin D and clinical cancer outcomes: A review of meta‐analyses. JBMR Plus,
5(1), e10420-n/a. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm4.10420
276. Ong, J.-S., Dixon-Suen, S. C., Han, X., An, J., Liyanage, U., Dusingize, J.-C., Schumacher, J., Gockel, I., Boehmer, A., Jankowski,
J., Palles, C., O'Mara, T., Spurdle, A., Law, M. H., Iles, M. M., Pharoah, P., Berchuck, A., Zheng, W., Thrift, A. P., Olsen, C., etal. (2021). A comprehensive re-assessment of the association between vitamin D and cancer susceptibility using Mendelianrandomization. Nature Communications, 12(1), 246-246. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-20368-w
277. Keum, N., Chen, Q. Y., Lee, D. H., Manson, J. E., & Giovannucci, E. (2022). Vitamin D supplementation and total cancer incidence
and mortality by daily vs. infrequent large-bolus dosing strategies: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. British Journalof Cancer, 127(5), 872-878. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41416-022-01850-2
278. Sintzel, M. B., Rametta, M., & Reder, A. T. (2018). Vitamin D and multiple sclerosis: A comprehensive review. Neurology andTherapy, 7(1), 59-85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40120-017-0086-4
279. Jiang, X., Ge, T., & Chen, C.-Y. (2021). The causal role of circulating vitamin D concentrations in human complex traits anddiseases: a large-scale Mendelian randomization study. Scientific Reports, 11(1), 184-184. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-02080655-w
280. Manousaki, D., Harroud, A., Mitchell, R. E., Ross, S., Forgetta, V., Timpson, N. J., Smith, G. D., Polychronakos, C., &Richards, J. B. (2021). Vitamin D levels and risk of type 1 diabetes: A Mendelian randomization study. PLoS Medicine, 18(2),e1003536-e1003536. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1003536
281. Pham, H., Rahman, A., Majidi, A., Waterhouse, M., & Neale, R. E. (2019). Acute respiratory tract infection and 25-hydroxyvitamin
D concentration: A systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health,16(17), 3020. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16173020
282. Jolliffe, D. A., Camargo, C. A., Sluyter, J. D., Aglipay, M., Aloia, J. F., Ganmaa, D., Bergman, P., Bischoff-Ferrari, H. A., Borzutzky,A., Damsgaard, C. T., Dubnov-Raz, G., Esposito, S., Gilham, C., Ginde, A. A., Golan-Tripto, I., Goodall, E. C., Grant, C. C.,
Griffiths, C. J., Hibbs, A. M., Janssens, W., et al. (2021). Vitamin D supplementation to prevent acute respiratory infections: asystematic review and meta-analysis of aggregate data from randomised controlled trials. The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology,
9(5), 276-292. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-8587(21)00051-6
283. Çolak, Y., Nordestgaard, B. G., & Afzal, S. (2021). Low vitamin D and risk of bacterial pneumonias: Mendelian randomisation
studies in two population-based cohorts. Thorax, 76(5), 468-478. https://doi.org/10.1136/thoraxjnl-2020-215288
284. Pham, H., Waterhouse, M., Baxter, C., Duarte Romero, B., McLeod, D. S. A., Armstrong, B. K., Ebeling, P. R., English, D. R.,
Hartel, G., Kimlin, M. G., Martineau, A. R., O'Connell, R., van der Pols, J. C., Venn, A. J., Webb, P. M., Whiteman, D. C., &Neale, R. E. (2021). The effect of vitamin D supplementation on acute respiratory tract infection in older Australian adults: ananalysis of data from the D-Health Trial. The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology, 9(2), 69-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/S22138587(20)30380-6

159Chapter 3285. Emerging Risk Factors Collaboration/EPIC-CVD/Vitamin D Studies Collaboration (2021). Estimating dose-response relationships
for vitamin D with coronary heart disease, stroke, and all-cause mortality: observational and Mendelian randomisation analyses.
The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology, 9(12), 837-846. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-8587(21)00263-1
286. Young, A. R., Morgan, K. A., Harrison, G., Lawrence, K. P., Petersen, B., Wulf, H. C., & Philipsen, P. A. (2021). A revised action
spectrum for vitamin D synthesis by suberythemal UV radiation exposure in humans in vivo. Proceedings of the National Academyof Sciences of the United States of America, 118(40), e2015867118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2015867118
287. Al Zarooni, A. A. R., Nagelkerke, N., Al Marzouqi, F. I., & Al Darmaki, S. H. (2022). Risk factors for vitamin D deficiency in Abu
Dhabi Emirati population. PLoS One, 17(2), e0264064-e0264064. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0264064
288. Al-Yatama, F. I., AlOtaibi, F., Al-Bader, M. D., & Al-Shoumer, K. A. (2019). The effect of clothing on vitamin D status, bone turnovermarkers, and bone mineral density in young Kuwaiti females. International Journal of Endocrinology, 2019, 6794837-6794810.
https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/6794837
289. Passeron, T., Bouillon, R., Callender, V., Cestari, T., Diepgen, T. L., Green, A. C., van der Pols, J. C., Bernard, B. A., Ly, F., Bernerd,F., Marrot, L., Nielsen, M., Verschoore, M., Jablonski, N. G., & Young, A. R. (2019). Sunscreen photoprotection and vitamin D
status. British Journal of Dermatology, 181(5), 916-931. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjd.17992
290. Neale, R. E., Khan, S. R., Lucas, R. M., Waterhouse, M., Whiteman, D. C., & Olsen, C. M. (2019). The effect of sunscreen on
vitamin D: a review. British Journal of Dermatology, 181(5), 907-915. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjd.17980
291. Fayet-Moore, F., Brock, K. E., Wright, J., Ridges, L., Small, P., Seibel, M. J., Conigrave, A. D., & Mason, R. S. (2019). Determinantsof vitamin D status of healthy office workers in Sydney, Australia. Journal of Steroid Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, 189, 127134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsbmb.2019.02.017
292. Feketea, G. M., Bocsan, I. C., Tsiros, G., Voila, P., Stanciu, L. A., & Zdrenghea, M. (2021). Vitamin D status in children in Greece
and its relationship with sunscreen application. Children (Basel), 8(2), 111. https://doi.org/10.3390/children8020111
293. Datta, P., Philipsen, P. A., Idorn, L. W., & Wulf, H. C. (2021). Low vitamin D in dark-skinned immigrants is mainly due to clothing
habits and low UVR exposure: a Danish observational study. Photochemical & Photobiological Sciences, 20(12), 1573-1584.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s43630-021-00115-w
294. Young, A. R., Morgan, K. A., Ho, T.-W., Ojimba, N., Harrison, G. I., Lawrence, K. P., Jakharia-Shah, N., Wulf, H. C., Cruickshank,
J. K., & Philipsen, P. A. (2020). Melanin has a small inhibitory effect on cutaneous vitamin D synthesis: A comparison of extreme
phenotypes. Journal of Investigative Dermatology, 140(7), 1418-1426.e1411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jid.2019.11.019
295. Neville, J. J., Palmieri, T., & Young, A. R. (2021). Physical determinants of vitamin D photosynthesis: A review. JBMR Plus, 5(1),e10460-n/a. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm4.10460
296. Kraus, F. B., Medenwald, D., & Ludwig-Kraus, B. (2020). Do extreme summers increase blood vitamin D (25-hydroxyvitamin D)
levels? PLoS One, 15(11), e0242230. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0242230
297. Boyall, L., & Samingpai, B. (2021). Tourism in Antarctica. Accessed 25/9/2022.
298. Eleftheratos, K., Kapsomenakis, J., Zerefos, C., Bais, A., Fountoulakis, I., Dameris, M., Jöckel, P., Haslerud, A., Godin-Beekmann,
S., Steinbrecht, W., Petropavlovskikh, I., Brogniez, C., Leblanc, T., Liley, J. B., Querel, R., & Swart, D. (2020). Possible effects
of greenhouse gases to ozone profiles and DNA active UV-B irradiance at ground level. Atmosphere, 11(3), 228. https://doi.
org/10.3390/atmos11030228
299. van der Leun, J. C., Piacentini, R. D., & de Gruijl, F. R. (2008). Climate change and human skin cancer. Photochemical &Photobiological Sciences, 7(6), 730-733. https://doi.org/10.1039/b719302e
300. Piacentini, R. D., Della Ceca, L. S., & Ipiña, A. (2018). Climate change and its relationship with non-melanoma skin cancers.
Photochemical & Photobiological Sciences, 17(12), 1913-1917. https://doi.org/10.1039/c7pp00405b

160

Chapter 3

APPENDIX
The effects of exposure to solar radiation on human health
R.E. Neale, R.M. Lucas, S.N. Byrne, L. Hollestein, L.E. Rhodes, S. Yazar,
A.R. Young, M. Berwick, R.A. Ireland, and C. M. Olsen

Appendix Table 1. Prevalence of vitamin D deficiency from national studies and published peer-reviewed papers
Author,Locationyear[Publication
number]

Study
years

Population

Assay

Seasonn

AgePercent
vitamin D
deficient(25(OH)D<50 nmol/L)

Australian
Bureau of
Statistics [1]Australia

2011-3

Random sample

LC-MS/MSYear round~11,000

5+ years

23.5

Black et al2021 [12]Australia

Nationally
representative,
Aboriginal andTorres Strait
Islanders

LC-MS/MS

3250

adult

27.0

New
Zealand
Ministry of
Health [6]New
Zealand20089

Nationally
representative

LC-MS/MSYear round3099

15+ yr

32.0

Yousef et al2021 [2]Canada2012-5

Random samplingof dwellings

Diasorin
Immunoassay

Year round

11,5793-79 yr

36.4

Herrick et al2019 [3]UnitedStates

2011-4NHANES –probability
sample

LC-MS/MSSouth in
16,180
winter, northin summer

≥1 yr

18.3

Cashman etal 2013 [5]Ireland201920Nationally
representative

LC-MS/MSYear round246

13-18 yr54.8

Ireland200810Random selection

ELISA (OCTEIA)

Year round1132

18+ yr40.1

LC-MS/MS

45.9

161

Chapter 3
Cashman etal 2016 [14]779

8-12 yr36.8

939

15-18 yr

76.1

806

9-14 yr62.4

2003-6 Nationally
representative

10,015

1-17 yr45.6

Germany

200811

Nationally
representative

6995

18-79 yr

56.0

UnitedKingdom200812Nationally
representative

511

1-18 yr

53.4

UnitedKingdom200812Nationally
representative977

19-91 yr

57.9

Netherlands

2006-7 Regionally
representative

2627

40-66 yr33.6

Iceland

2002-6 Regionally
representative5519

66-96 yr

33.6

Lin et al2021 [15]

UnitedKingdom200610

UK Biobank

Year round449,943

40-69 yr

32.3

Kim et al2020 [4]South Korea

200814

Randomly selected Diasorin RIA
households

Year round

46,40518-80 yr

66.7

Chile
Ministry of
Health [7]Chile

2016-7Nationally
representative

LC-MS/MS

5520

15-49 yrfemales

54.8

Mongolia
National
Centerfor Public
Health [8]Mongolia

2016-7Nationally
representative

Enzyme-linked
fluorescenceassay

Sept-Nov

1711

6-59 m61.0

Sept-Nov

377

15-49 yrmen

40.4

Sept-Nov

924

Pregnant
women

75.4

Heere et al2010 [9]Fiji2011-2

Regionally
representative

Norway201011

Regionally
representative

Greece2007-9 Regionally
representative

Germany

Winter(May-Sept)

511

15-54 yrfemales

11.0

Marzban etal 2021 [10]Diasorin Liaison

Diasorin RIA

IranRandomly
selected households living inrural areas of the
Persian Gulf

IDS-ELISA

1806

Adults28.0

Duarte et al2020 [11]Portugal

Nationwide,
random sample
of people
living in privatehouseholds

ADVIA
competitive
immunoassay

3092

18+ yr67.0

Beer et al,2020 [13]Colombia

National survey

ADVIA
competitive
immunoassay~40,000

All ages

24.0

Toddlers

43.0

Adolescents

20.0

1-4 yr

25.9

5-11 yr

36.6

Mexico2004

Variable, butstandardised to
the Vitamin D
standardisation
programNationally
representative

Flores et
al 201728241892

162

Denmark

2012

Nationally
representative

Chemiluminescent
microparticle
immunoassay

Year round2695

Chapter 3
Gromova et
al 2020 [16]Kazakhstan

2018

Systematic random
sampling fromoutpatient clinics ineach region

Abbott chemiluminescencemicroparticle
immunoassay(CMIA)

Summer1347(May to Aug)

Adultsfemales

79.0

Adult
males

56.1

Chen et al2017 [17]China20102013

Nationally
representative

Diasorin RIA

Year round

6014

60+ yr

39.1

Hu et al2017 [18]China20102013

Nationally
representative

Diasorin RIA

Year round

14,473

6-17 yr53.2

Nikooyeh et
al 2021 [19]Iran2013-4

Nationally
representative

Direct enzyme
Immunoassay

Year round1111

19-65 yr

Winter:90.1
Summer:69.2

Nikooyeh et
al 2017 [20]Iran2013-4

Nationally
representative

Direct enzyme
Immunoassay

Year round667

5-18 yr

Mid-Winter:
93.2

Poh et al2013 [21]Malaysia

2010-1

Nationally
representative

Diasorin Liaison

Year round2056

4-12 yr47.5

Poh et al2016 [22]Malaysia

2010-1

Nationally
representative

Diasorin Liaison

Year round

861

2+ yr

43.7

Thailand

Diasorin Liaison

495

33.7

Indonesia

Immunoassay

276

44.0

Vietnam

HPLC

384

48.2

Bani et al2022 [23]

Switzerland,
CantonTicinoChemiluminescencemicroparticle
captureimmunoassay(CMIA)

18,131All

35.5

Al Zarooni
2019 [24]

Abu Dhabi
Emirates

2011-2

Adults presenting
to preventive
health screening
program clinics

Not provided

Year round

12,34618+ yr72.0

Latif Zainel
et al 2019
[25]

Qatar

2017

Adults presenting
to primary careclinics

Abbottimmunoassay;
multiple labs

Year round

102,342

18-65 yrNottreated:
71.4
Previously
treated:
53.4

Values in purple show those selected for the map displayed in Figure 5 (main text).

Appendix Table 2. Prevalence of vitamin D deficiency in South Asian countries (results from a meta-analysis) [26Country

Percent vitamin D
deficient(25(OH)D< 50 nmol/L)

Heterogeneity

No. studies

Sri Lanka

48

1

Nepal

57

2

Bangladesh

67

5

Pakistan

73

High (18% to 99%)

18

India

67

High (18% to 99%)

39

163

Chapter 3
Appendix Table 3. Prevalence of vitamin D deficiency in African countries (results from a meta-analysis) [27]Country

Percent vitamin D deficient(25(OH)D< 50 nmol/L)

Tunisia (2)68Adults

Libya (1)80Adults1

Egypt (5)45Adults5

Sudan (1)99

Adults1

Ethiopia (4)86Adults4

Uganda (1)20Adults1

Kenya (1)17Adults1

Seychelles (1)8Adults1

Tanzania (3)3Adults32

1-2 year-olds (but said to be
similar to adult levels)

131

Adults717<2 year-old without
tuberculosis

1

Cameroon (1)3.2Adults1

Nigeria (5)25Adults5

Ghana (3)14Adults3

Cote d’Ivoire (1)9Adults1

Guinea-Bissau (1)13Adults1

Morocco (2)74Adults2

Algeria (1)29.9 September
41.4 March

Zimbabwe (1)South Africa (7)Botswana (1)Population

5-15 year-old children

No. studies
2

1

APPENDIX FIGURE 1. UV RADIATION-INDUCED SIGNATURE MUTATIONS IN DNADNA contains 4 amino acid bases (thymine (T),adenine (A), guanine (G), cytosine (C)), linked by a sugar phosphate backbone. DNA is in the form of a double helix with two antiparallel strands, one running in the 5’ (5-prime) to 3’ direction, and the other in the 3’ to 5’ direction (5’ and 3’ refer to carbon moleculesin the sugar backbone). Thymine and cytosine are pyrimidines; guanine and adenine are purines. Thymine binds (with a weak hydrogenbond) only to adenine, cytosine to only guanine. DNA is ‘read’ to construct proteins – the correct sequence of bases is critical to ensure
the correct structure of the proteins synthesised.

164Chapter 3
Nucleotides are composed of a sugar molecule, a phosphate group, and a base. TpC refers to two adjacent nucleotides, where athymine nucleotide is followed by a cytosine nucleotide in the sequence going from the 5’ to the 3’ direction (for example in the redcircle above), and similarly, CpC describes a cytosine followed by a cytosine in the 5’ to 3’ direction.
Absorption of UV-B radiation by DNA can cause adjacent thymine bases to ‘join up’ to form a thymine dimer (a form of cyclobutane
pyrimidine dimer (CPD)).

If thymine dimers are not repaired, the result can be death of the cell. Repair enzymes can locate the CPD, remove it, and use the otherDNA strand as a guide to repair the DNA correctly. However, faulty DNA repair can lead to the original cytosine (C) base being replaced
by a thymine base (T), resulting in a permanent change in the sequence of bases for that strand of DNA; i.e., a UV signature mutation.
Mutations result in incorrect “reading” of DNA and production of abnormal proteins.
• a C>T transition at a TpC dinucleotide (see red circled area above) due to faulty DNA repair of a T-T dimer.

• a C>T transition at a CpC dinucleotide (either the first or second cytosine replaced, CpC and CpC, respectively) due to faulty DNA
repair of UV-induced DNA damage.

165

Chapter 3

References
1.

Australian Bureau of Statistics. The Australian Health Survey 2011-2013: Updated results, https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/
abs@.nsf/Lookup/4364.0.55.003main+features12011-2012

2.

Yousef, S., Manuel, D., Colman, I., Papadimitropoulos, M., Hossain, A., Faris, M., & Wells, G. A. (2021). Vitamin D status among
first-generation immigrants from different ethnic groups and origins: An observational study using the Canadian Health Measures
Survey. Nutrients, 13(8), https://doi.org/10.3390/nu13082702

3.

Herrick, K. A., Storandt, R. J., Afful, J., Pfeiffer, C. M., Schleicher, R. L., Gahche, J. J., & Potischman, N. (2019). Vitamin D status in
the United States, 2011-2014. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 110(1), 150-157, https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/nqz037

4.

Kim, S. Y., Lee, M. H., Lim, W. J., Kim, S. I., & Lee, Y. J. (2020). Associations of 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels and arthritis with sleep
duration: the Korean national health and nutrition examination survey 2008-2014. Nature and Science of Sleep, 12, 883-894,
https://doi.org/10.2147/NSS.S275464

5.

Cashman, K. D., Muldowney, S., McNulty, B., Nugent, A., FitzGerald, A. P., Kiely, M., Walton, J., Gibney, M. J., & Flynn, A. (2013).
Vitamin D status of Irish adults: findings from the National Adult Nutrition Survey. British Journal of Nutrition, 109(7), 1248-1256,
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007114512003212

6.

Ministry of Health (2012). Vitamin D status of New Zealand Adults: Findings from the 2008/09 New Zealand Adult Nutrition
Survey. Wellington: Ministry of Health. https://www.health.govt.nz/publications/vitamin%20d%20status%20of%20new%20
zealand%20adults

7.

Chile Ministry of Health (2017). National Health Survey 2016/2017. http://epi.minsal.cl/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/
Resultados-Vitamina-D.pdf. Accessed 11 October 2022.

8.

National Center for Public Health (2017). Nutrition status of the population of Mongolia: Fifth National Health Survey report,
https://www.unicef.org/mongolia/media/1116/file/NNS_V_undsen_tailan_EN.pdf

9.

Heere, C., Skeaff, C. M., Waqatakirewa, L., Vatucawaqa, P., Khan, A. N., & Green, T. J. (2010). Serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D
concentration of Indigenous-Fijian and Fijian-Indian women. Asia Pacific Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 19(1), 43-48.

10.

Marzban, M., Kalantarhormozi, M., Mahmudpour, M., Ostovar, A., Keshmiri, S., Darabi, A. H., Khajeian, A., Bolkheir, A., Amini,
A., & Nabipour, I. (2021). Prevalence of vitamin D deficiency and its associated risk factors among rural population of the northernpart of the Persian Gulf. BMC Endocrine Disorders, 21(1), 219, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12902-021-00877-5

11.

Duarte, C., Carvalheiro, H., Rodrigues, A. M., Dias, S. S., Marques, A., Santiago, T., Canhão, H., Branco, J. C., & da Silva, J. A. P.
(2020). Prevalence of vitamin D deficiency and its predictors in the Portuguese population: a nationwide population-based study.
Archives of Osteoporosis, 15(1), 36-36, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11657-020-0695-x

12.

Black, L. J., Dunlop, E., Lucas, R. M., Pearson, G., Farrant, B., & Shepherd, C. C. J. (2021). Prevalence and predictors of vitamin
D deficiency in a nationally representative sample of Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander adults. British Journal of
Nutrition, 126(1), 101-109, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007114520003931

13.

Beer, R. J., Herran, O. F., & Villamor, E. (2020). Prevalence and correlates of vitamin D deficiency in a tropical setting: results froma nationally representative survey. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 112(4), 1088-1098, https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/
nqaa197

14.

Cashman, K. D., Dowling, K. G., Skrabakova, Z., Gonzalez-Gross, M., Valtuena, J., De Henauw, S., Moreno, L., Damsgaard, C. T.,
Michaelsen, K. F., Molgaard, C., Jorde, R., Grimnes, G., Moschonis, G., Mavrogianni, C., Manios, Y., Thamm, M., Mensink, G. B.,
Rabenberg, M., Busch, M. A., Cox, L., Meadows, S., Goldberg, G., Prentice, A., Dekker, J. M., Nijpels, G., Pilz, S., Swart, K. M.,
van Schoor, N. M., Lips, P., Eiriksdottir, G., Gudnason, V., Cotch, M. F., Koskinen, S., Lamberg-Allardt, C., Durazo-Arvizu, R. A.,
Sempos, C. T., & Kiely, M. (2016). Vitamin D deficiency in Europe: pandemic? American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 103(4), 10331044, https://doi.org/10.3945/ajcn.115.120873

15.

Lin, L. Y., Smeeth, L., Langan, S., & Warren-Gash, C. (2021). Distribution of vitamin D status in the UK: a cross-sectional analysis of
UK Biobank. BMJ Open, 11(1), e038503, https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-038503

16.

Gromova, O., Doschanova, A., Lokshin, V., Tuletova, A., Grebennikova, G., Daniyarova, L., Kaishibayeva, G., Nurpeissov, T.,
Khan, V., Semenova, Y., Chibisova, A., Suzdalskaya, N., Aitaly, Z., & Glushkova, N. (2020). Vitamin D deficiency in Kazakhstan:
Cross-Sectional study. Journal of Steroid Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, 199, 105565, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jsbmb.2019.105565

17.

Chen, J., Yun, C., He, Y., Piao, J., Yang, L., & Yang, X. (2017). Vitamin D status among the elderly Chinese population: a crosssectional analysis of the 2010-2013 China national nutrition and health survey (CNNHS). Nutrition Journal, 16(1), 3, https://doi.
org/10.1186/s12937-016-0224-3

166

Chapter 3
18.

Hu, Y., Chen, J., Wang, R., Li, M., Yun, C., Li, W., Yang, Y., Piao, J., Yang, X., & Yang, L. (2017). Vitamin D nutritional status and its
related factors for Chinese children and adolescents in 2010-2012. Nutrients, 9(9), https://doi.org/10.3390/nu9091024

19.

Nikooyeh, B., Abdollahi, Z., Shariatzadeh, N., Kalayi, A., Zahedirad, M., & Neyestani, T. (2021). Effect of latitude on seasonalvariations of vitamin D and some cardiometabolic risk factors: national food and nutrition surveillance. Eastern Mediterranean
Health Journal, 27(3), 269-278, https://doi.org/10.26719/emhj.20.119

20.

Nikooyeh, B., Abdollahi, Z., Hajifaraji, M., Alavi-Majd, H., Salehi, F., Yarparvar, A. H., & Neyestani, T. R. (2017). Vitamin D status,
latitude and their associations with some health parameters in children: National food and nutrition surveillance. Journal of
Tropical Pediatrics, 63(1), 57-64, https://doi.org/10.1093/tropej/fmw057

21.

Poh, B. K., Ng, B. K., Siti Haslinda, M. D., Nik Shanita, S., Wong, J. E., Budin, S. B., Ruzita, A. T., Ng, L. O., Khouw, I., &Norimah, A. K. (2013). Nutritional status and dietary intakes of children aged 6 months to 12 years: findings of the Nutrition
Survey of Malaysian Children (SEANUTS Malaysia). British Journal of Nutrition, 110 Suppl 3, S21-35, https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0007114513002092

22.

Poh, B. K., Rojroongwasinkul, N., Nguyen, B. K., Sandjaja, Ruzita, A. T., Yamborisut, U., Hong, T. N., Ernawati, F., Deurenberg,
P., Parikh, P., & Group, S. S. (2016). 25-hydroxy-vitamin D demography and the risk of vitamin D insufficiency in the South
East Asian Nutrition Surveys (SEANUTS). Asia Pacific Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 25(3), 538-548, https://doi.org/10.6133/
apjcn.092015.02

23.

Bani, P., Cingari, S., & Mathis, B. (2022). Study on the prevalence of vitamin D deficiency in the population of Canton Ticino. La
Rivista Italiana della Medicina di Laboratorio, 18(1), 18-21, https://doi.org/10.23736/S1825-859X.22.00136-0

24.

Al Zarooni, A. A. R., Al Marzouqi, F. I., Al Darmaki, S. H., Prinsloo, E. A. M., & Nagelkerke, N. (2019). Prevalence of vitamin D
deficiency and associated comorbidities among Abu Dhabi Emirates population. BMC Research Notes, 12(1), 503, https://doi.
org/10.1186/s13104-019-4536-1

25.

Zainel, A. A. L., Qotba, H., Al Nuaimi, A., & Syed, M. (2019). Vitamin D status among adults (18-65 years old) attending primary
healthcare centres in Qatar: a cross-sectional analysis of the Electronic Medical Records for the year 2017. BMJ Open, 9(8),e029334, https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029334

26.

Siddiqee, M. H., Bhattacharjee, B., Siddiqi, U. R., & MeshbahurRahman, M. (2021). High prevalence of vitamin D deficiency
among the South Asian adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Public Health, 21(1), 1823, https://doi.org/10.1186/
s12889-021-11888-1

27.

Mogire, R., Mutua, A., Kimita, W., Kamau, A., Bejon, P., Pettifor, J., Adeyemo, A., Williams, T., & Atkinson, S. (2020). Prevalenceof vitamin D deficiency in Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis. The Lancet Global Health, 8(1), e134-e142, https://doi.
org/10.1016/S2214-109X(19)30457-7

167

Chapter 4

4
INTERACTIVE EFFECTS OF CHANGES IN UVRADIATION AND CLIMATE ON TERRESTRIALECOSYSTEMS, BIOGEOCHEMICAL CYCLES,AND FEEDBACKS TO THE CLIMATE SYSTEM

P.W. Barnes75, T.M. Robson76,77, R.G. Zepp78, J.F. Bornman79,
M.A.K. Jansen80, R. Ossola81, Q.-W. Wang82, S.A. Robinson83,
B. Foereid84, A.R. Klekociuk85, J. Martinez-Abaigar86, W.-C. Hou87,
R. Mackenzie88,89, and N.D. Paul90

75

Biological Sciences and Environment Program, Loyola University New Orleans, New Orleans, USA

76

Organismal & Evolutionary Biology (OEB), Viikki Plant Sciences Centre (ViPS), Faculty of Biological and Environmental Sciences, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland

77

National School of Forestry, University of Cumbria, Ambleside, UK.

78

ORD/CEMM, US Environmental Protection Agency, Athens, Georgia, USA

79

Food Futures Institute, Murdoch University, Perth, Australia

80

BEES, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland

81

Department of Chemistry, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, USA

82

Institute of Applied Ecology, Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS), Shenyang, China

83

Securing Antarctica's Environmental Future, Global Challenges Program & School of Earth, Atmospheric and Life Sciences, University of Wollongong, Wollongong,
Australia

84

Environment and Natural Resources, Norwegian Institute of Bioeconomy Research, Ås, Norway

85

Antarctic Climate Program, Australian Antarctic Division, Kingston, Australia

86

Faculty of Science and Technology, University of La Rioja, Logroño (La Rioja), Spain

87

Department of Environmental Engineering, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan City

88

Cape Horn International Center (CHIC), Puerto Williams, Chile

89

Millennium Institute Biodiversity of Antarctic and Subantarctic Ecosystems (BASE), Chile90

Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK

168

Chapter 4

Table of contents
Summary											1701

Introduction											1702

Effects of stratospheric ozone depletion on climate and extreme climate events on exposure to UV radiation

171

2.1

Recent stratospheric ozone depletion and climate change effects on polar ecosystems				

171

2.2

Interactive effects of extreme climate events and UV radiation extending beyond polar ecosystems		

174

3

Effects of UV radiation and climate interactions on plants and animals					

175

3.1

Perception and response of plants to changing UV radiation						

175

3.2

Proxies for past solar UV irradiance based on acclimation responses of modern-day plants to UV radiation		

177

3.3

Interactive effects of UV radiation and climate change factors						

178

4Species distributions and biodiversity								179

4.1Potential effects of climate change and UV radiation on shifting species distributions				

179

4.2

Assessing the risks to biodiversity from the interactive effects of UV radiation and climate change			

180

5Effects on agriculture and food production								181

5.1Agroecosystems vulnerable to changes in UV radiation and climate						

5.2Effects of UV radiation on food quality									182

5.3Effects of UV radiation on plant interactions with pests and pathogens					

182

5.4

Effects of UV radiation on agricultural biocides								

183

5.5

Development and application of UV lighting systems in agriculture						

183

6Effects on biogeochemical cycles and climate feedbacks						

184

6.1

Photodegradation of plant litter									184

6.2Photochemical release of nutrients from terrestrial ecosystems						

6.3Methane emissions, UV radiation and plants								188

6.4Interactions of UV radiation with fire-derived carbon							

7Sustainability and the Montreal Protocol								1888

Gaps in knowledge										190

9Conclusions											192

181

186
188

References											193

169

Chapter 4

Summary
Terrestrial organisms and ecosystems are being exposed to new and rapidly changing combinations of solar UV radiation and otherenvironmental factors because of ongoing changes in stratospheric ozone and climate. In this Quadrennial Assessment we examine theinteractive effects of changes in stratospheric ozone, UV radiation and climate on terrestrial ecosystems and biogeochemical cycles in
the context of the Montreal Protocol. We specifically assess effects on terrestrial organisms, agriculture and food supply, biodiversity,
ecosystem services and feedbacks to the climate system. Emphasis is placed on the role of extreme climate events in altering theexposure to UV radiation of organisms and ecosystems and the potential effects on biodiversity. We also address the responses ofplants to increased temporal variability in solar UV radiation, the interactive effects of UV radiation and other climate change factors(e.g., drought, temperature) on crops, and the role of UV radiation in driving the breakdown of organic matter from dead plant material(i.e., litter) and biocides (pesticides and herbicides). Our assessment indicates that UV radiation and climate interact in various ways toaffect the structure and function of terrestrial ecosystems, and that by protecting the ozone layer, the Montreal Protocol continues toplay a vital role in maintaining healthy, diverse ecosystems on land that sustain life on Earth. Furthermore, the Montreal Protocol andits Kigali Amendment are mitigating some of the negative environmental consequences of climate change by limiting the emissions ofgreenhouse gases and protecting the carbon sequestration potential of vegetation and the terrestrial carbon pool.

1 Introduction
The Montreal Protocol and its Amendments have been highly effective in protecting the Earth’s stratospheric ozone layer andpreventing global-scale increases in solar ultraviolet-B radiation (UV-B; wavelengths between 280-315 nm) at the Earth’s surface [1].
Consequently, this multilateral treaty, ratified by all 198 United Nations member states, has prevented large-scale detrimental effects ofelevated UV-B radiation on agricultural productivity, terrestrial organisms and ecosystems [2-4]. Moreover, because many of the ozonedepleting compounds controlled by the Montreal Protocol are also potent greenhouse gases, this treaty and its Kigali Amendment areplaying an important role in mitigating global warming and other environmental effects of climate change [5,6].
Changes in stratospheric ozone and climate are not independent of one another [7,8] and both can affect surface ultraviolet radiation(UV; 280-400 nm), especially UV-B radiation [9-11]. According to current projections, which assume full compliance with the Montreal
Protocol, future changes in UV radiation reaching the Earth’s surface are likely to be due primarily to changes in climate (i.e., mainly
cloud cover, aerosols and surface reflectivity) rather than changes in stratospheric ozone [10,12,13]. However, future changes in UV
radiation at the Earth’s surface are uncertain: a new study projects an increase in the UV Index of 3-8% over the tropics and mid-latitudes,
respectively, by 2100 depending on the greenhouse gas (GHG) scenario used in the model simulations, cloud cover, and aerosol
concentrations [10,14]. Changes in the exposure of organisms and ecosystems to UV radiation also results from increased incidence andextent of wildfires, which generate aerosols (also causing further damage to the ozone layer), and from alterations in vegetation coverfrom land-use practices (e.g., deforestation), melting of snow and ice, and shifting distribution ranges of species responding to climatechange [10,12,15-18] (Summarised in Table 1). In this assessment, we address how the expected, rather small changes in UV irradiationinteract with the on-going changes in climate to affect food security, biodiversity, biogeochemical cycles and feedbacks to the climate
system.
Since our last Quadrennial Assessment [12,19], the Earth’s climate has continued to change and the frequency and intensity of extreme
climate events (e.g., heat waves, droughts, and storms), and those events resulting from a combination of weather extremes and otherdrivers (e.g., wildfires), have increased [20,21]. As global warming and its consequences continue to increase, there is renewed interestin possible technological interventions to reduce the warming. Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI), an intervention that involves Solar
Radiation Management (SRM), has received the most attention due to its potential feasibility. SAI would involve injecting reflective
aerosols, such as sulphate, into the stratosphere to reflect incoming solar radiation away from the Earth’s surface [22]. There are many
uncertainties associated with this intervention, including risks to the stratospheric ozone layer that could increase ground-level UV
irradiance [23-25]. In addition to the risks associated with the initiation of SAI, once adopted, any subsequent termination of this climate
intervention would lead to a rapid increase in temperature and extreme deleterious effects on ecosystems [26,27]. This, and other SRM
interventions, would likely expose the Earth’s ecosystems to new and potentially rapidly changing combinations of UV radiation andother biotic and abiotic environmental factors [28].

170Chapter 4
In this Quadrennial Assessment, we evaluate the current state of the science on the changes in stratospheric ozone, solar UV radiationand their interactions with climate change as they affect terrestrial ecosystems and biogeochemical cycles in the context of the Montreal
Protocol [29]. We also address key gaps in knowledge and how these interacting effects and the Montreal Protocol will have a bearing
on the targets of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and their targets.

Table 1 Summary of the effects of various climate change-driven factors on the potential exposure of terrestrial
plants and animals to UV radiation. Effects show direction (i.e., decreases (-) or increases (+)) in exposure to UV
radiation with the relative magnitude of these changes indicated by the number of negative and positive signs. In
some cases (e.g., altered phenology), changes may either increase or decrease UV exposure depending on thecircumstances and species. Changes in exposure to UV radiation resulting from modifications in land cover (i.e.,
deforestation and shrub encroachment) refer to effects on ground-dwelling, understorey organisms. The effects on
exposure to UV radiation shown here do not include changes in stratospheric ozone. Additional information andrelevant references are provided in the text that follows.
Climate change effect

Effect on exposure to UV radiation

Migration or range shift to higher elevations+

Migration or range shift to higher latitudes--

Altered phenology (seasonal development)-/+

Deforestation (wet regions)+++Shrub encroachment (dry regions)---

Altered cloud cover- - -/+++

Change in aerosols- -/++

Decreased snow/ice cover- /++2 Effects of stratospheric ozone depletion on climate and extreme
climate events on exposure to UV radiation
While both stratospheric ozone depletion and climate change can modify the amount of UV radiation reaching terrestrial ecosystems[8,10], ozone depletion itself can also contribute to climate change by modifying atmospheric circulation patterns and altering regional
patterns of wind, precipitation and temperature [30-32]. The impacts of these changes in climate on terrestrial ecosystems have been
most pronounced in Antarctica and in the high latitudes of the Southern Hemisphere, although there is evidence of ozone-driven
climate change in Arctic regions as well [33]. In addition to the effects of climate change on UV irradiation outlined above (Table 1),
extreme events linked to climate change (e.g., droughts, floods, heat waves, fires) may abruptly change UV radiation conditions formany organisms. Below, we assess recent findings on the effects of ozone-driven climate change on polar ecosystems and the potential
effects of extreme events on the exposure of terrestrial ecosystems in general to UV radiation.

2.1

Recent stratospheric ozone depletion and climate change effects on polar ecosystems

The impact of stratospheric ozone depletion on polar ecosystems is a complex interplay between the consequences of changing surface
UV radiation, and effects caused by shifts in the weather and climate due to the associated cooling of the lower stratosphere [12,29,34].
The increased UV irradiance in the polar regions as a direct result of ozone depletion has been documented since the late 1970s (ozone
hole era) [8]. This has particularly been the case in the Antarctic region, where measurements show that the UV Index at the surface inlate spring and early summer has, at times, been similar to that at mid- and subtropical latitudes [10,35]. In the past, it was assumed thatsnow and ice cover would provide plants and surface organisms some protection from the high UV irradiances that occur during thepeak of ozone depletion, but with climate warming accelerating the melting of snow and sea ice, Antarctic organisms are increasingly
being exposed to this elevated UV radiation. How these high UV irradiances in late springtime impact the resident plants and animals is
not entirely clear; studies conducted at the end of the twentieth century found relatively small effects on plants exposed to the elevated
UV radiation experienced at that time. This was likely due to the inherent adaptations, UV protective mechanisms and acclimation

171

Chapter 4
responses of these species in order to survive extreme environments [36-38]. Without the Montreal Protocol, the maximum UV Index
would have potentially increased from pre-ozone depletion levels of 6 to 20, exposing coastal Antarctic organisms to UV Indices at theend of this century that would be greater than those experienced today in the tropics [10]. These extreme UV radiation conditions would
likely have exceeded the UV-tolerances of many Antarctic organisms. In the Arctic, surface UV-B irradiance has also been elevated inrecent years (e.g., 2019/2020) when episodic large stratospheric ozone depletion has followed anomalously cold stratospheric winters[10]. However, unlike in the Antarctic, these events occur during early spring when most organisms are still protected by sea ice or snow
cover.
Changes in the stratosphere driven by ozone depletion have also been clearly shown to cause seasonally-dependent shifts in nearsurface patterns of wind, temperature and precipitation [39-42]. Knock-on effects on warming of oceans and melting sea ice cover
have been investigated [40-49], but many uncertainties persist [50] as the effects of ozone depletion on weather patterns are occurring
against a backdrop of climate change. Collectively, these changes have led to increased variability of weather and climate, which is mostpronounced in the polar regions [51]. As documented in our previous assessments and elsewhere, these shifts in weather and climate
have had pronounced impacts on many Antarctic organisms, from tiny moss and cushion plants to wandering albatross [12,34,52,53].
Since our last Quadrennial Assessment, extremes have occurred in both ozone depletion and climatic events that have led to observedor potential effects on plants and animals in polar regions (Table 2). Specific findings include:• During spring 2019, the Antarctic stratosphere was strongly disturbed by meteorological influences from upward-propagating
atmospheric waves [54-56] resulting in a small ozone hole. These stratospheric conditions played a role in enhancing prolonged
drought over the 2019/2020 austral summer that exacerbated the unprecedented wildfires in eastern Australia [57-64]. Effects
on stratospheric chemistry following the wildfires led to wider changes in both the chemical composition and temperature of thestratosphere across southern mid-latitudes [18,65-73]. Strong vertical and horizontal gradients in the ozone concentration of the
Antarctic upper troposphere during the austral spring potentially delayed the subsequent effects on surface climate [32].The roleof ozone depletion in modulating the dynamical coupling between the polar stratosphere and the surface at lower latitudes for thisparticular season is still under investigation. Nevertheless, it appears likely that the combined effects of climate change and ozone
depletion could have impacted both the timing and magnitude of these wildfires with considerable consequences for ecosystems inthis region.
• In contrast to 2019, a strong and persistent Antarctic ozone hole occurred in 2020 and 2021 [54,74-76] and this led to record surface
UV irradiances at several sites across East Antarctica during early summer. It has been suggested that the Australian wildfires that
occurred during the previous summer contributed to this strong ozone loss [18,54-56,71,72,74]. There is evidence that increased
ozone depletion has tended to delay the annual breakdown of the Antarctic stratospheric vortex [77]. Modelling suggests that
increasing greenhouse gas concentrations also favour a more persistent vortex [78], as well as reducing the likelihood of a weakervortex [58]. While concentrations of ozone depleting substances (ODSs) remain elevated, later seasonal persistence of the Antarctic
vortex could expose organisms to higher UV irradiances at times of year when young animals are born/hatch and when plants areactively growing. The loss of protective snow cover could exacerbate these effects [34].
• Since our last assessment there have been two widespread heatwave events in Antarctica, the first in summer 2019/2020 whenheat records were broken around the continent [63]. In March 2022 (autumn) extreme temperatures, almost 40 ˚C higher thannormal, were reported as an atmospheric river, or plume of warm, moist air, moved onto the Antarctic plateau. Heatwaves suchas these accelerate melting of icebanks [79], potentially exposing vegetation to high springtime UV-B radiation from which they
have previously been protected [36]. The impacts of these heatwaves and the subsequent ice melt have been poorly studied in
Antarctica in part due to the lack of environmental monitoring with networks of sensors tracking temperature and climate variables atappropriate scales. This lack of data is well illustrated by the recently published global maps of soil temperature [80], which exclude
Antarctica. Warming temperatures on the Antarctic Peninsula are opening up ice free areas [79] causing the expansion of vascularplants [81] and increasing the possibility of new plant and animal species invading the continent [21,82]. As in the Arctic, there areexamples of both plant expansion (i.e., “greening”, [81,83]) and death of plants by drought (i.e., “browning”, [84-88]). Heatwaves
may also be particularly detrimental to mosses, as they survive by creating warm microclimates in Antarctica’s cold environments but
this may become a disadvantage as air temperatures increase [89].
• In the Arctic, unprecedented low total column ozone values occurred in the 2020 boreal spring [90,91] due to strong stratosphericozone depletion, and this resulted in record-breaking high solar UV-B irradiances [92,93]. These conditions were promoted by weaktropospheric wave activity [90,94], associated with anomalous sea surface temperature in the North Pacific [33], which caused thestratospheric vortex to become large and stable. Heatwave conditions that occurred in the Siberian Arctic in early 2020 [95] appear
to have been aided by atmospheric circulation patterns that were affected by the strong ozone depletion [33,94]. Ozone depletionin March 2020 may also have aided the prevailing reduction of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean bordering Siberia [96]. As indicatedabove, most Arctic organisms are currently protected by snow and sea ice at the time of maximum ozone depletion and high UVradiation conditions at this time of year (i.e., early March to mid-April 2020), but changes in snow and ice cover resulting from climatechange could increase exposure to UV radiation.

172

Chapter 4

Table 2 Summary of environmental effects of stratospheric ozone changes and concurrent climate extremes from 2018-2022.
The factors that affect the size of the Antarctic and Arctic ozone holes each spring bring widespread climate impacts that can
extend far beyond the polar regions. For example, Antarctic ozone depletion varies with the phase of the southern annularmode (SAM). The SAM phase has been linked to the black summer (2019/2020) bushfires in Australia, which produced aerosolsthat contributed to further ozone depletion and smoke particles, which accelerated snow melt in New Zealand and Antarctica.
Note that the assessment of the environmental impacts of heatwaves and anomalous ozone dynamics has been extremely
limited due to the COVID-19 pandemic that prevented many planned scientific visits to remote polar regions.
Ozone effects

Climateextremes andassociatedeffects

Plant responses

Animal responses,
including humans

Antarctica and Southern Hemisphere (September 2019-February 2020)
Anomalously
small ozone
hole.

Wildfiresin Australia
producedaerosols thatcaused ozone
depletion andblack carbon
particles that
accelerated
snow melt [97].

Widespread loss of plant biomass in Australia [98].

Loss of human life andadverse health effects; lossof domestic animals andwildlife [99-102].

Heatwaves in
Additional snow melt that caused temporary greening of someAntarctica [103]. previously moribund moss beds in East Antarctica [53,104].

Functional thermal limits
for the Antarctic sea urchin(Sterechinus neumayeri)
Vascular plants on the Antarctic Peninsula appear to be faring
were determined
better than mosses under global warming and the grass
Deschampsia antarctica appears to be quite tolerant of in-vitro under simulated marine
heatwaves. Key biologicalhigh temperature shock treatments [105].
functions vary in their
Extreme summer marine heatwaves increased chlorophyll a (anthermal sensitivity and inindicator of the abundance of phytoplankton) in the Southern
their responses to different
Ocean [106].
rates of warming [108].
Hotter and longer heatwaves increased the mortality anddecreased post-heatwave growth rates in the Southern Ocean
diatom Actinocyclus actinochilus relative to milder, shorter
heatwaves [107].
Arctic (January – April 2020)

Anomalously
large ozone
depletion [8].

Heatwave in the
Siberian Arctic;
accelerated lossof sea ice [96].

Permafrost warming and thaw lead to landscape changes(retrogressive thaw slumps) and increased greenhouse gas
emissions [109].

Negative impacts onorganisms that depend on
sea ice; positive impacts on
animals that thrive in open
oceans [95,110,111].

Antarctica (November – December 2020 and November – December 2021)
Persistent ozone
hole producing
anomaloussurface UV
irradiance [97].
See also [10].

Persistent ozone hole producing anomalous surface UV
irradiance [97]. See also [10].

High potential for excessive
exposure to UV radiation as
animals return to breedingsites in spring and earlysummer [112]. Reductions
in Antarctic sea-ice [21] will
result in higher exposure
to UV radiation in the watercolumn.

173

Chapter 4

2.2

Interactive effects of extreme climate events and UV radiation extending beyond polar 		
ecosystems

Globally, extreme climate events (ECEs91) are increasing in frequency and severity with climate change and are projected to become
even more prevalent in the future as the climate continues to change [20]. Examples of ECEs include stronger storms and tropical
cyclones, catastrophic floods, protracted droughts, anomalous heat waves and freezes, and more intense wildfires [114-119]. ECEs
cause long term disruption to ecosystem structure and function [120-123] and occur against a backdrop of more gradual changes in theenvironment (e.g., rising surface temperatures and atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations). These disruptions to ecosystem
function can exacerbate the deleterious effects of ECEs on plants and animals [124]. Extreme climate events also alter the amount of
UV radiation reaching terrestrial ecosystems (Fig. 1). These changes in UV radiation can occur over short or long timeframes, which canthen lead to acute or chronic effects on ecosystems, respectively. The changes in solar UV radiation together with other environmental
factors (e.g., temperature, availability of moisture) may affect biodiversity, productivity, emissions of greenhouse gases [125-127], andecosystem carbon storage [124]. For example, fires, floods, and tropical cyclones (hurricanes) all create openings in forest canopies[128,129], driving subsequent adjustment in the understorey vegetation to an acute or chronic increase in incident solar radiation; theseincreases in solar radiation are often accompanied by increases in temperature and decreases in soil moisture [130-132]. There is also
an associated increase in the amplitude of fluctuations in these abiotic factors. Some plant species (e.g., shade-adapted specialists)
may not be able to adjust to this new environment and will go locally extinct. However, other plant species can respond quickly tothese environmental changes [133-135] and may increase in abundance. With respect to UV radiation, some plant species can respondrapidly to increases in amounts and variability in solar UV radiation through the production and accumulation of UV-protective pigments[132,136] (Sect. 3), and these attributes may allow these species to be successful in the changing conditions. From an ecosystemperspective, fires and hurricanes are among the most disruptive examples of ECEs as they can cause the loss of productivity andbiodiversity, and increase the emissions of GHGs [137-139], which can be enhanced by UV radiation (Sect. 6).

Fig. 1 Pathways by which extreme climate events (ECEs) driven by changes in stratospheric ozone and climate can affectexposure of terrestrial organisms and ecosystems to UV radiation. Changes in stratospheric ozone and climate interact toinfluence the frequency and intensity of a number of ECEs (upper-most grey rectangles). These ECEs in turn affect atmosphericand surface intermediaries (multi-coloured ovals connected with ECEs by overlapping shaded regions), which can increase (+)
or decrease (-) the solar UV radiation reaching terrestrial organisms and ecosystems. Solid arrows show direct mediation by
climate, ozone and UV radiation on ECEs and potential interactive and feedback effects. Dashed arrows show chronic effects ofclimate change factors.

The disruptive nature of ECEs also opens up the remaining ecological communities to invasive species, which can further
destabilizethese systems [12]. For example, certain invasive species that can tolerate high solar radiation and colonise open habitats
may displace some native, specialised or endemic species [140]. To what extent differences among plant species in their tolerances

91

174

An extreme climate event has been defined as “an episode or occurrence in which a statistically rare or unusual climatic period alters ecosystem structure and ⁄or function
well outside the bounds of what is considered typical or normal variability” [113]; or similarly, according to the IPCC, “if the value of a variable exceeds (or lies below) athreshold” that is exceeded [20]. Compound extreme events are the “combination of multiple drivers and/or hazards that contribute to societal or environmental risk.” Anexample of a compound extreme event would be fire weather conditions which are the combination of hot, dry, and windy conditions [20].

Chapter 4
to UV radiation influences species invasions into high UV environments remains unclear [141,142]. Recovery of ecosystems from these
ECEs will largely depend on the species that colonise the more open habitats created, and their biodiversity value and traits that support
ecosystem function [143].
Wildfires and droughts affect the amount of UV and photosynthetically active radiation (PAR; 400-700 nm) reaching terrestrial
ecosystems due to increasing aerosols from smoke and dust, and volatile organic compounds released by plants [144]. These
atmospheric changes not only reduce PAR and UV radiation, but also change the spectral composition of sunlight at ground level [145].
Importantly, changes in air quality resulting from fires and droughts can occur well beyond the location of these events [146-148]. Thus,
these conditions arising from fires and droughts can potentially affect photosynthesis and light-driven development in plants [149], as
well as litter decomposition and GHG emissions in ecosystems [19] not directly impacted by these extreme events (Sect. 6.1).

3 Effects of UV radiation and climate interactions on plants and animals
While moderate UV-B irradiance serves as an informational cue that facilitates the normal regulation of plant growth and metabolism,
exposure to excessive UV radiation, and in particular short wavelength UV-B radiation, can have deleterious effects on terrestrialorganisms [e.g., 150]. As sessile, photosynthetic organisms, plants require sunlight for their growth and reproduction, but this alsomeans that they can receive a large cumulative amount of solar UV radiation over their lifetime. This cumulative amount would havebeen very high in the extreme UV irradiation conditions that would have occurred without the Montreal Protocol [1]; however, becauseof its implementation appreciable reductions in photosynthesis in terrestrial plants have been avoided. High UV irradiance conditions
would also likely impair growth with severe consequences for global carbon storage and climate [3,10] (Box 1). Under current climate
conditions, and in most regions of the world, land plants appear to show adequate protection against UV radiation that limits thedeleterious effects of moderate UV-B radiation. There are physiological similarities in responses to adverse conditions (stress), that may
determine the extent to which plants can tolerate increased UV radiation in combination with other abiotic factors (e.g., temperature,
drought, elevated CO2) that occur simultaneously. In this section, we highlight recent progress in identifying the mechanisms by whichplants perceive and respond to UV radiation. These findings allow us to better assess the impacts of changes in UV radiation, plant
response to rapid increases in UV radiation (as occur following many ECEs), and how UV radiation interacts with environmental stresses(e.g., climate change) to modulate their growth and productivity.
In contrast to the abundant literature on the effects of UV-B radiation on terrestrial plants, far less attention has been paid to the effects of
UV-B radiation on terrestrial animals. What research there is on animals, typically addresses vision in the UV-A waveband and its effect on
behaviour [151], and the application of these findings for controlling insect pests and pollinators of certain crops [152]. One exception
is the increasing research, largely focussed on agricultural systems, showing that terrestrial invertebrates, including mites [153,154]
and insects such as aphids [155-157], are vulnerable to direct damage from UV-B radiation. There are interesting parallels between
invertebrate and plant responses to UV radiation; for example, in the role of DNA-repair [158,159], antioxidant metabolism [160-163]
and pigments [156,157,162] in conferring UV-protection. This includes evidence that mites can obtain UV protective compounds by
consuming pollen [161]. It is also clear that avoidance behaviour plays a major part in reducing the exposure of invertebrates to solar UV
radiation [153-155,164].

3.1

Perception and response of plants to changing UV radiation

The need to better understand how organisms respond to elevated UV-B radiation, as occurs with stratospheric ozone depletion,
stimulated research that eventually led to the discovery of a UV-B photoreceptor in plants (UVR8, which stands for Ultraviolet
Resistance Locus 8) [165]. It is now well-documented that UVR8 mediates a number of plant responses to changes in UV-B radiation in
the environment. Recently, UVR8 has been found to operate over a spectral region extending through the UV-B and part of the UV-A
radiation wavebands [166]. Thus, variation in solar UV radiation attenuated by the stratospheric ozone layer (which screens UV radiation
up to ca. 335 nm) is well matched to the action spectrum of UVR8 [167,168]. This might suggest that the evolution of UVR8 allowed
plants to perceive and respond to environmental cues related to changes in stratospheric ozone.
The UVR8-signalling pathway likely evolved very early in the transition of plants from aquatic to terrestrial environments [169-171]. Twooverlapping signalling pathways for UV responses (UVR8/WRKY36/HY5 and UVR8/COP1/SPA-HY5 pathways) have been conserved
during the evolution of green plants [171,172]. These pathways regulate a series of genetic transcription factors that affect accumulationof flavonoids, functioning of the plant hormone auxin, and growth (i.e., through inhibition of elongation of lateral roots and hypocotyls[173]). Subsequently, diversification of signal transduction to increase crosstalk with other signalling pathways that control the
production of additional secondary metabolites, such as brassinosteroids (hormones involved in plant development), enabled finetuning of tolerance to UV radiation in photosynthetic organisms.

175

Chapter 4
Specific responses in plants that are involved in their acclimation to UV radiation include: the accumulation of flavonoid pigments as
UV sunscreens, shorter stature with increased branching, and smaller leaves with thickened cell walls. These changes together with amore conservative strategy (i.e., slower but more efficient growth, photosynthesis, and water loss [174,175]) collectively mitigate thepotentially deleterious effects of current levels of solar UV radiation on plants.
Among the diverse functions of phenolic compounds in growth, development and reproduction, certain flavonoids and related
phenolic acids (e.g., hydroxycinnamic acid derivatives) screen UV radiation in plant tissues and are therefore central to plant UVacclimation responses. The accumulation of these compounds in leaves, flower petals and pollen is temperature dependent but isalso driven by UV-B radiation [136,176,177]. Flavonoids fulfil many additional roles in plants, in that they are involved in ameliorating
biotic and abiotic environmental-stress, regulating the transport of certain hormones (i.e., auxin) and are required in many species for
successful germination and growth of the pollen tube on the stigma of flowers, where they participate in cell signalling and recognition[178-181]. There is also evidence that greater accumulation of flavonoids in pollen grains improves their germination (e.g. in Clarkia
unguiculata; [182]) and flavonoids function in UV-screening in pollen, which is essential to maintain viability [183,184]. Additionally,
flavonoid glycosides (quercetins and kaempferols), hydroxycinnamic acids and anthocyanins in leaves and pollen act as strong
antioxidants, and, as such, they scavenge reactive oxygen species (ROS) produced by abiotic stressors such as excessive solar radiation,
including UV-B radiation [179,185].
In assessing plant acclimation to increased UV radiation, it is relevant to consider responses to short-term, rapid fluctuations in UV
radiation - as would occur with changing cloud cover or from day-to-day during the break-up of the stratospheric ozone hole - as well as
to the longer-term (i.e., decade-scale changes that occur from anthropogenic changes in stratospheric ozone together with climate).
The patterns of these responses can be used to evaluate whether plants’ epidermal UV screening and photoprotection principally
acclimate to immediate changes in UV radiation or if plants mainly rely on other mechanisms that allow trans-generational improvements
in protection against UV radiation (i.e., genetic adaptation or epigenetics). There is increasing evidence that the accumulation ofphotoprotective compounds (including flavonoids, hydroxycinnamic acids and carotenoids) tracks seasonal and even daily variation
in UV radiation [186-191]. In general, the magnitude of diurnal changes in UV screening is less than those that occur during thedevelopment of leaves. Diurnal changes in UV screening can, however, be of comparable size to the variation in screening that resultsfrom day-to-day fluctuations in UV radiation and temperature [177,187,192]. Rapid acclimation of UV-screening to short-term changes
in UV radiation indicates a high level of phenotypic plasticity and suggests that many plants can acclimate to short-term fluctuations in
UV irradiance arising from transient reductions in stratospheric ozone, reduced cloud cover or certain ECEs (Fig. 1; Sect. 2.2). In fact, acomparison of 629 taxa growing together at high elevation and high latitude locations subject to strongly contrasting UV irradiances,
found phenotypic plasticity in epidermal UV screening according to their immediate growing microenvironment, and this outweighed
any differences in adaptation arising from their evolutionary history under disparate climates [193]. Similarly, the importance of the local
environment over the place of origin is also highlighted by experiments where species and populations are grown in the same locationand habitat (i.e., common-garden experiments [194]).
Although the capacity for rapid acclimation may be advantageous for adjusting to short-term environmental variability, high phenotypic
plasticity may interfere with the capacity for genetic adaptation to changing conditions over long time periods [195-197]. Understanding
the relative importance of phenotypic plasticity vs genetic adaptation is needed to evaluate the consequences of climate changeinduced range shifts that expose plant species to UV irradiances that might be beyond those experienced in their historic ranges (Sect.
4.1).
Studies examining the mechanisms by which native plant species tolerate naturally high UV-B environments can provide insights into
the range of adaptive responses exhibited by plants to UV-B radiation. For example, Rheum nobile (Sikkim Rhubarb), an herbaceous
plant that grows above 4000 m on the Tibetan Plateau, has large translucent flower bracts containing high concentrations of flavonoids,
which form a protective cover over its flowers. This species can thus attenuate UV-B radiation within its floral tissues to similar levels
across its elevation range [198]. In the same region, other herbaceous plants, such as Megacarpaea delavayi (a wild mustard; [199])and five species in the genus Saussurea (thistle-like plants in the sunflower family; [200]) have a rapid DNA repair mechanism to mitigate
the damaging effects of high UV-B irradiances. Comparative genomic analysis of 377 Tibetan peach populations showed that the
expansion of SINE retrotransposons (genetic variations that regulate gene expression), promotes adaptation to UV-B radiation [201].
These, and other evolutionary adaptations of specialist alpine species to extreme UV radiation conditions indicate how plants in general
might adapt to high UV-B irradiances. However, the rate of changes in UV irradiance as a result of ozone depletion or climate change islikely to outpace the rates of adaptation in many species, especially long-lived perennials such as trees. Additionally, plants endemic tohigh elevations often have limited distribution ranges and abundances, and may be among the most vulnerable to habitat loss due toclimate change.

176

Chapter 4

Box 1 The effect of terrestrial ecosystems on climate change in a world without successful controls of ozone-depleting
substances.
A recent modelling exercise [3] estimated that large increases in plant effective UV-B radiation resulting from uncontrolled
emissions of ozone-depleting substances (ODS) would have strongly reduced carbon dioxide uptake by terrestrial vegetationin the “world avoided” (i.e., a world without effective control of ODS by the Montreal Protocol) compared with the “world
projected” (i.e., the actual world with the Montreal Protocol projected into the future). As a result of the control of ODS
emissions, by 2100 it was estimated that:• Carbon storage by terrestrial vegetation would have decreased by 325-690 billion tons;• Atmospheric CO2 concentrations would have increased by an additional 190 ppm, on average (range = 115-235 ppm; panel(a) in the figure below); and• Global mean surface temperature would have risen an additional 2.5°C (range = 2.4-2.7°C; panel (b), which includes the
ODS warming effect (1.7°C) and the UV plant effect (0.85°C).
Because of the relatively long time period involved, there are significant uncertainties associated with these projections. The
size of the effect depends on the action spectrum used to describe the sensitivity of photosynthesis to different wavelengthsof UV-B radiation and on extrapolating the dose response relationship between change in plant effective UV-B radiation andprimary productivity (see Sect. 8 and [9]).
Nonetheless, this modelling highlights both the potential damage to terrestrial ecosystems in the world avoided scenario
and the limits imposed on such models by the scope of known responses of plants and mixed vegetation to changes in UV-B
radiation.

Changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations (a) and surface temperature (b) resulting from UV-B radiation under scenarios with(violet line) and without (orange line) the Montreal Protocol. Shading around the orange line represents the range of responses
from simulations assuming a 50-150% range of plant responses to UV radiation. Figure adapted from [3], reproduced bypermission.

3.2

Proxies for past solar UV irradiance based on acclimation responses of modern-day
plants to UV radiation

Because many of the phenolic UV sunscreens accumulated by plants are resistant to decay, it may be possible to infer historical changes
in solar UV radiation from tissue samples of plants that have been preserved in herbaria or in sediment cores. Herbarium specimens offer
the potential to retrospectively infer past environmental conditions by assessing how plant traits have changed over the period of theircollection (usually decades). However, to be reliable proxies for UV radiation, herbarium specimens must be sampled in a consistent and177

Chapter 4
unbiased manner over time (See [202] for a full discussion of necessary procedures). If these protocols are followed, and if other factorsthat can modify flavonoid and anthocyanin accumulation in plants (e.g., shading, changes in temperature, availability of moisture or total
solar irradiance) are accounted for, one could associate trends in pigmentation of thermostable compounds with historical changes in
UV radiation.
Over longer time frames the effects of major global events such as changes in solar activity, volcanic eruptions, or reversals in the Earth’s
magnetic field (e.g., at the Laschamps Excursion 42,000 years ago) might be examined through changes in the phenolic compositionof pollen or spores. For example, the hydroxycinnamic acid para-coumaric acid, which is preserved in fossilised sporopollenin (acompound that forms the outer wall of spores and pollen), continues to be the focus of research seeking such a proxy for UV-B radiation
over geological time periods. However, before it can be reliably used it is necessary to ascertain the action spectrum of its response to
UV radiation, its rate of degradation, the response time of its synthesis, as well as the consistency of response among species and overtime [203]. In the case of fossilised pollen from Nitraria (a steppe plant) and conifers, chemical signatures have been shown to differ
from those of contemporary (extant) pollen in a predictable and consistent manner such that stable relationships can be modelled [204].

3.3

Interactive effects of UV radiation and climate change factors

Ongoing changes in climate, together with associated changes in plant species distribution, are exposing wild plants, forests and crops
to new combinations of UV radiation and other climatic conditions [10,125]. Combinations of particular concern are high UV-B irradianceand drought or temperature, as climate change is increasing the frequency and severity of heat waves and droughts, and these events
frequently coincide with high UV radiation, particularly at mid to low latitudes [205].
There are marked similarities in the acclimation responses of plants to increases in UV radiation and drought. A recent meta-analysis
found these two sets of responses to be generally consistent irrespective of whether experiments were performed in controlledenvironments (i.e., growth chambers or greenhouses) or in the field [206]. In general, when plants are exposed to co-occurring drought
and increased UV irradiance, the accumulation of defence compounds (e.g., proline and secondary antioxidants, such as flavonoids
and anthocyanins) and other stress responses (e.g., decreased leaf area, reduced stomatal opening) is enhanced. Thus, the combined
detrimental effects of these stressors on plant function are milder (i.e., reduced production of stress-associated malondialdehyde (MDA)
and reactive oxygen species (ROS), and this reduces the negative effects on photosynthesis and biomass production [206,207]. The
response of plants to increased UV radiation may therefore confer cross-protection against drought [206,208] and mitigate some of the
detrimental effects of drought on plant growth and productivity, unless both stress factors are excessive. Further, it has been postulated
that plants may use UV radiation as a signal of impending drought [209]. The functional association between exposure to drought andUV radiation exposure appears to involve common physiological defence and acclimation responses [209,210]. For example, multiple
studies have shown that overexpression of protective pigments in plants results in enhanced protection against both drought and UV-B
radiation [211,212]. UV-B radiation can even be exploited for seed priming, resulting in enhanced expression of drought tolerance ofplants grown from such UV pre-treated seeds [213]. Certain agricultural practices may also negatively impact crop tolerance of both UVradiation and drought. For example, growth allocation to roots relative to shoots often increases in drought-stressed plants, as well as
those exposed to high solar UV-B radiation (i.e., increased root:shoot ratios), but high nitrogen availability has the opposite effect on
root:shoot allocation [214].
High UV-B irradiance often co-occurs with high temperatures. A recent study of a commercial tomato cultivar (Solanum lycopersicum
cv. Money Maker) compared plants transferred under near-ambient solar UV radiation to those placed in a UV exclusion treatment in
the field. Exposure to UV-B radiation led to partial closure of leaf stomatal pores, reducing transpiration and evaporative cooling, andthus increasing leaf temperature by up to 1.5°C [215]. These findings are relevant in warmer climates where even small increases intemperature may have substantial consequences for survival of crops [216], as high temperatures are well-known to negatively affectphotosynthesis and growth of many plant species. More broadly, a recent meta-analysis across terrestrial, freshwater and marine
plants, algae and animals [217] showed that any negative effects of UV-B radiation can be somewhat compensated for by elevatedtemperatures, although this depends on the habitat and organism involved. This positive effect of warming appears to be restricted tocool climates where organisms often function at temperatures below their physiological optima, and thus is not expected to occur inenvironments approaching the thermal and physiological limits of organisms [217]. Given the current context of global warming, moredetailed temperature and UV-radiation dose-response studies are required to fill this knowledge gap. Furthermore, the scope of suchstudies needs to go beyond crop yield, as early evidence shows that interactive effects of heat and UV radiation can also affect crop
quality [218] (Sect. 5.2).
Apart from high temperatures, the effects of UV radiation on plants can also be modified by low temperatures, and climate change is
expected to increase the incidence of extreme cold events in some regions [20](Sect. 2.2). In studies with the model plant Arabidopsis
thaliana, the synthesis of flavonoids is strongly enhanced in response to low temperatures (4/2°C, day/night) compared to moderatetemperatures (18/20°C), just as it is by UV radiation. Where plants are simultaneously exposed to both cold and UV radiation, complex
interactive effects are observed, with UV-B decoupling flavonoid accumulation from gene-expression, indicating post-translational
regulation [219]. Low temperatures and UV-B radiation also produce a shift in the composition of flavonoid glycosides from kaempferols
to quercetins [177]. The shift in composition towards quercetin synthesis at low temperatures suggests an enhancement in antioxidant
function [177,220], which could increase overall plant hardiness.
Temperature is a cue for many organisms, controlling their seasonal development (i.e., phenology). Changes in thermal regime, suchas periods of extreme heat or cold or even an absence of cold temperatures, can disrupt the timing of growth, reproduction, and otheraspects of phenology [221,222]. Temporal shifts in phenology can also change the seasonal timing of exposure to UV radiation, as solar

178

Chapter 4
UV radiation varies at high-to-mid latitudes over the course of the year. Shifts in phenology due to changes in climate and UV radiation
may result in new combinations of biotic interactions (i.e., competitors and pests; Sect. 4.1) and abiotic stresses that may be outside thetolerances for some species. For plants, these new combinations of abiotic stresses can have detrimental effects on their growth andsurvival even though each individual stressor may have a negligible effect [223].
Complex effects on plants may also occur when other environmental factors interact with UV radiation. Recent studies have revisited theinteractive effects of UV radiation and increased nitrogen deposition [224], ozone pollution [15,225] and elevated atmospheric CO2
concentration, where short term stimulation can be outweighed by long-term downregulation of photosynthesis [226], as noted in ourprevious assessments [12,227]. Elucidation of the interactive effects of UV radiation and these other environmental factors is necessary
to improve our ability to model and assess the effects of UV radiation on the carbon sequestration of terrestrial vegetation in a changing
climate (e.g., Box 1).

4 Species distributions and biodiversity
Maintaining the wide variety of plants, animals, and microorganisms in terrestrial environments (i.e., biodiversity) is essential for
ecosystem health, stability, and valuable services provided to humans. The loss of biodiversity can occur directly (e.g., hunting or
harvesting) or indirectly (e.g., loss of habitat, climate change, and invasive species). While considerable attention has been given to theeffects of climate change on biodiversity [21,228,229], far less is known about how solar UV radiation might interact with climate change
to influence species distributions and diversity in ecological communities. We examine these effects from available studies and evaluate
how the UV radiation exposures of species can potentially change as their distributions shift in response to climate change.

4.1

Potential effects of climate change and UV radiation on shifting species distributions

Plant and animal species are migrating or shifting their distribution ranges to higher elevations and latitudes in response to on-goingchanges in climate [230-232]. As species occupy higher elevations and latitudes, they may encounter increased or decreased UV
radiation, respectively, because of the natural gradients in solar UV radiation that occur with elevation and latitude (Table 1). Some
plants and animals are also shifting their ranges in the opposite direction, viz., towards lower elevation (lower UV radiation) and latitude(higher UV radiation), to avoid the increased seasonality of temperature at higher latitudes [233,234]. How species respond to novel
combinations of UV radiation and multiple climatic conditions has direct implications for how they will interact with other species,
including their pests and pathogens (Sect. 5.3), with consequences for biodiversity [e.g., 235].
Latitudinal change. While the changes in UV radiation received by plants and animals resulting from latitudinal shifts in ranges are
generally rather modest, they may affect terrestrial ecosystems and biodiversity. For instance, if one assumes species migrate at theirmaximal rates to keep pace with climate change (i.e., their average climate velocity for the period 2050-2090; [236]), the UV irradianceunder clear sky conditions for herbaceous plants would decline by 4.5%, while that for more mobile plant-eating insects would decline
by 16.2% after a century of climate change (Fig. 2A).
Plants encountering reduced UV-B irradiance resulting from range shifts would likely reduce their levels of UV-protective compounds(i.e., epidermal flavonoids and other phenolic compounds) [237,238]. The multiplicity of roles performed by these plant secondary
compounds could, in turn, make some plants more vulnerable to herbivores [239,240] (Sect. 5.3) as some of these chemicals serve as
deterrents for insect herbivores.
Accelerated loss of biodiversity will likely occur as climate change continues to exert its effects on range shifts on plants and animals.
Plants use both temperature and day length (photoperiod) as environmental cues for regulation of phenology (flowering, dormancy,
budburst, etc.). Trees with long generation times may be especially vulnerable to extinction because they have limited opportunities
to genetically adapt to a changing photoperiod and their environmental cues such as UV radiation may be mismatched with their new
environment [241-243].
At present, it is unclear how changes in UV radiation in combination with climate change will affect species migrations and adaptation as
experimental and modelling data are not yet available to quantify and fully assess the risk of these interactive effects.
Elevational change. For many montane ecosystems, climate change is resulting in the migration of lower elevation species tohigher elevations. Climate change is also reducing the envelope of suitable habitats for high elevation alpine species to survive,
while increasing competition against emigrating species from lower elevations [21,244]. However, like latitudinal shifts towards theequator, elevational distribution changes also occur downslope for some species [233,234]. For species shifting their ranges to higher
elevations, their exposure to solar UV radiation would be expected to increase, assuming no change in cloud cover (Fig. 2B). Further,
reduced snow cover due to warmer temperatures exposes organisms to fluctuations in temperature and solar radiation, including UV-B
radiation [245].

179

Chapter 4
High elevation alpine plants often have heightened accumulation of UV-screening compounds and herbivore defence [141,246-249].
Across a diversity of plant species from alpine and subalpine zones in Bulgaria, improved photoprotection has been found to effectively
prevent greater DNA damage caused by increased UV radiation at higher altitudes. These mechanisms were sufficiently effective
since plants growing at the highest elevations had fewer UV-induced DNA dimers than those at lower elevations, with grasses (Family
Poaceae) least susceptible to UV-induced DNA damage among a wide diversity of plant families tested [250]. Nevertheless, as species
migrate to high elevations, more resources may be allocated towards protection against UV radiation, and this could in turn divert
resources away from growth, which could then reduce competitive ability [251,252]. Depending on the availability of suitable habitats
at higher elevations, these changes in species interactions have the potential to negatively affect biodiversity [253] by shifting thebalance of competition between species [254,255].
While climate change is causing many species to migrate to higher elevations, these climate change-induced shifts in distribution ranges
are often most pronounced for non-native, invasive species [256-258]. At present, it is unclear if UV radiation affects native and nonnative invasive species differently [141,142,259-261]. However, invasive species are generally considered to exhibit greater phenotypic
plasticity to new environments than native species, although this may depend on availability of resources [262,263]. In some cases,
invasive species have been found to alter their production of UV screening compounds to a greater degree than native species [141].
This flexibility may allow non-native, invasive species to occupy new habitats more rapidly than native species and, in some cases,
outcompete endemic alpine species [235].

Fig. 2 Potential changes in exposure to UV radiation
as plants and insects migrate to higher latitudes
and elevations with climate change. Panel A showsthe estimated changes in UV radiation as plants
and their herbivorous insects migrate poleward
after 100 years (y) of climate change. UV radiation
data are simulated midday summer (June 21) UV
irradiances (here reported as UV Index; red line)
based on stratospheric ozone levels in 1980 at
sea level (radiative transfer model TUV; [264]).
Horizontal arrows show distances migrated forherbaceous plants (green arrow) and plant-eatinginsects (orange arrow) originating from 30° N after
100 years of climate change assuming maximum
rates of migration and average climate velocity
for 2050-2090 (from [236]). Panel B shows thesimulated midday summer (June 21) clear sky UVIndex changes with elevation in the European
Alps (46° N latitude; red line) and the estimatedchanges in UV irradiance for plants (green line) and
insects (orange line) as they migrate from 2000 m tohigher elevations after 100 years of climate change,
assuming average current rates of leading edge
migration for Western European montane plants(28.2 m/decade) and insects (90.5 m/decade)[265].

4.2

Assessing the risks to biodiversity from the interactive effects of UV radiation and climatechangeClimate change can cause declines in biodiversity by reducing the availability of suitable habitats for species and by differentially shifting
their distribution ranges, which then disrupts species interactions and ecosystem function. If species cannot keep pace with climatechange, then populations will decline leading to a loss of biodiversity. In this context, species distribution models (SDMs) are used todetermine how climate change will affect future habitat suitability of species through changes in key abiotic drivers. These models canbe used to inform species conservation as well as management for plant production in agriculture and forestry [266].
Several studies have shown that the inclusion of solar UV-B radiation in models forecasting future distribution ranges of ecologically andagriculturally important crop and tree species improves their statistical predictive power [267-273]. These models are based on different
scenarios of climate change (i.e., IPCC scenarios of greenhouse gas emissions) and create projections based on correlative relationships

180

Chapter 4
between climate and species occurrence. These projections suggest that the ranges of some species of native plants from open, dry
habitats found in arid and semi-arid shrub-steppe biomes will expand to higher elevations [268-273], while the ranges of willows andother related species from wetter habitats will contract [267].
Some studies of plants native to China and central Asia include UV-B radiation among the potential explanatory climatic variables that
contribute to species distributions, sourcing data from the global climatology [274]. Future habitat suitability estimated using Maximum
Entropy models (MaxEnt; models that apply basic machine learning algorithms to resolve environmental conditions where the species
is present across its distribution) reveal incident UV-B radiation together with precipitation and temperature as significant correlates of
species occurrence. While these models do not identify the mechanisms underlying these results, the findings suggest that such models
could be useful in assessing risks to biodiversity, as well as providing information on potential species distributions and suitable habitats
for conservation and planting crops for different scenarios of climate and solar UV-B radiation.
Despite the inclusion of UV-B radiation among significant climatic variables in some studies of species distributions [267-273], mostmodelling studies to date do not include UV-B radiation and its interaction with other abiotic stressors as potential constraints on species
distribution. As more detailed UV-B databases become available, it is likely that UV-B radiation will more routinely be included among
climatic variables used to predict species occurrence and changes in biodiversity. As well as species distribution, climatological datathat include regional UV-B irradiances can be applied to study whether climatic trends correlate with patterns in plant functional traits
among species. For example, a large-scale study of 1192 grassland species found that UV radiation was negatively correlated with leaf
size across the Mongolian and Tibetan Plateau [275], while leaf shape, reflectance, and thickness have also been found to covary with
UV-B radiation along environmental gradients [276-278].

5 Effects on agriculture and food production
Some of the earliest concerns raised over stratospheric ozone depletion and the accompanying increase in solar UV-B radiationconsidered the potential for reductions in crop productivity and compromised food security [279,280]. A prior assessment [38] using
results from field studies conducted at high latitude locations indicated that plant productivity declines by about 3% for every 10%
increase in plant effective UV-B radiation (i.e., UV-B radiation weighted according to a generalised plant action spectrum [281]). Thesefindings implied that the projected increases in solar UV radiation with changes in stratospheric ozone and climate, assuming fullcompliance with the Montreal Protocol, would have minimal effects on agricultural productivity. However, few experimental studies
to date have been conducted on species growing in those regions with the highest natural levels of UV-B radiation on Earth (i.e., thetropics and high elevations). Previous studies also tended to focus on crop productivity but paid less attention to the effects of UV
radiation on food quality. The effects of UV radiation on agroecosystems also extends beyond the direct effects on crop plants, as UV
radiation can influence pest-pathogen interactions and the persistence and effectiveness of biocides and agricultural pollutants. The
management of solar radiation in greenhouses and advances in artificial UV lighting are exploiting some of the beneficial effects ofmodest exposures to UV radiation to improve food quality, enhance plant defences against pest and pathogens, and contributing tomore sustainable agricultural practices [282].

5.1

Agroecosystems vulnerable to changes in UV radiation and climate

As noted in our 2019 Update Assessment [283], and in other reports [284,285], most field research to date on the effects of UV
radiation on crops has been concentrated on regions outside the tropics and at lower elevations. The tropics extend over approximately
33% of the Earth’s land surface [286] and harbour a vast reservoir of biodiversity [287] that provides critical resources and essential
services for agriculture and food security [288]. Thus, tropical agroecosystems warrant further attention to safeguard a sustainable future
for life on Earth.
Because the projected recovery of stratospheric ozone is highly dependent on changes in GHG concentrations and lifetimes of
ODS, there remains some uncertainty about how UV-B radiation might change in the future for tropical regions [10,289]. Under somescenarios, UV-B radiation could increase by 3% in the tropics due to interactions between stratospheric ozone, climate and aerosols[8,10]. This increase would further elevate the already high levels of UV-B radiation that occur naturally at low latitudes. At present, theconsequences of these relatively modest percentage increases in UV-B radiation on crops or wild plants in this region are uncertain.
Available evidence suggests that current levels of UV-B radiation in the tropics can alter the morphology (e.g., smaller leaves, reduced
shoot height) and chemistry (e.g., increased flavonoid levels) of native, non-crop tropical plants, but that biomass production is rarely
decreased in these species (e.g., [290]). By comparison, several field experiments have shown that certain varieties of temperate-zone
crops (e.g., wheat and soybean) [291-293] show decreases in photosynthesis and yield when grown under ambient UV-B radiationin the tropics. These findings suggest that some important crop species grown in the tropics might be vulnerable to relatively small
increases in UV-B radiation.

181

Chapter 4
As noted above and in Sect. 4.1, climate change is shifting bioclimatic zones and this is allowing certain crops to be grown at higher
elevations than was previously possible [294-299]. For some crop species originating from lower elevations, the more intense UV
radiation at high elevations may exceed their tolerances to UV radiation with negative consequences for their physiology and growth[300]. As crop species are grown in these new habitats, they will also encounter new weeds, pests and pathogens, which may disrupt
the structure and function of these agroecosystems [301,302]. Differential effects of climate change on range shifts and phenology canalso lead to spatial and/or temporal or seasonal mismatches between pollinators and their plant hosts [303,304], posing additionalrisks to food security. Many of these high-elevation agroecosystems support community livelihoods and are important carbon sinks that
help mitigate global warming. Thus, their risks from changes in climate and UV radiation are of particular concern.

5.2

Effects of UV radiation on food quality

Laboratory and field studies have found significant effects of UV radiation on crop quality with regard to texture, flavour, appearance
and nutritional content. It is now well-established that the concentrations of a wide array of natural plant chemicals are modified by
UV radiation [305-308] and these changes in chemical composition can have positive and negative effects on food quality. There isabundant research demonstrating that exposure to modest levels of UV radiation can improve food quality by enhancing crop flavour[309], taste [310], colour [311], nutritional content [312-315], and pharmaceutical content [316-318] in various plants. Given that the
intake of fruits and vegetables of many consumers is well below recommended levels [319], the higher nutritional content of crops
exposed to UV radiation may generate long-term health benefits. For example, Keflie et al. [320] used solar UV-B radiation to increase
vitamin D in oyster mushrooms, which may alleviate vitamin D deficiency in humans. Some have proposed legal regulation for UV
treatment of foods, including mushrooms [321].
In some cases, exposure of crops to UV radiation can lead to a decrease in their nutritional value for humans and livestock. For example,
some species of tropical grasses show increases in tannins when grown under experimentally elevated UV-B radiation, and this would
imply a reduced palatability of forage for cattle [322,323]. High levels of UV radiation may also increase amounts of other anti-nutritional
compounds in plants, such as oxalates, which are generally associated with kidney problems [324]. At present, the full scope of UVinduced anti-nutritional compounds is not fully known nor is the identification of crops most at risk to these changes.

5.3

Effects of UV radiation on plant interactions with pests and pathogens

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) estimates that plant pests92 cause a 20-40% loss in global
agricultural production per year, costing ca. $220 billion USD, with the impacts of invasive insect species adding another $70 billion
USD [325]. It is expected that climate change, including ECEs, will increase the incidence and severity of pests and pathogens in someregions, as these organisms colonise new previously sub-optimal habitats along latitudinal and elevational gradients [326,327]. The
climate-induced parallel range shifts of plants with latitude or elevation into new habitats may constitute additional stress from plantpests (Sect. 4.1) [328]. Rising concentrations of CO2 and associated global warming together with regional increases in UV radiation
may also act together to compromise food security through complex effects on plant pests and disease [329]. While our previous
assessments have reported on UV-mediated increases in resistance to specific pests and pathogens [12,38], we note that there is a needfor more detailed studies on the interactive effects of UV radiation, CO2 and other climate change factors on plant interactions with pests
and pathogens.
Exposure to UV radiation can confer increased resistance of certain crops to pests and diseases through changes in host physiology,
morphology, and biochemistry. As noted in Sect. 3.1, UV radiation typically enhances the production of polyphenolic compounds, suchas flavonoids. Some of these compounds enhance a plant’s defence against herbivores and pathogens (e.g., viral, fungal or bacterial)[240,283,330]. Disease and pest attack will also elicit the production of increased amounts of these polyphenolic compounds thatcan make the host plant unpalatable or toxic (Sect. 5.2) and/or protect the plant through their antioxidant properties (e.g., scavenging
of free radicals). These effects on pests or pathogen attack are part of a wider network of interactive effects on plant physiology andmorphology potentially altering the susceptibility of crops to these threats [331].
Chemical biocides are widely employed to manage pests and pathogens in crops (Sect. 5.4). However, several biocontrol agentsagainst insect pests have been developed and used as alternatives to chemical pesticides. Of particular interest is a group of fungi thatare parasitic on insects (entomopathogenic fungi). Entomopathogenic fungi kill insects by penetrating the outer protective cuticle layerof specific hosts with the help of proteases [332]. These fungi live naturally in soils but can be mass-produced for application to crops
where they have been used against pests including spittlebugs and locusts, which affect crops such as maize, sugarcane and beans[332], as well as against various insect pests in rice [333]. However, many of the entomopathogenic fungi are strongly inhibited by UV
radiation and temperatures above 300 C, which affect their development and pathogenic function against certain insects. Therefore,
these abiotic constraints are considered a major barrier to the use of entomopathogenic fungi in controlling insect pests [333-336].
However, the effect of solar UV-B radiation on these fungi remains to be confirmed through experiments where they are grown underrealistic solar radiation conditions [337]. Such studies may also allow for selection of fungal biocontrol agents that are more tolerant to
UV-B radiation and other climate factors, for use as biocontrol agents to safeguard economically important agricultural systems.

92

182

A pest in this context is “any species, strain or biotype of plant, animal or pathogenic agent injurious to the plants or plant products”, as per the definition in the International
Standard for Phytosanitary Measures No. 5 (ISPM) adopted by the Commission on Phytosanitary Measures of the International Plant Protection Convention.

Chapter 4

5.4

Effects of UV radiation on agricultural biocides

The widespread application of biocides (herbicides and pesticides) for controlling or killing harmful organisms in agricultural fieldsettings results in some accumulation of these chemicals in water, soil, and atmosphere, and may also result in residues in agricultural
products. Given that biocides are designed to be bioactive, their adverse effects on non-target organisms and humans are of concern.
Direct and indirect photodegradation by solar UV radiation can potentially reduce the environmental residence time of pesticides [19].
However, photochemical degradation can also reduce the functional effectiveness of biocides as crop protectants, which may lead togreater amounts being administered by growers [338,339]. Direct photodegradation of biocides occurs when a chemical absorbs UV
radiation, leading to its breakdown into various degradation products [340]. Indirect photodegradation involves the reaction of thebiocide with reactive intermediates formed when natural photosensitisers (e.g., nitrate) absorb solar radiation [341]. Not all biocides
are subject to direct photodegradation under solar radiation. For biocides with an action spectrum for direct photodegradation only in
the UV-C region (wavelengths 100-280 nm) and not extending into the solar UV-B, only indirect photodegradation occurs under solar
radiation.
In the field, the exposure of biocides to solar radiation depends on the manner in which they are applied to crops, as well as the specificcharacteristics of the crops, including age and canopy structure, which determines their exposure to solar radiation. These factors,
together with the chemical composition of the pesticide formulation determine the extent to which they are photodegraded in the field.
For example, the additive (co-formulation compound) benoxacor, which is used as a safener (i.e., a compound used in combination
with herbicides to reduce negative effects on crops) of the herbicide metolachlor, accelerates the photodegradation of the active
ingredient on soil surfaces, lessening its toxicity [342]. The extent to which biocides are photodegraded is also highly dependent on
where the biocide residues occur. For example, the photodegradation rate of the herbicide imazethapyr is two orders of magnitude
slower when applied to maize and soybean leaves than in aqueous solutions [343]. The leaves of aromatic herbs like thyme emit volatileorganic compounds that can further affect the photodegradation of biocides deposited on their leaf surfaces, resulting in the formationof different photoproducts [342,344-346]. Thus, the importance of direct vs indirect UV-mediated photodegradation of biocides in theenvironment appears highly context dependent, and requires further research across a range of crops, environmental conditions andmethods of application to clarify modes of action.
Climate change may be an additional factor impacting pesticide photodegradation on leaf surfaces. While photodegradation kinetics
typically have a weak temperature dependence, pyrethroid insecticides applied onto spinach plants grown at 16 – 21ºC degraded up to
2 times slower than when plants were grown at lower temperatures (10 - 15°C), likely due to differences in the chemical composition ofleaf wax [347].
As observed for other contaminants [e.g., 348,112] biocide photodegradation products can be more toxic than their parent
compounds. For example, some breakdown products generated by UV-B radiation of the fungicide chlorothalonil and the insecticide
imidacloprid on plant leaves are more toxic to fish than their parent compounds [345].
Functional nano-pesticides are being developed using nano-emulsion technologies as an alternative to traditional pesticide applications[349-352]. Encapsulated pesticides in nano-carriers, such as polymers, nanoclays, and metal organic frameworks provide controlledrelease kinetics and improved stability against environmental degradation by UV radiation. The use of encapsulated pesticides prevents
undesirable pesticide losses and release into the environment that otherwise would cause ecological and health concerns [353]. The
development of nano-biocides may contribute to more environmentally friendly and sustainable food production systems (Sect. 7),
potentially protecting the integrity of biocides during their application on crops, while still facilitating subsequent degradation of theirresidues.

5.5

Development and application of UV lighting systems in agriculture

Concerns over the effects of elevated UV-B radiation resulting from ozone depletion on food production stimulated considerable
research into the effects of UV-B radiation on crops, and much of this early research focused mainly on the leaf-level physiology andshoot growth of traditional crop plants (e.g., soybean, rice, maize; [354]). More recently, studies have examined effects of UV-B
radiation on plants of medicinal value, mushrooms and algae [355]. For example, mushrooms [356,357] and certain microalgae [358]synthesise increased amounts of vitamin D after being exposed to UV-B radiation (Sect. 5.2) [358,359]. In addition, more attention
is being given to studying the effects of UV-B radiation on seeds, fruits, subterranean organs (e.g., roots and tubers), and on derived
products, such as wine and olive oil [313,360-363].
Results from these studies indicate that plants exposed to low or moderate levels of UV-B radiation in controlled environments(e.g., greenhouses, growth chambers) often have improved vigour, enhanced nutraceutical quality and are more resistant to pest
and pathogens compared to plants that are grown in the absence of UV-B radiation, as typically occurs in commercial production
glasshouses [282].
Other studies have shown how the application of UV-B radiation can modulate different physiological processes important for
agriculture. These advances include, 1) accumulation of anthocyanins and other antioxidants in different coloured fruits, such as peach,apple, grapes, and blueberry [314,363-366] (Sect. 5.2); 2) improving the tolerance of rice and tomato to low temperatures, salinity anddrought [367,368]; 3) the manipulation of flavonoid accumulation in vegetables [369]; 4) the production of smaller cucumber plants
for targeted commercialisation [175]; 5) an increase in anticancer compounds in Catharanthus roseus [370] following treatment with a
combination of hormones and UV radiation; and 6) extending the shelf-life of fruit by reducing the activity of enzymes involved in fruitrotting [371]. Also, the accumulation of bioactive compounds can be triggered more effectively by applying high UV-B radiation during

183

Chapter 4
short periods in specific developmental stages (frequently near harvest) rather than using UV-B radiation over longer periods. Thisapproach has been successfully applied in kale and grapes [362,372,373]. These advances have been achieved by translating researchthat was conducted to better understand the effects of increased UV-B radiation resulting from ozone depletion into commercial
practices to improve food quality and production (Sect. 7).
One of the more significant technological advances in plant UV research and horticulture has been the development and use of UV
light-emitting diodes (LEDs). Increasingly, LED lighting systems are being used by growers before and after harvest to improve foodvalue. LEDs are more energy-efficient and environmentally friendly than most traditional light sources used in horticulture (e.g., highpressure sodium vapour or metal halide lamps), and by utilising LEDs that emit both in the UV and PAR regions the control of the spectral
composition, intensity and exposure period can be attuned to the light requirements of specific plants and crops [374,375]. However,at present, only UV-A LEDs have been widely adopted to stimulate the accumulation of desirable plant compounds [376]. There are also
some examples of successful application of UV LEDs in reducing certain plant diseases [377] and increasing nutritional quality [376].

6 Effects on biogeochemical cycles and climate feedbacks
Terrestrial ecosystems provide many valuable services, including the processing of dead organic material and the storage and recyclingof essential nutrients. Both land vegetation and soils are also important carbon sinks that influence the concentrations of atmospheric
CO2 and hence climate. Solar UV radiation affects carbon storage and atmospheric CO2 by influencing plant productivity [3], and thephotodegradation of modern dead plant material (litter) and ancient organic matter preserved in permafrost soils [378,379], whichbecomes exposed to solar radiation because of climate change-induced thawing [380-384] (Box 2). Changes in climate and UV
radiation can further interact to alter the cycling of other elements (nitrogen being the most important) and the emissions of GHGs otherthan CO2, which can affect stratospheric ozone and climate. Below we evaluate new findings that address the underlying mechanisms
and climate consequences of the interactive effects of UV radiation and climate change on biogeochemical cycles.

6.1

Photodegradation of plant litter

The decomposition of plant litter is a key biogeochemical process determining rates of nutrient cycling and energy flow in terrestrial
ecosystems. This process affects vegetation productivity, carbon storage and soil fertility, and releases CO2 and other GHGs to theatmosphere [385]. Thus, decomposition of litter has important feedback effects to the climate system.
In general, the rate of litter decomposition is regulated by climatic factors (temperature and moisture) and the chemical compositionof litter (primarily the amount of lignin and the ratio of carbon to nitrogen (C:N ratio) in the litter), which modifies the activity andcomposition of the decomposer organisms (fungi, bacteria and invertebrate decomposers). Exposure of litter to solar UV radiationand short wavelength visible radiation (i.e., blue and green light), can cause the direct breakdown of lignin and other plant cell wallconstituents forming non-volatile and volatile compounds (e.g., CO2 which is released to the atmosphere). This process is referred
to as photochemical mineralisation or photomineralisation [385,386] (Fig. 3a, right panel). Additionally, UV and short-wavelength
visible radiation can also accelerate the breakdown of litter by changing its chemistry, making it more palatable to microbes andthereby enhancing microbial decomposition (Fig. 3a, left panel) [387-389]. Promotion of microbial activity can also occur by thephotodegradation of waxy surfaces layers (i.e., leaf cuticle) that allows moisture to more readily penetrate litter [390]. These indirect
effects of solar radiation on microbial decomposition are collectively referred to as photo-priming or photofacilitation [391,392].
In some situations, solar UV radiation can negatively affect litter decomposition by altering the composition and activities of thedecomposer community (not shown in Fig. 3) [393]. The overall effect of solar radiation on litter decomposition reflects the net effect ofthese three processes [391].
Among litter components, lignin has been identified as the most photoreactive due to its absorption in the UV and blue-green regionof the solar spectrum [385,392]. However, recent studies have found that cellulose and hemicellulose are even more susceptible tophotodegradation than lignin [394,395]. These discrepancies are an unresolved knowledge gap that could be addressed by identifying
differences in the photodegradation action spectra for lignin, cellulose, and hemicellulose. The presence of polyphenolic compounds inplant litter (Sect. 3.1) decreases photodegradation under natural [396] and controlled laboratory conditions [397]. This result suggeststhat the accumulation of polyphenolic secondary metabolites in green leaves may persist during the early phase of litter decomposition
and attenuate the penetration of UV-B radiation into litter. The surface area of litter exposed to solar radiation is also an important
predictor of litter decomposition rate and carbon turnover [398-400].

184

Chapter 4

Fig. 3 The relative importance of photomineralisation and photofacilitation in litter decomposition across terrestrial biomes andenvironments. Panel a illustrates the processes of photofacilitation and photomineralisation in the photodegradation of surface
litter exposed to solar radiation (UV radiation and blue-green light) in representative wet (forest; greater photofaciliation)and dry (grassland; greater photomineralisation) ecosystems. Panel b shows relative changes in photofacilitation andphotomineralisation across biomes and along gradients of moisture, microbial activity and exposure to solar radiation. Not
shown in this figure is the potential leaching of non-volatile breakdown compounds resulting from photodegradation of litterthat can occur when it rains, and possible negative direct effects of UV radiation on microbes.

Photodegradation of litter was initially thought to be important only in dryland ecosystems (e.g., deserts and grasslands) where
low moisture and high temperatures often constrain the activities of decomposing microbes. Recent studies have established thatphotodegradation of litter is important not only in semi-arid [401-403] and arid [404-407] ecosystems but also in moist environmentsthat support tropical [408], subtropical [409], temperate and boreal forests [393,396,397], alpine steppe [410], and marshes [411].
Calculations of the strength of the terrestrial carbon sink have typically excluded photodegradation of litter in mesic ecosystems(having moderate water supply) due to their high vegetation cover. However, recent field studies found that photodegradationof litter facilitates carbon cycling in canopy openings of temperate and tropical forests, even where understory solar radiation isrelatively low [396,397,408,412]. Exposure to the full solar spectrum, resulting from the formation of a forest gap, can increase litter
photodegradation rates by up to 120% relative to shaded conditions across a wide diversity of plant species [396]. This number isconsiderably higher than that for photodegradation in semi-arid regions (60%) [413] or across several habitats or biomes (23%) [387],
underscoring the importance of forest disturbance in mesic ecosystems. Exposure to solar radiation alters lignin structure of litter in theearly stages of decomposition, promoting litter degradation via photofacilitation. This fact highlights the role of photofacilitation in
mesic ecosystems, where higher water availability favours microbial decomposition compared to drylands [388,414] (Fig. 3). On theother hand, relatively high UV radiation, which occurs during the time of the year when the forest canopy is leafless, may also have an
inhibitory effect on microbial decomposers [397]. The seasonal consequences of these effects of UV radiation on understory microbes
and overall ecosystem health and function remain unclear.
Recent studies have clarified the relative importance of the different wavelengths of solar radiation (i.e., UV-B, UV-A and blue-green)in driving photodegradation of litter and these findings have implications for the effects of ozone depletion on this process. A recent
meta-analysis found that, globally, solar radiation increases litter mass loss by 15.3 (± 1.0)% relative to litter that has not been exposed
to solar radiation [415]. The contribution of UV-B radiation was found to be significant only in specific environments, causing an 18%
and 23% loss of litter mass in semi-arid regions and polar regions, respectively. The relatively limited importance of UV-B radiation inpromoting loss of litter mass agrees with the results obtained with a new spectral weighting function for litter photomineralisation,
which showed that UV-B and UV-A radiation, together with visible blue-green light, are responsible for 9%, 61% and 30%, respectively,of total photochemical (abiotic) carbon loss [405] (Fig. 4). Overall, these rather small effects of UV-B radiation suggests that litter
photodegradation would be minimally affected by further changes in stratospheric ozone.

185

Chapter 4

Fig. 4 Action spectrum and weighted solar radiation
for the photo-mineralisation of litter from plants in the
North American Sonoran Desert. Panel A shows themean weighting function/action spectrum for the photomineralisation of plant litter (heavy solid line; measured as
CO2 loss), with 95% confidence interval (dotted line; CI),
along with the average solar noon spectral irradiance over
the time period of the study (thin solid line). Panel B shows
solar radiation at solar noon weighted according to the action
spectrum in Panel A, along with the total % effectiveness ofthe solar UV-B, UV-A and visible wavebands. Adapted from[405].

Photodegradation can also be influenced by changes in vegetation cover and soil erosion that result from changes in land use andclimate, including ECEs (Sect. 2.2). The loss of forests and other natural or semi-natural vegetation cover due to agricultural practices
increases photo-degradation of surface litter [19,398], such that deforestation and land clearing will accelerate release of carbon fromthe ecosystem and alter patterns of greenhouse gas emissions and nutrient cycling [396,403,416,417]. In dryland ecosystems, litter
position (e.g., at the soil surface vs buried or covered in dust) is the predominant factor determining carbon loss from photodegradation[418,399]. In contrast to forests, these dryland systems are experiencing an increase in woody plant cover as a result of changes inland use and climate and these vegetation shifts result in more shading of ground litter and increased soil erosion and deposition,
which decrease litter photodegradation [419,420]. Additional environmental changes such as increased nitrogen deposition andabandonment or less intensive use of agricultural land may slow litter decomposition through the attenuation of surface UV radiation byincreased plant canopy development [410].
Rainfall is another factor affecting litter photodegradation. In an experiment performed in drylands, the addition of supplemental
precipitation (simulating a 2.7 times increased rainfall) accelerated loss of litter mass by a factor of 2.6 under near-ambient solar radiation
but had no effect if litter was not previously exposed to solar radiation [389]. This result suggests that photodegradation followed byleaching may be another significant mechanism of loss of litter mass in arid ecosystems [389,421].
Collectively, these findings indicate that the overall effect of photodegradation on the decomposition of plant litter depends onenvironmental conditions (primarily moisture and temperature), litter quality, the degree of exposure of litter to solar radiation (asinfluenced by vegetation cover, litter position and degree of soil-litter mixing), and the solar spectral composition of radiation reaching
the litter layer [12]. Given the relatively small contribution of UV-B radiation to loss of litter mass and photomineralisation, ongoingand projected changes in stratospheric ozone and their interaction with climate and land-use changes are likely to impact litter
photodegradation mainly by modifying its exposure to total solar radiation [12,19,146].

6.2

Photochemical release of nutrients from terrestrial ecosystems

Most studies of photodegradation of organic matter in terrestrial ecosystems have focussed on effects on carbon but, as demonstrated
in aquatic ecosystems [112], UV radiation can also affect the storage and cycling of other elements, such as nitrogen and phosphorous.
Even in understory environments, where the amount and spectral composition of solar radiation is greatly modified by canopy structure
and phenology, UV-B radiation [396], UV-A radiation and blue light can promote the conversion of organic nitrogen into inorganic
compounds (nitrogen mineralisation) [412,416].
A recent meta-analysis of litter degradation studies found that the amount of UV radiation received affected the timing of nitrogenand phosphorous loss compared to that of carbon [414] due to differences in the relative contribution of microbial vs photochemicaldegradation. Under reduced UV radiation, nutrient mineralisation was slow and poorly correlated with overall loss of litter mass,
whereas, under increased UV radiation, phosphorous and nitrogen mineralisation was rapid and correlated with carbon mineralisation.
These results suggest that microbial processes dominate nutrient cycling under low levels of UV radiation, while abiotic processes,

186Chapter 4
which are characterised by a simultaneous release of nutrients and carbon, are more important at higher UV irradiances. Thus, underconditions of high UV irradiation the nutrients in litter may be made more rapidly available to plants, potentially reducing competition
for nutrients between plants and microbes. These effects could play a significant role in ecosystem functioning but have not yet beenthoroughly studied. The release of mineral forms of nitrogen is also likely to produce volatile nitrogen compounds including nitrous
oxide (N2O), which is both a powerful GHG and ODS [19]. Given the obvious implications for climate and stratospheric ozone, the effectof UV radiation on N2O emissions by litter remains a critical knowledge gap to be addressed in future studies.
Box 2 Biogeochemical cycling of warming permafrost under climate change
The world’s soils store large amounts of carbon, approximately two-to-three times more than the atmosphere (Panel A below;[378]). Therefore, even small instability or degradation of soils driven by perturbations in climate can lead to large releases ofcarbon. A large proportion of soil carbon is stored at high northern latitudes, where it has remained stable in peatlands andpermafrost soils over long time periods; often many thousands of years.
Permafrost is defined as any ground that remains completely frozen for at least two consecutive years. There is extensive
evidence that climate warming is causing permafrost to thaw [381]. This releases large amounts of organic carbon that waspreviously locked underground, whereby it becomes available for microbial and photochemical decomposition [384]. These
two processes release dissolved organic matter (DOM) and greenhouse gases (GHGs) such as CO2 [382, 383]
The effects of climate change on vegetation growing at high latitudes differ according to the region and vegetation type. These
effects are illustrated in Panel B below. Warmer winters and springs mean that less precipitation falls as snow, and that thesnowpack melts earlier. Reduced snow cover allows more solar radiation to reach the soil, thereby increasing photodegradation(B, circle a). A smaller snowpack also exposes vegetation to the environment above the snowpack for longer, leaving it more
susceptible to damage and desiccation (referred to as Arctic browning; [84]). The resultant loss of vegetation cover can leadto soil erosion and loss of ecosystem stability [86, 87]. In this scenario, these ecosystems become sources of carbon andrelease nutrients. Moribund vegetation is unable to take up these nutrients, more of which are leached into waterways or
emitted as gases [384], including the potent greenhouse gas N2O (Sect. 6.2). Elsewhere, warmer temperatures may extend
the growing season and nutrient release from thawing permafrost, which will increase plant growth and vegetation cover(Arctic greening). Additional shade from vegetation intercepts solar radiation before it reaches the soil, thereby limiting
photodegradation (B, circle b). However, warming also leads to increased disturbance in these ecosystems, including more
frequent wildfires, drought, floods, heatwaves, and herbivore outbreaks. Disturbance events generally destabilise the soil andcontribute to the release of organic carbon from permafrost to waterbodies (B, circles c-d) [80], where it is subject to continued
photodegradation to CO2 (B, circle d.; see also [112]).

Panel A, comparison of carbon stocks in various type of soils (brown bars) and the atmosphere (blue bar). The lighter extended
bar gives the contribution from permafrost soils greater than 3 m depths that is not relevant to the other soil types. Reproduced
and modified from [378]. Panel B, schematic showing the effect of warming on permafrost. Prior to climate change, soils andvegetation were covered for much of the year (left). Warming leads to reduced snow cover, permafrost thaw, and subsequent
increased frequency of disturbance events like fire, floods, droughts and insect damage causing dieback. Inset circles illustrate
how solar UV radiation interacts with these climate driven processes in soil (a-c) and waterbodies (d). Climate change is causing
the active top layer of soil to thaw during the summer and freeze again in the autumn – this active layer is becoming deeper andstaying unfrozen for longer.

187

Chapter 4

6.3

Methane emissions, UV radiation and plants

Methane (CH4) is a potent greenhouse gas, such that relatively small changes in its emissions can make a significant contribution toclimate change [422]. In addition to anthropogenic emissions, methane is released naturally by terrestrial ecosystems, particularly
wetlands [423,424]. At present, solar UV radiation is not considered an important driver of methane emission from terrestrial
ecosystems [9,425,112]. However, there is concern that climate changes associated with stratospheric ozone depletion at high latitudes(tundra and taiga ecosystems in the Northern Hemisphere and peatlands or wetlands in the Southern Hemisphere) may enhancemethane emissions [19].
Plants often serve as conduits of methane produced by bacteria in damp soils [426]. They also contribute to methane emissions
through photochemical mineralisation of pectin, waxes, and lignin by UV-B radiation, although this effect is deemed rather small [427].
Methane emission from plants is accelerated by interaction with other stressors such as herbivore damage and high temperatures [428].
Controlled experiments with Scots pine and Norway spruce under ambient conditions in Finland found a positive relationship between
methane emissions and solar radiation, which was steeper at warmer temperatures [429]. Even then, in most habitats, direct emission
from plants through photodegradation of pectin [430] is considered only a minor contributor to global terrestrial methane emissions[429,422].
Methane emission from plants also occurs through microbial methane production in the heartwood of trees (reviewed by[422,425,431]). From there, methane can be released to the atmosphere by passing through the bark or through the plant’s vascularsystem. This process is currently thought to be the main avenue of plant methane emissions in non-wetland environments, and it ismodulated by the moisture and phenolic content of heartwood rather than by UV radiation [432]. Reactive oxygen species (ROS), which
are produced in all organisms and can be enhanced by oxidative stress, also take part in reactions that can release methane. Additional
research is required to at the global scale to provide for a more complete understanding of the effects of climate and UV radiation onterrestrial methane emissions [428,425,433,422].

6.4

Interactions of UV radiation with fire-derived carbon

Forest fires are increasing in severity and frequency and will become even more prevalent as the climate continues to change [20].
Boreal forests are particularly vulnerable to fires as extreme warming is expected in this region [434-440] close to the Arctic circle.
Forest fires directly contribute to climate change by releasing GHGs such as CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide [15,435]. Wildfires also
provide an important pathway for opening soil surfaces to UV irradiation, leading to enhanced photodegradation of organic matter withconsequent release of CO2 (Sect. 6.1; Box 2). Due to the incomplete combustion of wood and other biomass, fires convert a substantial
fraction of vegetation into burnt biomass, termed charcoal or pyrogenic carbon (PyC) [437]. Recent estimates indicate that ca. 256 Tg
carbon (TgC) yr-1 (range = 196–340 TgC yr-1; 1 teragram = 1012 grams) of biomass were converted into pyrogenic carbon between 1997
and 2016 [441]. During rainfall events following a wildfire, ash and pyrogenic carbon (estimated up to 203 TgC yr-1 in a modelling study[442]) reach nearby watersheds, resulting in increased loads of organic carbon, nutrients, and metals [443,444]. The impact of wildfires
on surrounding water bodies can last for years, affecting biogeochemical processes and drinking water quality [445,443]. In addition,
fire-derived aerosols can temporarily reduce incident UV radiation reaching the Earth’s surface [145] and slow down UV-driven chemical
processes in the troposphere [15].
Pyrogenic carbon includes a broad suite of chemicals such as anhydrous sugars, condensed aromatics (often named black carbon),and graphitic carbon [441]. The specific chemical composition of PyC depends on biomass type and charring temperature, and thiscomposition affects its solubility, bioavailability, and photoreactivity [441,444,446,447]. Adding to previous findings [441], recent
studies confirmed that black carbon is the most photoreactive fraction of PyC [448] and that microbial mineralisation of PyC can beenhanced by prior exposure to UV radiation (i.e., photofacilitation) [444,447], similar to plant litter (Sect. 6.1) and dissolved organic
matter in water [112].

7 Sustainability and the Montreal Protocol
By protecting the stratospheric ozone layer and mitigating some of the effects of climate change, the Montreal Protocol and its
Amendments are assisting in the implementation of several of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Manyfindings in our Quadrennial Assessment address SDGs and specific targets that are relevant to agriculture (SDG 2: Zero hunger) andterrestrial ecosystems (SDG 15: Life on land) (Fig. 5). Other relevant contributions of the Montreal Protocol are related to pollution andcontamination (SDG 3: Good health and well-being), and climate change (SGD 13: Climate action). Specific SDG targets addressed by
our findings are described below.

188Chapter 4
SDG 2: Zero hunger
While small increases in solar UV-B radiation do not appear to pose a threat to crop yield, extreme increases in UV-B radiation, as
would have occurred without the Montreal Protocol, would likely have significantly decreased agricultural productivity (Sect. 5) andjeopardised SDG 2 and particularly 2.4 (Sustainable food production and resilient agricultural practices). Several studies have shownthat moderate UV radiation can alter the chemical composition of food and medicinal plants (Fig. 5a). In most cases, UV radiation
increases the nutritional profile of some crop species (e.g., by increasing the concentration of certain antioxidants, e.g., flavonoids), withpotential long-term positive outcomes for human health (Sect. 5.2). The latter finding has motivated the development of agricultural
practices (e.g., UV-transparent greenhouse coverings and UV-emitting LEDs) that exploit low and medium levels of UV-B radiation toenhance the nutraceutical properties of crops (Sect. 5.5). These practices can be directly deployed in both developed and developing
countries to obtain food with an improved nutritional profile for increased food security.
SDG 3: Good health and well-being
Plants exposed to modest levels of UV radiation often display some increase in resistance to pests and pathogens (Sect. 5.3), which
could lead to reduced use of pesticides. However, solar UV radiation also degrades certain pesticides (Fig. 5a). This may lead toincreased application of pesticides (Sect. 5.4), which could increase the risk of exposure of workers and consumers to these chemicals
as well as adding to soil pollution and contamination (SDG 3.9). The net result on pesticide use likely depends on many factors,
including changes in UV irradiance, cropping system, and types of pesticides.
SDG 13: Climate action
Modelling studies indicate that the Montreal Protocol and its Amendments have played a critical role in protecting global carbon
sequestration by terrestrial vegetation, which has, in turn, slowed the build-up of CO2 in the atmosphere and reduced a certain amountof global warming (Box 1). Also, exposure of plants to modest levels of UV radiation, that would not have continued to occur without theMontreal Protocol, can improve their tolerances to drought (Fig. 5b) and enhance resistance to pests and pathogens, thereby making
crops and natural ecosystems more resilient to climate change (Sect. 2.2, 3.3; SDG Target 13.1: Improve resilience to climate change).
Finally, this Assessment prepared for the Parties to the Montreal Protocol and as a scientific publication contributes to SDG Target 13.3
(Improve education, awareness-raising and human and institutional capacity on climate change mitigation, adaptation, impact
reduction and early warning).

Fig. 5 Pictorial representation of how the Montreal Protocol and its Amendments align with several Sustainable Development
Goals (SDG) and their targets. Panel a shows SDGs 2.4 (Sustainable food production and resilient agricultural practices) and3.9 (Deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals and soil pollution and contamination). Panels b and c show SDGs 13.1
(Strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate related disasters; centre panel) and 15.1, 15.4, 15.5 (Protect, restore andpromote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse landdegradation and halt biodiversity loss).

189

Chapter 4
SDG 15: Life on land
Increasing temperatures due to climate change are shifting the distribution ranges of plants and animals to higher elevations andlatitudes, which changes their exposure to solar UV irradiation (Fig. 5c; Sect. 4.1). Some modelling studies suggest that UV radiation canbe important in influencing the distribution shifts in plants (Sect. 4.2), which have the potential to negatively impact biodiversity (SDG
Target 15.1: Conservation of terrestrial ecosystems). For mountain ecosystems, the shift to higher altitudes is often more pronounced forinvasive species, which then occupy ecological niches of endemic alpine species with negative outcomes for biodiversity (SDG Target
15.4: Conservation of mountain ecosystems).
SDG 17: Partnership
Monitoring of the stratospheric ozone layer and its interactions with climate change are key to understanding the effects of UV
radiation on terrestrial ecosystems, therefore the assessment of how species respond to this climatic pressure represents a challenge
imposed on all countries. Partnerships between countries in Northern and Southern Hemispheres have been facilitated by theMontreal Protocol, which has stimulated technology transfer and innovation on the effects of UV radiation on plants and animals
among scientific communities worldwide (SDG targets 17.6, 17.7 and 17.8: North-South cooperation to access science, technology
and innovation; Promote development, transfer and dissemination of environmentally sound technologies; and Science, technology
and innovation capacity-building mechanisms for least developed countries). This partnership has facilitated international support fordata acquisition and sharing on the stratospheric ozone layer and the effect of UV radiation on terrestrial ecosystems (SDG target 17.9:
Enhance international capacity-building to achieve SDGs). This has assisted least developed countries to have first-hand information
for the implementation of environmental policies towards the achievement of SDGs (SDG target 17.14: Enhance policy coherence forsustainable development).

8 Gaps in knowledge
In this assessment we have identified several important knowledge gaps. These include:• Additional well-designed field studies are needed on all the topics addressed here to increase the confidence in ourassessment. It is well-established that the responses of plants and other organisms to UV radiation are heavily dependent on otherwavelengths of solar radiation as well as environmental factors such as temperature and moisture availability. There is also large
inter- and intraspecific variation in sensitivity to UV radiation. Thus, the assessment of the effects of changes in solar UV radiation,
stratospheric ozone and climate requires research conducted on a variety of species under natural, field conditions. However, studies
conducted under controlled environmental conditions (e.g., growth chambers and glasshouses) can provide important insights
into the mechanisms of effects of UV radiation. In our assessment we have included certain studies carried out under controlled
conditions when the results appear plausible and/or are useful for increasing awareness of potential effects and outcomes, but more
field studies are clearly needed to reduce many of the uncertainties identified in this assessment.
• Research into the impacts of Solar Radiation Management (SRM), such as Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI), is needed
to keep pace with policy-makers’ interest in these technologies. This is of particular concern, given that the existing evidence
might suggest that impacts on terrestrial ecosystems of adopting SAI, and in particular any eventual termination or interruption of
SAI following its adoption, are likely to be considerable, persistent and in some cases irreversible [24,26-28,449]. Importantly,
some models of the effects of SRM on primary productivity by terrestrial ecosystems only draw on estimates derived from relatively
simple and short-term calculations of changing canopy-level light-use efficiency under SAI scenarios. Experimental evidence of therelative importance of short-term responses vs the long-term acclimation of photosynthesis to the changes in spectral composition
and irradiance brought by SAI have yet to be assessed through controlled experiments. Thus, we are not in a position to confidently
assess the effects of SAI on ecosystem-level carbon assimilation at this time.
• Experimental studies are needed to verify findings from modelling studies aimed at quantifying the environmental
consequences of extreme levels of solar UV-B radiation, as would have occurred with uncontrolled emissions of ODS. Whilethese modelling studies are powerful approaches to understanding the benefits of the Montreal Protocol, and assessing the risks
of future changes in the stratospheric ozone layer [e.g., 3], they rely on several assumptions that can lead to large uncertainties
in the findings. As experimental studies on organisms exposed to these extreme amounts of UV radiation are lacking, it is often
assumed that the effects of UV-B radiation on growth, productivity and reproduction observed under current UV radiation can belinearly extrapolated to higher amounts of UV radiation. This assumption is likely unrealistic, especially for the more extreme ozone
depletion scenarios that would have eventually occurred without the Montreal Protocol. In addition, little is known about how thephotomorphogenic responses of plants, which are driven by photoreceptors such as UVR8, are affected by extreme levels of UV-B
radiation, or about the levels of UV irradiation where damage by the UV-B waveband supersedes the regulatory, photomorphogenic
effects.

190

Chapter 4• There is a critical need to develop action spectra for plants and other organisms, which more accurately describe biologicalresponses to the different wavelengths of UV radiation under the full solar spectrum. Action spectra are fundamental tointerpreting biological responses to changes in UV radiation that occur with stratospheric ozone depletion and they also serve asspectral weighting functions in both laboratory and field experiments [450]. Large uncertainties in assessing the effects of ozone
depletion can occur if inappropriate action spectra are used [451].
• The establishment of long-term biomonitoring studies would improve our ability to assess how organisms and ecosystems
will respond to the ongoing changes in UV radiation and climate. Changes in UV radiation and climate, especially extreme
climate events and combined extreme events (e.g., wildfires), pose significant risks to the health, stability, and biodiversity ofterrestrial ecosystems, but little experimental or modelling data exist to quantify these effects. These studies are critically needed fororganisms and ecosystems in polar regions, the tropics and high elevation mountains.
• The establishment of a global UV radiation biomonitoring network using material from selected organisms (from pollen toplants and animals) could further increase our knowledge and reduce uncertainties on the use of biological proxies for solar
UV radiation. Certain plant material and tissues, such as herbarium specimens and pollen in sediment cores, have the potential toserve as proxies for reconstructing past UV radiation environments on Earth, but presently there are large uncertainties associatedwith these techniques.
• Studies are needed to characterise a wider array of interactive effects to adequately assess the consequences and map
potential mitigation options of ongoing changes in solar UV radiation together with other contemporary environmental
changes. Advances have been made in understanding how UV radiation interacts with other climate change factors (e.g., UV
radiation and drought) to affect the growth and physiology of plants [452] but studies need to be expanded to include multiple
interactive factors (e.g., UV radiation, temperature, drought, CO2 concentrations).
• There is a need for additional biomedical research examining how UV radiation-induced changes in plant secondary
metabolites affects dietary availability of metabolites, and the impacts of these changes on food quality and theepidemiology of human diseases. Evidence continues to mount showing that exposure of plants to UV radiation alters theirsecondary chemistry and nutritional quality. But how these changes affect human health is largely unknown. This knowledge gap
needs to be addressed to gain a fuller understanding of climate change-associated effects of UV radiation and their consequences for
consumers, as well as the development of more sustainable agricultural practices (Sect. 5.5 and 7).
• Research is needed to better understand the effects of UV-B radiation on animals. In comparison to terrestrial plants andecosystems, there are far fewer studies on the effects of UV-B radiation on animals. While there are some similarities in experimental
approaches used to study plant and animal responses to UV-B radiation (e.g., providing different UV-B radiation treatments using
UV-emitting lamps) there are also some important differences that often limit the applicability of UV radiation research on animals.
For example, plant research typically uses a filter material (e.g. cellulose diacetate) to remove the short wavelength UV radiationthat is present in lamps but not in solar radiation [337]. Most plant research has also taken into account the effects of different UV
wavelengths by using action spectra as biological spectral weighting functions in designing and interpreting experiments using UVradiation produced by lamps [337]. Not all studies of the responses of terrestrial animals, including insects and other invertebrates,
adopt these approaches. In our assessment, these experimental deficiencies represent a significant limit in placing current
understanding of invertebrate responses, mostly obtained using UV-emitting lamps, in the context of variation in solar UV-B radiationin the field.
• Despite recent advances in understanding the ecological significance of photodegradation in the decomposition of plant
litter, further research is needed to refine our mechanistic understanding of this process and assess its importance in thecycling of carbon and other nutrients, and feedbacks to the climate system. Findings since our last Quadrennial Assessment
have revealed that photodegradation of plant litter is not only important in drylands, but across all terrestrial ecosystems. Thesefindings explain, in part, why traditional biogeochemical models of litter decomposition that do not include photodegradation areoften inadequate in reproducing measured mass and carbon losses [402,453,454]. Despite this general finding, many knowledge
gaps remain, notably the quantification of the relative importance of photomineralisation vs photofacilitation in both dry and mesic
environments, and whether the spectral weighting function derived from studies in drylands also applies to mesic ecosystems.
Nutrient cycling has also been much less studied than carbon cycling, and particularly how changes in nitrogen cycling caused by
UV irradiance could feedback on climate change and stratospheric ozone depletion. Open questions also remain concerning theunderlying chemistry controlling litter photomineralisation and the role of UV radiation in driving GHG emissions from the thawingof permafrost. Reducing these uncertainties would improve our ability to assess how changes in UV radiation and climate will impact
carbon cycling and feedbacks to the climate system.

191

Chapter 4

9 Conclusions
The findings presented in this Quadrennial Assessment indicate that changes in stratospheric ozone, UV radiation and climate caninteract in various ways to modify terrestrial ecosystems and biogeochemical cycles. While exposure to solar UV radiation, and inparticular the short wavelength UV-B radiation, has the potential to cause deleterious effects on plants, animals, and microorganisms,
most species have evolved mechanisms to tolerate or avoid harmful solar UV radiation at the Earth’s surface within the range
experienced without significant ozone depletion. The extreme UV irradiances that would have occurred without the Montreal
Protocol (i.e., “World-Avoided” scenarios) would likely have exceeded these tolerance limits and greatly reduced the productivity
and biodiversity of terrestrial ecosystems. These conditions would also have driven increased photodegradation of organic matterand nutrient cycling, which would have increased emission of GHGs, including nitrous oxide, an ozone-depleting and greenhousegas. Our findings further indicate that, in some cases, moderate levels of solar UV radiation (i.e., ambient UV irradiances without
appreciable ozone depletion) can have some positive effects on organisms and the environment (e.g., improved food quality, enhanced
plant defence against pests, improved plant vigour and resistance to other abiotic stresses, and the photodegradation of pesticides).
Maintaining these beneficial effects of moderate UV radiation would have been impossible without the Montreal Protocol. Thus, theMontreal Protocol and its Amendments have played, and continue to play, a vital role in maintaining healthy, diverse ecosystems onland that can sustain life on Earth. The Montreal Protocol and its Kigali Amendment are also directly and indirectly protecting the Earth’s
climate and mitigating some of the negative consequences of climate change by limiting the emissions of GHGs and protecting thecarbon sequestration potential of vegetation and the terrestrial carbon pool [3,5].
Since our last full assessment [12], there have been additional extreme weather events (e.g., heat waves, droughts, and hurricanes) andevents resulting from a combination of weather extremes and other drivers (e.g., wildfires) that have all contributed to the disruption
and destabilisation of terrestrial ecosystems. These have been particularly pronounced in polar regions where anomalies in stratosphericozone and ozone-driven climate change have occurred in the last three years [10]. Ozone depletion over Antarctica in certain years
has coincided with early summer and has likely resulted in greater exposure to UV radiation of animals, plants and microbes. These,
and other extreme events (as outlined in Sect. 2.2), are expected to increase in frequency and intensity in the future because of climatechange [20]. Together with other aspects of climate change, these extreme events will likely alter the UV radiation received by terrestrialorganisms to a greater degree than the expected changes in the stratospheric ozone layer—assuming continued and full compliancewith the Montreal Protocol. While understanding of the mechanisms of these UV-climate interactions is improving, the scale of theireffects in terrestrial ecosystems remain poorly defined at present. Nonetheless, our findings indicate that the Montreal Protocol and its
Amendments continue to make valuable contributions towards mitigating some of the negative environmental consequences of climatechange as well as addressing several of the SDG targets established in the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

Acknowledgements Generous contributions by UNEP/Ozone Secretariat for the convened author meeting, and support for W-CH
(also partly supported by the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) of Taiwan under grant MOST 110 2223-E-006 -004
-MY3). The following authors gratefully acknowledge support: PWB [J.H. Mullahy Endowment for Environmental Biology at Loyola
University New Orleans, and the U.S. Global Change Research Program]. TMR [University of Helsinki; University of Cumbria; Norwegian
Research Council (QUEST-UV project, and Academy of Finland (decision #324555)]. RGZ [US Environmental Protections Agency; theviews expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views or policies of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency]. MAKJ [Science Foundation Ireland (16-IA-4418). RO [Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF), grant number
P500PN_206690]. Q-WW [CAS Young Talents Program and National Natural Science Foundation of China (41971148)]. BF [RCN
(Research Council of Norway), grant # 322954]. JM-A [MCIN/AEI/10.13039/501100011033 and ‘ERDF A way of making Europe’ (grant
PGC2018-093824-B-C42)]; SAR [Australian Research Council (DP200100223 & SRIEAS Securing Antarctica’s Environmental Future) andthe University of Wollongong’s Centre for Sustainable Ecosystem Solutions (CSES)].
Author contributions All authors contributed to the conception and assessment, and carried out extensive revisions of content.
Conflict of interest The authors have no conflicts of interest.

192

Chapter 4

References
1.

McKenzie, R., Bernhard, G., Liley, B., Disterhoft, P., Rhodes, S., Bais, A., Morgenstern, O., Newman, P., Oman, L., Brogniez, C., &Simic, S. (2019). Success of Montreal Protocol demonstrated by comparing high-quality UV measurements with "World Avoided"
calculations from two chemistry-climate models. Scientific Reports, 9(1), 12332, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-48625-z.

2.

Barnes, P. W., Bornman, J. F., Pandey, K. K., Bernhard, G. H., Bais, A. F., Neale, R. E., Robson, T. M., Neale, P. J., Williamson, C. E.,
Zepp, R. G., Madronich, S., Wilson, S. R., Andrady, A. L., Heikkilä, A. M., & Robinson, S. A. (2021). The success of the Montreal
Protocol in mitigating interactive effects of stratospheric ozone depletion and climate change on the environment. Global Change
Biology, 27(22), 5681-5683, https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15841.

3.

Young, P. J., Harper, A. B., Huntingford, C., Paul, N. D., Morgenstern, O., Newman, P. A., Oman, L. D., Madronich, S., & Garcia,
R. R. (2021). The Montreal Protocol protects the terrestrial carbon sink. Nature, 596(7872), 384-388, https://doi.org/10.1038/
s41586-021-03737-3.

4.

Smith, S. L., O’Neill, H. B., Isaksen, K., Noetzli, J., & Romanovsky, V. E. (2022). The changing thermal state of permafrost. Nature
Reviews Earth & Environment, 3(1), 10-23, https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-021-00240-1.

5.

Goyal, R., England, M. H., Sen Gupta, A., & Jucker, M. (2019). Reduction in surface climate change achieved by the 1987 Montreal
Protocol. Environmental Research Letters, 14(12), 124041, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab4874.

6.

Purohit, P., Borgford-Parnell, N., Klimont, Z., & Höglund-Isaksson, L. (2022). Achieving Paris climate goals calls for increasing
ambition of the Kigali Amendment. Nature Climate Change, 12(4), 339-342, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-022-01310-y.

7.

WMO (2018). Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2018, Global Ozone Research and Monitoring Project-Report No. 58,
588 pp., Geneva, Switzerland, http://ozone.unep.org/science/assessment/sap

8.

WMO (2022). Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2022, GAW Report No. 278. 509 pp., World MeteorologicalOrganization, Geneva, Switzerland, https://ozone.unep.org/science/assessment/sap

9.

Bais, A. F., Bernhard, G., McKenzie, R. L., Aucamp, P. J., Young, P. J., Ilyas, M., Jöckel, M., & Deushi, M. (2019). Ozone-climate
interactions and effects on solar ultraviolet radiation. Photochemical & Photobiological Sciences, 18, 602-640, https://doi.
org/10.1039/C8PP90059K.

10.

Bernhard, G. H., Bais, A. F., Aucamp, P. J., Klekociuk, A. R., Liley, J. B., & McKenzie, R. L. (2022). Stratospheric ozone, UV
radiation, and climate interactions. Chapter 1

11.

Wang, J. A., & Friedl, M. A. (2019). The role of land cover change in Arctic-Boreal greening and browning trends. Environmental
Research Letters, 14(12), 125007, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab5429.

12.

Bornman, J. F., Barnes, P. W., Robson, T. M., Robinson, S. A., Jansen, M. A. K., Ballaré, C. L., & Flint, S. D. (2019). Linkages
between stratospheric ozone, UV radiation and climate change and their implications for terrestrial ecosystems. Photochemical &Photobiological Sciences, 18, 681-716, https://doi.org/10.1039/C8PP90061B.

13.

Bais, A. F., McKenzie, R. L., Bernhard, G., Aucamp, P. J., Ilyas, M., Madronich, S., & Tourpali, K. (2015). Ozone depletion andclimate change: impacts on UV radiation. Photochemical & Photobiological Sciences, 14(1), 19-52, https://doi.org/10.1039/
c4pp90032d.

14.

Lamy, K., Portafaix, T., Josse, B., Brogniez, C., Godin-Beekmann, S., Bencherif, H., Revell, L., Akiyoshi, H., Bekki, S., Hegglin, M.
I., Jöckel, P., Kirner, O., Liley, B., Marecal, V., Morgenstern, O., Stenke, A., Zeng, G., Abraham, N. L., Archibald, A. T., Butchart,N., Chipperfield, M. P., Di Genova, G., Deushi, M., Dhomse, S. S., Hu, R.-M., Kinnison, D., Kotkamp, M., McKenzie, R., Michou,M., Connor, F. M., Oman, L. D., Pitari, G., Plummer, D. A., Pyle, J. A., Rozanov, E., Saint-Martin, D., Sudo, K., Tanaka, T. Y., Visioni,
D., & Yoshida, K. (2019). Clear-sky ultraviolet radiation modelling using output from the Chemistry Climate Model Initiative.
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 19(15), 10087-10110, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-10087-2019.

15.

Madronich, S., Sulzberger, B., Longstreth, J. D., Schikowski, T., Sulbæk Andersen, M.P., Soloman, K. R., & Wilson, S. R. (2022).
Changes in tropospheric air quality related to the protection of stratospheric ozone in a changing climate. Chapter 6

16.

Pu, W., Cui, J., Wu, D., Shi, T., Chen, Y., Xing, Y., Zhou, Y., & Wang, X. (2021). Unprecedented snow darkening and melting
in New Zealand due to 2019–2020 Australian wildfires. Fundamental Research, 1(3), 224-231, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
fmre.2021.04.001.

17.

Damany-Pearce, L., Johnson, B., Wells, A., Osborne, M., Allan, J., Belcher, C., Jones, A., & Haywood, J. (2022). Australian wildfires
cause the largest stratospheric warming since Pinatubo and extends the lifetime of the Antarctic ozone hole. Scientific Reports,
12(1), 12665, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-15794-3.

18.

Bernath, P., Boone, C., & Crouse, J. (2022). Wildfire smoke destroys stratospheric ozone. Science, 375(6586), 1292-1295,
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abm5611.

193

Chapter 4
19.

Sulzberger, B., Austin, A. T., Cory, R. M., Zepp, R. G., & Paul, N. D. (2019). Solar UV radiation in a changing world: Roles ofcryosphere-land-water-atmosphere interfaces in global biogeochemical cycles. Photochemical & Photobiological Sciences, 18,
747-774, https://doi.org/10.1039/C8PP90063A.

20.

IPCC (2021). Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Reportof the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. [V. Masson-Demotte, P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S.L. Connors, C.Péan, S. Berger, N.
Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M.I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J.B.R. Matthews, T.K. Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi,
R. Yu and B. Zhou (Eds)], doi.org/10.1017/9781009157896

21.

IPCC (2022). Climate change 2022: Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. [H.-O. Pörtner, D.C. Roberts, M. Tignor, E.S. Poloczanska,
K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Löschke, V. Möller, A. Okem, B. Rama (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, 3056 pp., doi:10.1017/9781009325844

22.

Crutzen, P. J. (2006). Albedo enhancement by stratospheric sulfur injections: A contribution to resolve a policy dilemma? Climatic
Change, 77(3-4), 211-220, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-006-9101-y.

23.

Kravitz, B., & MacMartin, D. G. (2020). Uncertainty and the basis for confidence in solar geoengineering research. Nature
Reviews Earth & Environment, 1(1), 64-75, https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-019-0004-7.

24.

Madronich, S., Tilmes, S., Kravitz, B., MacMartin, D., & Richter, J. (2018). Response of surface ultraviolet and visible radiation to
stratospheric SO2 injections. Atmosphere, 9(11), https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos9110432.

25.

Tilmes, S., Müller, R., & Salawitch, R. (2008). The sensitivity of Polar ozone depletion to proposed geoengineering schemes.
Science, 320(5880), 1201, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1153966.

26.

Trisos, C. H., Amatulli, G., Gurevitch, J., Robock, A., Xia, L., & Zambri, B. (2018). Potentially dangerous consequences forbiodiversity of solar geoengineering implementation and termination. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 2(3), 475-482, https://doi.
org/10.1038/s41559-017-0431-0.

27.

Lockley, A., Xu, Y., Tilmes, S., Sugiyama, M., Rothman, D., & Hindes, A. (2022). 18 Politically relevant solar geoengineering
scenarios. Socio-Environmental Systems Modelling, 4, 18127, https://doi.org/10.18174/sesmo.18127.

28.

Zarnetske, P. L., Gurevitch, J., Franklin, J., Groffman, P. M., Harrison, C. S., Hellmann, J. J., Hoffman, F. M., Kothari, S.,
Robock, A., Tilmes, S., Visioni, D., Wu, J., Xia, L., & Yang, C. E. (2021). Potential ecological impacts of climate intervention byreflecting sunlight to cool Earth. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 118(15), https://doi.org/10.1073/
pnas.1921854118.

29.

Barnes, P. W., Robson, T. M., Neale, P. J., Williamson, C. E., Zepp, R. G., Madronich, S., Wilson, S. R., Andrady, A. L., Heikkilä,
A. M., Bernhard, G. H., Bais, A. F., Neale, R. E., Bornman, J. F., Jansen, M. A. K., Klekociuk, A. R., Martinez-Abaigar, J., Robinson,
S. A., Wang, Q. W., Banaszak, A. T., Häder, D. P., Hylander, S., Rose, K. C., Wängberg, S. Å., Foereid, B., Hou, W. C., Ossola,R., Paul, N. D., Ukpebor, J. E., Andersen, M. P. S., Longstreth, J., Schikowski, T., Solomon, K. R., Sulzberger, B., Bruckman, L. S.,
Pandey, K. K., White, C. C., Zhu, L., Zhu, M., Aucamp, P. J., Liley, J. B., McKenzie, R. L., Berwick, M., Byrne, S. N., Hollestein, L. M.,
Lucas, R. M., Olsen, C. M., Rhodes, L. E., Yazar, S., & Young, A. R. (2022). Environmental effects of stratospheric ozone depletion,
UV radiation, and interactions with climate change: UNEP Environmental Effects Assessment Panel, Update 2021. Photochemical& Photobiological Sciences, https://doi.org/10.1007/s43630-022-00176-5.

30.

Friedel, M., Chiodo, G., Stenke, A., Domeisen, D., Fueglistaler, S., Anet, J., & Peter, T. (2022). Sprintime arctic ozone depletion
forces northern hemisphere climate anomalies. Nature Geosciences, 15, 541-547, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-022-009747.

31.

Kwon, H., Choi, H., Kim, B.-M., Kim, S.-W., & Kim, S.-J. (2020). Recent weakening of the southern stratospheric polar vortex andits impact on the surface climate over Antarctica. Environmental Research Letters, 15(9), https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/
ab9d3d.

32.

Jucker, M., & Goyal, R. (2021). Ozone-forced southern annular mode during Antarctic stratospheric warming events. GeophysicalReview Letters, 10.1002/essoar.10507626.1, https://doi.org/10.1029/2021GL095270.

33.

Xia, Y., Hu, Y., Huang, Y., Zhao, C., Xie, F., & Yang, Y. (2021). Significant contribution of severe ozone loss to theSiberian-Arctic surface warming in spring 2020. Geophysical Research Letters, 48(8), e2021GL092509, https://doi.
org/10.1029/2021GL092509.

34.

Robinson, S. A., & Erickson III, D. J. (2015). Not just about sunburn--the ozone hole's profound effect on climate has significant
implications for Southern Hemisphere ecosystems. Global Change Biology, 21(2), 515-527, https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12739.

35.

Bernhard, G. H., McKenzie, R. L., Lantz, K., & Stierle, S. (2022). Updated analysis of data from Palmer Station, Antarctica (64°S), and San Diego, California (32° N), confirms large effect of the Antarctic ozone hole on UV radiation. Photochemical &Photobiological Sciences, 21(3), 373-384, https://doi.org/10.1007/s43630-022-00178-3.

36.

Robinson, S. A., Wasley, J., & Tobin, A. K. (2003). Living on the edge - plants and global change in continental and maritime
Antarctica. Global Change Biology, 9(12), 1681-1717, https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2486.2003.00693.x.

194Chapter 437.

Newsham, K. K., & Robinson, S. A. (2009). Responses of plants in polar regions to UVB exposure: a meta-analysis. Global Change
Biology, 15(11), 2574-2589, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2009.01944.x.

38.

Ballaré, C. L., Caldwell, M. M., Flint, S. D., Robinson, S. A., & Bornman, J. F. (2011). Effects of solar ultraviolet radiation onterrestrial ecosystems. Patterns, mechanisms, and interactions with climate change. Photochemical & Photobiological Sciences,10(2), 226-241, https://doi.org/10.1039/c0pp90035d.

39.

Banerjee, A., Fyfe, J. C., Polvani, L. M., Waugh, D., & Chang, K.-L. (2020). A pause in Southern Hemisphere circulation trends dueto the Montreal Protocol. Nature, 579(7800), 544-548, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2120-4.

40.

Fogt, R. L., & Marshall, G. J. (2020). The Southern Annular Mode: Variability, trends, and climate impacts across the Southern
Hemisphere. WIREs Climate Change, 11(4), e652, https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.652.

41.

Gillett, Z. E., Arblaster, J. M., Dittus, A. J., Deushi, M., Jöckel, P., Kinnison, D. E., Morgenstern, O., Plummer, D. A., Revell, L. E.,
Rozanov, E., Schofield, R., Stenke, A., Stone, K. A., & Tilmes, S. (2019). Evaluating the relationship between interannual variationsin the Antarctic ozone hole and Southern Hemisphere surface climate in chemistry–climate models. Journal of Climate, 32(11),3131-3151, https://doi.org/10.1175/jcli-d-18-0273.1.

42.

Morales, M. S., Cook, E. R., Barichivich, J., Christie, D. A., Villalba, R., LeQuesne, C., Srur, A. M., Ferrero, M. E., Gonzalez-Reyes,
A., Couvreux, F., Matskovsky, V., Aravena, J. C., Lara, A., Mundo, I. A., Rojas, F., Prieto, M. R., Smerdon, J. E., Bianchi, L. O.,
Masiokas, M. H., Urrutia-Jalabert, R., Rodriguez-Caton, M., Munoz, A. A., Rojas-Badilla, M., Alvarez, C., Lopez, L., Luckman, B.
H., Lister, D., Harris, I., Jones, P. D., Williams, A. P., Velazquez, G., Aliste, D., Aguilera-Betti, I., Marcotti, E., Flores, F., Munoz, T.,
Cuq, E., & Boninsegna, J. A. (2020). Six hundred years of South American tree rings reveal an increase in severe hydroclimatic
events since mid-20th century. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 117(29), 16816-16823, https://doi.
org/10.1073/pnas.2002411117.

43.

Damiani, A., Cordero, R. R., Llanillo, P. J., Feron, S., Boisier, J. P., Garreaud, R., Rondanelli, R., Irie, H., & Watanabe, S. (2020).
Connection between Antarctic Ozone and climate: Interannual precipitation changes in the Southern Hemisphere. Atmosphere,
11(6), 579, https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos11060579.

44.

Doddridge, E. W., Marshall, J., Song, H., Campin, J.-M., & Kelley, M. (2021). Southern Ocean heat storage, reemergence,
and winter sea ice decline induced by summertime winds. Journal of Climate, 34(4), 1403-1415, https://doi.org/10.1175/
jcli-d-20-0322.1.

45.

England, M., Polvani, L., & Sun, L. (2018). Contrasting the Antarctic and Arctic atmospheric responses to projected sea ice loss in
the late twenty-first century. Journal of Climate, 31(16), 6353-6370, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0666.1

46.

Li, S., Liu, W., Lyu, K., & Zhang, X. (2021). The effects of historical ozone changes on Southern Ocean heat uptake and storage.
Climate Dynamics, 57(7-8), 2269-2285, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-021-05803-y.

47.

Marshall, J., Ferreira, D., Bitz, C. M., Solomon, S., & Plumb, A. (2015). Antarctic Ocean and sea ice response to ozone depletion:
A two-time-scale problem. Journal of Climate, 28(3), 1206-1226, https://doi.org/10.1175/jcli-d-14-00313.1.

48.

Son, S.-W., Han, B.-R., Garfinkel, C. I., Kim, S.-Y., Park, R., Abraham, N. L., Akiyoshi, H., Archibald, A. T., Butchart, N.,
Chipperfield, M. P., Dameris, M., Deushi, M., Dhomse, S. S., Hardiman, S. C., Jöckel, P., Kinnison, D., Michou, M., Morgenstern,O., O’Connor, F. M., Oman, L. D., Plummer, D. A., Pozzer, A., Revell, L. E., Rozanov, E., Stenke, A., Stone, K., Tilmes, S.,
Yamashita, Y., & Zeng, G. (2018). Tropospheric jet response to Antarctic ozone depletion: An update with Chemistry-Climate
Model Initiative (CCMI) models. Environmental Research Letters, 13(5), 054024, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aabf21.

49.

Waugh, D. W., Thomas, J. L., Polvani, L. M., Marshall, J., Kostov, Y., Kelley, M., Gnanadesikan, A., Ferreira, D., Doddridge, E. W.,
Codron, F., & Seviour, W. J. M. (2019). The Southern Ocean sea surface temperature response to ozone depletion: A multimodelcomparison. Journal of Climate, 32(16), 5107-5121, https://doi.org/10.1175/jcli-d-19-0109.1.

50.

Polvani, L. M., Banerjee, A., Chemke, R., Doddridge, E. W., Ferreira, D., Gnanadesikan, A., Holland, M. A., Kostov, Y., Marshall,J., Seviour, W. J. M., Solomon, S., & Waugh, D. W. (2021). Interannual SAM modulation of Antarctic sea ice extent does notaccount for its long-term trends, pointing to a limited role for ozone depletion. Geophysical Research Letters, 48(21), https://doi.
org/10.1029/2021gl094871.

51.

Stuecker, M. F., Bitz, C. M., Armour, K. C., Proistosescu, C., Kang, S. M., Xie, S.-P., Kim, D., McGregor, S., Zhang, W., Zhao, S.,
Cai, W., Dong, Y., & Jin, F.-F. (2018). Polar amplification dominated by local forcing and feedbacks. Nature Climate Change, 8(12),1076-1081, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0339-y.

52.

Bergstrom, D. M., Dickson, C. R., Baker, D. J., Winham, J., Selkirk, P. M., & McGeoch, M. A. (2021). Ecosystem collapse on a SubAntarctic island. In J. G. Canadell, & R. B. Jackson (Eds.), Ecosystem Collapse and Climate Change (pp. 13-25). Cham: Springer
International Publishing.

53.

Robinson, S. A., King, D. H., Bramley-Alves, J., Waterman, M. J., Ashcroft, M. B., Wasley, J., Turnbull, J. D., Miller, R. E., RyanColton, E., Benny, T., Mullany, K., Clarke, L. J., Barry, L. A., & Hua, Q. (2018). Rapid change in East Antarctic terrestrial vegetationin response to regional drying. Nature Climate Change, 8(10), 879-884, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0280-0.

195Chapter 4
54.

Kramarova, N., Newman, P. A., Nash, E. R., Strahan, S. E., Long, C. S., Johnson, B., Pitts, M., Santee, M. L., Petropavlovskikh, I.,
Coy, L., & de Laat, J. (2020). 2019 Antarctic ozone hole In J. Blunden, & D. S. Arndt (Eds.), “State of the Climate in 2019”, Bulletinof the American Meteorological Society (Vol. 101, pp. S310-S312).

55.

Milinevsky, G., Evtushevsky, O., Klekociuk, A., Wang, Y., Grytsai, A., Shulga, V., & Ivaniha, O. (2019). Early indications ofanomalous behaviour in the 2019 spring ozone hole over Antarctica. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 41(19), 7530-7540,
https://doi.org/10.1080/2150704X.2020.1763497.

56.

Shen, X., Wang, L., & Osprey, S. (2020). Tropospheric forcing of the 2019 Antarctic sudden stratospheric warming. GeophysicalResearch Letters, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020gl089343.

57.

Hendon, H. H., Thompson, D. J. W., Lim, E.-P., Butler, A. H., Newman, P. A., Coy, L., Scaife, A., Polichtchouk, I., Garreaud, R. S.,
T.G., S., & Nakamura, H. (2019). Rare forecasted climate event under way in the Southern Hemisphere. Nature, 573(7775), 495,
https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-02858-0.

58.

Jucker, M., Reichler, T., & Waugh, D. W. (2021). How frequent are Antarctic sudden stratospheric warmings in present and futureclimate? Geophysical Research Letters, 48(11), https://doi.org/10.1029/2021gl093215.

59.

Lim, E.-P., Hendon, H. H., Boschat, G., Hudson, D., Thompson, D. W. J., Dowdy, A. J., & Arblaster, J. M. (2019). Australian hot anddry extremes induced by weakenings of the stratospheric polar vortex. Nature Geoscience, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561019-0456-x.

60.

Lim, E.-P., Hendon, H. H., Butler, A. H., Garreaud, R. D., Polichtchouk, I., Shepherd, T. G., Scaife, A., Comer, R., Coy, L., Newman,
P. A., Thompson, D. J. W., & Nakamura, H. (2020). The 2019 Antarctic sudden stratospheric warming. SPARC Newsletter, 54, 1013.

61.

Newman, P., Nash, E. R., Kramarova, N., & Butler, A. (2020). The 2019 southern stratospheric warming. In T. Scambos, & S.
Stammerjohn (Eds.), “State of the Climate in 2019", Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (Vol. 101, pp. S297-S298,
Vol. 8).

62.

62. Noguchi, S., Kuroda, Y., Kodera, K., & Watanabe, S. (2020). Robust enhancement of tropical convective activity by
the 2019 Antarctic sudden stratospheric warming. Geophysical Research Letters, 47(15), e2020GL088743, https://doi.
org/10.1029/2020GL088743.

63.

Robinson, S. A., Klekociuk, A. R., King, D. H., Pizarro Rojas, M., Zúñiga, G. E., & Bergstrom, D. M. (2020). The 2019/2020
summer of Antarctic heatwaves. Global Change Biology, 26(6), 3178-3180, https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15083.

64.

Yamazaki, Y., Matthias, V., Miyoshi, Y., Stolle, C., Siddiqui, T., Kervalishvili, G., Laštovička, J., Kozubek, M., Ward, W., Themens,
D. R., Kristoffersen, S., & Alken, P. (2020). September 2019 Antarctic sudden stratospheric warming: quasi-6-Day wave burst andionospheric effects. Geophysical Research Letters, 47(1), https://doi.org/10.1029/2019gl086577.

65.

Allen, D. R., Fromm, M. D., Kablick III, G. P., & Nedoluha, G. E. (2020). Smoke with induced rotation and lofting (SWIRL) in thestratosphere. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 77(12), 4297-4316, https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-20-0131.1.

66.

Boone, C. D., Bernath, P. F., & Fromm, M. D. (2020). Pyrocumulonimbus stratospheric plume injections measured by the ACE-FTS.
Geophysical Research Letters, 47(15), e2020GL088442, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL088442.

67.

Hirsch, E., & Koren, I. (2021). Record-breaking aerosol levels explained by smoke injection into the stratosphere. Science,
371(6535), 1269-1274, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abe1415.

68.

Kablick III, G. P., Allen, D. R., Fromm, M. D., & Nedoluha, G. E. (2020). Australian PyroCb smoke generates synoptic-scale
stratospheric anticyclones. Geophysical Research Letters, 47(13), e2020GL088101, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL088101.

69.

Khaykin, S., Legras, B., Bucci, S., Sellitto, P., Isaksen, L., Tencé, F., Bekki, S., Bourassa, A., Rieger, L., Zawada, D., Jumelet, J., &Godin-Beekmann, S. (2020). The 2019/20 Australian wildfires generated a persistent smoke-charged vortex rising up to 35 km
altitude. Communications Earth & Environment, 1(1), 1-12, https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-020-00022-5.

70.

Ohneiser, K., Ansmann, A., Baars, H., Seifert, P., Barja, B., Jimenez, C., Radenz, M., Teisseire, A., Floutsi, A., Haarig, M., Foth, A.,
Chudnovsky, A., Engelmann, R., Zamorano, F., Bühl, J., & Wandinger, U. (2020). Smoke of extreme Australian bushfires observedin the stratosphere over Punta Arenas, Chile, in January 2020: optical thickness, lidar ratios, and depolarization ratios at 355 and532 nm. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 20(13), 8003-8015, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-8003-2020.

71.

Schwartz, M. J., Santee, M. L., Pumphrey, H. C., Manney, G. L., Lambert, A., Livesey, N. J., Millán, L., Neu, J. L., Read, W. G., &Werner, F. (2020). Australian new year's pyroCb impact on stratospheric composition. Geophysical Research Letters, 47(24),e2020GL090831, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL090831.

72.

Solomon, S., Dube, K., Stone, K., Yu, P., Kinnison, D., Toon, O. B., Strahan, S. E., Rosenlof, K. H., Portmann, R., Davis, S., Randel,W., Bernath, P., Boone, C., Bardeen, C. G., Bourassa, A., Zawada, D., & Degenstein, D. (2022). On the stratospheric chemistryof midlatitude wildfire smoke. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 119(10), e2117325119, https://doi.
org/10.1073/pnas.2117325119.

196

Chapter 4
73.

Yu, P., Davis, S. M., Toon, O. B., Portmann, R. W., Bardeen, C. G., Barnes, J. E., Telg, H., Maloney, C., & Rosenlof, K. H.
(2021). Persistent stratospheric warming due to 2019–2020 Australian wildfire smoke. Geophysical Research Letters, 48(7),e2021GL092609, https://doi.org/10.1029/2021GL092609.

74.

Klekociuk, A. R., Tully, M. B., Krummel, P. B., Henderson, S. I., Smale, D., Querel, R., Nichol, S., Alexander, S. P., Fraser, P. J., &Nedoluha, G. (2022). The Antarctic ozone hole during 2020. Journal of Southern Hemisphere Earth Systems Science, https://doi.org/10.1071/es21015.

75.

Stone, K. A., Solomon, S., Kinnison, D. E., & Mills, M. J. (2021). On recent large Antarctic ozone holes and ozone recovery
metrics. Geophysical Research Letters, 48(22), https://doi.org/10.1029/2021gl095232.

76.

Yook, S., Thompson, D. W. J., & Solomon, S. (2022). Climate impacts and potential drivers of the unprecedented Antarctic ozone
holes of 2020 and 2021. Geophysical Research Letters, 49(10), e2022GL098064, https://doi.org/10.1029/2022GL098064.

77.

Lecouffe, A., Godin-Beekmann, S., Pazmiño, A., & Hauchecorne, A. (2022). Evolution of the intensity and duration of theSouthern Hemisphere stratospheric polar vortex edge for the period 1979–2020. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 22(6),4187-4200, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-4187-2022.

78.

Ceppi, P., & Shepherd, T. G. (2019). The role of the stratospheric polar vortex for the austral jet response to greenhouse gas
forcing. Geophysical Research Letters, 46(12), 6972-6979, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019gl082883.

79.

Lee, J. R., Waterman, M. J., Shaw, J. D., Bergstrom, D. M., Lynch, H. J., Wall, D. H., & Robinson, S. A. (2022). Islands in the ice:
Potential impacts of habitat transformation on Antarctic biodiversity. Global Change Biology, https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.16331.

80.

Lembrechts, J. J., van den Hoogen, J., Aalto, J., Ashcroft, M. B., De Frenne, P., Kemppinen, J., Kopecky, M., Luoto, M., Maclean,
I. M. D., Crowther, T. W., Bailey, J. J., Haesen, S., Klinges, D. H., Niittynen, P., Scheffers, B. R., Van Meerbeek, K., Aartsma,
P., Abdalaze, O., Abedi, M., Aerts, R., Ahmadian, N., Ahrends, A., Alatalo, J. M., Alexander, J. M., Allonsius, C. N., Altman,
J., Ammann, C., Andres, C., Andrews, C., Ardo, J., Arriga, N., Arzac, A., Aschero, V., Assis, R. L., Assmann, J. J., Bader, M. Y.,
Bahalkeh, K., ... & Lenoir, J. (2022). Global maps of soil temperature. Global Change Biology, 28(9), 3110-3144, https://doi.
org/10.1111/gcb.16060.

81.

Cannone, N., Malfasi, F., Favero-Longo, S. E., Convey, P., & Guglielmin, M. (2022). Acceleration of climate warming and plant
dynamics in Antarctica. Current Biology, 32(7), 1599-1606, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2022.01.074.

82.

Chown, S. L., Leihy, R. I., Naish, T. R., Brooks, C. M., Convey, P., Henley, B. J., Mackintosh, A. N., Phillips, L. M., Kennicutt II, M.
C., & Grant, S. M. (Eds.). (2022). Antarctic climate change and the environment: A decadal synopsis and recommendations foraction. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research

83.

Myers-Smith, I. H., Kerby, J. T., Phoenix, G. K., Bjerke, J. W., Epstein, H. E., Assmann, J. J., John, C., Andreu-Hayles, L., AngersBlondin, S., Beck, P. S. A., Berner, L. T., Bhatt, U. S., Bjorkman, A. D., Blok, D., Bryn, A., Christiansen, C. T., Cornelissen, J. H.
C., Cunliffe, A. M., Elmendorf, S. C., Forbes, B. C., Goetz, S. J., Hollister, R. D., de Jong, R., Loranty, M. M., Macias-Fauria, M.,
Maseyk, K., Normand, S., Olofsson, J., Parker, T. C., Parmentier, F.-J. W., Post, E., Schaepman-Strub, G., Stordal, F., Sullivan, P.
F., Thomas, H. J. D., Tømmervik, H., Treharne, R., Tweedie, C. E., Walker, D. A., Wilmking, M., & Wipf, S. (2020). Complexity
revealed in the greening of the Arctic. Nature Climate Change, 10(2), 106-117, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-019-0688-1.

84.

Callaghan, T. V., Cazzolla Gatti, R., & Phoenix, G. (2022). The need to understand the stability of arctic vegetation during rapid
climate change: An assessment of imbalance in the literature. Ambio, 51(4), 1034-1044, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-02101607-w.

85.

Phoenix, G. K., & Treharne, R. (2022). Arctic greening and browning: Challenges and a cascade of complexities. Global Change
Biology, 28(11), 3481-3483, https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.16118.

86.

Treharne, R., Bjerke, J. W., Tommervik, H., Stendardi, L., & Phoenix, G. K. (2019). Arctic browning: Impacts of extreme climatic
events on heathland ecosystem CO2 fluxes. Global Change Biology, 25(2), 489-503, https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14500.

87.

Robinson, S. A. (2022). Climate change and extreme events are changing the biology of Polar Regions. Global Change Biology,
https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.16309.

88.

Bokhorst, S., Cornelissen, J. H. C., & Veraverbeke, S. (2022). Long-term legacies of seasonal extremes in Arctic ecosystem
functioning. Global Change Biology, 28(10), 3161-3162, https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.16078.

89.

Perera-Castro, A. V., Waterman, M. J., Turnbull, J. D., Ashcroft, M. B., McKinley, E., Watling, J. R., Bramley-Alves, J., CasanovaKatny, A., Zuniga, G., Flexas, J., & Robinson, S. A. (2020). It is hot in the sun: Antarctic mosses have high temperature optima forphotosynthesis despite cold climate. Frontiers in Plant Science, 11, 1178, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2020.01178.

90.

Lawrence, Z. D., Perlwitz, J., Butler, A. H., Manney, G. L., Newman, P. A., Lee, S. H., & Nash, E. R. (2020). The remarkably strong
Arctic stratospheric polar vortex of winter 2020: Links to record-breaking Arctic oscillation and ozone loss. Journal of GeophysicalResearch: Atmospheres, 125(22), e2020JD033271, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JD033271.

91.

Manney, G. L., Livesey, N. J., Santee, M. L., Froidevaux, L., Lambert, A., Lawrence, Z. D., Millán, L. F., Neu, J. L., Read, W. G.,
Schwartz, M. J., & Fuller, R. A. (2020). Record-low Arctic stratospheric ozone in 2020: MLS observations of chemical processes
and comparisons with previous extreme winters. Geophysical Research Letters, 47(16), http://doi.org/10.1029/2020gl089063.

197

Chapter 4
92.

Bernhard, G. H., Fioletov, V. E., Grooß, J.-U., Ialongo, I., Johnsen, B., Lakkala, K., Manney, G. L., Müller, R., & Svendby, T.
(2021). Ozone and ultraviolet radiation. In J. Blunden, & T. Boyer (Eds.), “State of the Climate in 2020”, Bulletin of the American
Meteorological Society, (Vol. 102, pp. S299–S303, Vol. 8).

93.

Bernhard, G. H., Fioletov, V. E., Grooß, J. U., Ialongo, I., Johnsen, B., Lakkala, K., Manney, G. L., Müller, R., & Svendby, T.
(2020). Record-breaking increases in Arctic solar ultraviolet radiation caused by exceptionally large ozone depletion in 2020.
Geophysical Research Letters, 47(24), https://doi.org/10.1029/2020gl090844.

94.

Domeisen, D. I. V., & Butler, A. H. (2020). Stratospheric drivers of extreme events at the Earth’s surface. Communications Earth &Environment, 1(1), https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-020-00060-z.

95.

Overland, J. E., & Wang, M. (2021). The 2020 Siberian heat wave. International Journal of Climatology, 41, E2341-E2346,
https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.6850.

96.

Zhang, J., Tian, W., Pyle, J. A., Keeble, J., Abraham, N. L., Chipperfield, M. P., Xie, F., Yang, Q., Mu, L., Ren, H.-L., Wang, L., &Xu, M. (2022). Responses of Arctic sea ice to stratospheric ozone depletion. Science Bulletin, 67(11), 1182-1190, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.scib.2022.03.015.

97.

Yook, S., Thompson, D. W. J., & Solomon, S. (2022). Climate impacts and potential drivers of the unprecedented antarctic ozone
holes of 2020 and 2021. Geophysical Research Letters, 49(10), https://doi.org/10.1029/2022gl098064.

98.

Abram, N. J., Henley, B. J., Sen Gupta, A., Lippmann, T. J. R., Clarke, H., Dowdy, A. J., Sharples, J. J., Nolan, R. H., Zhang, T.,
Wooster, M. J., Wurtzel, J. B., Meissner, K. J., Pitman, A. J., Ukkola, A. M., Murphy, B. P., Tapper, N. J., & Boer, M. M. (2021).
Connections of climate change and variability to large and extreme forest fires in southeast Australia. Communications Earth &Environment, 2(1), https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-020-00065-8.

99.

Zhang, Y., Beggs, P. J., McGushin, A., Bambrick, H., Trueck, S., Hanigan, I. C., Morgan, G. G., Berry, H. L., Linnenluecke, M. K.,
Johnston, F. H., Capon, A. G., & Watts, N. (2020). The 2020 special report of the MJA–Lancet Countdown on health and climatechange: lessons learnt from Australia’s “Black Summer”. Medical Journal of Australia, 213(11), 490-492.e410, https://doi.
org/10.5694/mja2.50869.

100. Graham, A. M., Pringle, K. J., Pope, R. J., Arnold, S. R., Conibear, L. A., Burns, H., Rigby, R., Borchers-Arriagada, N., Butt, E. W.,
Kiely, L., Reddington, C., Spracklen, D. V., Woodhouse, M. T., Knote, C., & McQuaid, J. B. (2021). Impact of the 2019/2020
Australian megafires on air quality and health. Geohealth, 5(10), e2021GH000454, https://doi.org/10.1029/2021GH000454.
101. Cowled, B. D., Hillman, A., Ward, M. P., Clutterbuck, H., Doyle, M., Webb Ware, J., Thomas, M., Plain, K., Barwell, R., Laurence,
M., & Pfeiffer, C. (2022). The black summer bushfires: impacts and risk factors for livestock bushfire injury in south-eastern
Australia. Australian Veterinary Journal, 100(7), 306-317, https://doi.org/10.1111/avj.13165.
102. Dickman, C. R. (2021). Ecological consequences of Australia's “Black Summer” bushfires: Managing for recovery. [https://doi.
org/10.1002/ieam.4496]. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 17(6), 1162-1167, https://doi.org/10.1002/
ieam.4496.
103. González-Herrero, S., Barriopedro, D., Trigo, R. M., López-Bustins, J. A., & Oliva, M. (2022). Climate warming amplified the 2020
record-breaking heatwave in the Antarctic Peninsula. Communications Earth & Environment, 3(1), https://doi.org/10.1038/
s43247-022-00450-5.
104. Bergstrom, D. M., Wienecke, B. C., van den Hoff, J., Hughes, L., Lindenmayer, D. B., Ainsworth, T. D., Baker, C. M., Bland, L.,
Bowman, D. M. J. S., Brooks, S. T., Canadell, J. G., Constable, A. J., Dafforn, K. A., Depledge, M. H., Dickson, C. R., Duke, N.
C., Helmstedt, K. J., Holz, A., Johnson, C. R., McGeoch, M. A., Melbourne-Thomas, J., Morgain, R., Nicholson, E., Prober, S.
M., Raymond, B., Ritchie, E. G., Robinson, S. A., Ruthrof, K. X., Setterfield, S. A., Sgrò, C. M., Stark, J. S., Travers, T., Trebilco, R.,
Ward, D. F. L., Wardle, G. M., Williams, K. J., Zylstra, P. J., & Shaw, J. D. (2021). Combating ecosystem collapse from the tropics to
the Antarctic. Global Change Biology, 27(9), 1692-1703, https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15539.
105. Cortes-Antiquera, R., Pizarro, M., Contreras, R. A., Kohler, H., & Zuniga, G. E. (2021). Heat shock tolerance in Deschampsia
antarctica desv. cultivated in vitro is mediated by enzymatic and non-enzymatic antioxidants. Frontiers in Plant Science, 12,635491, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2021.635491.
106. Montie, S., Thomsen, M. S., Rack, W., & Broady, P. A. (2020). Extreme summer marine heatwaves increase chlorophyll a in theSouthern Ocean. Antarctic Science, 32(6), 508-509, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954102020000401.
107. Samuels, T., Rynearson, T. A., & Collins, S. (2021). Surviving heatwaves: Thermal experience predicts life and death in a southernocean diatom. Frontiers in Marine Science, 8, https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2021.600343.
108. De Leij, R., Grange, L. J., & Peck, L. S. (2022). Functional thermal limits are determined by rate of warming during simulated marine
heatwaves. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 685, 183-196, https://doi.org/10.3354/meps13980
109. Bernhard, P., Zwieback, S., & Hajnsek, I. (2022). Accelerated mobilization of organic carbon from retrogressive thaw slumps on
the northern Taymyr Peninsula. The Cryosphere, 16(7), 2819-2835, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-16-2819-2022.

198

Chapter 4110. Boonstra, R., Bodner, K., Bosson, C., Delehanty, B., Richardson, E. S., Lunn, N. J., Derocher, A. E., & Molnár, P. K. (2020). The
stress of Arctic warming on polar bears. [https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15142]. Global Change Biology, 26(8), 4197-4214,
https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15142.
111. Stirling, I., & Derocher, A. E. (2012). Effects of climate warming on polar bears: a review of the evidence. Global Change Biology,
18(9), 2694-2706, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2012.02753.x.
112. Neale, P. J., Williamson, C. E., Banaszak, A. T., Häder, D.-P., Hylander, S., Ossola, R., Rose, K. A., Wängberg, S. Å., & Zepp, R. G.
(2022). The response of aquatic ecosystems to the interactive effects of stratospheric ozone depletion, UV radiation, and climatechange. Chapter 5113. Smith, M. D. (2011). The ecological role of climate extremes: current understanding and future prospects. Journal of Ecology,
99(3), 651-655, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2745.2011.01833.x.
114. Chen, Y., Liao, Z., Shi, Y., Tian, Y., & Zhai, P. (2021). Detectable increases in sequential flood-heatwave events across China during
1961–2018. Geophysical Research Letters, 48(6), e2021GL092549, https://doi.org/10.1029/2021GL092549.
115. Fischer, E. M., Sippel, S., & Knutti, R. (2021). Increasing probability of record-shattering climate extremes. Nature Climate
Change, 11(8), 689-695, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01092-9.
116. Goss, M., Swain, D. L., Abatzoglou, J. T., Sarhadi, A., Kolden, C. A., Williams, A. P., & Diffenbaugh, N. S. (2020). Climate change
is increasing the likelihood of extreme autumn wildfire conditions across California. Environmental Research Letters, 15(9),094016, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab83a7.
117. Kennard, D. K., Matlaga, D., Sharpe, J., King, C., Alonso-Rodríguez, A. M., Reed, S. C., Cavaleri, M. A., & Wood, T. E. (2020).
Tropical understory herbaceous community responds more strongly to hurricane disturbance than to experimental warming.
Ecology and Evolution, 10(16), 8906-8915, https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.6589.
118. Li, F., Wan, X., Wang, H., Orsolini, Y. J., Cong, Z., Gao, Y., & Kang, S. (2020). Arctic sea-ice loss intensifies aerosol transport to the
Tibetan Plateau. Nature Climate Change, 10(11), 1037-1044, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-0881-2.
119. Musselman, K. N., Addor, N., Vano, J. A., & Molotch, N. P. (2021). Winter melt trends portend widespread declines in snow water
resources. Nature Climate Change, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01014-9.
120. Dodd, R. J., Chadwick, D. R., Harris, I. M., Hines, A., Hollis, D., Economou, T., Gwynn-Jones, D., Scullion, J., Robinson, D. A., &Jones, D. L. (2021). Spatial co-localisation of extreme weather events: a clear and present danger. Ecology Letters, 24(1), 60-72,
https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.13620.
121. Filazzola, A., Matter, S. F., & MacIvor, J. S. (2021). The direct and indirect effects of extreme climate events on insects. Science of
the Total Environment, 769, 145161, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.145161.
122. IPCC (2019). Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change and Land: an IPCC special report on climate change, desertification,
land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems. In J. S. P.R.
Shukla, E. Calvo Buendia, V. Masson-Delmotte, H.- O. Pörtner, D. C. Roberts, P. Zhai, R. Slade, S. Connors, R. van Diemen, M.
Ferrat, E. Haughey, S. Luz, S. Neogi, M. Pathak, J. Petzold, J. Portugal Pereira, P. Vyas, E. Huntley, K. Kissick, M. Belkacemi, J.
Malley (Ed.). Geneva, Switzerland.
123. Ruthrof, K. X., Fontaine, J. B., Breshears, D. D., Field, J. P., & Allen, C. D. (2021). Extreme events trigger terrestrial and marine
ecosystem collapses in the Southwestern USA and Southwestern Australia. In Ecosystem Collapse and Climate Change (pp. 187217, Ecological Studies), https//doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-71330-0_8
124. Walsh, J. E., Ballinger, T. J., Euskirchen, E. S., Hanna, E., Mård, J., Overland, J. E., Tangen, H., & Vihma, T. (2020). Extreme weather
and climate events in northern areas: A review. Earth-Science Reviews, 209, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2020.103324.
125. Neale, R. E., Barnes, P. W., Robson, T. M., Neale, P. J., Williamson, C. E., Zepp, R. G., Wilson, S. R., Madronich, S., Andrady, A. L.,
Heikkilä, A. M., Bernhard, G. H., Bais, A. F., Aucamp, P. J., Banaszak, A. T., Bornman, J. F., Bruckman, L. S., Byrne, S. N., Foereid,B., Häder, D. P., Hollestein, L. M., Hou, W.-C. C., Hylander, S., Jansen, M. A. K., Klekociuk, A. R., Liley, J. B., Longstreth, J., Lucas,
R. M., Martinez-Abaigar, J., McNeill, K., Olsen, C. M., Pandey, K. K., Rhodes, L. E., Robinson, S. A., Rose, K. C., Schikowski, T.,
Solomon, K. R., Sulzberger, B., Ukpebor, J. E., Wang, Q.-W., Wängberg, S.-Å., White, C. C., Yazar, S., Young, A. R., Young, P.
J., Zhu, L., & Zhu, M. (2021). Environmental effects of stratospheric ozone depletion, UV radiation, and interactions with climatechange: UNEP Environmental Effects Assessment Panel, Update 2020. Photochemical & Photobiological Sciences, 20, 1-67,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s43630-020-00001-x.
126. Silva, C. A., Santilli, G., Sano, E. E., & Laneve, G. (2021). Fire occurrences and greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation in theBrazilian Amazon. Remote Sensing, 13(3), https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13030376.
127. Shiraishi, T., & Hirata, R. (2021). Estimation of carbon dioxide emissions from the megafires of Australia in 2019-2020. Scientific
Reports, 11(1), 8267, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-87721-x.
128. Leitold, V., Morton, D. C., Martinuzzi, S., Paynter, I., Uriarte, M., Keller, M., Ferraz, A., Cook, B. D., Corp, L. A., & González, G.
(2022). Tracking the rates and mechanisms of canopy damage and recovery following hurricane Maria using multitemporal Lidar
data. Ecosystems, 25(4), 892-910, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-021-00688-8

199

Chapter 4
129. Wang, J. A., Randerson, J. T., Goulden, M. L., Knight, C. A., & Battles, J. J. (2022). Losses of tree cover in California driven byincreasing fire disturbance and climate stress. AGU Advances, 3(4), https://doi.org/10.1029/2021av000654.
130. Messier, C., Parent, S., & Bergeron, Y. (1998). Effects of overstory and understory vegetation on the understory light environment
in mixed boreal forests. [https://doi.org/10.2307/3237266]. Journal of Vegetation Science, 9(4), 511-520, https://doi.
org/10.2307/3237266.
131. Tanner, E. V., Kapos, V., & Healey, J. (1991). Hurricane effects on forest ecosystems in the Caribbean. Biotropica, 513-521, https://www.jstor.org/stable/2388274.
132. Wang, Q. W., Robson, T. M., Pieristè, M., Oguro, M., Oguchi, R., Murai, Y., & Kurokawa, H. (2020). Testing trait plasticity over
the range of spectral composition of sunlight in forb species differing in shade tolerance. Journal of Ecology, https://doi.
org/10.1111/1365-2745.13384.
133. Lovelock, C. E., Osmond, C. B., & Jebb, M. (1994). Photoinhibition and recovery in tropical plant species: response todisturbance. Oecologia, 97(3), 297-307, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00317318.
134. Nichol, C. J., Pieruschka, R., Takayama, K., B, F. R., Kolber, Z., Rascher, U., Grace, J., Robinson, S. A., Pogson, B., & Osmond,B. (2012). Canopy conundrums: building on the Biosphere 2 experience to scale measurements of inner and outer canopy
photoprotection from the leaf to the landscape. Functional Plant Biology, 39(1), 1-24, https://doi.org/10.1071/fp11255.
135. Barnes, P. W., Kersting, A. R., Flint, S. D., Beyschlag, W., & Ryel, R. J. (2013). Adjustments in epidermal UV-transmittance of leaves
in sun-shade transitions. Physiologia Plantarum, 149, 200-213, https://doi.org/10.1111/ppl.12025.
136. Barnes, P. W., Robson, T. M., Tobler, M. A., Bottger, I. N., & Flint, S. D. (2017). Plant responses to fluctuating UV environments. In
B. Jordan (Ed.), UV-B Radiation and Plant Life: Molecular Biology to Ecology (pp. 72-89). Oxfordshire, UK: CABI, https://doi.org/
137. Dahal, D., Liu, S., & Oeding, J. (2014). The carbon cycle and hurricanes in the United States between 1900 and 2011. Scientific
Reports, 4, https://doi.org/10.1038/srep05197.
138. Veraverbeke, S., Delcourt, C. J. F., Kukavskaya, E., Mack, M., Walker, X., Hessilt, T., Rogers, B., & Scholten, R. C. (2021). Direct
and longer-term carbon emissions from arctic-boreal fires: A short review of recent advances. Current Opinion in Environmental
Science & Health, 23, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coesh.2021.100277.
139. Prestes, N. C. C. d. S., Massi, K. G., Silva, E. A., Nogueira, D. S., de Oliveira, E. A., Freitag, R., Marimon, B. S., Marimon-Junior, B.
H., Keller, M., & Feldpausch, T. R. (2020). Fire effects on understory forest regeneration in Southern Amazonia. Frontiers in Forests
and Global Change, 3, https://doi.org/10.3389/ffgc.2020.00010.
140. Knuesting, J., Brinkmann, M. C., Silva, B., Schorsch, M., Bendix, J., Beck, E., & Scheibe, R. (2018). Who will win where and why?
An ecophysiological dissection of the competition between a tropical pasture grass and the invasive weed Bracken over anelevation range of 1000 m in the tropical Andes. Plos One, 13(8), e0202255, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0202255.
141. Barnes, P. W., Ryel, R. J., & Flint, S. D. (2017). UV screening in native and non-native plant species in the tropical alpine:
Implications for climate change-driven migration of species to higher elevations. Frontiers in Plant Science, 8(1451), 12-21,https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2017.01451.
142. Watermann, L. Y., Hock, M., Blake, C., & Erfmeier, A. (2019). Plant invasion into high elevations implies adaptation to high UV-B
environments: a multi-species experiment. Biological Invasions, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-019-02173-9.
143. Rammer, W., Braziunas, K. H., Hansen, W. D., Ratajczak, Z., Westerling, A. L., Turner, M. G., & Seidl, R. (2021). Widespreadregeneration failure in forests of Greater Yellowstone under scenarios of future climate and fire. Global Change Biology, 27(18),4339-4351, https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15726.
144. Werner, C., Meredith, L. K., Ladd, S. N., Ingrisch, J., Kübert, A., van Haren, J., Bahn, M., Bailey, K., Bamberger, I., Beyer, M.,
Blomdahl, D., Byron, J., Daber, E., Deleeuw, J., Dippold, M. A., Fudyma, J., Gil-Loaiza, J., Honeker, L. K., Hu, J., Huang, J.,
Klüpfel, T., Krechmer, J., Kreuzwieser, J., Kühnhammer, K., Lehmann, M. M., Meeran, K., Misztal, P. K., Ng, W.-R., Pfannerstill, E.,
Pugliese, G., Purser, G., Roscioli, J., Shi, L., Tfaily, M., & Williams, J. (2021). Ecosystem fluxes during drought and recovery in anexperimental forest. Science, 374(6574), 1514-1518, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abj6789.
145. Scordo, F., Chandra, S., Suenaga, E., Kelson, S. J., Culpepper, J., Scaff, L., Tromboni, F., Caldwell, T. J., Seitz, C., Fiorenza, J. E.,
Williamson, C. E., Sadro, S., Rose, K. C., & Poulson, S. R. (2021). Smoke from regional wildfires alters lake ecology. Scientific
Reports, 11(1), 10922, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-89926-6.
146. Wilson, S. R., Madronich, S., Longstreth, J. D., & Solomon, K. R. (2019). Interactive effects of changing stratospheric ozone andclimate on composition of the troposphere, air quality, and consequences for human and ecosystem health. Photochemical &Photobiological Sciences, 18, 775-803, https://doi.org/10.1039/C8PP90064G
147. Francis, D., Fonseca, R., Nelli, N., Cuesta, J., Weston, M., Evan, A., & Temimi, M. (2020). The atmospheric drivers of the major
Saharan dust storm in June 2020. Geophysical Research Letters, 47(24), https://doi.org/10.1029/2020gl090102.
148. Zheng, G., Sedlacek, A. J., Aiken, A. C., Feng, Y., Watson, T. B., Raveh-Rubin, S., Uin, J., Lewis, E. R., & Wang, J. (2020). Longrange transported North American wildfire aerosols observed in marine boundary layer of eastern North Atlantic. Environment
International, 139, 105680, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2020.105680.

200

Chapter 4
149. Durand, M., Murchie, E. H., Lindfors, A. V., Urban, O., Aphalo, P. J., & Robson, T. M. (2021). Diffuse solar radiation and canopy
photosynthesis in a changing environment. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 311, 108684, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
agrformet.2021.108684.
150. Chen, Z., Gao, W., Reddy, K. R., Chen, M., Taduri, S., Meyers, S. L., & Shankle, M. W. (2020). Ultraviolet (UV) B effects on growthand yield of three contrasting sweet potato cultivars. Photosynthetica, 58(1), 37-44, https://doi.org/10.32615/ps.2019.137.
151. Cronin, T. W., & Bok, M. J. (2016). Photoreception and vision in the ultraviolet. Journal of Experimental Biology, 219(18), 27902801, https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.128769.
152. Fennell, J. T., Fountain, M. T., & Paul, N. D. (2019). Direct effects of protective cladding material on insect pests in crops. Crop
Protection, 121, 147-156, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2019.04.003.
153. Onzo, A., Sabelis, M. W., & Hanna, R. (2010). Effects of ultraviolet radiation on predatory mites and the role of refuges in plantstructures. Environmental Entomology, 39(2), 695-701, https://doi.org/10.1603/en09206.
154. Ohtsuka, K., & Osakabe, M. (2009). Deleterious effects of UV-B radiation on herbivorous spider mites: They can avoid it byremaining on lower leaf surfaces. Environmental Entomology, 38(3), 920-929, https://doi.org/10.1603/022.038.0346.
155. Yin, W. D., Hoffmann, A. A., Gu, X. B., & Ma, C. S. (2018). Behavioral thermoregulation in a small herbivore avoids direct UVB
damage. Journal of Insect Physiology, 107, 276-283, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinsphys.2017.12.002.
156. Hu, Z. Q., Zhao, H. Y., & Thieme, T. (2013). The effects of enhanced ultraviolet-B radiation on the biology of green and brownmorphs of Sitobion avenae (Hemiptera: Aphididae). Environmental Entomology, 42(3), 578-585, https://doi.org/10.1603/
en12136.
157. Burdick, S. C., Prischmann-Voldseth, D. A., & Harmon, J. P. (2015). Density and distribution of soybean aphid, Aphis glycines
Matsumura (Hemiptera: Aphididae) in response to UV radiation. Population Ecology, 1-10, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10144-0150501-6.
158. Yoshioka, Y., Gotoh, T., & Suzuki, T. (2018). UV-B susceptibility and photoreactivation in embryonic development of the twospotted spider mite, Tetranychus urticae. Experimental and Applied Acarology, 75(2), 155-166, https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10493-018-0263-x.
159. Murata, Y., & Osakabe, M. (2017). Photo-enzymatic repair of UVB-induced DNA damage in the two-spotted spider mite
Tetranychus urticae. Experimental and Applied Acarology, 71(1), 15-34, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10493-016-0100-z.
160. Tian, C. B., Li, Y. Y., Wang, X., Fan, W. H., Wang, G., Liang, J. Y., Wang, Z. Y., & Liu, H. (2019). Effects of UV-B radiation on thesurvival, egg hatchability and transcript expression of antioxidant enzymes in a high-temperature adapted strain of Neoseiulus
barkeri. Experimental and Applied Acarology, 77(4), 527-543, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10493-019-00361-9.
161. Sugioka, N., Kawakami, M., Hirai, N., & Osakabe, M. (2018). A pollen diet confers ultraviolet-B resistance in phytoseiid mites by
providing antioxidants. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 6, 133, https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2018.00133.
162. Koveos, D. S., Suzuki, T., Terzidou, A., Kokkari, A., Floros, G., Damos, P., & Kouloussis, N. A. (2017). Egg hatching response
to a range of ultraviolet-B (UV-B) radiation doses for four predatory mites and the herbivorous spider mite Tetranychus urticae.
Experimental and Applied Acarology, 71(1), 35-46, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10493-016-0102-x.
163. Cui, H. Y., Zeng, Y. Y., Reddy, G. V. P., Gao, F., Li, Z. H., & Zhao, Z. H. (2021). UV radiation increases mortality and decreases theantioxidant activity in a tephritid fly. Food and Energy Security, 10(3), https://doi.org/10.1002/fes3.297.
164. Fennell, J. T., Wilby, A., Sobeih, W., & Paul, N. D. (2020). New understanding of the direct effects of spectral balance on behaviourin Myzus persicae. Journal of Insect Physiology, 126, 104096, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinsphys.2020.104096.
165. Rizzini, L., Favory, J.-J., Cloix, C., Faggionato, D., O'Hara, A., Kaiserli, E., Baumeister, R., Schaefer, E., Nagy, F., Jenkins, G. I., &Ulm, R. (2011). Perception of UV-B by the Arabidopsis UVR8 protein. Science, 332(6025), 103-106, https://doi.org/10.1126/
science.1200660.
166. Rai, N., O'Hara, A., Farkas, D., Safronov, O., Ratanasopa, K., Wang, F., Lindfors, A. V., Jenkins, G. I., Lehto, T., Salojarvi, J.,
Brosche, M., Strid, A., Aphalo, P. J., & Morales, L. O. (2020). The photoreceptor UVR8 mediates the perception of both UV-B and
UV-A wavelengths up to 350 nm of sunlight with responsivity moderated by cryptochromes. Plant, Cell & Environment, https://doi.org/10.1111/pce.13752.
167. Rai, N., Morales, L. O., & Aphalo, P. J. (2021). Perception of solar UV radiation by plants: photoreceptors and mechanisms. Plant
Physiology, 186(3), 1382-1396, https://doi.org./10.1093/plphys/kiab162.
168. Madronich, S., Mckenzie, R. L., Caldwell, M., & Björn, L. O. (1995). Changes in ultraviolet radiation reaching the earth's surface.
Ambio: a Journal of Human Environment, 24(3), 143-152.
169. Fernández, M. B., Tossi, V., Lamattina, L., & Cassia, R. (2016). A comprehensive phylogeny reveals functional conservation of
the UV-B photoreceptor UVR8 from green algae to higher plants. Frontiers in Plant Science, 7, 1698, https://doi.org/10.3389/
fpls.2016.01698.

201

Chapter 4
170. Balcerowicz, M. (2022). Ancient sun protection: the evolutionary origin of plant UV-B signaling. Plant Physiology, 188(1), 29-31,
https://doi.org/10.1093/plphys/kiab517
171. Zhang, Z., Xu, C., Zhang, S., Shi, C., Cheng, H., Liu, H., & Zhong, B. (2022). Origin and adaptive evolution of UV RESISTANCELOCUS 8-mediated signaling during plant terrestrialization. Plant Physiology, 188(1), 332-346, https://doi.org/10.1093/plphys/kiab486.
172. Podolec, R., Demarsy, E., & Ulm, R. (2021). Perception and signaling of ultraviolet-B radiation in plants. Annual Review of Plant
Biology, 72, 793-822, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-arplant-050718-095946.
173. Podolec, R., Lau, K., Wagnon, T. B., Hothorn, M., & Ulm, R. (2021). A constitutively monomeric UVR8 photoreceptor confers
enhanced UV-B photomorphogenesis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 118(6), https://doi.org/10.1073/
pnas.2017284118.
174. Wang, D., Sun, Y., Tu, M., Zhang, P., Wang, X., Wang, T., & Li, J. (2021). Response of Zebrina pendula leaves to enhanced UV-B
radiation. Functional Plant Biology, 48(9), 851-859, https://doi.org/10.1071/FP20274.
175. Qian, M., Rosenqvist, E., Prinsen, E., Pescheck, F., Flygare, A.-M., Kalbina, I., Jansen, M. A. K., & Strid, Å. (2021). Downsizing inplants - UV induces pronounced morphological changes in cucumber in the absence of stress. bioRxiv, 2021.2002.2027.432481,
https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.02.27.432481.
176. Bidel, L. P. R., Meyer, S., Talhouet, A. C., Baudin, X., Daniel, C., Cazals, G., & Streb, P. (2020). Epidermal UVA screening capacity
measured in situ as an indicator of light acclimation state of leaves of a very plastic alpine plant Soldanella alpina L. Plant
Physiology and Biochemistry, 151, 10-20, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plaphy.2020.02.045.
177. Nichelmann, L., & Pescheck, F. (2021). Solar UV-B effects on composition and UV screening efficiency of foliar phenolics inArabidopsis thaliana are augmented by temperature. Physiologia Plantarum, https://doi.org/10.1111/ppl.13554.
178. Mo, Y., Nagel, C., & Taylor, L. P. (1992). Biochemical complementation of chalcone synthase mutants defines a role for flavonols
in functional pollen. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 89(15), 7213-7217, https://doi.org/10.1073/
pnas.89.15.7213.
179. Muhlemann, J. K., Younts, T. L. B., & Muday, G. K. (2018). Flavonols control pollen tube growth and integrity by regulating ROS
homeostasis during high-temperature stress. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the Unites States of America,
115(47), E11188-E11197, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1811492115.
180. Wang, L., Lam, P. Y., Lui, A. C. W., Zhu, F. Y., Chen, M. X., Liu, H., Zhang, J., & Lo, C. (2020). Flavonoids are indispensable forcomplete male fertility in rice. Journal of Experimental Botany, 71(16), 4715-4728, https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/eraa204.
181. Brunetti, C., Di Ferdinando, M., Fini, A., Pollastri, S., & Tattini, M. (2013). Flavonoids as antioxidants and developmental
regulators: Relative significance in plants and humans. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 14(2), 3540-3555, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms14023540.
182. Peach, K., Liu, J. W., & Mazer, S. J. (2020). Climate predicts uv floral pattern size, anthocyanin concentration, and pollen
performance in Clarkia unguiculata. Frontiers in Plant Science, 11, 847, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2020.00847.
183. Koski, M. H., Berardi, A. E., & Galloway, L. F. (2020). Pollen colour morphs take different paths to fitness. Journal of Evolionary
Biology, 33, 388-400, https://doi.org/10.1111/jeb.13599.
184. Xue, J. S., Zhang, B., Zhan, H., Lv, Y. L., Jia, X. L., Wang, T., Yang, N. Y., Lou, Y. X., Zhang, Z. B., Hu, W. J., Gui, J., Cao, J., Xu, P.,
Zhou, Y., Hu, J. F., Li, L., & Yang, Z. N. (2020). Phenylpropanoid derivatives are essential components of sporopollenin in vascularplants. Molecular Plant, 13(11), 1644-1653, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molp.2020.08.005.
185. Agati, G., Brunetti, C., Fini, A., Gori, A., Guidi, L., Landi, M., Sebastiani, F., & Tattini, M. (2020). Are flavonoids effective
antioxidants in plants? Twenty years of our investigation. Antioxidants (Basel), 9(11), https://doi.org/10.3390/antiox9111098.
186. Barnes, P. W., Tobler, M. A., Keefover-Ring, K., Flint, S. D., Barkley, A. E., Ryel, R. J., & Lindroth, R. L. (2016). Rapid modulationof ultraviolet shielding in plants is influenced by solar ultraviolet radiation and linked to alterations in flavonoids. Plant, Cell &Environment, 39(1), 222-230, https://doi.org/10.1111/pce.12609.
187. Neugart, S., Tobler, M. A., & Barnes, P. W. (2021). Rapid adjustment in epidermal UV sunscreen: Comparison of opticalmeasurement techniques and response to changing solar UV radiation conditions. Physiologia Plantarum, 173(3), 725-735,
https://doi.org/10.1111/ppl.13517.
188. Gori, A., Nascimento, L. B., Ferrini, F., Centritto, M., & Brunetti, C. (2020). Seasonal and diurnal variation in leaf phenolics ofthree medicinal Mediterranean wild species: What is the best harvesting moment to obtain the richest and the most antioxidant
extracts? Molecules, 25(4), 956, https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules25040956.
189. Badmus, U. O., Ač, A., Klem, K., Urban, O., & Jansen, M. A. K. (2022). A meta-analysis of the effects of UV radiation on the plant
carotenoid pool. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry, 183, 36-45, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plaphy.2022.05.001.

202

Chapter 4
190. Piccolella, S., Crescente, G., Pacifico, F., & Pacifico, S. (2018). Wild aromatic plants bioactivity: a function of their (poly)phenol
seasonality? A case study from Mediterranean area. Phytochemistry Reviews, 17(4), 785-799, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11101018-9558-0.
191. Gori, A., Brunetti, C., Dos Santos Nascimento, L. B., Marino, G., Guidi, L., Ferrini, F., Centritto, M., Fini, A., & Tattini, M. (2021).
Photoprotective role of photosynthetic and non-photosynthetic pigments in Phillyrea latifolia: Is their "antioxidant" function
prominent in leaves exposed to severe summer drought? International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 22(15), https://doi.
org/10.3390/ijms22158303.
192. Neugart, S., Tobler, M. A., & Barnes, P. W. (2021). The function of flavonoids in the diurnal rhythm under rapidly changing UV
conditions-A model study on okra. Plants (Basel), 10(11), https://doi.org/10.3390/plants10112268.
193. Hartikainen, S. (2021). Adjustment of optically measured leaf traits to patterns of solar spectral irradiance in plant taxa from highelevations and from forest understoreys. University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland, hartikainen_saara_dissertation_2021.pdf
194. Zhou, S., Yan, X., Yang, J., Qian, C., Yin, X., Fan, X., Fang, T., Gao, Y., Chang, Y., & Liu, W. (2021). Variations in flavonoid
metabolites along altitudinal gradient in a desert medicinal plant Agriophyllum squarrosum. Frontiers in Plant Science, 12, 1306,
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2021.683265.
195. Eriksson, M., & Rafajlovic, M. (2022). The role of phenotypic plasticity in the establishment of range margins. PhilosophicalTransactions of the Royal Society of London B Biological Sciences, 377(1846), 20210012, https://doi.org/10.1098/
rstb.2021.0012.
196. Schmid, M., & Guillaume, F. (2017). The role of phenotypic plasticity on population differentiation. Heredity, 119(4), 214-225,
https://doi.org/10.1038/hdy.2017.36.
197. Crispo, E. (2008). Modifying effects of phenotypic plasticity on interactions among natural selection, adaptation and gene flow.
Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 21(6), 1460-1469, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2008.01592.x.
198. Song, B., Gao, Y., Stöcklin, J., Song, M., Sun, L., & Sun, H. (2020). Ultraviolet screening increases with elevation in translucent
bracts of Rheum nobile (Polygonaceae), an alpine ‘glasshouse’ plant from the high Himalayas. Botanical Journal of the Linnean
Society, https://doi.org/10.1093/botlinnean/boaa005.
199. Yang, Q., Bi, H., Yang, W., Li, T., Jiang, J., Zhang, L., Liu, J., & Hu, Q. (2020). The genome sequence of alpine Megacarpaea
delavayi Identifies species-specific whole-genome duplication. Frontiers in Genetics, 11, https://doi.org/10.3389/
fgene.2020.00812.
200. Zhang, X., Sun, Y., Landis, J. B., Shen, J., Zhang, H., Kuang, T., Sun, W., Sun, J., Tiamiyu, B. B., Deng, T., Sun, H., & Wang, H.
(2021). Transcriptomes of Saussurea (Asteraceae) provide insights into high-altitude adaptation. Plants-Basel, 10(8), https://doi.
org/10.3390/plants10081715.
201. Wang, X., Liu, S., Zuo, H., Zheng, W., Zhang, S., Huang, Y., Pingcuo, G., Ying, H., Zhao, F., Li, Y., Liu, J., Yi, T.-S., Zan, Y., Larkin, R.
M., Deng, X., Zeng, X., & Xu, Q. (2021). Genomic basis of high-altitude adaptation in Tibetan Prunus fruit trees. Current Biology,
31(17), 3848-+, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2021.06.062.
202. Panchen, Z. A., Doubt, J., Kharouba, H. M., & Johnston, M. O. (2019). Patterns and biases in an Arctic herbarium specimen
collection: Implications for phenological research. Applications in Plant Sciences, 7(3), e1229, https://doi.org/10.1002/
aps3.1229.
203. Seddon, A. W. R., Festi, D., Robson, T. M., & Zimmermann, B. (2019). Fossil pollen and spores as a tool for reconstructing
ancient solar-ultraviolet irradiance received by plants: an assessment of prospects and challenges using proxy-system modelling.
Photochemical & Photobiological Sciences, 18(2), 275-294, https://doi.org/10.1039/C8PP00490K.
204. Jardine, P. E., Hoorn, C., Beer, M. A. M., Barbolini, N., Woutersen, A., Bogota‐Angel, G., Gosling, W. D., Fraser, W. T., Lomax, B.
H., Huang, H., Sciumbata, M., He, H., Dupont-Nivet, G., & Kustatscher, E. (2021). Sporopollenin chemistry and its durability inthe geological record: an integration of extant and fossil chemical data across the seed plants. Palaeontology, 64(2), 285-305,
https://doi.org/10.1111/pala.12523.
205. IPCC (2022). Summary for Policymakers In D. C. R. H.-O. Pörtner, E.S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, M. Tignor, A. Alegría, M.
Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Löschke, V. Möller, A. Okem (Ed.), Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability.
Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge
University Press.
206. Jansen, M. A. K., Ač, A., Klem, K., & Urban, O. (2022). A meta-analysis of the interactive effects of UV and drought on plants.
Plant, Cell & Environment, 45(1), 41-54, https://doi.org/10.1111/pce.14221.
207. Díaz-Guerra, L., Llorens, L., Julkunen-Tiitto, R., Nogués, I., Font, J., González, J. A., & Verdaguer, D. (2019). Leaf biochemical
adjustments in two Mediterranean resprouter species facing enhanced UV levels and reduced water availability before and after
aerial biomass removal. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry, 137, 130-143, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plaphy.2019.01.031.

203

Chapter 4
208. Verdaguer, D., Díaz-Guerra, L., Font, J., González, J. A., & Llorens, L. (2018). Contrasting seasonal morphological and physiobiochemical responses to UV radiation and reduced rainfall of two mature naturally growing Mediterranean shrubs in the context
of climate change. Environmental and Experimental Botany, 147, 189-201, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envexpbot.2017.12.007.
209. Aphalo, P. J., & Sadras, V. O. (2021). Explaining preemptive acclimation by linking information to plant phenotype. Journal of
Experimental Botany, erab537, https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erab537.
210. Sàenz-de la O, D., Morales, L. O., Strid, A., Torres-Pacheco, I., & Guevara-Gonzalez, R. G. (2021). Ultraviolet-B exposure andexogenous hydrogen peroxide application lead to cross-tolerance toward drought in Nicotiana tabacum L. Physiologia
Plantarum, https://doi.org/10.1111/ppl.13448.
211. Gourlay, G., Hawkins, B. J., Albert, A., Schnitzler, J. P., & Peter Constabel, C. (2022). Condensed tannins as antioxidants
that protect poplar against oxidative stress from drought and UV-B. Plant, Cell & Environment, 45(2), 362-377, https://doi.
org/10.1111/pce.14242.
212. Wang, H., Liu, S., Wang, T., Liu, H., Xu, X., Chen, K., & Zhang, P. (2020). The moss flavone synthase I positively regulates
the tolerance of plants to drought stress and UV-B radiation. Plant Science, 298, 110591, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
plantsci.2020.110591.
213. Thomas T.T, D., & Puthur, J. T. (2017). UV radiation priming: A means of amplifying the inherent potential for abiotic stress tolerancein crop plants. Environmental and Experimental Botany, 138, 57-66, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envexpbot.2017.03.003.
214. Klem, K., Oravec, M., Holub, P., Šimor, J., Findurová, H., Surá, K., Veselá, B., Hodaňová, P., Jansen, M. A. K., & Urban, O. (2022).
Interactive effects of nitrogen, UV and PAR on barley morphology and biochemistry are associated with the leaf C:N balance.
Plant Physiology and Biochemistry, 172, 111-124, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plaphy.2022.01.006.
215. Williams, T. B., Dodd, I. C., Sobeih, W. Y., & Paul, N. D. (2022). Ultraviolet radiation causes leaf warming due to partial stomatalclosure. Horticulture Research, 9, uhab066, https://doi.org/10.1093/hr/uhab066.
216. Ribeiro, A. F., Russo, A., Gouveia, C. M., & Pires, C. A. (2020). Drought-related hot summers: A joint probability analysis in the
Iberian Peninsula. Weather and Climate Extremes, 30, 100279, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wace.2020.100279.
217. Jin, P., Overmans, S., Duarte, C. M., Agustí, S., & Bates, A. (2019). Increasing temperature within thermal limits compensates
negative ultraviolet-B radiation effects in terrestrial and aquatic organisms. Global Ecology and Biogeography, https://doi.
org/10.1111/geb.12973.
218. Fang, H. C., Dong, Y. H., Yue, X. X., Chen, X. L., He, N. B., Hu, J. F., Jiang, S. H., Xu, H. F., Wang, Y. C., Su, M. Y., Zhang, J., Zhang,
Z. Y., Wang, N., & Chen, X. S. (2019). MdCOL4 interaction mediates crosstalk between UV-B and high temperature to control fruit
coloration in apple. Plant and Cell Physiology, 60, 1055-1066, https://doi.org/10.1093/pcp/pcz023.
219. Schulz, E., Tohge, T., Winkler, J. B., Albert, A., Schäffner, A. R., Fernie, A. R., Zuther, E., & Hincha, D. K. (2021). Natural variation
among Arabidopsis accessions in the regulation of flavonoid metabolism and stress gene expression by combined UV radiationand cold. Plant and Cell Physiology, 62(3), 502-514, https://doi.org/10.1093/pcp/pcab013.
220. Coffey, A., & Jansen, M. A. K. (2019). Effects of natural solar UV-B radiation on three Arabidopsis accessions are strongly affectedby seasonal weather conditions. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry, 134, 64-72, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plaphy.2018.06.016.
221. Sangüesa-Barreda, G., Di Filippo, A., Piovesan, G., Rozas, V., Di Fiore, L., García-Hidalgo, M., García-Cervigón, A. I., MuñozGarachana, D., Baliva, M., & Olano, J. M. (2021). Warmer springs have increased the frequency and extension of late-frost
defoliations in southern European beech forests. Science of the Total Environment, 775, 145860, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2021.145860.
222. Slatyer, R. A., Umbers, K. D. L., & Arnold, P. A. (2021). Ecological responses to variation in seasonal snow cover. Conservation
Biology, n/a(n/a), https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13727.
223. Zandalinas, S. I., Sengupta, S., Fritschi, F. B., Azad, R. K., Nechushtai, R., & Mittler, R. (2021). The impact of multifactorial stresscombination on plant growth and survival. New Phytologist, 230(3), 1034-1048, https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.17232.
224. Deng, B., Liu, X., Zheng, L., Liu, Q., Guo, X., & Zhang, L. (2019). Effects of nitrogen deposition and UV-B radiation on seedling
performance of Chinese tallow tree (Triadica sebifera): A photosynthesis perspective. Forest Ecology and Management, 433,
453-458, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2018.11.038.
225. Tripathi, R., Rai, K., Singh, S., Agrawal, M., & Agrawal, S. (2019). Role of supplemental UV-B in changing the level of ozone
toxicity in two cultivars of sunflower: growth, seed yield and oil quality. Ecotoxicology, 28(3), 277-293, https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10646-019-02020-6.
226. Urban, O., Hrstka, M., Holub, P., Veselá, B., Večeřová, K., Novotná, K., Grace, J., & Klem, K. (2019). Interactive effects ofultraviolet radiation and elevated CO2 concentration on photosynthetic characteristics of European beech saplings during thevegetation season. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry, 134, 20-30, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plaphy.2018.08.026.
227. Bornman, J. F., Barnes, P. W., Robinson, S. A., Ballaré, C. L., Flint, S. D., & Caldwell, M. M. (2015). Solar ultraviolet radiation andozone depletion-driven climate change: effects on terrestrial ecosystems, Photochemical & Photobiological Sciences, 14(1), 88107, 10.1039/c4pp90034k.

204Chapter 4228. Nunez, S., Arets, E., Alkemade, R., Verwer, C., & Leemans, R. (2019). Assessing the impacts of climate change on biodiversity: isbelow 2 °C enough? Climatic Change, 154(3-4), 351-365, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-019-02420-x.
229. Weiskopf, S. R., Rubenstein, M. A., Crozier, L. G., Gaichas, S., Griffis, R., Halofsky, J. E., Hyde, K. J. W., Morelli, T. L., Morisette,
J. T., Muñoz, R. C., Pershing, A. J., Peterson, D. L., Poudel, R., Staudinger, M. D., Sutton-Grier, A. E., Thompson, L., Vose, J.,
Weltzin, J. F., & Whyte, K. P. (2020). Climate change effects on biodiversity, ecosystems, ecosystem services, and natural
resource management in the United States. Science of the Total Environment, 733, 137782, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2020.137782.
230. Pecl, G. T., Araújo, M. B., Bell, J. D., Blanchard, J., Bonebrake, T. C., Chen, I.-C., Clark, T. D., Colwell, R. K., Danielsen, F.,
Evengård, B., Falconi, L., Ferrier, S., Frusher, S., Garcia, R. A., Griffis, R. B., Hobday, A. J., Janion-Scheepers, C., Jarzyna, M. A.,
Jennings, S., Lenoir, J., Linnetved, H. I., Martin, V. Y., McCormack, P. C., McDonald, J., Mitchell, N. J., Mustonen, T., Pandolfi, J.
M., Pettorelli, N., Popova, E., Robinson, S. A., Scheffers, B. R., Shaw, J. D., Sorte, C. J. B., Strugnell, J. M., Sunday, J. M., Tuanmu,
M.-N., Vergés, A., Villanueva, C., Wernberg, T., Wapstra, E., & Williams, S. E. (2017). Biodiversity redistribution under climatechange: Impacts on ecosystems and human well-being. Science, 355(6332), eaai9214, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.
aai9214.
231. Vitasse, Y., Ursenbacher, S., Klein, G., Bohnenstengel, T., Chittaro, Y., Delestrade, A., Monnerat, C., Rebetez, M., Rixen, C.,
Strebel, N., Schmidt, B. R., Wipf, S., Wohlgemuth, T., Yoccoz, N. G., & Lenoir, J. (2021). Phenological and elevational shiftsof plants, animals and fungi under climate change in the European Alps. Biological Reviews, 96(5), 1816-1835, https://doi.
org/10.1111/brv.12727.
232. Chowdhury, S., Fuller, R. A., Dingle, H., Chapman, J. W., & Zalucki, M. P. (2021). Migration in butterflies: a global overview.
Biological Reviews, 96(4), 1462-1483, https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12714.
233. Lenoir, J., Gégout, J.-C., Guisan, A., Vittoz, P., Wohlgemuth, T., Zimmermann, N. E., Dullinger, S., Pauli, H., Willner, W., &Svenning, J.-C. (2010). Going against the flow: potential mechanisms for unexpected downslope range shifts in a warming
climate. Ecography, 33(2), 295-303, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0587.2010.06279.x.
234. Tagliari, M. M., Danthu, P., Leong Pock Tsy, J.-M., Cornu, C., Lenoir, J., Carvalho-Rocha, V., & Vieilledent, G. (2021). Not all species
will migrate poleward as the climate warms: The case of the seven baobab species in Madagascar. Global Change Biology,
27(23), 6071-6085, https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15859.
235. Tomiolo, S., & Ward, D. (2018). Species migrations and range shifts: A synthesis of causes and consequences. Perspectives in
Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics, 33, 62-77, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ppees.2018.06.001.
236. IPCC. (2014). Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contributionof Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Field, C.B., V.R. Barros,
D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N.
Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L. White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and
New York, NY, USA, 1132 pp., https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/
237. Tripp, E. A., Zhuang, Y., Schreiber, M., Stone, H., & Berardi, A. E. (2018). Evolutionary and ecological drivers of plantflavonoids across a large latitudinal gradient. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 128, 147-161, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ympev.2018.07.004.
238. Castagna, A., Csepregi, K., Neugart, S., Zipoli, G., Večeřová, K., Jakab, G., Jug, T., Llorens, L., Martínez-Abaigar, J., MartínezLüscher, J., Núñez-Olivera, E., Ranieri, A., Schoedl-Hummel, K., Schreiner, M., Teszlák, P., Tittmann, S., Urban, O., Verdaguer,
D., Jansen, M. A. K., & Hideg, É. (2017). Environmental plasticity of Pinot noir grapevine leaves; a trans-European study ofmorphological and biochemical changes along a 1500 km latitudinal climatic gradient. Plant, Cell & Environment, 40(11), 27902805, https://doi.org/10.1111/pce.13054.
239. Escobar-Bravo, R., Klinkhamer, P. G. L., & Leiss, K. A. (2017). Interactive effects of UV-B light with abiotic factors on plant growthand chemistry, and their consequences for defense against arthropod herbivores. Frontiers in Plant Science, 8, 278, https://doi.
org/10.3389/fpls.2017.00278.
240. Escobar-Bravo, R., Nederpel, C., Naranjo, S., Kim, H. K., Rodríguez-López, M. J., Chen, G., Glauser, G., Leiss, K. A., & Klinkhamer,P. G. (2021). Ultraviolet radiation modulates both constitutive and inducible plant defenses against thrips but is dose and plant
genotype dependent. Journal of Pest Science, 94(1), 69-81, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10340-019-01166-w.
241. Tedla, B., Dang, Q.-L., & Inoue, S. (2019). White birch has limited phenotypic plasticity to take advantage of increased
photoperiods at higher latitudes north of the seed origin. Forest Ecology and Management, 451, 117565, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.foreco.2019.117565.
242. Way, D. A., & Montgomery, R. A. (2014). Photoperiod constraints on tree phenology, performance and migration in a warming
world. Plant, Cell & Environment, 38(9), 1725-1736, https://doi.org/10.1111/pce.12431.
243. Tedla, B., Dang, Q. L., & Inoue, S. (2020). CO2 elevation and photoperiods north of seed origin change autumn and spring
phenology as well as cold hardiness in boreal white birch. Frontiers in Plant Science, 11, 506, https://doi.org/10.3389/
fpls.2020.00506.

205

Chapter 4244. Mamantov, M. A., Gibson-Reinemer, D. K., Linck, E. B., & Sheldon, K. S. (2021). Climate-driven range shifts of montane species
vary with elevation. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 30(4), 784-794, https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.13246.
245. Wu, Y., Yang, Y., Liu, C., Hou, Y., Yang, S., Wang, L., & Zhang, X. (2021). Potential suitable habitat of two economically important
forest trees (Acer truncatum and Xanthoceras sorbifolium) in east Asia under current and future climate scenarios. Forests, 12(9),https://doi.org/10.3390/f12091263.
246. Kergunteuil, A., Descombes, P., Glauser, G., Pellissier, L., & Rasmann, S. (2018). Plant physical and chemical defence variation
along elevation gradients: a functional trait-based approach. Oecologia, 187(2), 561-571, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-0184162-y.
247. Pellissier, L., Moreira, X., Danner, H., Serrano, M., Salamin, N., van Dam, N. M., & Rasmann, S. (2016). The simultaneous
inducibility of phytochemicals related to plant direct and indirect defences against herbivores is stronger at low elevation. Journalof Ecology, 104(4), 1116-1125, https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.12580.
248. Moreira, X., Petry, W. K., Mooney, K. A., Rasmann, S., & Abdala-Roberts, L. (2018). Elevational gradients in plant defences andinsect herbivory: recent advances in the field and prospects for future research. Ecography, 41(9), 1485-1496, https://doi.
org/10.1111/ecog.03184.
249. Fernández-Marín, B., Sáenz-Ceniceros, A., Solanki, T., Robson, T. M., & García-Plazaola, J. I. (2021). Alpine forbs rely on different
photoprotective strategies during spring snowmelt. Physiologia Plantarum, 172(3), 1506-1517, https://doi.org/10.1111/
ppl.13342.
250. Gateva, S. P., Jovtchev, G., V. Angelova, T., P. Nonova, T., Tyutyundzhiev, N., G. Geleva, E., Katrandzhiev, K., A. Nikolova,
N., Dimitrov, D., & V. Angelov, C. (2022). Effect of UV radiation and other abiotic stress factors on DNA of different wild plant
species grown in three successive seasons in alpine and subalpine regions. Phyton, 91(2), 293-313, https://doi.org/10.32604/
phyton.2022.016397.
251. Fraser, D. P., Sharma, A., Fletcher, T., Budge, S., Moncrieff, C., Dodd, A. N., & Franklin, K. A. (2017). UV-B antagonises shade
avoidance and increases levels of the flavonoid quercetin in coriander (Coriandrum sativum). Scientific Reports, 7(1), 17758,
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-18073-8.
252. Ballaré, C. L., & Austin, A. T. (2019). Recalculating growth and defense strategies under competition: Key roles of photoreceptors
and jasmonates. Journal of Experimental Botany, 70, 3425-3434, https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erz237.
253. Seastedt, T., & Oldfather, M. (2021). Climate change, ecosystem processes and biological diversity responses in high elevation
communities. Climate, 9(5), https://doi.org/10.3390/cli9050087.
254. Robson, T. M., Klem, K., Urban, O., & Jansen, M. A. K. (2015). Re-interpreting plant morphological responses to UV-B radiation.
Plant, Cell & Environment, 38(5), 856-866, https://doi.org/10.1111/pce.12374.
255. Barnes, P. W., Ballaré, C. L., & Caldwell, M. M. (1996). Photomorphogenic effects of UV-B radiation on plants: Consequences forlight competition. Journal of Plant Physiology, 148(1-2), 15-20, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0176-1617(96)80288-4.
256. Wolf, A., Zimmerman, N. B., Anderegg, W. R. L., Busby, P. E., & Christensen, J. (2016). Altitudinal shifts of the native andintroduced flora of California in the context of 20th-century warming. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 25(4), 418-429,
https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.12423.
257. Dainese, M., Aikio, S., Hulme, P. E., Bertolli, A., Prosser, F., & Marini, L. (2017). Human disturbance and upward expansion ofplants in a warming climate. Nature Climate Change, 7, 577-580, https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3337.
258. Mosena, A., Steinlein, T., & Beyschlag, W. (2018). Reconstructing the historical spread of non-native plants in the North American
West from herbarium specimens. Flora, 242, 45-52, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.flora.2018.03.002.
259. Wang, H., Ma, X. C., Zhang, L., Siemann, E., & Zou, J. W. (2016). UV-B has larger negative impacts on invasive populations of
Triadica sebifera but ozone impacts do not vary. Journal of Plant Ecology, 9(1), 61-68, https://doi.org/10.1093/jpe/rtv045.
260. Václavík, T., Beckmann, M., Cord, A. F., & Bindewald, A. M. (2017). Effects of UV-B radiation on leaf hair traits of invasive plants—
Combining historical herbarium records with novel remote sensing data. Plos One, 12(4), e0175671, https://doi.org/10.1371/
journal.pone.0175671.
261. Hock, M., Hofmann, R. W., Müller, C., & Erfmeier, A. (2019). Exotic plant species are locally adapted but not to high ultraviolet-B
radiation: a reciprocal multispecies experiment. Ecology, 100(5), e02665, https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.2665.
262. Jovtchev, G., Stankov, A., Ravnachka, I., Gateva, S., Dimitrov, D., Tyutyundzhiev, N., Nikolova, N., & Angelov, C. (2019). How
can the natural radiation background affect DNA integrity in angiosperm plant species at different altitudes in Rila Mountain(Southwest Bulgaria)? Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26(13), 13592-13601, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356019-04872-1.
263. Davidson, A. M., Jennions, M., & Nicotra, A. B. (2011). Do invasive species show higher phenotypic plasticity than native species
and, if so, is it adaptive? A meta-analysis. Ecology Letters, 14(4), 419-431, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2011.01596.x.

206Chapter 4
264. Madronich, S. (1987). Photodissociation in the atmosphere: 1. Actinic flux and the effects of ground reflections and clouds.
Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 92(D8), 9740-9752, https://doi.org/10.1029/JD092iD08p09740.
265. Zu, K., Wang, Z., Zhu, X., Lenoir, J., Shrestha, N., Lyu, T., Luo, A., Li, Y., Ji, C., Peng, S., Meng, J., & Zhou, J. (2021). Upward
shift and elevational range contractions of subtropical mountain plants in response to climate change. Science of the Total
Environment, 783, 146896, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.146896.
266. Benito Garzon, M., Robson, T. M., & Hampe, A. (2019). DeltaTraitSDMs: species distribution models that account for local
adaptation and phenotypic plasticity. New Phytologist, 222(4), 1757-1765, https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.15716.
267. Li, W., Shi, M., Huang, Y., Chen, K., Sun, H., & Chen, J. (2019). Climatic change can influence species diversity patterns andpotential habitats of Salicaceae plants in China. Forests, 10(3), 220, https://doi.org/10.3390/f10030220.
268. Wang, D., Cui, B., Duan, S., Chen, J., Fan, H., Lu, B., & Zheng, J. (2019). Moving north in China: The habitat of Pediculariskansuensis in the context of climate change. Science of the Total Environment, 697, 133979, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2019.133979.
269. Li, M., He, J., Zhao, Z., Lyu, R., Yao, M., Cheng, J., & Xie, L. (2020). Predictive modelling of the distribution of Clematis sect.
Fruticella s. str. under climate change reveals a range expansion during the Last Glacial Maximum. PeerJ, 8, e8729, https://doi.
org/10.7717/peerj.8729.
270. Zhang, K., Yao, L., Meng, J., & Tao, J. (2018). Maxent modeling for predicting the potential geographical distribution of
two peony species under climate change. Science of the Total Environment, 634, 1326-1334, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2018.04.112.
271. Peng, L. P., Cheng, F. Y., Hu, X. G., Mao, J. F., Xu, X. X., Zhong, Y., Li, S. Y., & Xian, H. L. (2019). Modelling environmentally suitableareas for the potential introduction and cultivation of the emerging oil crop Paeonia ostii in China. Scientific Reports, 9(1), 3213,
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-39449-y.
272. Zhang, K., Zhang, Y., & Tao, J. (2019). Predicting the potential distribution of Paeonia veitchii (Paeoniaceae) in China by
incorporating climate change into a Maxent model. Forests, 10(2), https://doi.org/10.3390/f10020190.
273. Hu, X. G., Jin, Y. Q., Wang, X. R., Mao, J. F., & Li, Y. (2015). Predicting impacts of future climate change on the distribution of thewidespread conifer Platycladus orientalis. Plos One, 10(7), e0132326, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0132326.
274. Beckmann, M., Vaclavik, T., Manceur, A. M., Sprtova, L., von Wehrden, H., Welk, E., & Cord, A. F. (2014). glUV: a global UV-B
radiation data set for macroecological studies. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 5(4), 372-383, https://doi.org/10.1111/2041210x.12168.
275. Ren, T., He, N., Liu, Z., Li, M., Zhang, J., Li, A., Wei, C., Lü, X., & Han, X. (2021). Environmental filtering rather than phylogeny
determines plant leaf size in three floristically distinctive plateaus. Ecological Indicators, 130, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecolind.2021.108049.
276. Ye, M., Zhu, X., Gao, P., Jiang, L., & Wu, R. (2020). Identification of quantitative trait loci for altitude adaptation of tree leaf
shape with Populus szechuanica in the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau. Frontiers in Plant Science, 11, 632, https://doi.org/10.3389/
fpls.2020.00632.
277. Li, X., Ke, X., Zhou, H., & Tang, Y. (2019). Contrasting altitudinal patterns of leaf UV reflectance and absorbance in four herbaceous
species on the Qinghai–Tibetan Plateau. Journal of Plant Ecology, 12(2), 245-254, https://doi.org/10.1093/jpe/rty016.
278. Wang, Q.-W., Liu, C., Robson, T. M., Hikosaka, K., & Kurokawa, H. (2021). Leaf density and chemical composition explain
variation in leaf mass area with spectral composition among 11 widespread forbs in a common garden. Physiologia Plantarum,
173(3), 698-708, https://doi.org/10.1111/ppl.13512.
279. Teramura, A. H. (1980). Effects of ultraviolet-B irradiances on soybean. I. Importance of photosynthetically active radiation in
evaluating ultraviolet-B irradiance effects on soybean and wheat growth. Physiologia Plantarum, 48, 333-339, https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1399-3054.1980.tb03264.x.
280. Sisson, W. B., & Caldwell, M. M. (1977). Atmospheric ozone depletion: Reduction of photosynthesis and growth of a sensitive
higher plant exposed to enhanced UV-B radiation. Journal of Experimental Botany, 28(104), 691-705, https://doi.org/10.1093/
jxb/28.3.691.
281. Caldwell, M. M. (1971). Solar UV irradiation and the growth and development of higher plants. Photophysiology, 6, 131-177.
282. Robson, T. M., Pieristè, M., Durand, M., Kotilainen, T. K., & Aphalo, P. J. (2022). The benefits of informed management of sunlightin production greenhouses and polytunnels. Plants People Planet, https://doi.org/10.1002/ppp3.10258.
283. Bernhard, G. H., Neale, R. E., Barnes, P. W., Neale, P. J., Zepp, R. G., Wilson, S. R., Andrady, A. L., Bais, A. F., McKenzie, R. L.,
Aucamp, P. J., Young, P. J., Liley, J. B., Lucas, R. M., Yazar, S., Rhodes, L. E., Byrne, S. N., Hollestein, L. M., Olsen, C. M., Young, A.
R., Robson, T. M., Bornman, J. F., Jansen, M. A. K., Robinson, S. A., Ballare, C. L., Williamson, C. E., Rose, K. C., Banaszak, A. T.,
Hader, D. P., Hylander, S., Wangberg, S. A., Austin, A. T., Hou, W. C., Paul, N. D., Madronich, S., Sulzberger, B., Solomon, K. R.,
Li, H., Schikowski, T., Longstreth, J., Pandey, K. K., Heikkila, A. M., & White, C. C. (2020). Environmental effects of stratosphericozone depletion, UV radiation and interactions with climate change: UNEP Environmental Effects Assessment Panel, update 2019.

207

Chapter 4
Photochemical & Photobiological Sciences, 19, 542-584, https://doi.org/10.1039/d0pp90011g.
284. Feeley, K. J., Stroud, J. T., & Perez, T. M. (2017). Most ‘global’ reviews of species’ responses to climate change are not truly global.
Diversity and Distributions, 23(3), 231-234, https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12517.
285. Sheldon, K. S. (2019). Climate change in the tropics: Ecological and evolutionary responses at low latitudes. Annual Review of
Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 50(1), 303-333, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-110218-025005.
286. Feeley, K. J., & Stroud, J. T. (2018). Where on Earth are the “tropics”? Frontiers of Biogeography, 10(1-2), https://doi.
org/10.21425/f5fbg38649.
287. Raven, P. H., Gereau, R. E., Phillipson, P. B., Chatelain, C., Jenkins, C. N., & Ulloa Ulloa, C. The distribution of biodiversity richness
in the tropics. Science Advances, 6(37), eabc6228, https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abc6228.
288. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2008). Biodiversity and agriculture: Safeguarding biodiversity and securing
food for the world. Montreal, Canada, 56 pp., https://www.cbd.int/doc/bioday/2008/ibd-2008-booklet-en.pdf
289. Chipperfield, M. P., Bekki, S., Dhomse, S., Harris, N. R. P., Hassler, B., Hossaini, R., Steinbrecht, W., Thieblemont, R., & Weber, M.
(2017). Detecting recovery of the stratospheric ozone layer. Nature, 549(7671), 211-218, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature23681.
290. Krause, G. H., Jahns, P., Virgo, A., Garcia, M., Aranda, J., Wellmann, E., & Winter, K. (2007). Photoprotection, photosynthesis
and growth of tropical tree seedlings under near-ambient and strongly reduced solar ultraviolet-B radiation. Journal of Plant
Physiology, 164, 1311-1322, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jplph.2006.09.004.
291. Kataria, S., & Guruprasad, K. N. (2015). Exclusion of solar UV radiation improves photosynthetic performance and yield of wheat
varieties. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry, 97, 400-411, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plaphy.2015.10.001.
292. Kataria, S., & Baghel, L. (2016). Influence of UV exclusion and selenium on carbon fixation, nitrogen fixation and yield of soybean
variety JS-335. South African Journal of Botany, 103, 126-134, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sajb.2015.09.003.
293. Mazza, C. A., Gimenez, P. I., Kantolic, A. G., & Ballaré, C. L. (2013). Beneficial effects of solar UV-B radiation on soybean yield
mediated by reduced insect herbivory under field conditions. Physiologia Plantarum, 147(3), 307-315, https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1399-3054.2012.01661.x.
294. Mansour, G., Ghanem, C., Mercenaro, L., Nassif, N., Hassoun, G., & Del Caro, A. (2022). Effects of altitude on the chemicalcomposition of grapes and wine: a review. OENO One, 56(1), 227-239, https://doi.org/10.20870/oeno-one.2022.56.1.4895.
295. Hinojos Mendoza, G., Gutierrez Ramos, C. A., Heredia Corral, D. M., Soto Cruz, R., & Garbolino, E. (2020). Assessing suitableareas of common grapevine (Vitis vinifera l.) for current and future climate situations: The CDS Toolbox SDM. Atmosphere, 11(11),1201, https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos11111201.
296. Moriondo, M., Jones, G. V., Bois, B., Dibari, C., Ferrise, R., Trombi, G., & Bindi, M. (2013). Projected shifts of wine regions in
response to climate change. Climatic Change, 119(3), 825-839, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0739-y.
297. Hannah, L., Roehrdanz, P. R., Ikegami, M., Shepard, A. V., Shaw, M. R., Tabor, G. M., Zhi, L., Marquet, P. A., & Hijmans, R. J.
(2013). Climate change, wine, and conservation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(17), 6907-6912, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1210127110.
298. Malhotra, S. (2017). Horticultural crops and climate change: A review. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 87(1), 12-22.
299. Ginbo, T. (2022). Heterogeneous impacts of climate change on crop yields across altitudes in Ethiopia. Climatic Change, 170(1),1-21, Vol.:(0123456789) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-022-03306-1.
300. Derebe, A. D., Gobena Roro, A., Tessfaye Asfaw, B., Worku Ayele, W., & Hvoslef-Eide, A. K. (2019). Effects of solar UV-B radiation
exclusion on physiology, growth and yields of taro (Colocasia esculenta (L.)) at different altitudes in tropical environments ofSouthern Ethiopia. Scientia Horticulturae, 256, 108563, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2019.108563.
301. Tonnang, H. E., Sokame, B. M., Abdel-Rahman, E. M., & Dubois, T. (2022). Measuring and modelling crop yield losses
due to invasive insect pests under climate change. Current Opinion in Insect Science, 100873, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cois.2022.100873.
302. Wallingford, P. D., Morelli, T. L., Allen, J. M., Beaury, E. M., Blumenthal, D. M., Bradley, B. A., Dukes, J. S., Early, R., Fusco, E. J.,
Goldberg, D. E., Ibáñez, I., Laginhas, B. B., Vilà, M., & Sorte, C. J. B. (2020). Adjusting the lens of invasion biology to focus on theimpacts of climate-driven range shifts. Nature Climate Change, 10(5), 398-405, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-0768-2.
303. Schweiger, O., Biesmeijer, J. C., Bommarco, R., Hickler, T., Hulme, P. E., Klotz, S., Kühn, I., Moora, M., Nielsen, A., Ohlemüller,
R., Petanidou, T., Potts, S. G., Pyšek, P., Stout, J. C., Sykes, M. T., Tscheulin, T., Vilà, M., Walther, G.-R., Westphal, C., Winter, M.,
Zobel, M., & Settele, J. (2010). Multiple stressors on biotic interactions: how climate change and alien species interact to affectpollination. Biological Reviews, 85(4), 777-795, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-185X.2010.00125.x.
304. Weaver, S. A., & Mallinger, R. E. (2022). A specialist bee and its host plants experience phenological shifts at different rates in
response to climate change. Ecology, e3658, https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.3658.

208

Chapter 4305. Jaiswal, D., Pandey, A., Mukherjee, A., Agrawal, M., & Agrawal, S. B. (2020). Alterations in growth, antioxidative defense
and medicinally important compounds of Curcuma caesia Roxb. under elevated ultraviolet-B radiation. Environmental andExperimental Botany, 177, 104152, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envexpbot.2020.104152.
306. Neugart, S., & Schreiner, M. (2018). UVB and UVA as eustressors in horticultural and agricultural crops. Scientia Horticulturae,
234, 370-381, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2018.02.021.
307. Robson, T. M., Aphalo, P. J., Banas, A. K., Barnes, P. W., Brelsford, C. C., Jenkins, G. I., Kotilainen, T., Labuz, J., Martínez-Abaigar,
J., Morales, L. O., Neugart, S., Pieristè, M., Rai, N., Vandenbussche, F., & Jansen, M. (2019). A perspective on ecologically
relevant plant-UV research and its practical application. Photochemical & Photobiological Sciences, 18, 970-988, https://doi.
org/10.1039/c8pp00526e.
308. Takshak, S., & Agrawal, S. B. (2019). Defense potential of secondary metabolites in medicinal plants under UV-B stress. Journal of
Photochemistry and Photobiology B: Biology, 193, 51-88, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jphotobiol.2019.02.002.
309. Lin, N., Liu, X. Y., Zhu, W. F., Cheng, X., Wang, X. H., Wan, X. C., & Liu, L. L. (2021). Ambient Ultraviolet B signal modulates tea
flavor characteristics via shifting a metabolic flux in flavonoid biosynthesis. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 69, 34013414, https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jafc.0c07009.
310. Falcato Fialho Palma, C., Castro-Alves, V., Rosenqvist, E., Ottosen, C. O., Strid, Å., & Morales, L. O. (2021). Effects of UV radiation
on transcript and metabolite accumulation are dependent on monochromatic light background in cucumber Physiologia
Plantarum, 173, 750-761, https://doi.org/10.1111/ppl.13551.
311. Quintero-Arias, D. G., Acuña-Caita, J. F., Asensio, C., & Valenzuela, J. L. (2021). Ultraviolet transparency of plastic films
determines the quality of lettuce (Lactuca sativa, l.) grown in a greenhouse. Agronomy, 11(2), 358, https://doi.org/10.3390/
agronomy11020358.
312. Ma, M., Wang, P., Yang, R., Zhou, T., & Gu, Z. (2019). UV-B mediates isoflavone accumulation and oxidative-antioxidant system
responses in germinating soybean. Food Chemistry, 275, 628-636, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2018.09.158
313. Qi, W., Ma, J., Zhang, J., Gui, M., Li, J., & Zhang, L. (2020). Effects of low doses of UV-B radiation supplementation on tuber quality
in purple potato (Solanum tuberosum L.). Plant Signaling & Behavior, 15(9), 1783490, https://doi.org/10.1080/15592324.202
0.1783490.
314. Santin, M., Castagna, A., Miras-Moreno, B., Rocchetti, G., Lucini, L., Hauser, M. T., & Ranieri, A. (2020). Beyond the visible andbelow the peel: How UV-B radiation influences the phenolic profile in the pulp of peach fruit. A biochemical and molecular study.
Frontiers in Plant Science, 11, 579063, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2020.579063
315. Ferreyra, M. L. F., Serra, P., & Casati, P. (2021). Recent advances on the roles of flavonoids as plant protective molecules after UVand high light exposure. Physiologia Plantarum, 173(3), 736-749, https://doi.org/10.1111/ppl.13543.
316. Brousseau, V. D., Wu, B.-S., MacPherson, S., Morello, V., & Lefsrud, M. (2021). Cannabinoids and terpenes: How production ofphoto-protectants can be manipulated to enhance Cannabis sativa l. Phytochemistry. Frontiers in Plant Science, 12, 620021,
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2021.620021
317. Tripathi, D., Meena, R. P., & Pandey-Rai, S. (2021). Short term UV-B radiation mediated modulation of physiological traits andwithanolides production in Withania coagulans (L.) Dunal under in-vitro condition. Physiology and Molecular Biology of Plants,
27(8), 1823-1835, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12298-021-01046-7
318. Zhong, Z., Liu, S., Han, S., Li, Y., Tao, M., Liu, A., He, Q., Chen, S., Dufresne, C., Zhu, W., & Tian, J. (2021). Integrative omic
analysis reveals the improvement of alkaloid accumulation by ultraviolet-B radiation and its upstream regulation in Catharanthus
roseus. Industrial Crops and Products, 166, 113448, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2021.113448.
319. FAO (2020). Fruit and vegetables—your dietary essentials. The international year of fruits and vegetables, 2021, background
paper. (pp. 82). Rome, Italy, https://doi.org/10.4060/cb2395en
320. Keflie, T. S., Samuel, A., Woldegiorgis, A. Z., Lambert, C., Nohr, D., & Biesalski, H. K. (2021). Consumption of sun-exposed oyster
mushrooms help patients fight tuberculosis. Asian Journal of Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Volume, 9(2).
321. Efsa Panel on Nutrition, N. F. a. F. A., Turck, D., Bohn, T., Castenmiller, J., De Henauw, S., Hirsch-Ernst, K. I., Maciuk, A.,
Mangelsdorf, I., McArdle, H. J., Naska, A., Pelaez, C., Pentieva, K., Siani, A., Thies, F., Tsabouri, S., Vinceti, M., Cubadda, F.,
Frenzel, T., Heinonen, M., Marchelli, R., Neuhäuser-Berthold, M., Poulsen, M., Prieto Maradona, M., Schlatter, J. R., van Loveren,
H., Gerazova-Efremova, K., Roldán-Torres, R., & Knutsen, H. K. (2022). Safety of vitamin D2 mushroom powder as a Novel foodpursuant to Regulation (EU) 2015/2283 (NF 2019/1471). [https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7326]. European Food Safety
Authority Journal, 20(6), e07326, https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7326.
322. Hamid, A., Singh, S., Agrawal, M., & Agrawal, S. B. (2019). Heteropogon contortus bl-1 (pilli grass) and elevated UV-B radiation:
The role of growth, physiological, and biochemical traits in determining forage productivity and quality. Photochemistry andPhotobiology, 95(2), 572-580, https://doi.org/10.1111/php.12990.

209

Chapter 4323. Hamid, A., Singh, S., Agrawal, M., & Agrawal, S. B. (2020). Effects of plant age on performance of the tropical perennial fodder
grass, Cenchrus ciliaris L. subjected to elevated ultraviolet-B radiation. Plant Biology 22(5), 805-812, https://doi.org/10.1111/
plb.13116.
324. Golob, A., Stibilj, V., Kreft, I., Vogel-Mikus, K., Gaberscik, A., & Germ, M. (2018). Selenium treatment alters the effects of UV
radiation on chemical and production parameters in hybrid buckwheat. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section B-Soil and Plant
Science, 68, 5-15.
325. FAO (2019). New standards to curb the global spread of plant pests and diseases. http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/
item/1187738/icode/
326. Jones, R. A. C., & Naidu, R. A. (2019). Global dimensions of plant virus diseases: Current status and future perspectives. Annual
Review of Virology, 6(1), 387-409, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-virology-092818-015606.
327. Bebber, D. P., Ramotowski, M. A., & Gurr, S. J. (2013). Crop pests and pathogens move polewards in a warming world. Nature
Climate Change, 3(11), 985-988, https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1990.
328. Chaloner, T. M., Gurr, S. J., & Bebber, D. P. (2021). Plant pathogen infection risk tracks global crop yields under climate change.
Nature Climate Change, 11(8), 710-715, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01104-8.
329. Juroszek, P., Racca, P., Link, S., Farhumand, J., & Kleinhenz, B. (2020). Overview on the review articles published during the past
30 years relating to the potential climate change effects on plant pathogens and crop disease risks. Plant Pathology, 69(2), 179193, https://doi.org/10.1111/ppa.13119.
330. Pierik, R., & Ballaré, C. L. (2021). Control of plant growth and defense by photoreceptors: From mechanisms to opportunities inagriculture. Molecular Plant, 14(1), 61-76, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molp.2020.11.021.
331. Pérez-Hedo, M., Alonso-Valiente, M., Vacas, S., Gallego, C., Pons, C., Arbona, V., Rambla, J. L., Navarro-Llopis, V., Granell, A., &Urbaneja, A. (2021). Plant exposure to herbivore-induced plant volatiles: a sustainable approach through eliciting plant defenses.
Journal of Pest Science, 94(4), 1221-1235, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10340-021-01334-x.
332. Brunner-Mendoza, C., Reyes-Montes, M. d. R., Moonjely, S., Bidochka, M. J., & Toriello, C. (2019). A review on the genus
Metarhizium as an entomopathogenic microbial biocontrol agent with emphasis on its use and utility in Mexico. Biocontrol
Science and Technology, 29(1), 83-102, https://doi.org/10.1080/09583157.2018.1531111.
333. Tong, S. M., & Feng, M. G. (2022). Molecular basis and regulatory mechanisms underlying fungal insecticides' resistance to solar
ultraviolet irradiation. Pest Management Science, 78(1), 30-42, https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.6600.
334. Mann, A. J., & Davis, T. S. (2021). Entomopathogenic fungi to control bark beetles: a review of ecological recommendations. Pest
Management Science, 77(9), 3841-3846, https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.6364.
335. Sutanto, K. D., Husain, M., Rasool, K. G., Malik, A. F., Al-Qahtani, W. H., & Aldawood, A. S. (2022). Persistency of indigenousand exotic entomopathogenic fungi isolates under Ultraviolet B (UV-B) irradiation to enhance field application efficacy and obtainsustainable control of the red palm weevil. Insects, 13(1), 103, https://doi.org/10.3390/insects13010103.
336. Bernardo, C. d. C., Pereira-Junior, R. A., Luz, C., Mascarin, G. M., & Kamp Fernandes, É. K. (2020). Differential susceptibility of
blastospores and aerial conidia of entomopathogenic fungi to heat and UV-B stresses. Fungal Biology, 124(8), 714-722, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.funbio.2020.04.003.
337. Aphalo, P. J., Albert, A., Björn, L. O., McLeod, A., Robson, T. M., & Rosenqvist, E. (Eds.). (2012). Beyond the visible: A
handbook of best practice in plant UV photobiology (COST Action FA0906 UV4growth). Helsinki, Finland http://hdl.handle.
net/10138/37558: University of Helsinki, Department of Biosciences, Division of Plant Biology
338. Puglis, H. J., & Boone, M. D. (2011). Effects of technical-grade active ingredient vs. commercial formulation of seven pesticides
in the presence or absence of UV radiation on survival of green frog tadpoles. Archives of Environmental Contamination and
Toxicology, 60(1), 145-155, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00244-010-9528-z.
339. Kah, M., Walch, H., & Hofmann, T. (2018). Environmental fate of nanopesticides: durability, sorption and photodegradation of
nanoformulated clothianidin. Environmental Science: Nano, 5(4), 882-889, https://doi.org/10.1039/c8en00038g.
340. Schwarzenbach, R. P., Gschwend, P. M., & Imboden, D. M. (2002). Direct Photolysis. In R. P. Schwarzenbach, P. M. Gschwend, &D. M. Imboden (Eds.), Environmental Organic Chemistry (pp. 611-654): John Wiley & Sons.
341. Schwarzenbach, R. P., Gschwend, P. M., & Imboden, D. M. (2002). Indirect Photolysis: Reactions with Photooxidants in Natural
Waters and in the Atmosphere. In R. P. Schwarzenbach, P. M. Gschwend, & D. M. Imboden (Eds.), Environmental Organic
Chemistry (pp. 655-686): John Wiley & Sons.
342. Su, L., Caywood, L. M., Sivey, J. D., & Dai, N. (2019). Sunlight photolysis of safener benoxacor and herbicide metolachlor as
mixtures on simulated soil surfaces. Environmental Science & Technology, 53(12), 6784-6793, https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.
est.9b01243.

210

Chapter 4343. Anderson, S. C., Chu, L., Bouma, C., Beukelman, L., McLouth, R., Larson, E., & Nienow, A. M. (2019). Comparison of thephotodegradation of imazethapyr in aqueous solution, on epicuticular waxes, and on intact corn (Zea mays) and soybean (Glycinemax) leaves. Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part B, 54(2), 129-137, https://doi.org/10.1080/03601234.2018.15
11400.
344. Buyl Lee, S., & Chung Suh, M. (2021). Regulatory mechanisms underlying cuticular wax biosynthesis. Journal of Experimental
Botany, 73(9), 2799-2816, https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erab509.
345. Arbid, Y., Sleiman, M., & Richard, C. (2022). Photochemical interactions between pesticides and plant volatiles. Science of the
Total Environment, 807(1), 150716, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.150716.
346. Palma, D., Arbid, Y., Sleiman, M., de Sainte-Claire, P., & Richard, C. (2020). New route to toxic nitro and nitroso products upon
irradiation of micropollutant mixtures containing imidacloprid: Role of NOx and effect of natural organic matter. Environmental
Science & Technology, 54(6), 3325-3333, https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b07304.
347. Xi, N., Li, Y., Chen, J., Yang, Y., Duan, J., & Xia, X. (2021). Elevated temperatures decrease the photodegradation rate of pyrethroid
insecticides on spinach leaves: Implications for the effect of climate warming. Environmental Science & Technology, 55(2), 11671177, https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c06959.
348. Qu, S., Kolodziej, E. P., Long, S. A., Gloer, J. B., Patterson, E. V., Baltrusaitis, J., Jones, G. D., Benchetler, P. V., Cole, E. A.,
Kimbrough, K. C., Tarnoff, M. D., & Cwiertny, D. M. (2013). Product-to-parent reversion of Trenbolone: Unrecognized risks for
endocrine disruption. Science, 342(6156), 347-351, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1243192.
349. Mishra, P., Tyagi, B. K., Mukherjee, A., & Chandrasekaran, N. (2019). Potential application of nanopesticides to pest
control in the food and agriculture sector. In Food Applications of Nanotechnology (pp. 493-509): CRC Press, https://doi.
org/10.1201/9780429297038
350. Côa, F., Bortolozzo, L. S., Petry, R., Da Silva, G. H., Martins, C. H. Z., de Medeiros, A. M. Z., Sabino, C. M. S., Costa, R. S., Khan,
L. U., Delite, F. S., & Martinez, D. S. T. (2020). Environmental toxicity of nanopesticides against non-target organisms: The state of
the art. In L. F. Fraceto, V. L. S.S. de Castro, R. Grillo, D. Ávila, H. Caixeta Oliveira, & R. Lima (Eds.), Nanopesticides: From researchand development to mechanisms of action and sustainable use in agriculture (pp. 227-279). Cham: Springer International
Publishing, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-44873-8_8
351. Mishra, P., Dutta, S., Haldar, M., Dey, P., Kumar, D., Mukherjee, A., & Chandrasekaran, N. (2019). Enhanced mosquitocidal
efficacy of colloidal dispersion of pyrethroid nanometric emulsion with benignity towards non-target species. Ecotoxicology andEnvironmental Safety, 176, 258-269, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2019.03.096.
352. Wang, D., Saleh, N. B., Byro, A., Zepp, R., Sahle-Demessie, E., Luxton, T. P., Ho, K. T., Burgess, R. M., Flury, M., White, J. C., & Su,
C. (2022). Nano-enabled pesticides for sustainable agriculture and global food security. Nature Nanotechnology, 17(4), 347360, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41565-022-01082-8.
353. Kumar, S., Nehra, M., Dilbaghi, N., Marrazza, G., Hassan, A. A., & Kim, K.-H. (2019). Nano-based smart pesticide
formulations: Emerging opportunities for agriculture. Journal of Controlled Release, 294, 131-153, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jconrel.2018.12.012.
354. Teramura, A. H. (1983). Effects of ultraviolet-B radiation on the growth and yield of crop plants. Physiologia Plantarum, 58, 415427, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-3054.1983.tb04203.x.
355. Takshak, S., & Agrawal, S. B. (2019). Defense potential of secondary metabolites in medicinal plants under UV-B stress. Journal of
Photochemistry & Photobiology, B: Biology, 193, 51-88, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jphotobiol.2019.02.002.
356. Jiang, Q. Y., Zhang, M., & Mujumdar, A. S. (2020). UV induced conversion during drying of ergosterol to vitamin D in various
mushrooms: Effect of different drying conditions. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 105, 200-210, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tifs.2020.09.011.
357. Leung, M. F., & Cheung, P. C. K. (2021). Vitamins D and D2 in cultivated mushrooms under ultraviolet irradiation and theirbioavailability in humans: A mini-review. International Journal of Medicinal Mushrooms, 23, 1-15, https://doi.org/10.1615/
IntJMedMushrooms.2021040390.
358. Ljubic, A., Thulesen, E. T., Jacobsen, C., & Jakobsen, J. (2021). UVB exposure stimulates production of vitamin D3 in selected
microalgae. Algal Research-Biomass Biofuels and Bioproducts, 59, 102472, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2021.102472.
359. Cardwell, G., Bornman, J. F., James, A. P., & Black, L. J. (2018). A review of mushrooms as a potential source of dietary vitamin D.
Nutrients, 10(10), 1498, https://doi.org/10.3390/nu10101498.
360. Mariz-Ponte, N., Martins, S., Goncalves, A., Correia, C. M., Ribeiro, C., Dias, M. C., & Santos, C. (2019). The potential use of
the UV-A and UV-B to improve tomato quality and preference for consumers. Scientia Horticulturae, 246, 777-784, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.scienta.2018.11.058.
361. Muller, R., Acosta-Motos, J. R., Grosskinsky, D. K., Hernandez, J. A., Lutken, H., & Barba-Espin, G. (2019). UV-B exposure of
black carrot (Daucus carota ssp. sativus var. atrorubens) plants promotes growth, accumulation of anthocyanin, and phenolic
compounds. Agronomy-Basel, 9, 323, https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy9060323.

211

Chapter 4362. Del-Castillo-Alonso, M. Á., Monforte, L., Tomás-Las-Heras, R., Núñez-Olivera, E., & Martínez-Abaigar, J. (2020). A supplementof ultraviolet-B radiation under field conditions increases phenolic and volatile compounds of Tempranillo grape skins and theresulting wines. European Journal of Agronomy, 121, 126150, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2020.126150.
363. Del-Castillo-Alonso, M. A., Monforte, L., Tomas-Las-Heras, R., Ranieri, A., Castagna, A., Martinez-Abaigar, J., & Nunez-Olivera, E.
(2021). Secondary metabolites and related genes in Vitis vinifera L. cv. Tempranillo grapes as influenced by ultraviolet radiation
and berry development. Physiologia Plantarum, https://doi.org/10.1111/ppl.13483.
364. Santin, M., Lucini, L., Castagna, A., Rocchetti, G., Hauser, M. T., & Ranieri, A. (2019). Comparative "phenol-omics" and gene
expression analyses in peach (Prunus persica) skin in response to different postharvest UV-B treatments. Plant Physiology andBiochemistry, 135, 511-519, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plaphy.2018.11.009.
365. Ding, R. R., Che, X. K., Shen, Z., & Zhang, Y. H. (2021). Metabolome and transcriptome profiling provide insights into green
apple peel reveals light- and UV-B-responsive pathway in anthocyanins accumulation. BMC Plant Biology, 21, 351, https://doi.
org/10.1186/s12870-021-03121-3.
366. Li, T. S., Yamane, H., & Tao, R. (2021). Preharvest long-term exposure to UV-B radiation promotes fruit ripening and modifies
stage-specific anthocyanin metabolism in highbush blueberry. Horticulture Research, 8, 67, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41438021-00503-4.
367. Thomas, T. T. D., & Puthur, J. T. (2020). UV-B priming enhances specific secondary metabolites in Oryza sativa (L.) empowering toencounter diverse abiotic stresses. Plant Growth Regulation, 92(2), 169-180, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10725-020-00628-x.
368. Jiang, Z. F., Xu, M. F., Dong, J. F., Zhu, Y., Lou, P. P., Han, Y. D., Hao, J., Yang, Y. J., Ni, J., & Xu, M. J. (2022). UV-B pre-irradiationinduces cold tolerance in tomato fruit by SlUVR8-mediated upregulation of superoxide dismutase and catalase. Postharvest
Biology and Technology, 185, 111777, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.postharvbio.2021.111777.
369. Neugart, S., & Bumke-Vogt, C. (2021). Flavonoid glycosides in Brassica species respond to UV-B depending on exposure timeand adaptation time. Molecules, 26, 494, https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules26020494.
370. Rady, M. R., Gierczik, K., Ibrahem, M. M., Matter, M. A., & Galiba, G. (2021). Anticancer compounds production in Catharanthus
roseus by methyl jasmonate and UV-B elicitation. South African Journal of Botany, 142, 34-41, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
sajb.2021.05.024.
371. Santin, M., Giordani, T., Cavallini, A., Bernardi, R., Castagna, A., Hauser, M. T., & Ranieri, A. (2019). UV-B exposure reduces
the activity of several cell wall-dismantling enzymes and affects the expression of their biosynthetic genes in peach fruit(Prunus persica L., cv. Fairtime, melting phenotype). Photochemical & Photobiological Sciences, 18, 1280-1289, https://doi.
org/10.1039/c8pp00505b.
372. Yoon, H. I., Kim, D., & Son, J. E. (2020). Spatial and temporal bioactive compound contents and chlorophyll fluorescence of kale(Brassica oleracea l.) under UV-B exposure near harvest time in controlled environments. [Article; Early Access]. Photochemistry
and Photobiology, 96, 845-852, https://doi.org/10.1111/php.13237.
373. Castillejo, N., Martinez-Zamora, L., & Artes-Hernandez, F. (2021). Periodical UV-B radiation hormesis in biosynthesis of kalesprouts nutraceuticals. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry, 165, 274-285, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plaphy.2021.05.022.
374. Virsile, A., Samuoliene, G., Miliauskiene, J., & Duchovskis, P. (2019). Applications and advances in LEDs for horticulture and crop
production. In T. Koutchma (Ed.), Ultraviolet LED Technology for Food Applications. From Farms to Kitchens (pp. 35-65). London:
Elsevier, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-817794-5.00003-0
375. Khan, S., Dar, A. H., Shams, R., Aga, M. B., Siddiqui, M. W., Mir, S. A., Rizvi, Q.-U.-e. H., Khan, S. A., & Altaf, A. (2021).
Applications of ultraviolet light–emitting diode technology in horticultural produce: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Foodand Bioprocess Technology, 15, 487-497, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11947-021-02742-8.
376. Yoon, H. I., Kim, H. Y., Kim, J., Oh, M.-M., & Son, J. E. (2021). Quantitative analysis of UV-B radiation interception in 3D plantstructures and intraindividual distribution of phenolic contents. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 22(5), 2701, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms22052701
377. McLay, E. R., Pontaroli, A. C., & Wargent, J. J. (2020). UV-B induced flavonoids contribute to reduced biotrophic diseasesusceptibility in lettuce seedlings. Frontiers in Plant Science, 11, 594681, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2020.594681.
378. Strauss, J., Schirrmeister, L., Grosse, G., Fortier, D., Hugelius, G., Knoblauch, C., Romanovsky, V., Schädel, C., Schneider
von Deimling, T., Schuur, E. A. G., Shmelev, D., Ulrich, M., & Veremeeva, A. (2017). Deep Yedoma permafrost: A synthesisof depositional characteristics and carbon vulnerability. Earth-Science Reviews, 172, 75-86, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
earscirev.2017.07.007.
379. Hugelius, G., Strauss, J., Zubrzycki, S., Harden, J. W., Schuur, E. A. G., Ping, C. L., Schirrmeister, L., Grosse, G., Michaelson, G.
J., Koven, C. D., O'Donnell, J. A., Elberling, B., Mishra, U., Camill, P., Yu, Z., Palmtag, J., & Kuhry, P. (2014). Estimated stocks ofcircumpolar permafrost carbon with quantified uncertainty ranges and identified data gaps. Biogeosciences, 11(23), 6573-6593,
https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-11-6573-2014.

212

Chapter 4380. Biskaborn, B. K., Smith, S. L., Noetzli, J., Matthes, H., Vieira, G., Streletskiy, D. A., Schoeneich, P., Romanovsky, V. E., Lewkowicz,
A. G., Abramov, A., Allard, M., Boike, J., Cable, W. L., Christiansen, H. H., Delaloye, R., Diekmann, B., Drozdov, D., Etzelmüller,B., Grosse, G., Guglielmin, M., Ingeman-Nielsen, T., Isaksen, K., Ishikawa, M., Johansson, M., Johannsson, H., Joo, A., Kaverin,D., Kholodov, A., Konstantinov, P., Kröger, T., Lambiel, C., Lanckman, J.-P., Luo, D., Malkova, G., Meiklejohn, I., Moskalenko, N.,
Oliva, M., Phillips, M., Ramos, M., Sannel, A. B. K., Sergeev, D., Seybold, C., Skryabin, P., Vasiliev, A., Wu, Q., Yoshikawa, K.,
Zheleznyak, M., & Lantuit, H. (2019). Permafrost is warming at a global scale. Nature Communications, 10(1), 264, https://doi.
org/10.1038/s41467-018-08240-4.
381. IPCC (2019). Summary for Policymakers. In: IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate In H.-O.
Pörtner, D. C. Roberts, V. Masson-Delmotte, P. C. Zhai, M. Tignor, E. Poloczanska, et al. (Eds.). Cambridge, UK and New York, NY,
USA, https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157964.001
382. Cory, R. M., Ward, C. P., Crump, B. C., & Kling, G. W. (2014). Sunlight controls water column processing of carbon in arctic fresh
waters. Science, 345(6199), 925-928, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1253119
383. Cory, R. M., Crump, B. C., Dobkowski, J. A., & Kling, G. W. (2013). Surface exposure to sunlight stimulates CO2 release frompermafrost soil carbon in the Arctic. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110(9),3429-3434, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1214104110.
384. Turetsky, M. R., Abbott, B. W., Jones, M. C., Anthony, K. W., Olefeldt, D., Schuur, E. A. G., Koven, C. D., McGuire, A. D., Grosse,G., & Kuhry, P. (2019). Permafrost collapse is accelerating carbon release. Nature, 569, 32-34.
385. Austin, A. T., & Ballaré, C. L. (2010). Dual role of lignin in plant litter decomposition in terrestrial ecosystems. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences USA, 107(10), 4618-4622, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0909396107.
386. Day, T. A., & Bliss, M. S. (2020). Solar photochemical emission of CO2 from leaf litter: Sources and significance to C loss.
Ecosystems, 23, 1344-1361, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-019-00473-8.
387. King, J. Y., Brandt, L. A., & Adair, E. C. (2012). Shedding light on plant litter decomposition: advances, implications and new
directions in understanding the role of photodegradation. Biogeochemistry, 111(1-3), 57-81, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533012-9737-9.
388. Keiser, A. D., Warren, R., Filley, T., & Bradford, M. A. (2021). Signatures of an abiotic decomposition pathway in temperate forest
leaf litter. Biogeochemistry, 153(2), 177-190, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-021-00777-9.
389. Day, T. A., Urbine, J. M., & Bliss, M. S. (2022). Supplemental precipitation accelerates decay but only in photodegraded litterand implications that sunlight promotes leaching loss. Biogeochemistry, 158(1), 113-129, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-02200888-x.
390. Logan, J. R., Barnes, P., & Evans, S. E. (2022). Photodegradation of plant litter cuticles enhances microbial decomposition byincreasing uptake of non-rainfall moisture. Functional Ecology, 36, 1727-1738, https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.14053.
391. Barnes, P. W., Throop, H. L., Archer, S. R., Breshears, D. D., McCulley, R. L., & Tobler, M. A. (2015). Sunlight and soil-litter mixing:
drivers of litter decomposition in drylands. Progress in Botany, 76, 273-302, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08807-5_11.
392. Austin, A. T., Méndez, M. S., & Ballaré, C. L. (2016). Photodegradation alleviates the lignin bottleneck for carbon turnover interrestrial ecosystems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 113(16), 4392-4397, https://doi.org/10.1073/
pnas.1516157113.
393. Pieristè, M., Forey, E., Lounès-Hadj Sahraoui, A., Meglouli, H., Laruelle, F., Delporte, P., Robson, T. M., & Chauvat, M.
(2020). Spectral composition of sunlight affects the microbial functional structure of Beech leaf litter during the initial phase of
decomposition. Plant and Soil, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-020-04557-6.
394. Cuadra, P., Guajardo, J., Carrasco-Orellana, C., Stappung, Y., Fajardo, V., & Herrera, R. (2020). Differential expression after UV-B
radiation and characterization of chalcone synthase from the Patagonian hairgrass Deschampsia antarctica. Phytochemistry, 169,
112179, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phytochem.2019.112179.
395. Ruhland, C. T., & Niere, J. A. (2019). The effects of surface albedo and initial lignin concentration on photodegradation of twovarieties of Sorghum bicolor litter. Scientific Reports, 9(1), 18748, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-55272-x.
396. Wang, Q.-W., Pieristè, M., Liu, C., Kenta, T., Robson, M. T., & Kurokawa, H. (2021). The contribution of photodegradation tolitter decomposition in a temperate forest gap and understorey. New Phytologist, 229(5), 2625-2636, https://doi.org/10.1111/
nph.17022.
397. Pieristè, M., Neimane, S., Solanki, T., Nybakken, L., Jones, A. G., Forey, E., Chauvat, M., Ņečajeva, J., & Robson, T. M. (2020).
Ultraviolet radiation accelerates photodegradation under controlled conditions but slows the decomposition of senescentleaves from forest stands in southern Finland. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry, 146, 42-54, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
plaphy.2019.11.005.
398. Araujo, P. I., Grasso, A. A., González-Arzac, A., Méndez, M. S., & Austin, A. T. (2022). Sunlight and soil biota accelerate
decomposition of crop residues in the Argentine Pampas. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 330, 107908, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.agee.2022.107908.

213

Chapter 4399. Liu, G. F., Wang, L., Jiang, L., Pan, X., Huang, Z. Y., Dong, M., & Cornelissen, J. H. C. (2018). Specific leaf area predicts dryland
litter decomposition via two mechanisms. Journal of Ecology, 106(1), 218-229, https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.12868.
400. Erdenebileg, E., Wang, C., Ye, X., Cui, Q., Du, J., Huang, Z., Liu, G., & Cornelissen, J. H. (2020). Multiple abiotic and biotic
drivers of long-term wood decomposition within and among species in the semiarid inland dunes: A dual role for stem diameter.
Functional Ecology, https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.13559.
401. Esch, E. H., King, J. Y., & Cleland, E. E. (2019). Foliar litter chemistry mediates susceptibility to UV degradation in two dominant
species from a semi-arid ecosystem. Plant and Soil, 440(1-2), 265-276, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-019-04069-y.
402. Berenstecher, P., Vivanco, L., Pérez, L. I., Ballaré, C. L., & Austin, A. (2020). Sunlight doubles aboveground carbon loss
in a seasonally dry woodland in Patagonia. Current Biology, 30(16), P3243-3251.E3243, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cub.2020.06.005.
403. Méndez, M. S., Martinez, M. L., Araujo, P. I., & Austin, A. T. (2019). Solar radiation exposure accelerates decomposition andbiotic activity in surface litter but not soil in a semiarid woodland ecosystem in Patagonia, Argentina. Plant and Soil, https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11104-019-04325-1.
404. Asao, S., Parton, W. J., Chen, M. S., & Gao, W. (2018). Photodegradation accelerates ecosystem N cycling in a simulated
California grassland. Ecosphere, 9(8), e02370, https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2370.
405. Day, T. A., & Bliss, M. S. (2019). A spectral weighting function for abiotic photodegradation based on photochemical emission of
CO2 from leaf litter in sunlight. Biogeochemistry, 146(2), 173-190, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-019-00616-y.
406. Logan, J. R., Jacobson, K. M., Jacobson, P. J., & Evans, S. E. (2021). Fungal communities on standing litter are structured bymoisture type and constrain decomposition in a hyper-arid grassland. Frontiers in Microbiology, 12, 596517, https://doi.
org/10.3389/fmicb.2021.596517.
407. Ball, B. A., Christman, M. P., & Hall, S. J. (2019). Nutrient dynamics during photodegradation of plant litter in the Sonoran Desert.
Journal of Arid Environments, 160, 1-10, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2018.09.004.
408. Marinho, O. A., Martinelli, L. A., Duarte-Neto, P. J., Mazzi, E. A., & King, J. Y. (2020). Photodegradation influences litter
decomposition rate in a humid tropical ecosystem, Brazil. Science of the Total Environment, 715, 136601, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.136601.
409. Wu, C. S., Wang, H. K., Mo, Q. F., Zhang, Z. J., Huang, G. X., Kong, F. Q., Liu, Y. Q., & Wang, G. G. (2019). Effects of elevated
UV-B radiation and N deposition on the decomposition of coarse woody debris. Science of the Total Environment, 663, 170-176,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.01.271.
410. Wei, B., Zhang, D., Kou, D., Yang, G., Liu, F., Peng, Y., & Yang, Y. (2022). Decreased ultraviolet radiation and decomposer
biodiversity inhibit litter decomposition under continuous nitrogen inputs. Functional Ecology, 36, 998-1009, https://doi.
org/10.1111/1365-2435.14015.
411. Shelton, S., Neale, P., Pinsonneault, A., & Tzortziou, M. (2022). Biodegradation and photodegradation of vegetation-derived
dissolved organic matter in tidal marsh ecosystems. Estuaries and Coasts, 45, 1324-1342, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-02100982-7.
412. Pieristè, M., Chauvat, M., Kotilainen, T. K., Jones, A. G., Aubert, M., Robson, M. T., & Forey, E. (2019). Solar UV-A radiation andblue light enhance tree leaf litter decomposition in a temperate forest. Oecologia, 191(1), 191-203, https://doi.org/10.1007/
s00442-019-04478-x.
413. Austin, A. T., & Vivanco, L. (2006). Plant litter decomposition in a semi-arid ecosystem controlled by photodegradation. Nature,442, 555-558, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature05038.
414. Yan, W., Shangguan, Z., & Zhong, Y. (2021). Responses of mass loss and nutrient release in litter decomposition to ultraviolet
radiation. Journal of Soils and Sediments, 21(2), 698-704, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11368-020-02810-0.
415. Wang, Q.-W., Pieristè, M., Kotilainen, T., Forey, E., Chauvat, M., Kurokawa, H., Robson, M., & Jones, A. (2022). Meta-analysis
of ecological studies attenuating solar radiation illustrates the importance of blue light over ultraviolet radiation in driving
photodegradation of litter in terrestrial ecosystems. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1377521/v1.
416. Wang, Q.-W., Robson, T. M., Pieristè, M., Kenta, T., Zhou, W., & Kurokawa, H. (2022). Canopy structure and phenology modulate
the impacts of solar radiation on C and N dynamics during litter decomposition in a temperate forest. Science of the Total
Environment, 820, 153185, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.153185.
417. Landuyt, D., Ampoorter, E., Bastias, C. C., Benavides, R., & Müller, S. (2020). Importance of overstorey attributes for understorey
litter production and nutrient cycling in European forests. Forest Ecosystems, 7, 45, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40663-02000256-x.
418. Berenstecher, P., Araujo, P. I., & Austin, A. T. (2021). Worlds apart: Location above-or below-ground determines plant litter
decomposition in a semi-arid Patagonian steppe. Journal of Ecology, 109(8), 2885-2896, https://doi.org/10.1111/13652745.13688.

214Chapter 4419. Predick, K. I., Archer, S. R., Aguillon, S. M., Keller, D. A., Throop, H. L., & Barnes, P. W. (2018). UV-B radiation and shrub canopy
effects on surface litter decomposition in a shrub-invaded dry grassland. Journal of Arid Environments, 157, 13-21, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2018.06.007.
420. Barnes, P. W., Throop, H. L., Hewins, D. B., Abbene, M. L., & Archer, S. R. (2012). Soil coverage reduces photodegradation andpromotes the development of soil-microbial films on dryland leaf litter. Ecosystems, 15(2), 311-321, https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10021-011-9511-1.
421. Lee, H.-S., Hur, J., Lee, M.-H., Brogi, S. R., Kim, T.-W., & Shin, H.-S. (2019). Photochemical release of dissolved organic matterfrom particulate organic matter: Spectroscopic characteristics and disinfection by-product formation potential. Chemosphere,
235, 586-595, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.06.127.
422. Saunois, M., Stavert, A. R., Poulter, B., Bousquet, P., Canadell, J. G., Jackson, R. B., Raymond, P. A., Dlugokencky, E. J.,
Houweling, S., Patra, P. K., Ciais, P., Arora, V. K., Bastviken, D., Bergamaschi, P., Blake, D. R., Brailsford, G., Bruhwiler, L., Carlson,
K. M., Carrol, M., Castaldi, S., Chandra, N., Crevoisier, C., Crill, P. M., Covey, K., Curry, C. L., Etiope, G., Frankenberg, C.,
Gedney, N.,... & Zhuang, Q. (2020). The global methane budget 2000–2017. Earth System Science Data, 12(3), 1561-1623,
https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-12-1561-2020.
423. Jackson, R. B., Saunois, M., Bousquet, P., Canadell, J. G., Poulter, B., Stavert, A. R., Bergamaschi, P., Niwa, Y., Segers, A.,& Tsuruta, A. (2020). Increasing anthropogenic methane emissions arise equally from agricultural and fossil fuel sources.
Environmental Research Letters, 15(7), https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab9ed2.
424. Dean, J. F., Middelburg, J. J., Röckmann, T., Aerts, R., Blauw, L. G., Egger, M., Jetten, M. S. M., de Jong, A. E. E., Meisel, O. H.,
Rasigraf, O., Slomp, C. P., in't Zandt, M. H., & Dolman, A. J. (2018). Methane feedbacks to the global climate system in a warmer
world. Reviews of Geophysics, 56(1), 207-250, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017RG000559.
425. Covey, K. R., & Megonigal, J. P. (2019). Methane production and emissions in trees and forests. New Phytologist, 222(1), 35-51,
https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.15624.
426. Pitz, S. L., Megonigal, J. P., Chang, C.-H., & Szlavecz, K. (2018). Methane fluxes from tree stems and soils along a habitat gradient.
Biogeochemistry, 137(3), 307-320, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-017-0400-3.
427. Fraser, W. T., Blei, E., Fry, S. C., Newman, M. F., Reay, D. S., Smith, K. A., & McLeod, A. R. (2015). Emission of methane, carbon
monoxide, carbon dioxide and short-chain hydrocarbons from vegetation foliage under ultraviolet irradiation. Plant, Cell &Environment, 38(5), 980-989, https://doi.org/10.1111/pce.12489.
428. Barba, J., Poyatos, R., & Vargas, R. (2019). Automated measurements of greenhouse gases fluxes from tree stems and soils:
magnitudes, patterns and drivers. Scientific Reports, 9(1), 4005, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-39663-8.
429. Tenhovirta, S. A. M., Kohl, L., Koskinen, M., Patama, M., Lintunen, A., Zanetti, A., Lilja, R., & Pihlatie, M. (2022). Solar radiation
drives methane emissions from the shoots of Scots pine. New Phytologist, 235(1), 66-77. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.18120.
430. McLeod, A. R., Fry, S. C., Loake, G. J., Messenger, D. J., Reay, D. S., Smith, K. A., & Yun, B.-W. (2008). Ultraviolet radiation
drives methane emissions from terrestrial plant pectins. New Phytologist, 180(1), 124-132, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.14698137.2008.02571.x.
431. Yip, D. Z., Veach, A. M., Yang, Z. K., Cregger, M. A., & Schadt, C. W. (2019). Methanogenic Archaea dominate mature heartwood
habitats of eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoides). New Phytologist, 222(1), 115-121, https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.15346.
432. Li, H.-L., Zhang, X.-M., Deng, F.-D., Han, X.-G., Xiao, C.-W., Han, S.-J., & Wang, Z.-P. (2019). Microbial methane production
is affected by secondary metabolites in the heartwood of living trees in upland forests. Trees, 34(1), 243-254, https://doi.
org/10.1007/s00468-019-01914-6.
433. Feng, H., Guo, J., Han, M., Wang, W., Peng, C., Jin, J., Song, X., & Yu, S. (2020). A review of the mechanisms and controlling
factors of methane dynamics in forest ecosystems. Forest Ecology and Management, 455, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
foreco.2019.117702.
434. Abatzoglou, J. T., Williams, A. P., Boschetti, L., Zubkova, M., & Kolden, C. A. (2018). Global patterns of interannual climate–firerelationships. Global Change Biology, 24(11), 5164-5175, https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14405.
435. Andreae, M. O. (2019). Emission of trace gases and aerosols from biomass burning – an updated assessment. Atmosphere
Chemistry and Physics, 19, 8523-8546, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-8523-2019.
436. Hart, S. J., Henkelman, J., McLoughlin, P. D., Nielsen, S. E., Truchon-Savard, A., & Johnstone, J. F. (2019). Examining forest
resilience to changing fire frequency in a fire-prone region of boreal forest. Global Change Biology, 25(3), 869-884, https://doi.
org/10.1111/gcb.14550.
437. Jones, M. W., Santín, C., van der Werf, G. R., & Doerr, S. H. (2019). Global fire emissions buffered by the production of pyrogenic
carbon. Nature Geoscience, 12(9), 742-747, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-019-0403-x.
438. Rumpel, C. (2019). Soils linked to climate change. Nature, 572(7770), 442-443, https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-024506.

215

Chapter 4439. Walker, X. J., Baltzer, J. L., Cumming, S. G., Day, N. J., Ebert, C., Goetz, S., Johnstone, J. F., Potter, S., Rogers, B. M., & Schuur, E.
A. G. (2019). Increasing wildfires threaten historic carbon sink of boreal forest soils. Nature, 572(7770), 520-523, https://doi.
org/10.1038/s41586-019-1474-y.
440. Williams, A. P., & Abatzoglou, J. T. (2016). Recent advances and remaining uncertainties in resolving past and future climate effects
on global fire activity. Current Climate Change Reports, 2(1), 1-14, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40641-016-0031-0.
441. Wagner, S., Jaffé, R., & Stubbins, A. (2018). Dissolved black carbon in aquatic ecosystems. Limnology Oceanography Letters,
3(3), 168-185, https://doi.org/10.1002/lol2.10076.
442. Bostick, K. W., Zimmerman, A. R., Wozniak, A. S., Mitra, S., & Hatcher, P. G. (2018). Production and composition of pyrogenic
dissolved organic matter from a logical series of laboratory-generated chars. Frontiers in Earth Science, 6, Article 43, https://doi.
org/10.3389/feart.2018.00043.
443. Hohner, A. K., Rhoades, C. C., Wilkerson, P., & Rosario-Ortiz, F. L. (2019). Wildfires alter forest watersheds and threaten drinking
water quality. Accounts of Chemical Research, 52(5), 1234-1244, https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.accounts.8b00670.
444. Goranov, A. I., Wozniak, A. S., Bostick, K. W., Zimmerman, A. R., Mitra, S., & Hatcher, P. G. (2022). Microbial labilization anddiversification of pyrogenic dissolved organic matter. Biogeosciences, 19(5), 1491-1514, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-19-14912022.
445. Rust, A. J., Hogue, T. S., Saxe, S., & McCray, J. (2018). Post-fire water-quality response in the western United States. International
Journal of Wildland Fire, 27(3), 203-216, https://doi.org/10.1071/WF17115.
446. Wagner, S., Coppola, A. I., Stubbins, A., Dittmar, T., Niggemann, J., Drake, T. W., Seidel, M., Spencer, R. G. M., & Bao, H. (2021).
Questions remain about the biolability of dissolved black carbon along the combustion continuum. Nature Communications,12(1), 4281, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-24477-y.
447. Bostick, K. W., Zimmerman, A. R., Goranov, A. I., Mitra, S., Hatcher, P. G., & Wozniak, A. S. (2021). Biolability of fresh andphotodegraded pyrogenic dissolved organic matter from laboratory-prepared chars. Journal of Geophysical Research:
Biogeosciences, 126(5), e2020JG005981, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JG005981.
448. Bostick, K. W., Zimmerman, A. R., Goranov, A. I., Mitra, S., Hatcher, P. G., & Wozniak, A. S. (2020). Photolability of pyrogenic
dissolved organic matter from a thermal series of laboratory-prepared chars. Science of the Total Environment, 724, 138198,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138198.
449. Tilmes, S., Kinnison, D. E., Garcia, R. R., Salawitch, R., Canty, T., Lee-Taylor, J., Madronich, S., & Chance, K. (2012). Impact ofvery short-lived halogens on stratospheric ozone abundance and UV radiation in a geo-engineered atmosphere. Atmospheric
Chemistry and Physics, 12(22), 10945-10955, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-10945-2012.
450. Flint, S. D., Ryel, R. J., & Caldwell, M. M. (2003). Ecosystem UV-B experiments in terrestrial communities: a review ofrecent findings and methodologies. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 120(1-4), 177-189, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
agrformet.2003.08.014.
451. Caldwell, M. M., & Flint, S. D. (2006). Use and evaluation of biological spectral UV weighting functions for the ozone reduction
issue. In F. Ghetti, G. Checcucci, & J. F. Bornman (Eds.), Environmental UV radiation: Impact on ecosystems and human healthand predictive models (pp. 71-84, Environmental UV Radiation: Impact on Ecosystems and Human Health and Predictive Models).
Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, https//doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3697-3_6
452. Carvalho, L. C., & Amâncio, S. (2019). Cutting the Gordian Knot of abiotic stress in grapevine: From the test tube to climatechange adaptation. Physiologia Plantarum, 165(2), 330-342, https://doi.org/10.1111/ppl.12857.
453. Day, T. A., Bliss, M. S., Tomes, A. R., Ruhland, C. T., & Guenon, R. (2018). Desert leaf litter decay: Coupling of microbial
respiration, water-soluble fractions and photodegradation. Global Change Biology, 24(11), 5454-5470, https://doi.org/10.1111/
gcb.14438.
454. Parton, W., Silver, W. L., Burke, I. C., Grassens, L., Harmon, M. E., Currie, W. S., King, J. Y., Adair, E. C., Brandt, L. A., Hart, S. C.,& Fasth, B. (2007). Global-scale similarities in nitrogen release patterns during long-term decomposition. Science, 315, 361-364,
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1134853.

216

Chapter 5

5
THE RESPONSE OF AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMSTO THE INTERACTIVE EFFECTS OF
STRATOSPHERIC OZONE DEPLETION, UVRADIATION, AND CLIMATE CHANGE

P. J. Neale93, C. E. Williamson94, A. T. Banaszak95, D.-P. Häder96,
S. Hylander97, R. Ossola98, K. C. Rose99, S.-Å. Wängberg100,
and R. Zepp101

93

Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, Edgewater, USA

94

Miami University of Ohio, Oxford, USA

95

Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Unidad Académica de Sistemas Arrecifales, Puerto Morelos, Mexico

96

Friedrich-Alexander University, Möhrendorf, Germany

97

Linnaeus University, Kalmar, Sweden

98

Colorado State University, Fort Collins, USA

99

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, USA

100

University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden

101

ORD/CEMM, US Environmental Protection Agency, Athens, USA

217

Chapter 5

Table of contents
Summary											2191

Introduction											219

2

Changes in abiotic conditions alter exposure of aquatic ecosystems to underwater UV radiation		

220

2.1

Factors mediating the effect of climate change on UV radiation in the aquatic environment			

221

2.1.1

Water transparency										2212.1.2Mixed layer depth											222

2.1.3Ice and snow cover											223

3

UV radiation in combination with climate change can have adverse effects at the ecosystem level		

226

3.1

Interactive effects of UV radiation, climate change, and other stressors on aquatic ecosystems			

226

3.2

Photoinactivation by UV-B radiation of pathogens and parasites in the aquatic environment			

227

3.3

Reduced production of the marine planktonic community due to exposure to UV-B radiation			

228

3.4

Aquatic cycling of carbon and other elements via photodegradation and photofacilitation.			

229

3.4.1

Photodegradation of dissolved organic matter by UV radiation releases greenhouse gases that may
exacerbate climate change										230

3.4.2Partial photo-oxidation modifies the chemical composition of dissolved organic material and can trigger
its microbial mineralisation to carbon dioxide								230

3.4.3Photodegradation of dissolved organic material in aquatic ecosystems releases nutrients			

231

4

Environmental contaminants exposed to UV radiation and UV filters are toxic to aquatic organisms		

231

4.1

Role of UV irradiation in the formation and potential toxicity of microplastics in the aquatic environment		

231

4.2

Ecological impacts of the release of UV filters into the aquatic environment					

231

4.3

UV radiation degrades oil pollutants but enhances their toxicity to aquatic organisms				

233

4.4

Improved prediction of UV-induced photoreactions of contaminants in the aquatic environment			

233

5

The adverse effects of UV radiation and the defences against those effects vary among aquatic organisms

234

5.1

Exposure to UV radiation increases the toxicity of some harmful microalgae					

234

5.2

Aquatic organisms synthesise or accumulate photoprotective substances that ameliorate the effects of UV radiation 234

5.3

Interactive effects of UV radiation and thermal stress on corals						

235

5.3.1

Direct effects of UV-B radiation on symbionts versus corals							

235

5.3.2

Response to UV radiation and thermal stress								236

5.4Photoprotection in corals and invertebrates								237

5.5Effects of UV radiation on zooplankton including sub-lethal, mortality and defence mechanisms			

237

5.5.1

Exposure to UV-B radiation and fitness of zooplankton							

237

5.5.2

Exposure to UV radiation modulates zooplankton interactions in the food web					

238

5.6

Harmful effects of UV-B radiation on fish								238

6

Knowledge gaps											239

7

Conclusions											240List of abbreviations										241References											242

218

Chapter 5

Summary
Variations in stratospheric ozone and changes in the aquatic environment by climate change and human activity are modifying exposureof aquatic ecosystems to UV radiation. These shifts in exposure have consequences for distributions of species, biogeochemical
cycles, and services provided by aquatic ecosystems. This Quadrennial Assessment presents the latest knowledge on the multifaceted interactions between the effects of UV irradiation and of climate change, and of other anthropogenic activities, and how these
conditions are changing aquatic ecosystems. Climate change results in variations in the depth of mixing, thickness of ice cover, theduration of ice-free conditions and inputs of dissolved organic matter, all of which can either increase or decrease exposure to UV
radiation. Anthropogenic activities release oil, UV filters in suncreens, and microplastics into the aquatic environment that are thenmodified by UV radiation, frequently amplifying adverse effects on aquatic organisms and their environments. The impacts of thesechanges in combination with factors such as warming and ocean acidification are considered for aquatic micro-organisms, macroalgae,
plants, and animals (floating, swimming, and attached). Minimising the disruptive consequences of these effects on critical services
provided by the world’s rivers, lakes and oceans (freshwater supply, recreation, transport and food security) will not only requirecontinued adherence to the Montreal Protocol but also a wider inclusion of solar UV radiation and its effects in studies and/or models ofaquatic ecosystems under conditions of the future global climate.

1 Introduction
The exposure of aquatic ecosystems to solar UV-B102 radiation is changing due to variations in stratospheric ozone as well as shifts inmany other factors affected by global climate change. Together, these shifts in exposure have consequences for distributions of species,
biogeochemical cycles, and services provided by aquatic ecosystems, including human health, fisheries, and recreation. Whereas
stratospheric ozone only affects radiation in the UV-B region of the solar spectrum, alterations of the aquatic environment by climatechange and human activity either increase or decrease exposure over the full UV spectrum. Particularly important is the amount andtiming of terrestrial runoff, which decreases the transparency of aquatic ecosystems to UV radiation mainly due to inputs of dissolved
organic matter (DOM). Other alterations increase or decrease exposure, including changes in the depth of mixing, thickness of ice coverand the duration of ice-free conditions. Seasonal variations in exposure are also modulated as UV radiation itself photobleaches the
DOM. This has the further consequence of generating greenhouse gases and enhancing the breakdown of DOM by micro-organisms.
In turn, aquatic micro-organisms, macroalgae, plants, and animals (floating, swimming, and attached) respond to changes in UV
irradiance, and their responses also depend on other effects of climate change, including warming and ocean acidification.
Substances released into the environment by humans, such as oil, UV filters in sunscreens, and microplastics are modified by UV
radiation, which in turn can change their effects on aquatic organisms and their environments. We provide an assessment of theknowledge about the interactive effects of UV radiation and climate change on aquatic ecosystems, emphasising new findings since thelast Quadrennial Assessment by the Environmental Effects Assessment Panel (EEAP) of the Montreal Protocol under the United Nations
Environment Programme (UNEP) [1]. We start by assessing recent advances in understanding the major factors controlling underwater
exposure to UV radiation, and then discuss both the beneficial and adverse effects of UV radiation on aquatic ecosystems in the context
of interactions with climate and other environmental changes.

102

A list of all abbreviations with their definitions follows Sect. 7

219

Chapter 5

2 Changes in abiotic conditions alter exposure of aquatic ecosystems
to underwater UV radiation
Exposure of aquatic ecosystems to UV radiation in marine and inland surface waters is determined by the combined effects of incident
irradiance, ice and snow cover, water transparency, and the depth to which organisms passively circulate or, if motile, actively position.
Depletion of stratospheric ozone specifically affects exposure by increasing incident UV-B radiation, whereas other factors influence
exposure over the full spectrum (UV-B, UV-A and visible or photosynthetically active radiation [PAR]). After incident irradiance,transparency is the most important factor determining the exposure of aquatic organisms and materials to UV radiation, usually limiting
penetration of UV-B radiation to just the upper zone of the surface layer, which is the warmest, most biologically active section of aquatic
ecosystems. Within the surface layer, penetration of UV radiation can vary through space and time. For example, the depth at which
UV-B radiation is reduced to 1% of its incident value ranges from tens of metres in the clearest ocean waters to tens of centimetres ininland waters that have high concentrations of dissolved organic matter [2, 3]. The overall exposure of organisms and materials present
throughout the full depth of the surface mixed layer thus depends on how often they move (or are moved) into this upper zone of highexposure (Fig. 1). Above the water surface, ice and snow cover, when they are present, are important barriers to the penetration of UV
radiation into underlying waters.

          













 Fig. 1 Schematic depiction of processes controlling exposure to UV-B radiation in aquatic ecosystems comparing before andafter the “Anthropocene”, i.e. the current period of significant human impact on the Earth's ecosystems. In general, exposure to
UV-B radiation is limited to the surface layer (light blue/brown), the mixing of which depends on the stratifying effect of surface
warming and inputs of fresh water vs the stirring effects of surface winds and currents. Ice cover shields the polar ocean andwintertime lakes (not shown). In the Anthropocene ocean, there is more warming, more wind, and a greater mixed layer depth(MLD), while sharpening the density barrier (pycnocline, dark blue) to nutrient transport (arrows) from deep water (black). Ice
melt reduces shielding and freshens the polar ocean reducing the MLD. Terrestrial run-off from rain events browns lake surface
water, lowers UV-B transparency and warms surface waters due to enhanced absorption of solar radiation. Drought would havethe opposite effect. The warming results in shallower mixed layers, as do weaker winds. Dimensions are not to scale.

220

Chapter 5
While the Montreal Protocol has been successful in limiting the increase in incident UV-B radiation due to ozone depletion, other factorsthat change the exposure to UV-B radiation are shifting with climate change. In this section, we discuss how these factors can combine indifferent ways across various regions to either increase or decrease exposure to UV radiation in the aquatic environment.

2.1

Factors mediating the effect of climate change on UV radiation in the aquatic 		environment

2.1.1 Water transparency
Inputs of terrestrially-derived dissolved organic matter control the transparency to UV-B radiation in most inland and coastal waters
because they contain a large portion of chromophoric (coloured) dissolved organic matter (CDOM), the fraction of terrestrially-derived
DOM that absorbs UV and visible radiation. CDOM is the most important contributor to decreased UV transparency of all surface waters,
but suspended sediments, organic particulates and algal pigments also contribute [2]. Algal-derived CDOM and pigments are the main
controls of UV transparency in the open ocean [4]. Climate change and anthropogenic activities are causing long-term changes in thesefactors, which are increasing the transparency in some regions while decreasing it in others. In this section we assess these regionspecific trends in UV transparency.
Where the inputs of CDOM have increased, transparency to both visible and UV radiation has decreased. This “browning” of surface
waters has been mainly documented for boreal lakes in North America and Europe affected in the past by atmospheric depositionand surface runoff [5, 1]. More recently, reductions in exposure to UV radiation have also been reported for three lakes in eastern andsouthwestern China. Modelled UV-B radiation at 1 m depth (relative to the surface incidence) decreased 12-39% over the period 19612014 due to decreased transparency [6]. The suggested causes of decreased transparency included increases in CDOM, algal pigments
and suspended sediments, the importance of each driver varying among the lakes.
There are many more long-term datasets covering broad geographical regions that focus on transparency of visible radiation, which
can be an indicator of transparency to UV-B radiation. These datasets show a diversity of trends, with both increases and decreases intransparency. Only some of the decreases were due to browning. For example, browning was observed in about half of the lakes in alarge database covering the Northeast and Midwest United States over the period 1980-2013. These lakes were concentrated in the
Adirondack mountains, an area which is recovering from acid deposition after the installation of acidification pollution controls [7]. The
consequent increases in soil pH causes greater dissolution of soil-bound organic matter [8]. Similarly, there is a wide range of watertransparency trends in the period 1991 – 2012 for thousands of lakes in Wisconsin as estimated from remotely sensed reflectance data
[9]. For most lakes there was no change, but in those where there was a change in transparency, more exhibited declines (– 23%) thanincreases in transparency (+ 6%). Most recently, remote-sensing lake data have been analysed for the whole continental United States
and the results show that average lake water transparency has actually increased since 1984 [10]. Remotely-sensed lake transparency has
also increased, on average, for 153 large lakes in China [11]. Importantly, these studies only deal with visible transparency, but changes
could also apply to average underwater exposure to UV-B radiation. Establishing relationships between visible and UV transparency
across broad lake regions is a current knowledge gap. This gap could be filled by following a modelling approach similar to that used forthe previously cited study of the three Chinese lakes [6], and can involve CDOM, algal biomass and suspended sediments (which can all
be remotely sensed), analogous to relationships already established for estuarine waters [12] discussed below.
Assuming that trends in visible transparency indicate a change in UV transparency in a similar direction, if not magnitude, it is relevant
to consider how variations in trends relate to drivers in watersheds. Increasing precipitation mainly drives browning in clear lakes
where CDOM is the primary determinant of water transparency [13, 9]. Land-use was the primary driver in the Wisconsin lakes, witha high percentage of agriculture in the watershed linked to low transparency [9]. This implied that nutrient inputs exercised control
on transparency in these lakes by encouraging algal growth. However, the effect of increased runoff is different for eutrophic lakes
already turbid due to algal growth. There, runoff from increased precipitation tended to dilute the concentration of algae and increasetransparency [13]. In the continental scale studies, the greatest increase in visible transparency occurred for lakes in densely settled
areas of the United States (1984-2018) and eastern China (2000-2017) as improvements in water quality reduced suspended sediments
and nutrients [10, 11]. Remotely-sensed data also showed increased visible transparency of lakes in arid regions of the Southwest US andthe Qinghai-Tibet Plateau of China [10, 11] due to reduced precipitation and associated runoff or, for China, inputs of warming-induced
glacial meltwater (except when transporting fine suspended sediment from glaciers). Overall, there is an improved understandingof which land-use and climate factors tend to increase or decrease the visible transparency of lakes, and a key need for the future isextending this understanding to how these factors affect UV transparency.
In coastal waters, extreme events such as flooding are increasing with climate change and result in large pulses of terrestrially-derived
DOM that affect both UV transparency and carbon cycling (e.g., [14,15]), (see also Sect. 3.4). While extreme events cause large, shortterm pulses of DOM into coastal and estuarine waters, other factors are causing long-term decreases in UV radiation. For example,
variations in CDOM are the main source of seasonal changes in transparency in the Rhode River sub-estuary of the Chesapeake Bay, but
increased suspended particulate matter is the main cause of a long-term decline in transparency to UV-B and UV-A radiation, and to PAR[12]. Similar long-term trends of increasing inputs of sediment and terrestrially-derived DOM are causing decreased water transparency
in the North Sea, a phenomenon termed “coastal darkening” [16]. In the Southern Hemisphere, climate change is also altering rainfall
patterns and increasing inputs of terrestrial material into coastal environments, for example in coastal Patagonian waters [17].

221Chapter 5
CDOM is also the most important factor causing decreases in UV transparency in oligotrophic waters such as the Red Sea [3] and waters
around the Great Barrier Reef [18]. CDOM is typically low in the waters of the Great Barrier Reef but average UV absorbance (at 350nm) more than doubles during the wet season [18]. The main sources of CDOM are rivers flowing into Northeast Australian coastal
waters. Spatial variation in the amount of CDOM in the Red Sea causes the penetration of UV-B radiation to 1% of surface incident torange from 35 m in the North to 13 m in the South [3]. However, in the Red Sea (surrounded by desert) CDOM is derived mainly from thebreakdown of marine organisms and is photodegraded under summertime conditions. Photodegradation is also the most important
process reducing CDOM content around the Great Barrier Reef during the dry season [18]. Photodegradation decreases both theamount of CDOM and changes its chemical structure such that it absorbs less UV radiation (Sect. 3.4). The breakdown can occur both
via abiotic and a combination of abiotic and biotic processes, which are discussed in more detail in Sect. 3.4. Increased UV transparency
in the Red Sea due to photodegradation coincides with the peak in surface water temperature, subjecting corals to a combination ofhigh UV-B radiation and thermal stress (Sect. 5.3). Internal loading of CDOM also occurs in shallow lakes due to the breakdown of litterfrom aquatic plants; this CDOM is highly susceptible to photodegradation [19].

2.1.2 Mixed layer depth
Water bodies and the organisms within them are in constant motion. After water transparency, the main determinant of how muchsomething in the water is exposed to UV radiation is how long and how often it is near the surface where UV radiation is most intense.
The oceans and most lakes are stratified (at least seasonally) between surface and deep layers having different densities due to different
temperatures and salinities (Fig. 1). In the ocean, the surface layer is generally 20-100 m deep but is much shallower in lakes at only a few
to tens of metres. The depth to which the surface water circulates (the Mixed Layer Depth, MLD) is determined by the balance between
two opposing forces: The resistance to movement created when surface waters are warmed and become less dense than deeper layers
vs the strength of the wind in overpowering the density differences and mixing shallow and deep water together (Fig. 1). Adding to thedensity balance in the ocean, seawater becomes lighter with freshwater inputs (rain/ice melt) and both fresh- and seawater becomeheavier as they cool. These changes in circulation directly affect exposure to UV radiation: Deeper circulation means that plankton spend
less time near the surface and are exposed to less UV radiation over their lifetime, while shallow circulation increases exposure to UV
radiation.
Oceans - There has been a shift over time in our understanding of how climate change might affect the balance between the forcesof mixing and stratification, with implications for exposure to UV radiation in the mixed layer. Early studies highlighted in past EEAP
assessments (e.g. [20]) focused on how warming will lighten surface layers leading to shallower MLDs [21]. More recently, it has become
clear that climate change does not have a uniform effect on MLDs [22]. In some cases, there are shallower MLDs, but in many others theresistance to mixing due to the increased density difference has been counterbalanced, or even overpowered, by stronger winds [23].
A trend of no change or deepening in MLD was first detected from long-term (1990-2015) ocean time series observations in three study
areas of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans [22]. At one of the Atlantic sites and the Pacific site, both the depth of mixing and UV radiationtransparency have been monitored. These combined data sets also showed either no trend or a net decrease (~5% per decade) inaverage exposure to UV radiation in the mixed layer at these sites [24].

Fig. 2 (a) Illustration of the locations of profiling ARGO floats on 22 March, 2022 to show density of global coverage used toobserve mixed-layer depth (source ocean-ops.org) (b) latitudinal variation in the trend (1970-2018) in summertime mixed layer
depth, median (solid line) and 33rd and 66th percentiles (dashed lines), negative values indicate deepening, redrawn from [25].

222Chapter 5
Confirmation that these MLD trends apply more widely throughout the ocean has been obtained by analysing the records of aninternational programme of free-floating, autonomously-diving ocean sensors, known as the “Array for Real-Time Geostrophic
Oceanography” (ARGO), which have now comprehensively profiled all parts of the global ocean (Fig. 2a). An analysis of almost 50
years (1970-2018) of density profiles from these floats as well as data from ships show that, on average, over the global ocean, theMLD has deepened by 2.9% per decade, adding around 5-10 m per decade to the MLD [25]. The trend varies regionally, with greater
deepening in much of the Southern Ocean and less deepening in the North Atlantic, whereas shallowing is occurring for some areas
near the Equator and in high Arctic latitudes (Fig. 2b). Deeper mixing in the Southern Ocean is linked to the strengthening of surface
winds associated with the positive phase of the Southern Annular Mode (in turn an effect of ozone depletion [26]; see also Chapter 1,
Bernhard et al. [27]). Shallowing in some parts of the equatorial region has been attributed to higher precipitation and freshening of thesurface layer [28].
Lakes - A "mixed" picture is also emerging for changes in MLDs and exposure to UV radiation in lakes and reservoirs. Long time-series
data (1970-2010) from 26 lakes around the globe show no significant trend in MLD despite surface warming trends [29]. On the other
hand, the MLD declined (became shallower) for most European lakes observed over the period 1981-2019 (n=51). Nevertheless, only
14 (27%) exhibited statistically significant trends [30]. Despite the lack of clear trends in lacustrine MLDs over time, the phenomenon of
atmospheric stilling, i.e. declining wind speeds, is associated with shallower MLDs in large lakes [31, 32]. In clear lakes like Crater Lake
(United States), these shallower MLDs can cause substantially more exposure to UV radiation and consequent damage to organisms[31]. In general, surface wind speeds on continents were declining over the period 1979-2008, but have increased since then [33, 34].
The causes and future of atmospheric stilling are unclear, as is whether the reversal in atmospheric stilling will continue in the future [34,35]. Hence, it is unclear if MLDs, and therefore exposure to UV radiation, will continue to exhibit long-term or widespread changes,
especially in larger lakes that are more sensitive to wind.
In many lakes of the Northern Hemisphere there is an increased CDOM concentration resulting in “browning” (Sect. 2.1.1). The extra
energy absorbed by CDOM has enhanced surface warming and led to shallower mixed layers (known as shoaling), especially in smallerlakes (e.g., [24, 36]). However, the decreased transparency outweighs the shoaling effect, so the average UV irradiation and PAR in thesurface mixed layer have decreased [24]. Together, these results indicate decreasing exposures to UV radiation in the surface mixed
layer of lakes with increased CDOM.
In addition to changes in MLD, the seasonal length of stratification has increased in many regions, which is important for cumulative
exposure to UV radiation. Most temperate lakes mix at least seasonally in the spring and autumn and are stratified during the summer.
In these lakes, there is a trend towards longer seasons of stratification [37] and/or less frequent episodes of full water column mixing[38]. These trends are expected to continue in the future. Under representative concentration pathways 2.6, 6.0 and 8.5 for emission ofgreenhouse gases (see [39]), models predict that the average duration of stratification will increase by 13, 22, and 33 days, respectively,by the end of the century [37]. Empirical evidence demonstrates that longer duration of stratification is associated with stronger summer
stratification and more stable mixed layers [40]. An increase in the seasonal duration of stratification can increase the cumulative annual
exposure of organisms and materials in the surface mixed layer to UV-B radiation.

2.1.3 Ice and snow coverIce cover shades the water column from UV-B radiation and its duration and extent have exhibited substantial declines in recent
decades. Clean ice has very little absorbance in the UV range between 200 and 400 nm [41]. However, when produced under natural
conditions, ice includes air bubbles and brine inclusions (for sea ice) that scatter solar radiation and reduce UV transmittance. Due tothese other characteristics, ice thickness alone explains only a small amount of variation in light transmittance [42]. Additionally, thetransmittance of light through ice-cover varies greatly depending on the upper surface conditions such as presence and condition ofsnow cover and presence of melt ponds on the ice [43].
Snow on ice scatters solar radiation, although the degree depends on grain size, for example, melted, refrozen snow has large grains
and low albedo (reflection) [42]. Snow melting also produces standing water (ponds) on the ice that increases UV transmission. For
example, seasonal studies in Baffin Bay in 2016 [44, 45] showed that when ponds developed, average transmittance increased about
ten times for PAR and UV-A radiation (325, 340 and 379 nm) (Fig. 3). UV-B radiation (305 nm) was nearly undetectable before snow
melt, but average transmittance was greater than 5% afterwards (Fig. 3). Ponding also causes spatial variability in transmittance. For
example, in Baffin Bay on 2 July the transmittance of UV-B radiation through the ice was twice as high (11-14%) in areas with ponded
ice compared to those without ponds [44] (Fig. 3b). For the short wavelength UV-A (325 nm), the maximum transmission was muchhigher, reaching 22-35% when ice was ponded. One can assume that for long UV-B wavelengths, e.g., 315 nm, transmission would
be somewhere in between those values. The formation of ponds may be more important in the Arctic than on Antarctic sea ice, since
sublimation (i.e. where ice converts directly to water vapour) is the main process of snow loss in the Antarctic [43].

223Chapter 5




  

  









   
!       







 

 













Fig. 3 Effect of Arctic ice cover on transparency of UV radiation and PAR. (a) Thickness of ice, snow and pond depth through thespring, dotted black lines mark start of snow melting, start of pond development, and ice break-up. Dark blue areas indicate
pond development. Red dashed lines indicate dates when transmission was measured (b) Average (n>100) transmittance to
2 metres depth of UV-B, UV-A and PAR under combined snow and ice cover (11 June), melting snow with initiation of ponddevelopment (18 June), melting snow and shallow pond formation (23 June), and low snow and deeper pond (2 July). Adaptedfrom [44, 45].

Polar oceans - The spatial extent and seasonal duration of ice-cover in the polar oceans has decreased substantially in recent decades[46, 47]. Sea-ice cover in the Arctic has, per decade, decreased by 2.6% in May, 7.4% in July and 13% in September between 1978 and2017 ([46, 47], Fig. 4). Over this time span, the area of the Arctic Ocean with ice cover has reduced from over 60% to about 30% [47](Fig. 4). While ice melt is directly attributable to warming, recent global climate modelling suggests about half of the Arctic warming
responsible for ice loss over this period was caused by ozone depleting substances acting as powerful greenhouse gasses [48, 49].
Consistent with controls implemented under the Montreal Protocol and its Amendments, the global warming effects of ozone depleting
substances are now decreasing. To the extent that they continue to decrease, the rate of Arctic warming, and hence ice melt andconsequent increases in exposure to UV radiation, may be tempered in future decades [48].

Fig. 4 Time series of change as percent difference in maximum ice cover (black, March) and minimum ice cover (red,September) and linear trend lines (dashed) for the Arctic relative to the 1981 to 2010 average for March and September (Source:[46]).

224

Chapter 5
Sea ice dynamics regulate the long-term changes and seasonal variations in exposure to UV radiation and are substantially different
around Antarctica when compared to the Arctic. For example, while Arctic ice cover has rapidly declined in extent in recent decades,
ice extent in the Antarctic lacks strong trends ([50, 47], Fig. 5). This polar difference is due to differences in warming rates and thefact that ice cover has been increasing in the Ross Sea, while it has been decreasing in the area around the Antarctic peninsula (theAmundsen-Bellingshausen Sea) and in the Weddell Sea. Most models, however, predict that the ice cover will decrease over time evenin Antarctica [51]. While ice cover loss in Antarctica has been limited, there is considerably more exposure to UV radiation on a seasonalbasis associated with seasonality in ice cover. This is because only 15% of Antarctic winter sea ice remains at the summer minimum, ascompared to 40% in the Arctic [46].

Fig. 5 Sea ice extent around Antarctica in February (summer minimum) (data from [50]).

Lakes - Like ice cover in the oceans, high latitude lakes have also exhibited rapid and substantial declines in ice cover [52]. Data from60 lakes with records ranging from 107 to 204 years show an acceleration of loss of ice cover in recent decades. For example, trends
in the later onset of seasonal ice formation and shorter seasonal duration were six times faster in the last 25-year period (1992–2016)
compared with previous quarter centuries [53]. Similarly, extreme events, such as years without any ice cover on lakes that historically
had ice every winter, are becoming more common [54]. Lake ice thickness has also declined, especially in subarctic lakes [30]. Overall,it has been estimated that the number of lakes in the Northern Hemisphere experiencing intermittent winter ice cover will double orincrease 15-fold with 2 or 8 °C of warming, respectively [55]. For ice-covered lakes at low latitudes (i.e. mountain lakes), ice loss is likely
to increase exposure to UV radiation even more since the higher position of the sun in the sky and (generally) lower attenuation byatmospheric aerosols results in higher incident UV radiation [56].
In general, reduced ice cover in lakes and seas opens up aquatic ecosystems to higher UV irradiation, as well as PAR. The shortened
period with ice cover in lakes is manifested as an earlier breakup in the spring that is followed by stratification and a later ice-on in theautumn [37]. Earlier ice thaw could possibly expose more aquatic habitats to UV-B radiation during the early-spring period when ozone
depletion is often most severe. For the Arctic sea, however, spring is a period of near maximum ice-coverage (March in the Arctic) andso-far the reduction in ice-cover at this time of the year has been small ([46], Fig. 4). During the spring season, surface conditions, suchas increases in melt pools and snow cover losses, may be the most important drivers of increases in exposure to UV radiation in the
Arctic.

225

Chapter 5

3 UV radiation in combination with climate change can have adverse
effects at the ecosystem level
Aquatic organisms differ in their sensitivity to solar UV radiation and their effectiveness in mitigating and repairing induced damage.
When these differences in sensitivity combine with the effects of climate change, the species composition of aquatic ecosystems canshift [57]. Differential responses to changes in UV radiation and increasing temperature favour more resilient species. This is the case forthe floating microalgae (phytoplankton) which are the base of the food chain in many aquatic ecosystems. For example, two microalgaein the genus Thalassiosira (marine diatoms, cell size and shape shown in Fig. 6a) differed in how they responded to UV-B irradiationfrom a solar simulator under a global warming scenario. Considering the inhibitory effect of UV-B radiation on growth at temperatures
normally experienced by these species (16°C), warming to 20°C moderated the inhibition in one species but intensified it in another[58].
Fig. 6 Scanning electron
micrographs of different
types of floating micro-algae(phytoplankton).
(a) A cylindrical shaped diatom in
the genus Thalassiosira, scale bar
3 µm (credit Univ. Washington).
(b) The coccolithophore Emiliania
huxleyi, scale bar 20 µm (credit
Kunshan Gao).

Organisms in coastal ecosystems are usually more sensitive to solar UV radiation than open ocean species [59, 60], but are better
protected due to the lower transparency of coastal waters (section 2.1). In addition, productivity in coastal ecosystems is augmented
by high nutrient input from terrestrial runoff and higher temperatures [17]. Both environmental factors favour enzymatic mechanisms
present in many aquatic organisms that repair UV-induced damage of DNA [1] and the recovery from UV-induced damage to thephotosynthetic apparatus in many species of microalgae (e.g., [61, 58]).
Warming caused by greenhouse gases increases the temperature difference between the surface and bottom layers of lakes and theocean [25]. For example, two large-scale analyses of hundreds of lakes showed that surface waters have been warming at median rates
of 0.37–0.39 °C decade-1, while temperature has remained stable in deep waters [40, 62]. These temperature trends are sharpening
the vertical temperature gradient at the boundary between surface and deep water, reinforcing it as a barrier limiting nutrient supply
from deep water to phytoplankton in the surface layer (Fig. 1, [25]). Nutrient limitation not only reduces productivity but also hampers
repair of cellular damage, which will generally increase the severity of UV-induced damage [63, 64].

3.1

Interactive effects of UV radiation, climate change, and other stressors on aquatic
ecosystems

In addition to excessive UV radiation, aquatic organisms are exposed to a plethora of other concurrent environmental stress factors suchas warming, eutrophication and acidification [65, 66]. The combined effects differ among species and physiological processes and canbe antagonistic, neutral, or synergistic depending on species, strain, and experimental conditions [65, 67].
Anthropogenic emissions have resulted in increasing CO2 concentrations in both the atmosphere and dissolved in aquatic ecosystems.
In turn, increasing CO2 in water decreases the pH and results in ocean acidification [68]. Ocean acidification reduces the calcium
carbonate incorporation of calcifying algae such as Corallina and Acetabularia as well as in many zoological taxa such as worms,
bivalves, and corals [69, 66]. In terms of the effects of UV radiation, inhibition of photosynthesis is more severe under elevated CO2 forsome freshwater phytoplankton populations [70] and marine diatoms [66]. In other microalgae, sensitivity to photoinhibition is only
slightly enhanced or not affected at all by growth under elevated CO2 [66, 71]. For example, in the coccolithophore Emiliana huxleyi(Fig. 6b), sensitivity of photosynthesis to inhibition by UV radiation, and in particular by UV-B radiation, was not affected by elevated CO2[71]. While the calcified scales (coccoliths) of coccolithophores (Fig. 6b) attenuate the effects of UV radiation [72], the loss of calcificationin coccoliths of E. huxleyi grown at elevated CO2 did not increase its sensitivity to UV radiation [71].

226Chapter 5
The causes of these variations in species-specific sensitivity remain to be determined and leave a knowledge gap in our understandingof how these primary producers will respond to UV radiation in the future (acidified) ocean.
To understand the overall effect on the aquatic ecosystem, one of the best ways to study the interactive effects of elevated CO2 andsolar UV radiation in the ocean is to use large (thousands of L) experimental enclosures called mesocosms, which are often floated in theocean. However, to be ecologically relevant, these enclosures need to be transparent to UV radiation. Unfortunately, some common
designs for mesocosms use UV-opaque materials (e.g., [73]) or covers (e.g., [74]), which leaves open the question of how representative
the results of some multi-stressor experiments are with respect to natural conditions that include exposure to UV radiation – such as thefinding that ocean acidification encourages the growth of toxic microalgae [75].
There are relatively few reports of the biological responses of marine ecosystems that combine solar UV radiation with other multiple
stressors including warming, elevated CO2, and nutrient limitation or eutrophication. The multiple stressor studies that have been
done, including effects of UV radiation, are more frequent in freshwater systems, where smaller (tens of L) “microcosms” have beenused. For example, exposure to solar UV radiation under present day conditions inhibited both phytoplankton and bacterial production
in an oligotrophic (low nutrient content), high-mountain lake in southern Spain with low watershed inputs of CDOM [76]. Under aglobal change scenario of increased temperature and nutrient inputs from dust-storms, the inhibitory effects of solar UV radiation werereduced, but bacteria benefited more than phytoplankton. This result suggests that ambient UV radiation in combination with climatechange could shift this lake, and other similar oligotrophic systems, towards higher heterotrophy (enhanced consumption of oxygen).

3.2

Photoinactivation by UV-B radiation of pathogens and parasites in the aquatic		

environment
Exposure to UV radiation is one of several factors leading to reduced infectivity of parasites and pathogens in aquatic systems.
Photoinactivation has been studied in a number of parasites and pathogens affecting human health [77, 78]. Viruses are thought to be
responsible for most gastrointestinal illnesses contracted in recreational waters contaminated by human faeces. Representative humansewage-borne viruses include enteroviruses, noroviruses, and adenoviruses. Inactivation of viruses and bacteria upon exposure to solar
UV radiation can contribute to reduction of their densities in aquatic environments [78, 79]. Inactivation can occur by direct absorptionof UV-B radiation by microbial nucleic acids or proteins and/or by photo-oxidative damage to the same structures sensitised bychromophores present either inside the bacterial cell or in the environment surrounding the pathogens (Fig. 7) [78]. CDOM can screenout UV-B radiation, thus reducing direct damage, but it also can sensitise photooxidative damage via indirect, exogenous processes.
The net effect depends, inter alia, on depth and spectral attenuation in the water column, biological weighting functions, and mixing
dynamics [78,80].
Fig. 7 Conceptual model of inactivation mechanisms by solar radiation in viruses and bacteria. The direct mechanism involves
photon absorption by viral or bacterial proteins or nucleic acids (orange stars), which triggers their photodegradation. In
indirect mechanisms, the photon is absorbed by a sensitiser (Sens) present either inside (endogenous) or outside (exogenous)
the pathogen. This process generates photochemically produced reactive intermediates (PPRIs) that include, among others,
singlet oxygen, hydroxyl radicals, and triplet excited states that further damage the pathogen’s proteins and nucleic acids(orange stars). Green shapes represent proteins. Modified from [78].

227Chapter 5
Biological weighting functions (BWFs), which are related to action spectra (Chapter 1, Bernhard et al. [27]), are used to quantify
wavelength effects on direct photoinactivation of microorganisms and to better understand the role of microbial characteristics andenvironmental changes in their sensitivity to UV radiation [78, 81-83]. BWFs are used in photobiological models to evaluate effects ofchanges in location and time on direct photoinactivation of these microorganisms in the aquatic environment [78, 81-83]. For example,
the effects of attenuation of solar radiation on photoinactivation of pathogen indicators in various swim areas of the Great Lakes (UnitedStates) were assessed using models that integrate BWFs and UV attenuation coefficients to estimate depth dependence and thus UV
attenuation effects on inactivation rates [79].
Although BWFs for photoinactivation have been established for some water-borne pathogens, less is known about UV photoinactivationof the SARS-CoV-2 virus causing the COVID-19 pandemic. The SARS-CoV-2 virus has been detected in wastewater streams and rivers(e.g., [84, 85]). The virus can be photo-inactivated by UV-C radiation (e.g. [86]) but the rate of this process in water in response to solar
radiation is not well-known [87]. The action spectrum of inactivation by UV radiation of SARS-CoV-2 in the air [88] is somewhat different
from other viruses (either DNA or RNA based) in that it shows some sensitivity to UV-A radiation (Chapter 2, Bernhard et al. [89]). Thissuggests that inactivation of SARS-CoV-2 by solar UV radiation in water could be faster than for other viruses, but more study is needed.
UV radiation in the aquatic environment also has implications for human health via effects on parasite-carrying insect vectors, e.g., bymosquitos. Mosquito larvae are sensitive to UV-B irradiation, and thus a reduced UV-transparency caused by high concentrations of
dissolved organic matter (cf. Sect. 2.1) would increase their survival [90].
Not only humans, but all organisms, are affected by pathogens and parasites. Host-pathogen interactions differentially affect the growthand survival of individual species and thus the species composition of aquatic ecosystems [91]. For example, experiments suggest thatthe zooplankton parasite, Pasteuria ramosa, is more sensitive to UV radiation compared to its host [92]; however, this parasite may
partially adapt to its ambient regime of UV radiation. Although experimental UV irradiation reduced the transmission potential (i.e.
reduced spore production), treated parasites from high transparency lakes were more successful at infecting hosts than parasites fromlakes with lower UV transparency [93]. Furthermore, zooplankton parasites have larger and longer outbreaks in less transparent systems
than in systems with higher transparency [94]. Hence, factors that reduce exposure to UV radiation, such as low UV-transparency,
extended ice cover, or deep MLDs etc. (Sect. 2), will also reduce the UV-disinfection rate and allow greater spread of pathogen vectors
in natural waters. In all, this suggests that exposure to UV radiation (especially UV-B radiation) is an important factor affecting overallpathogen and parasite prevalence as well as infectivity such that decreased exposures have negative consequences for host-pathogen
interactions and human health.
While UV irradiation may inactivate some parasites and pathogens, it also acts as a stressor to many organisms, which in turn may makethem more sensitive to infections and parasites. For example, ulcerative dermal necrosis is a disease found in Atlantic salmon [95]. The
disease develops from small grey to white areas of skin to deep ulcers covering much of the head, primarily affecting salmon upon
return to freshwaters from the ocean. It was recently hypothesised that high UV irradiation in shallow freshwaters increased stress on
salmon, making them more susceptible to secondary infections by pathogens such as Saprolegnia parasitica [95]. This interaction
between the effect of UV radiation and disease susceptibility could have adverse effects on farmed salmon populations but the extent ofthese issues is not well known.

3.3

Reduced production of the marine planktonic community due to exposure to UV-B
radiation

After the realisation in the 1990s that ozone depletion increased the exposure of aquatic ecosystems to UV-B radiation, many studies
demonstrated that photosynthesis by aquatic primary producers, mainly phytoplankton, was inhibited by UV-B radiation (reviewed
by [96]). However, left largely undetermined has been the integrated effect of UV radiation on the net metabolism of all organisms,
photosynthetic and non-photosynthetic. Such a measure is the Net Community Production (NCP), the overall increase or decreasein oxygen over the course of a 24-h in situ incubation in a transparent enclosure. NCP reflects the balance between the productivityof microalgae (autotrophs), which generates oxygen, vs the breakdown and consumption of organic material by all microorganisms
and higher organisms (heterotrophs), which consume oxygen. The effect of UV-B radiation on NCP at the ocean's surface was recently
measured at sites near the west Australian coast. In a productive area that is typically net autotrophic, incubations in containerstransmitting UV-B radiation had a 33% lower daily NCP, on average, compared to NCP incubations that excluded UV-B radiation[97]. Thus, exposure to UV-B radiation shifted the metabolic balance towards heterotrophy. In contrast, there was little or no effect of
excluding UV-B radiation in low productivity waters. These results complement previous measurements in productive waters such as
those near Antarctica, where exposure to UV-B radiation also shifted the community towards heterotrophy, while there was little effecton NCP in low productivity, open ocean waters [98]. The emerging picture is that shifts towards greater heterotrophy due to exposureof the planktonic community to UV-B radiation are only important in high productivity waters, e.g., coastal and polar oceans. Increased
UV-B radiation could result in high productivity waters sequestering less carbon, with potential implications for the global carbon cycle.
However, these results only relate to NCP right at the ocean's surface. In the ocean, oxygen production and consumption occur over
the whole surface layer (see Fig. 1). The overall effect of UV-B radiation on the NCP of the entire water column remains unknown, but is
expected to be much less than at the surface due to the attenuation of UV-B radiation with depth (Sect. 2.1). The effects of UV-B radiation
could become more important if the surface mixed layer becomes more shallow with global climate change – however, at present, this is
not the case in most marine surface layers (Sect. 2.1.2).

228

Chapter 5

3.4

Aquatic cycling of carbon and other elements via photodegradation and		photofacilitation
DOM is one of the main chromophores in aquatic ecosystems103 [99]. By absorbing UV and visible radiation, chromophoric dissolved
organic matter (CDOM) controls water transparency (Sect. 2.1.1). However, the process of absorption, particularly of UV radiation, also
triggers the breakdown of DOM, both its chromophoric and non-chromophoric forms (referred to as DOM photodegradation). Oncein an electronically excited state, CDOM can either breakdown via direct photolysis or produce reactive species (e.g., singlet oxygen,hydroxyl radicals, triplet excited states, and hydrated electrons) that further react with both chromophoric and non-chromophoric DOM.

    
"     # " !!   #              !

            !

                     



 

  
                
     





Fig. 8 Schematic of the sources and processing of dissolved organic matter (DOM) in the aquatic environment. DOM has bothterrestrial and aquatic sources, whose inputs are controlled by rate of production and transport. Terrestrial sources include
ancient DOM released during permafrost thaw. Once in the water, DOM undergoes photochemical and microbial processing,with the former usually enhancing the latter. These processes alter DOM composition and produce low molecular weight
products, some of which are greenhouse gases. Products include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), carbon monoxide (CO)and carbonyl sulphide (OCS).

Regardless of the specific mechanism, DOM photodegradation leads to loss of CDOM content (i.e., photobleaching) and formation of
degradation products. DOM photoproducts include trace gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2), carbon monoxide (CO), and methane(CH4), among others, nutrients such as ammonia and phosphate, low-molecular-weight compounds, and partially photo-oxidised
DOM [99]. For inorganic end-products (e.g., CO2 or ammonia), the process is referred to as photomineralisation. The chemicalchanges induced by UV irradiation of DOM also affect its bioavailability, often leading to increased microbial utilisation or potential formineralisation to CO2. This combined process involving UV radiation, DOM, and microbes (photofacilitation) has been reported in bothaquatic and terrestrial ecosystems (Fig. 8, and for more discussion of terrestrial ecosystems, see Chapter 4, Barnes et al. [100]).
Some DOM photoproducts, such as CO2 and CH4, are greenhouse gases and have the potential to directly exacerbate climate change,
while others can have indirect impacts. For example, CO can influence atmospheric methane concentrations by competing for OH
radicals (Chapter 6, Madronich et al. [101]). Climate change is already impacting DOM biogeochemistry by enhancing terrestrial runoff
to lakes, rivers, and coastal systems (Sect. 2.1.1), which increases the amount of DOM that can be photodegraded. Another importantsource of DOM are the permafrost soils of the Northern Hemisphere; this reservoir of terrestrial organic carbon is estimated to be about
1300 petagrams C (PgC = 1015 g C), which is about twice as large as the carbon reservoir in the atmosphere [102] (also see Chapter 4,
Barnes et al. [100]).

103

A chromophore is a molecule that absorbs radiation, either UV or visible. Hence, CDOM is the fraction of dissolved organic matter able to absorb solar radiation. Other
chromophores present in surface waters are nitrate, nitrite, particulate organic matter, and iron complexes.

229

Chapter 5
As climate warms, permafrost is melting and a part of this carbon pool is especially susceptible to abrupt thaw [103]. DOM released
from thawed permafrost soils impacts surface water composition and is susceptible to photodegradation by solar UV radiation ([104]also see Sect. 3.4.1). In addition, reductions in ice and snow, changes in cloud cover, and local changes in UV irradiation (Sect. 2.1)
modify exposure of DOM to UV radiation, which influences the magnitude of photodegradation processes.

3.4.1 Photodegradation of dissolved organic matter by UV radiation releases greenhousegases that may exacerbate climate change
Emissions of CO2 resulting from photodegradation of DOM at mid-latitudes are generally negligible compared to emissions frommicrobial mineralisation of DOM but may play a large role at high latitudes. Outside of the Arctic, photomineralisation typically explains< 15% of total organic carbon loss from aquatic ecosystems, namely 9–12% in Scandinavian lakes [105, 106], 3–5% in rivers [107],
and 0.08–0.3% in estuaries [108, 109]. Photomineralisation could be much higher in Arctic watersheds rich in yedoma (organic-richpermafrost, [110]) but the magnitude is still uncertain, with photochemical contributions ranging from negligible [111-113] to 75–90%
of total CO2 emissions [114-116]. Recent work highlighted that seasonality [114, 116] and iron levels [114] are critical controls of DOM
photomineralisation in this environment and may justify the contrasting literature results. The use of different protocols for sample
handling, data collection, and data analyses also contribute to this variability [117]. Understanding how DOM photoreactivity varies
across seasons and with water chemistry is crucial to predicting the extent of photochemical CO2 emissions in high latitude ecosystems
and their variations induced by changes in climate and UV radiation.
Photodegradation of DOM by UV radiation also produces CO and CH4, which are then released into the atmosphere. Although thiscan elevate concentrations of these gases near the ocean surface, current estimates suggest that emissions from aquatic environments
are negligible at the global scale. Global CO sources are 2.6 Pg CO yr-1 (=2,600 Tg CO yr-1) [118], while photochemical processes in theocean produce 44 Tg CO yr-1 [119] 104. Of the photochemically produced CO, a large portion is consumed in situ by microbial processes,
resulting in a net release to the atmosphere of 9.3 Tg CO yr-1. As a result, oceanic photoproduction is responsible for 0.36% of global
CO emissions. These estimates are restricted to the open ocean, thereby excluding potential CO hotspots that may increase the relative
importance of processes driven by UV radiation. Specifically, coastal and freshwaters have more terrestrial DOM than the open ocean
and produce CO more rapidly than marine DOM ([120] and references therein). High latitude watersheds in spring may also represent
an overlooked source of this gas, as CO is always produced alongside CO2 during DOM photodegradation (CO2 /CO ratio ranges from4 to 73 [121]). CO production from the photodegradation of DOM and particulate organic matter in the Arctic Ocean is also not yet
included in CO estimates, and its contribution is expected to increase due to climate change [122, 123].
Global CH4 emissions are 576 Tg CH4 yr-1 [124], while photochemical production from the ocean surface is 121 Gg CH4 yr-1 (Gg =109 g) [125], yielding 0.02% of total methane emissions. Research on photochemical CH4 emission is still limited but available data
indicate that terrestrial DOM is up to 30 times less efficient than marine DOM in releasing CH4 and that CH4 is not a major DOM
photodegradation product (CH4/CO = 0.05 x 10-3 – 2.5 x 10-3) [125]. For these reasons, incorporation of freshwater and coastal
contributions is unlikely to substantially affect current estimates of global CH4 emissions.
Carbonyl sulphide (OCS) is the only greenhouse gas for which DOM photodegradation in the ocean contributes significantly toemissions on a global scale (≥16%; [126]). To date, large uncertainties still exist regarding the importance of DOM photodegradation asa source of OCS, which ranges from 41 to 813 Gg OCS yr-1 [127-129, 126]. Lack of an understanding of spatial, temporal, and spectral
variations in apparent OCS quantum yields and limited knowledge of additional non-photochemical sources justify this wide range[126]. Refined estimates of the oceanic source of OCS would help constrain other components of the global OCS budget related toterrestrial plant uptake and aerosol formation [126].

3.4.2 Partial photo-oxidation modifies the chemical composition of dissolved organic materialand can trigger its microbial mineralisation to carbon dioxide
Partial photooxidation of DOM by UV radiation is increasingly recognised as a key trigger of cycling of elements in aquatic systems
because of the direct impact that DOM chemistry has on microbial processes [108, 130, 111, 131]. Partial photooxidation is a complex
process that involves, among other things, cleavage of aromatic rings, decarboxylation, degradation of chromophores, increase in
the overall oxidation state, and decrease in molecular weight [132, 133]. Carboxylic-rich alicyclic molecules are among the productsof partial DOM photooxidation and are predominantly formed via singlet oxygen oxidation [134, 133]. While the exact structure andreactivity of carboxylic-rich alicyclic molecules and other partial photooxidation products are unknown, they are analogous to thecompounds generated during breakdown of DOM by natural microbial communities [132].
New findings have highlighted the importance of partial photooxidation in facilitating microbial mineralisation of terrestrial DOM
to CO2. Based on a new model for photodegradation of DOM, 13% of DOM present in estuarine environments undergoes partial
photooxidation, while direct photomineralisation to CO2 accounts for 0.2% of total C fluxes [135].

104

230

Conte et al. [119] report carbon monoxide (CO) as carbon mass equivalents. In their report, the yearly fluxes of 19 Tg C yr-1 (photochemical CO production) and 4 Tg C yr-1
(net oceanic emission) were converted to mass of CO using the ratio of CO to C molecular weight (28 vs 12 g mol-1). Tg = 1012 g.

Chapter 5
Photodegradation converts 48% of biologically recalcitrant and 4% of semi-labile DOM into the labile pool, which is readily mineralisedby microorganisms [135]. Microbial mineralisation elicited by partial photooxidation may also release more CO2 than direct DOM
photomineralisation in Arctic watersheds [111, 133, 131] but the magnitude of this coupled photochemical-microbial CO2 emission, itsseasonality, and its variation in response to climate change and changes in UV radiation have not yet been estimated.

3.4.3 Photodegradation of dissolved organic material in aquatic ecosystems releases nutrients
Most studies of photooxidation and photofacilitation in aquatic ecosystems focus on carbon but these processes can also affect the
inorganic components of DOM. Of particular interest are processes involving nitrogen and phosphorous due to their role as nutrients,
albeit recent work showed that sulphur is also efficiently photomineralised to sulphate [136], in addition to other trace gases such as
OCS.
It is well acknowledged that UV irradiation of dissolved organic nitrogen (DON) releases ammonia [137, 120, 80], a process withthe potential of sustaining microbial activity in nitrogen-limited ecosystems such as Arctic waterbodies [137, 138]. Photochemical
production of ammonia from DON was recently determined to contribute on average up to 5% (range 1– 44%) of microbial nitrogen
uptake in Arctic freshwaters, with variations depending on light intensity, water depth, and microbial activity [139]. The average value
is comparable to previous estimates for boreal lakes [140]. Substrate limitations [139] and variations in DOM chemistry across seasons[141] can justify contrasting literature results in DON photomineralisation – as ammonia photoproduction has been inconsistently
observed across studies (see [120] and references therein).
In addition to nitrogen species, UV-irradiation of dissolved and particulate organic matter in aquatic ecosystems releases phosphate[142, 120], which may fuel algal blooms. This process is particularly prevalent in shallow eutrophic lakes, where sediments have highphosphorous loads, are resuspended frequently, and are thus susceptible to photochemical processing [142, 143]. Specifically, theamount of phosphate released is directly proportional to sedimentary phosphorous content, and rates of release increased over a groupof four increasingly eutrophic lakes in China [142]. This photochemical release of phosphate may provide a positive feedback loop for
eutrophication but it is unknown whether this process has general applicability to all shallow lakes.

4 Environmental contaminants exposed to UV radiation and UV filters
are toxic to aquatic organisms
4.1

Role of UV irradiation in the formation and potential toxicity of microplastics in theaquatic environment

There is increasing concern about the prevalence and risks of microplastics (defined as plastic particles and fibres < 5 mm in size) interrestrial and aquatic ecosystems globally. UV radiation plays a key role in the formation of microplastics, as well as in their absorptive
capacity and release of associated leachates and bound substances [144]. Evidence is growing that microplastics and associatedchemicals can have detrimental effects on organisms and ecosystems, but the effects are highly variable across species that have beenstudied so far. The relationship of microplastics to UV radiation, stratospheric ozone depletion and their interactions with climate change
is a cross-cutting issue that involves processes in both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, as well as studies in the fields of toxicology,
chemistry, and materials science. For details, the reader is referred to a separate assessment that covers the role of UV radiation in theformation of microplastics and current research about how microplastics may be affecting ecosystems and human health (Chapter 8,
Jansen et al. [145]).

4.2

Ecological impacts of the release of UV filters into the aquatic environment

While UV filters in topical sunscreens are effective at reducing UV-induced damage during recreational or occupational exposure in
humans [146], some sunscreen components are considered contaminants of concern due to their potential negative impacts on aquatic
life [147-150]. UV filters are categorised as either organic or inorganic and work by reflecting and/or absorbing harmful UV radiation.
Two of the most common organic UV filters in sunscreens are oxybenzone and avobenzone, while inorganic UV filters often include the“white” compounds TiO2 and ZnO, which reflect both UV and visible radiation. Nanoparticle formulations of inorganic UV filters arecommon, as they often have a lower reflectance in the visible light range and therefore are perceived as more aesthetically acceptable[148].

231

Chapter 5
Organic and inorganic UV filters have been detected in surface waters, sediments, and in organisms [151]. Organic UV filters suchas oxybenzone, octinoxate, octocrylene and benzophenones are toxic to a wide range of aquatic organisms, including corals,
zooplankton, and marine bacteria [152, 153]. The toxicity of oxybenzone in corals and sea anemones can arise in part from its conversion
in animal tissue to derivatives which are phototoxic upon exposure to solar UV radiation [154]. These organisms normally have symbiotic
algae that can suppress the toxicity by sequestering the derivative but this protection is lost if the algae are expelled [154]. The latterphenomenon is known as “bleaching” and is discussed in Sect. 5.3.2.
The applicability of many toxicity studies has been questioned because they were conducted at concentrations that exceed ecologicalrelevance [155]. For example, sunscreen compounds such as oxybenzone have been found in coral tissues and at concentrations of 0.1136 ng/L in coastal waters near Oahu, Hawaii [151] and 114, 11, and 118 ng/L in Chesapeake Bay water, sediments, and oyster tissues,
respectively [156]. These concentrations are substantially below the effective concentrations that would adversely affect 50% (EC50) of
a population of the alga Chlorella vulgaris (96 h EC50 at 2.98 mg/L, 95% CI = 2.70-3.39 mg/L), the zooplankton Daphnia magna (48h EC50 at 1.09 mg/L, 95% CI = 0.76-1.73 mg/L), or the fish Brachydania rerio (96 h EC50 at 3.98 mg/L, 95% CI = 2.86-6.53 mg/L)[157]. In a large study of benzophenones, over 90% of examined sites had concentrations below predicted no-effect concentrations(Guo et al., 2020). However, concentrations can be high in some locations at specific times. For example, the concentration ofoxybenzone ranged from 30 ng/L to 27,880 ng/L in near-shore waters in Hanauma Bay, Hawai’i [158]. Considering studies conductedto date, the effects of UV sunscreen compounds on corals and coral reefs have been highly variable, and the methods used to examine
potential toxicity (e.g., species, life stages, field vs laboratory, exposure times, nominal vs test concentrations) have varied [159].
Exposure methods can also influence observed responses [160]. The lack of consistent and standardised testing makes comparisons
between and among studies difficult and reduces the ability to infer the most likely ecological effects of sunscreen compounds inaquatic ecosystems. Therefore, caution is warranted in extrapolating the findings of many of these studies.
Recent laboratory studies have reported that the toxicity of sunscreens can depend on the interaction between different sunscreen
components. A study involving two species of corals, the bush coral, Seriatopora caliendrum, and the cauliflower coral, Pocillopora
damicornis, found that other ingredients present in commercial formulations may increase the bioavailability of the active ingredientsand exacerbate their toxicity to adult corals [161]. In a second study, toxicities and bioaccumulation of 4 benzophenones were tested
in larvae and adults of the same two species [162]. Larvae of S. caliendrum suffered settlement failure, bleaching, and mortality upon
exposure to benzophenones BP-1 and BP-8, whereas P. damicornis larvae were unaffected. Small fragments of adults of both species
were more sensitive to benzophenones BP-1, BP-8, and BP-3 than the larval stages [162].
In addition to impacting corals, avobenzone can adversely affect survivourship and behaviour in other organisms, such as thezooplankton species Daphnia magna [67]. At the highest concentration tested (228 µg/L), oxybenzone caused erratic swimming
patterns and high mortality in larvae and decreased metamorphosis of the larvae to the polyp stage in the upside down medusae
Cassiopea xamachana and C. frondosa [163]. In a separate study on loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta), researchers found evidenceof bioaccumulation and observed that gene biomarkers for inflammation, oxidative stress, and hormonal activity increased with plasma
concentrations of UV filters [164].
In general, inorganic mineral UV filters are considered less toxic and safer for aquatic organisms compared to their organic counterparts[165] and have therefore been suggested as environmentally safer alternatives [148]. Supporting this claim, researchers reported
no significant harmful effects of TiO2 on sea urchin pluteus-stage embryo growth and immune-cell viability in adults [166]. However,some studies on inorganic UV filters report environmental effects. Nanoparticle ZnO negatively impacted Acropora spp. corals
by disrupting the symbiosis with their algal symbionts, thereby accelerating damage through coral bleaching [167]. Similarly, ZnO
reduced the efficiency of photosynthesis in the Indo-Pacific smooth cauliflower coral, Stylophora pistillata, compared to controls [168],and exposure of California purple sea urchins (Strongylocentrotus purpuratus) to ZnO resulted in embryonic malformations [169].
Moreover, TiO2 and ZnO nanoparticles released into the aquatic environment generate damaging reactive oxygen species (ROS) under
UV radiation [170]. Therefore, concerns remain as to the utility of ZnO as an alternative to organic UV filters.
Climate change may amplify the toxicity of sunscreen compounds. For example, toxicity of both organic and inorganic sunscreen
compounds to sea urchins, diatoms, and amphipods increases with increasing salinity [171], and salinity is increasing in regions
where evaporation exceeds precipitation. Also, ocean acidification amplified the potential toxicity (as measured by biomarkers) of the
benzophenone BP-3 for the yellow clam Amarilladesma mactroides [172]. In another study, mortality of the coral Acropora tenuis washigher when exposed to the sunscreen, oxybenzone, and high temperatures as compared to high temperatures alone [173]. Exposureof organisms to oxybenzone at 23°C also increased gene expression associated with detoxification, the endocrine system, and stressresponses relative to the control at 18.5˚C.
There continues to be a growing interest in the use of natural products as the active ingredients in sunscreens due to the toxicity ofmany common UV filters. Mycosporine-like amino acids (MAAs) are UV-absorbing compounds produced by marine macroalgae[174-177], fungi, phytoplankton, plants and bacteria [176, 178] and have been investigated as natural alternatives to commercial
sunscreen components (see [179] for a database of these compounds). Additional information on the production and function of
MAAs in organisms is provided in Sect. 5.2. Among the various compounds, there is a particular interest in mycosporine-glycine [180],
palythine [181], palythene [182], shinorine [183], porphyra-334 [184] and scytonemin as UV filters for sunscreen [185], skin care [186],
and cosmetic formulations [187, 188] due to their availability, stability, and antioxidant properties. Genetic engineering of bacteria tooverproduce MAAs is also being considered as a cost-efficient form of production [183].

232

Chapter 5
The balance between potential ecological damage vs concerns regarding human skin cancer risks have to be carefully considered.
Health care professionals encourage alternative methods to reduce exposure to UV radiation, including the use of photoprotective
clothing. However, some UV filters are now being incorporated into fabrics to increase their UV shielding capacity (Chapter 7, Andrady
et al. [189]), and it is presently unknown how much of these UV filters could be released into the natural environment.

4.3

UV radiation degrades oil pollutants but enhances their toxicity to aquatic organisms

New lines of evidence confirmed that UV radiation is a key factor contributing to the removal of pollution from oil spills (reviewed by[190]). During the 102 days of the Deepwater Horizon spill, UV-driven production of water soluble organic carbon (also referred toas photodissolution) accounted for about 8% (estimated range: 3-17%) of overall oil removal, an amount comparable to other widely
acknowledged removal processes (evaporation and coastal stranding) [191]. Both UV and visible radiation are important regulatorsof photo-dissolution rates, with UV radiation becoming less important as oil slick thickness increases. Even though these results are
based on photodissolution of a single oil type, they motivate more research into the ecological effects of oil photooxidation products inaquatic environments [191, 192].
Several studies evaluated the effect of co-exposure of coral reef invertebrates to both UV radiation and oil pollutants (reviewed by [193]).
Shallow coral reefs are routinely exposed to high levels of solar UV radiation, which can increase the toxicity of some oil components.
Results from 66 studies showed that oil toxicity increased on average 7.2 times when corals, sponges, molluscs, polychaetes, andcrustaceans are exposed to UV radiation in the presence of oil pollutants [193]. Co-exposure with other environmental stressors also
increases oil toxicity, although not as much as co-exposure with UV irradiation. For example, co-exposure of oil-pollutants and elevatedtemperature (12 studies) or low pH (6 studies) increased oil toxicity by 3.0- and 1.3-fold, respectively [193]. In addition, exposure ofcorals in a laboratory study to a combination of UV-B and UV-A radiation exacerbated the toxicity of heavy fuel oil, decreasing thethreshold concentration for 50% lethality or effect by 1.3-fold on average [194]. These tests covered 8 different development andsurvival endpoints in early life stages such as gametes, developing embryos, and planula larvae (the free-swimming dispersal stage) of
the staghorn coral, Acropora millepora, (cf. life stages of related coral A. palmata shown in Fig. 9). In this and earlier studies, increased
toxicity from co-exposure to oil and UV radiation was considered to result from oil components that sensitised organisms to UV
radiation, which adds to their inherent toxicity.
UV irradiation following exposure to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, which are found in oil spills, can increase mortality due to thephototoxicity of bioaccumulated polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. For example, exposure of fiddler crab eggs to polycyclic aromatichydrocarbons, which can occur as they incubate in estuarine sediments, resulted in enhanced mortality when the free-swimminglarvae were exposed to solar UV radiation upon hatching [195]. Overall, these findings of interactive effects of UV radiation and oil spill
components indicate the need for a more routine inclusion of UV radiation treatments in oil toxicity studies so that identified hazard
thresholds are environmentally relevant [195].

4.4

Improved prediction of UV-induced photoreactions of contaminants in the aquatic
environment

Significant advances have been achieved in the simulation of photoreactions of contaminants in aquatic environments including those
involving solar UV-B radiation [196, 197, 78]. The Water Quality Assessment Simulation Program (WASP) is a framework widely used
to model contaminants in surface waters [196]. The latest version, WASP8, which has been updated to simulate light penetration andphotoreactions for five wavelength bands in the ultraviolet (two of which in the UV-B waveband) and to model nanoparticle-specificprocesses. The updated program can now simulate the direct phototransformation of nanomaterials and other contaminants taking
into account the full solar spectrum [196, 198]. Potentially, WASP8 can use projected variations in UV-B radiation to predict changes incontaminant phototransformation that can impact aquatic ecosystems and the services they provide.

233

Chapter 5

5 The adverse effects of UV radiation and the defences against thoseeffects vary among aquatic organisms
5.1

Exposure to UV radiation increases the toxicity of some harmful microalgae

A primary effect of UV-B radiation on microalgae is inhibition of photosynthesis and DNA damage, with cumulative exposure causing
decreases in growth rate. However, the sensitivity of microalgae to the adverse effects of UV-B radiation varies among species. For
example, the decrease in photosynthetic efficiency (the initial conversion of light into cellular energy) upon exposure to inhibiting
intensities of simulated solar radiation, including UV-B radiation, often differs among groups of microalgae. A study of freshwater algae
found that chlorophyte algae were the least sensitive, diatoms had intermediate sensitivity, and cyanobacteria were the most sensitive[199]. Given that there are differences in sensitivity among microalgal species, there is concern that undesirable strains might be moreresistant to UV-B radiation, and be favoured by increased UV-B radiation. Particularly undesirable are toxic microalgae that accumulate inharmful algal blooms that are a hazard to public health (reviewed by [200]). Growth of the toxic marine dinoflagellate Karenia mikimotoi
was unaffected by exposure to solar UV radiation, ocean acidification, or a combination of the two treatments [201]. Toxicity, on theother hand, was enhanced by each of these treatments, although the combined treatment (UV radiation and ocean acidification) did notincrease toxin content further.
Other studies have examined the interactive effects of UV radiation and nutrient availability on toxic cyanobacteria, which cause harmful
algal blooms in freshwater environments. When a toxic strain of Microcystis aeruginosa was grown with large amounts of phosphorus,
as would occur in a nutrient rich lake, photosynthesis and growth were little affected by UV radiation compared to the moderate orsevere inhibition observed under low or depleted phosphorous conditions, respectively [202]. In addition, short-term inhibition ofphotosynthesis occurs in the toxic strain of M. aeruginosa under UV irradiation but it recovers rapidly. As a result, the toxic strain has
better overall performance under repeated exposures (daily for a week) when compared to a non-toxic strain [203]. Moreover, UV
irradiation enhanced the accumulation of the toxin, microcystin [203]. Hence, the effects of UV radiation on microalgae are speciesspecific, but there are several examples suggesting that exposure to UV radiation enhances the toxicity and/or abundance of toxic
strains, which would make their accumulation in harmful algal blooms more hazardous.

5.2

Aquatic organisms synthesise or accumulate photoprotective substances that ameliorate
the effects of UV radiation

UV radiation is an important physical factor that controls the depth distribution of sessile species (e.g. corals and macroalgae) in aquatic
environments [204]. In turn, many aquatic species produce photoprotective substances to counteract damage induced by UV radiation.
These substances are pigments or compounds that intercept solar UV radiation before it can damage biologically important molecules
such as DNA and structures such as the photosynthetic apparatus [205, 206].
The most common photoprotective pigments in marine organisms that specifically absorb UV radiation are mycosporine-like aminoacids (MAAs), which are low molecular weight, water soluble compounds. There are more than 20 types of MAAs with absorption
maxima at wavelengths ranging from 309 to 362 nm [207] and broad absorption bands of up to 50 nm at full width half maximum,
which can effectively absorb UV-B and UV-A wavelengths [208]. Their high molar absorptivity, stability, and dissipation of UV radiationenergy as heat means these compounds are particularly effective photoprotectants against UV-B and UV-A damage in aquatic organisms([208] and refs. therein). These compounds are only synthesised by bacteria, cyanobacteria, fungi and algae [209]. Recent research has
demonstrated that MAAs are found widely in macroalgae [210-213]. While zooplankton and higher organisms cannot synthesise thesesubstances, they can take them up in their diet or from associated microorganisms and incorporate them into outer tissue cells where
they protect the organisms from damage by UV radiation [214, 174]. Sea urchins and other marine herbivores use the same protective
mechanism ([215] and Sect. 5.4). In addition to MAAs, several cyanobacteria use a different class of pigments called scytonemins toscreen UV radiation. These substances are effective UV absorbers since they protect cyanobacteria on sun-exposed surfaces of rocks,
trees and buildings [216].
The concentration and number of MAAs in any given organism is probably related to the potential for exposure to damaging UVradiation such that macroalgae that are adapted to surface waters synthesise higher amounts of MAAs than at depth [213]. Thisconclusion is driven by observations on the effects of exposure to UV radiation for macroalgae growing at different depths, for example,
UV-induced inhibition in growth and photosynthesis occurred in rhodophytes when grown in surface waters but not when grown at a
depth of 1.7 m [217]. The vertical distribution of macroalgae in coastal waters of Antarctica is also strongly influenced by the penetrationof solar UV radiation [218]. Finally, there is a strong seasonal variability in protective MAAs with low concentrations in winter concomitantwith low stress from exposure to UV radiation [219, 220].
Certain antioxidants also protect macroalgae from UV radiation [221-224]. Although most of these compounds absorb some UV
radiation, they mainly provide protection by scavenging UV-induced reactive oxygen species. For example, carotenoids perform
this function in brown macroalgae [223]. Among chlorophytes (green macroalgae), some species such as Cladophora sp. rely onscreening pigments, whereas others such as Ulva intestinalis lack such pigments and instead photorepair UV-B-induced DNA damage

234

Chapter 5[225]. Hence, a wide variety of photoprotective substances are produced by bacteria, fungi as well as by micro- and macroalgae,
which suggests that they provide an important and effective mechanism in aquatic organisms to ameliorate the negative effects of UV
radiation.

5.3

Interactive effects of UV radiation and thermal stress on corals

Tropical coral reefs, which are based on the symbiotic association between reef-building corals and symbiotic dinoflagellates(Symbiodiniaceae), are highly diverse and economically important ecosystems. These ecosystems are naturally exposed to high levelsof UV radiation because of low solar zenith angles and the natural thinness of the stratospheric ozone layer over tropical latitudes, as wellas high transparency of the water column over coral reefs. Therefore, it is not surprising that coral reef dwelling organisms have evolved
photoprotective mechanisms [208]. However, tropical dwelling corals often live near their upper thermal limit [226], and therefore areparticularly vulnerable to thermal stress associated with increased sea surface temperatures as a result of climate change. Increased sea
surface temperatures by 1°C to 2°C can cause coral bleaching [227]. Most studies on the impact of UV radiation on coral-reef dwellingorganisms have used the full-spectrum of solar radiation or combinations of artificial lamps, so the relative importance of UV-B vs otherspectral bands is uncertain at present. Assessments of recent findings on the interactive effects of UV radiation and other stressors oncorals are summarised in Table 5.1 and discussed in more detail below.

5.3.1 Direct effects of UV-B radiation on symbionts versus corals
It has been suggested that exposure to UV-B radiation has a greater effect on symbionts than on the coral host. For example, in the
Indo-Pacific staghorn coral (Acropora muricata), exposure to solar UV radiation decreased photosynthetic efficiency in the symbiont
but otherwise had no effect on the holobiont (i.e., the integrated assemblage of the coral, symbiotic microalgae, and associatedmicrobiome) [228]. Similarly, in the Indo-Pacific bush coral (Seriatopora caliendrum), UV-B irradiation (295-320 nm) reduced pigment
concentrations of the symbiont but had no effect on coral larval survival, metamorphosis, or settlement (life stages illustrated in Fig. 9)[229]. For symbionts in another Indo-Pacific species, the cauliflower coral (Pocillopora damicornis), chronic exposure to solar radiation
including UV-B radiation reduced photosynthetic efficiency and pigment concentrations of the symbionts [230]. Despite this evident
impairment of the symbionts, which in the long term could lead to expulsion from the host, short-term (3-day) exposure to solar and
UV-B radiation did not significantly increase symbiont expulsion beyond that occurring without UV-B irradiation [230].
Symbiont expulsion from the coral host can lead to bleaching. Due to climate change causing increased sea surface temperatures,
reports of coral bleaching are becoming more common, therefore the negative impact of UV-B radiation on symbiont health is aconcern, since it can compound the effects of thermal stress as detailed in the next section and increase coral bleaching.

Fig. 9 Life cycle of the Caribbean coral Acropora palmata (a) showing an adult colony (scale bar = 10 cm). (b) During summer
months in the evening colonies synchronously spawn (scale bar = 2 cm) gamete bundles (seen as many pink spheres on thecoral branches, two of which are indicated by black arrows) that contain eggs and sperm. The eggs are rich in lipids suchthat when the bundles are released (indicated by white arrow) and rise to the surface, they break up due to wave action andfertilisation can occur between gametes of distinct colonies. (c) The embryos (scale bar = 600 µm) develop into (d) pear-shaped
planula larvae (scale bar = 1 mm), both of which float at the water surface for three to five days exposed to summer-time peaksof UV radiation. Once the larvae begin to swim, they search for suitable substrate to settle, followed by metamorphosis into(e) a coral primary polyp (scale bar = 1 mm), which undergoes asexual reproduction to form the colony. Photo credits: Sandra
Mendoza Quiroz.

235

Chapter 5

Table 1 An assessment of the biological effects on different stages of the life cycle of corals (see Fig. 9) as a result of exposure to
UV-B radiation, another stressor, or UV-B radiation and another stressor in combination.
Life cycle
stage

Stressor

BiologicaleffectSpecies

Reference

No effect in coral
host, decreased
photosynthetic
efficiency in symbiont

Acropora muricata[228]

No effect in coral
host, decreased
photosynthetic
efficiency in symbiont

Pocillopora damicornis[230]

No effect in coral host,
reduced pigment
concentration insymbiont

Seriatopora caliendrum[229]

Increased water transparency
and peak temperatures
coincide with high UV-B
radiation

Coral bleaching

Mixed, natural assemblage,
Red Sea[3]

Microplastic degradation

Decreased growth andfood capture rates

Lophelia pertusa, Madrepora
oculata[231]

Organic UV filters

Coral bleaching anddeath

Pocillopora damicornis,
Seriatopora caliendrum[161, 162]

Increased toxicity of organic
UV filters in combination withincreased temperature

Coral death

Acropora tenuis[173]

Inorganic UV filters

Coral bleaching

Acropora spp.

[167]

Reduced photosystem II
activity

Stylophora pistillata[168]

Phototoxicity of heavy fuel oil

Reduced fertilisation
success

Acropora millepora[194]

Phototoxicity of heavy
fuel oil

Fragmentation ofembryos resulting insmaller larvae

Acropora millepora[194]

Exposure to UV-B radiation

No effect on larval
survival, metamorphosisor settlement

Seriatopora caliendrum[229]

Organic UV filters

Bleaching, settlement
failure, mortality

Pocillopora damicornis,
Seriatopora caliendrum[162]

Phototoxicity of marine fuels

Reducedmetamorphosis successAcropora tenuis[232]

Phototoxicity of heavy fuel oil

Reduced survival,
deformed larvae,
reduced metamorphosis
success

Acropora millepora[194]

UV-B radiation

Adult (sessile)Gametes
Embryos(floating atwater surface)

Planulalarvae (freeswimming
dispersal
stage)

5.3.2 Response to UV radiation and thermal stressClimate change associated thermal stress causes coral bleaching (i.e., loss of symbiotic algae) and may be lethal or, at the very least,
affect metabolic processes including photosynthesis, respiration, and calcification. The effects of thermal stress are exacerbated byexposure to the naturally high UV radiation levels characteristic of many tropical coral reef environments [208]. Some coral reef dwelling

236

Chapter 5organisms, such as the Caribbean octocorals Pseudoplexaura crucis and Eunicea tourneforti [233] and the Indo-Pacific scleractinian105
coral Acropora muricata [228] have proven to be resistant to the effects of UV irradiation alone or in combination with thermal stress[233]. The presence of UV absorbing compounds such as MAAs in A. muricata [228] may provide protection against the damaging
effects of UV radiation as they do for other corals ([234], more details in Sect. 5.4). However, the induction of bleaching in the IndoPacific coral P. damicornis by thermal stress was the same whether or not it was exposed to UV radiation [235]. The main effect of UV
radiation in this coral (independent of thermal stress) was to depress the nitrogen content of organic matter that it released into reefwaters [235]. Since this release is a major source of organic matter to reef waters, UV radiation could cause significant changes in the
nutrient biogeochemistry of tropical reef surface waters, resulting in higher C:N:P ratios. This imbalance could lead to higher levels of
nitrogen fixation by the coral microbiome and other reef-dwelling organisms. On the other hand, exposure to low levels of artificial,full-spectrum UV radiation (equivalent to 15 m depth on tropical coral reefs) was shown to mitigate thermal stress and nitrate-induced
inhibition of photosynthesis by promoting the synthesis of antioxidant compounds and MAAs in P. damicornis [236]. Thus, mild UV
irradiation can protect corals against the effects of other types of stress.
The impact of combined thermal and UV radiation stress on tropical corals can be species-specific and depend on whether
photoprotective MAAs are produced by the symbiotic algae and are lost during bleaching, or are produced by the host and retainedeven after bleaching [237]. Although exposure to UV radiation in combination with thermal stress generally has adverse effects on
tropical corals, responses and resistance to long term damage appear to be species-dependent. The interactive effects of UV radiationand thermal stress add to the list of factors that are likely to negatively affect persistence of corals and impact species distribution oftropical coral reefs as climate change continues in the future.

5.4

Photoprotection in corals and invertebrates

Aquatic invertebrates use a range of photoprotective mechanisms to offset potential damage by UV irradiation including morphologicalchanges, avoidance of exposure, synthesis of antioxidant and photoprotective compounds such as carotenoids and MAAs, andmolecular defence mechanisms such as activation of DNA repair mechanisms and up-regulation of stress genes [238, 239]. Examplesof the latter are expression of genes for heat shock proteins and signalling kinases [239]. Suites of MAAs have been detected in tropicalreef-dwelling corals, which provide broad-band protection from damage due to UV irradiation [240]. Concentrations of MAAs tend
to positively correlate with exposure to UV radiation such that there are documented decreases with depth, fluctuations with seasonal
cycles and in experiments that manipulate exposures to UV radiation [208]. However, MAA content in the estuarine-dwelling anemone
Anthopleura hermaphroditica, endemic to Chile, did not fluctuate despite large seasonal variations in UV-B radiation [241]. Instead,this anemone accumulates antioxidants and phenolic compounds to protect from UV radiation. Overall, different mechanisms or
combinations of mechanisms are used by aquatic organisms to offset the deleterious effects of UV radiation.
Sea urchins, like other invertebrates, have developed a host of protective strategies. These strategies include accumulation ofphotoprotective compounds (such as MAAs and carotenoids), avoidance of exposure to UV radiation, and other defence mechanisms[239]. In addition to MAAs, sea urchins synthesise the “black” type spinochrome (polyhydroxy-1,4-naphthoquinone), a UV-protective
compound that is the most abundant pigment in sea urchins associated with coral reef environments [242]. Sea urchin embryos, long
used as model organisms to study the effects of chemical stressors on marine organisms, are potential model systems for also studying
the effects of physical stressors such as UV radiation including UV-B wavebands. Sea urchins play an important ecological role asherbivores controlling the biomass of attached (benthic) algae through grazing. The most common impacts of exposure to UV radiationin developing embryos of sea urchins are deviations in skeleton formation and patterning, with damage being dependent on cumulative
exposure [239].
To summarise, tropical coral reef dwelling organisms have developed a wide range of strategies for adapting to UV irradiation.
However, there is still limited information about how they respond to UV-B radiation in combination with global change stressors. Moreinformation is needed to predict how these organisms will respond in the future and how that may affect the coral reef landscape.

5.5

Effects of UV radiation on zooplankton including sub-lethal, mortality and defence
mechanisms

5.5.1 Exposure to UV-B radiation and fitness of zooplankton
Experimental studies using lamps that mimic the full spectrum of solar UV radiation demonstrated that lifetime reproductive success ofzooplankton (a proxy for fitness) can be reduced by exposure to broad-band UV radiation [243]. However, it is crucial to also understandhow effects on organismal fitness and survival vary across the UV spectrum. A type of action spectrum describing the variation inzooplankton mortality due to exposure to different wavelengths of UV radiation, the biological weighting function, has been previously
defined for Daphnia [244]. Recent work has shown that this function is also applicable to mortality of a freshwater ciliate (Pelagodileptus
trachelioides) due to UV irradiation [245, 246]. For both Daphnia and the ciliate, short-wavelength UV-B radiation is the most effective

105

Octocorals and scleractinian corals resemble each other in general appearance, but octocorals do not deposit a calcium carbonate-based skeleton whereas scleratiniancorals do. Also, octocorals have eight-fold symmetry whereas scleractinian corals (also known as hexacorals) have six-fold symmetry.

237

Chapter 5
at causing mortality, similar to the wavelengths most effective for damaging DNA and RNA (see action spectra discussion in the COVID
assessment, Chapter 2, Bernhard et al. [89]). Collectively, these experiments illustrate that UV-B radiation is detrimental to zooplankton
and exposure leads to reduced fitness.
UV radiation can also cause sub-lethal effects, such as reduced feeding rates, reduced growth and morphological changes in manyorganisms [247, 248]. These effects have been previously documented in all types of major zooplankton taxa [249-251], and in recent
years include reports on less studied taxa such as ciliates and crab larvae [252, 253, 245]. Other recent examples of sub-lethal effects
include reduced body length, width and tail spine length in juvenile Daphnia [254] as well as reduced moulting and growth in Daphnia
upon exposure to combined UV-A and UV-B radiation [248]. Furthermore, a variable exposure to UV radiation (combined UV-A and UVB) mimicking the natural situation with cloudiness led to lower fitness in Daphnia compared to a constant exposure [255].
Defence mechanisms in zooplankton mitigate some of the damage from UV irradiation, for example by repair systems, photoprotection
or avoiding surface waters during times of high UV irradiance [256, 214, 257-259]. However, defences may come with some costs,
e.g., a reduced predator avoidance capacity [252, 253]. Recent studies illustrate that the level of expression of these defences not only
depends on phenotypic plasticity but also on the evolutionary history [260]. For example, Daphnia isolated from a high-UV environment
displayed intense UV-avoidance and induced photoprotective pigmentation compared to individuals of the same species coming froma low-UV environment [260]. Furthermore, Daphnia was able to diminish the negative effects of long-term, multi-generational, exposure
to UV radiation by progressively altering pigmentation, life-history and probably other types of defences [261]. These transgenerational
adaptations increased UV-tolerance and reversed the effect of UV radiation on offspring production within three generations. The overalloutcome of exposure to UV radiation in terms of effects on population sizes is not known. Attempts have recently been made to model
the outcome of exposure to UV-B radiation on reproduction in zooplankton [262]. However, parameterisation of such models using
realistic biological weighting functions is still lacking.

5.5.2 Exposure to UV radiation modulates zooplankton interactions in the food web
Zooplankton respond to several challenges at the same time, including exposure to UV radiation, predation risk, and searching for food.
An important way that exposure to UV-B radiation can affect zooplankton is by modifying how they respond to these other challenges.
Predation risk is perceived in several ways, for example by detecting the chemical signals (kairomones) emitted by an invertebrate
predator.
In the trade-off between avoiding the effects of exposure to UV radiation vs predation, avoidance of exposure to the radiation wasrecently suggested to be the most important factor, as shown for the zooplankton, Daphnia. Depth migration experiments show that
two species (large and small) avoided exposure to levels of UV-A and UV-B radiation typical of surface waters by downward migrationeven when that increased their vulnerability to a macroinvertebrate predator [263]. The presence of a surface visual predator (fish) did
not induce any deeper migration than that needed to avoid UV radiation. On the other hand, zooplankton reduced UV-avoidance toaccess food, showing that feeding opportunities are favoured in the trade-off with avoiding the damaging effects of UV radiation [264].
UV-avoidance is furthermore dependent on water transparency. Reduced penetration of UV radiation into the water column, which canbe caused by factors such as extreme precipitation events and smoke haze (Sect. 2.1), reduce zooplankton migration to deeper waters[265-267]. However, a recent field study demonstrated that reduced exposure to UV radiation created by smoke haze does not always
reduce zooplankton migration [268]. Despite the lower risk of damage by UV radiation, zooplankton still migrated downward during
the day to avoid predation by fish, illustrating the multiple challenges to zooplankton that need to be considered in understanding
food web interactions. UV avoidance has also been studied in water bodies at low latitudes where UV radiation is relatively high year
round. Evidence from these environments suggests that zooplankton rely less on vertical migration and more on other defences suchas accumulation of photoprotective substances to avoid damage due to exposure to UV radiation [269]. It has been demonstrated
multiple times that the accumulation of photoprotective compounds in zooplankton reduces the negative effects of UV radiation but
increases their vulnerability to fish predators that track their prey by visually perceiving UV-absorbing pigments [256]. Recent studies
extend this knowledge, demonstrating the importance of the composition of the fish community with a negative association between
photoprotective compounds and the density of visual predators such as sticklebacks [270].
At larger geographic scales, changes in UV-transparency can lead to range expansions, modulated zooplankton interactions (seeabove), as well as changes in community composition [256, 271, 272]. More recently, zooplankton predators such as the phantom
midge larvae Chaoborus, and the freshwater jellyfish (Craspedacusta sowerbii) have been shown to be sensitive to UV radiation andmainly invade habitats with low UV transparency [273, 274]. Such invasions may increase with decreased UV transparency (Sect. 2.1.1)
and are expected to result in selective predation on certain species and changes in the composition of the zooplankton community.
These changes can have cascading effects on other parts of the aquatic food web, including fish stocks. Hence, changes in UV radiation
combined with the effects of climate change will lead to changes in species interactions and the resulting food web structure.

5.6

Harmful effects of UV-B radiation on fish

Exposure of fish to UV radiation, and particularly UV-B radiation, has negative effects on physiology, behaviour, morphology and insome cases leads to mortality of eggs, juveniles and adult fish [275, 276]. The latest laboratory studies illustrate this fact, showing thatearly developmental stages of the Senegalese sole (Solea senegalesis) changed pigmentation, behaviour, and reduced growth upon
exposure to UV radiation (combined UV-B and UV-A) [277]. Additional sub-lethal and lethal effects have been demonstrated in response
to exposure to both UV-B and UV-A radiation and in different life stages of many fish species [275, 276]. These negative effects of UV

238

Chapter 5
irradiation have been mostly observed in laboratory settings using artificial radiation, while fewer examples exist in field experiments
using natural solar radiation. Thus, there is a need to understand to what extent the laboratory-based results are realistic and can beextrapolated to effects on population sizes and yields in the wild and in aquaculture. Furthermore, the UV lamps used in the laboratoryneed to be selected with great care to exclude unrealistic shortwave UV-B radiation (below 300 nm) and weighting exposures withaction spectra need to be carried out to ensure that environmentally relevant doses are applied.
Laboratory studies also do not take into account that fish have a number of mechanisms to avoid damage by UV radiation in the naturalenvironment including behavioural avoidance, cellular repair mechanisms, accumulation of photoprotective compounds (including
pigments), and physical barriers such as scales [275, 276]. One recent example of a potential additional adaptation to avoid damage isthe variable buoyancy in eggs of several species that reproduce in oceanic surface waters (Fig. 10).




















Fig. 10 Fish have several
mechanisms to avoid UV-damage.
Recent laboratory studies havedemonstrated that fish eggs can
sink in response to UV-A irradiation.
(a) The diel expression of this in
the ocean helps to avoid potential
damage from concomitant solar
UV-B radiation, since eggs will sink
as UV-B irradiation increases.
(b) This mechanism is active in red
snapper (Lutjanus campechanus),
cobia (Rachycentron canadum), andyellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares).
On the right, a schematic of theexperiment with eggs in tubes
either protected (x) or exposed (√)
to UV-A radiation (Figure redrawn
from [278,279]).

The embryos sank down to greater depths when exposed to UV- A radiation and recovered a surface position when released from
UV-stress [278, 279]. Although the response is induced by UV-A irradiation, in the ocean this mechanism would concomitantly reduce
exposure to solar UV-B radiation. In all, these findings suggest that fish are negatively affected if exposed to UV radiation but have a wide
range of adaptations that can help to mitigate damage due to such exposure.

6 Knowledge gaps
Based on this most recent assessment, we can identify several important knowledge gaps, new and continuing. These include:• Models are needed that demonstrate the benefits to aquatic ecosystems derived from the implementation of the Montreal Protocol
and avoidance of large increases in incident UV-B radiation. Demonstrating such benefits will help sustain commitments to themultinational treaty. A key knowledge gap for implementing these models in the aquatic environment is defining more spectral
weighting functions that quantify the response of a variable (e.g., virus inactivation) to exposure to UV radiation as a functionof wavelength. This gap has been noted also in previous assessments [1]. Spectral weighting functions are known for somebiogeochemical processes ([120] and references therein) and organismal responses (e.g. coliphage inactivation [82], phytoplankton
photosynthesis [71], Daphnia mortality [244], and others described in Sect. 3.2, 4.4 and 5.5.1). However, there are many processes
in the aquatic environment for which information on spectral weighting functions is limited or unknown, including breakdown ofoil contaminants, photoinactivation of pathogens and mortality of various taxa. While the required investment of time and cost has
been a barrier in the past, a novel, light emitting diode-based, exposure system now makes it easier to estimate spectral weighting
functions for aquatic samples [280]. Besides spectral weighting functions, models need to take into account various feedbacks, UV
adaptations among organisms, and the interactive effects with other factors. Progress on this front is possible using whole ecosystem

239

Chapter 5
manipulations combined with models, such as those described in Dur et al. [262], as long as those models use realistic biologicalweighting functions (see Sect. 5.5.1).
• Improved methods for estimating UV transparency from remote-sensing data will enable better estimates of exposure to UV radiationin lakes around the globe (Sect. 2.1).
• The Arctic is undergoing rapid environmental changes, the effect of which includes the release of photoreactive organic matter tosurface waters as a result of permafrost thawing. Photodegradation of dissolved organic matter releases CO2 and other greenhousegases and impacts its bioavailability, but there is a lack of agreement on the magnitude of these processes and on their seasonal andgeographical variability (Sect. 3.4.1). This information is crucial to predicting the extent of photochemical CO2 emissions in highlatitude ecosystems and their variations induced by changes in climate and UV radiation.
• UV-B radiation should be included in more studies of the effects of contaminants introduced into and/or are affecting aquatic
ecosystems due to human activities. Particularly important is determining how UV radiation affects the fate of microplastics and towhat extent microplastics pose a danger to aquatic ecosystems (Chapter 8, Jansen et al. [145]). Recent research assessed here also
shows the importance of UV radiation, including UV-B wavebands, in dispersing and degrading oil pollutants, which can then be
phototoxic in the marine environment. This topic has been under-appreciated in the past and is an area that needs more attention in
the future.
• There is a need for more assessment of the environmental impact and toxicity of UV filters. Considering that use of these filters in
topical sunscreens is important in preventing skin cancer, a recent report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering andMedicine of the United States [150] has highlighted the urgent need for more studies of their environmental impact. This includes
whether impacts can be lessened by using inorganic or “natural” organic filters.
More studies using solar UV radiation (vs artificial sources of UV radiation) are needed to better assess how the responses of fish to UV-B
radiation affect fisheries and aquaculture. Compared to studies on most other groups of aquatic organisms, there are very few studies offish using ecologically relevant exposures of solar UV radiation.

7 Conclusions
Our assessment has shown that considerable knowledge continues to be acquired about how solar UV-B radiation impacts aquaticorganisms and their ecosystems, whether marine, estuarine, or freshwater. As documented in this and previous assessments (e.g. [1]),exposure to solar UV-B radiation most frequently has undesirable effects, such as reduced productivity or survival, but in some cases
there are desirable results (at least for humans), such as inactivation of pathogens. Given that most of the effects are negative, thelarge increases in incident UV-B irradiance that have been avoided by adherence to the Montreal Protocol (Chapter 1, Bernhard et al.
[27]) can be viewed as being largely beneficial to aquatic ecosystems and the services they provide, supporting progress toward theSustainable Development Goals, especially SDG14 (Life Below Water) [281]. While the world has avoided increased UV-B radiation due
to stratospheric ozone depletion, UV-B radiation in the aquatic environment is nevertheless changing due to global climate change andother anthropogenic effects such as increased environmental pollution, both in the air and water. Our current assessment shows thatclimate change has variable effects on exposure to UV-B radiation, either increasing or decreasing exposure in the aquatic environment(Sect. 2). All organisms have a set of adaptations that enable them to reduce damage from UV radiation, but these may not be aseffective when combined with other stressors such as increased sea-surface temperatures and ocean acidification. Moreover, otherfactors such as variation in temperature and pH, and presence of pollutants can increase the sensitivity of organisms to damage from UVradiation and impact biogeochemical processes (Sect. 3).
In summary, this latest assessment of the effects of UV-B radiation and stratospheric ozone depletion on aquatic ecosystems reflects arealisation of how effects increasingly depend on the multi-faceted interaction between exposure to UV radiation and changes resulting
from climate change and other anthropogenic activities. Minimising the disruptive consequences of these effects on critical services
provided by the world’s rivers, lakes and oceans (freshwater supply, recreation, transport and food security) will not only requirecontinued adherence to the Montreal Protocol but also a wider inclusion of solar UV radiation and its effects in studies and/or models ofaquatic ecosystems under conditions of a future global climate.

240

Chapter 5

List of abbreviations
ARGO

Array for Real-time Geostrophic Oceanography

BWF

Biological Weighting Function

CDOM

Chromophoric Dissolved Organic Matter

DOM

Dissolved Organic Matter

EEAP

Environmental Effects Assessment Panel

MAA

Mycosporine-like Amino Acid

MLD

Mixed Layer Depth

NCP

Net Community Production

PAR

Photosynthetically Available Radiation (same as visible radiation) (400-700 nm)

UV-A

Ultraviolet-A (315–400 nm)

UV-B

Ultraviolet-B (280–315 nm)

UV-C

Ultraviolet-C (100–280 nm)

WASP

Water Quality Assessment Simulation Program

Acknowledgements Generous contributions by UNEP/Ozone Secretariat were provided for the convened author meeting. The
following authors gratefully acknowledge support: ATB [National Autonomous University of Mexico]. SH [The Swedish Environmental
Protection Agency and Linnaeus University]. PJN [Smithsonian Institution]. DPH [Bundesministerium für Umwelt Naturschutz undReaktorsicherheit]. S-AW [Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management]. RGZ [ORD/CEMM, US Environmental Protection
Agency; the views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views or policies of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency].
Author contributions All authors contributed to the conception and assessment, and carried out extensive revisions of content.
Conflict of interest The authors have no conflicts of interest.

241

Chapter 5

References
1.

Williamson, C. E., Neale, P. J., Hylander, S., Rose, K. C., Figueroa, F. L., Robinson, S. A., Häder, D.-P., Wängberg, S.-Å., & Worrest,
R. C. (2019). The interactive effects of stratospheric ozone depletion, UV radiation, and climate change on aquatic ecosystems.
Photochemical & Photobiological Sciences, 18(3), 717-746. https://doi.org/10.1039/c8pp90062k

2.

Neale, P. J., Williamson, C. E., & Morris, D. P. (2021). Optical properties of water. In K. Tockner, & T. Mehner (Eds.), Encyclopediaof Inland Waters, (2nd ed.), pp. 73-82. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-819166-8.00020-7

3.

Overmans, S., & Agustí, S. (2020). Unraveling the seasonality of UV exposure in reef waters of a rapidly warming (sub-)tropicalsea. Frontiers in Marine Science, 7, 111. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2020.00111

4.

Overmans, S., Duarte, C. M., Sobrino, C., Iuculano, F., Álvarez-Salgado, X. A., & Agustí, S. (2022). Penetration of Ultraviolet-B
radiation in oligotrophic regions of the oceans during the Malaspina 2010 expedition. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans,127(5) e2021JC017654. https://doi.org/10.1029/2021jc017654

5.

de Wit, H. A., Valinia, S., Weyhenmeyer, G. A., Futter, M. N., Kortelainen, P., Austnes, K., Hessen, D. O., Räike, A., Laudon, H., &Vuorenmaa, J. (2016). Current browning of surface waters will be further promoted by wetter climate. Environmental Science &Technology Letters, 3(12), 430-435. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.6b00396

6.

Zhang, Y., Shi, K., Zhou, Q., Zhou, Y., Zhang, Y., Qin, B., & Deng, J. (2020). Decreasing underwater ultraviolet radiation exposurestrongly driven by increasing ultraviolet attenuation in lakes in eastern and southwest China. Science of the Total Environment,
720, 137694. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137694

7.

Lapierre, J.-F., Collins, S. M., Oliver, S. K., Stanley, E. H., & Wagner, T. (2021). Inconsistent browning of northeastern U.S. lakes
despite increased precipitation and recovery from acidification. Ecosphere, 12(3), e03415. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.3415

8.

Monteith, D. T., Stoddard, J. L., Evans, C. D., de Wit, H. A., Forsius, M., Høgåsen, T., Wilander, A., Skjelkvåle, B. L., Jeffries, D. S.,
Vuorenmaa, J., Keller, B., Kopácek, J., & Vesely, J. (2007). Dissolved organic carbon trends resulting from changes in atmosphericdeposition chemistry. Nature, 450, 537. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature06316

9.

Rose, K. C., Greb, S. R., Diebel, M., & Turner, M. G. (2017). Annual precipitation regulates spatial and temporal drivers of lakewater clarity. Ecological Applications, 27(2), 632-643. https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.1471

10.

Topp, S. N., Pavelsky, T. M., Stanley, E. H., Yang, X., Griffin, C. G., & Ross, M. R. V. (2021). Multi-decadal improvement in US lakewater clarity. Environmental Research Letters, 16(5), 055025. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abf002

11.

Wang, S., Li, J., Zhang, B., Lee, Z., Spyrakos, E., Feng, L., Liu, C., Zhao, H., Wu, Y., Zhu, L., Jia, L., Wan, W., Zhang, F., Shen, Q.,
Tyler, A. N., & Zhang, X. (2020). Changes of water clarity in large lakes and reservoirs across China observed from long-term
MODIS. Remote Sensing of Environment, 247, 111949. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2020.111949

12.

Rose, K. C., Neale, P. J., Tzortziou, M., Gallegos, C. L., & Jordan, T. E. (2019). Patterns of spectral, spatial, and long-term variability
in light attenuation in an optically complex sub-estuary. Limnology and Oceanography, 64(S1), S257-S272. https://doi.
org/10.1002/lno.11005

13.

Lisi, P. J., & Hein, C. L. (2019). Eutrophication drives divergent water clarity responses to decadal variation in lake level. Limnology
and Oceanography, 64(S1), S49-S59. https://doi.org/10.1002/lno.11095

14.

Osburn, C. L., Atar, J. N., Boyd, T. J., & Montgomery, M. T. (2019). Antecedent precipitation influences the bacterial processing ofterrestrial dissolved organic matter in a North Carolina estuary. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 221, 119-131. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ecss.2019.03.016

15.

Qu, L., Wu, Y., Li, Y., Stubbins, A., Dahlgren, R. A., Chen, N., & Guo, W. (2020). El Niño-driven dry season flushing enhancesdissolved organic matter export From a subtropical watershed. Geophysical Research Letters, 47(19), e2020GL089877. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL089877

16.

Opdal, A. F., Lindemann, C., & Aksnes, D. L. (2019). Centennial decline in North Sea water clarity causes strong delay inphytoplankton bloom timing. Global Change Biology, 25(11), 3946-3953. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14810

17.

Vizzo, J. I., Cabrerizo, M. J., Villafañe, V. E., & Helbling, E. W. (2021). Input of terrestrial material into coastal Patagonian waters
and its effects on phytoplankton communities from the Chubut River Estuary (Argentina). In Anthropogenic Pollution of Aquatic
Ecosystems, (pp. 131-155). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-75602-4_7

18.

Lønborg, C., McKinna, L. I. W., Slivkoff, M. M., & Carreira, C. (2021). Coloured dissolved organic matter dynamics in the Great
Barrier Reef. Continental Shelf Research, 219, 104395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csr.2021.104395

19.

Song, N., & Jiang, H. L. (2020). Coordinated photodegradation and biodegradation of organic matter from macrophyte litter inshallow lake water: Dual role of solar irradiation. Water Research, 172, 115516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2020.115516

242

Chapter 520.

Häder, D.-P., Williamson, C. E., Wangberg, S.-A., Rautio, M., Rose, K. C., Gao, K., Helbling, E. W., Sinha, R. P., & Worrest,
R. (2015). Effects of UV radiation on aquatic ecosystems and interactions with other environmental factors. Photochemical &Photobiological Sciences, 14(1), 108-126. https://doi.org/10.1039/C4PP90035A

21.

Sarmiento, J. L., Slater, R., Barber, R., Bopp, L., Doney, S. C., Hirst, A. C., Kleypas, J., Matear, R., Mikolajewicz, U., Monfray, P.,
Soldatov, V., Spall, S. A., & Stouffer, R. (2004). Response of ocean ecosystems to climate warming. Global Biogeochemical
Cycles, 18(3), GB3003. https://doi.org/10.1029/2003GB002134

22.

Somavilla, R., González-Pola, C., & Fernández-Diaz, J. (2017). The warmer the ocean surface, the shallower the mixed layer. How
much of this is true? Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, 122(9), 7698-7716. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JC013125

23.

Young, I. R., & Ribal, A. (2019). Multiplatform evaluation of global trends in wind speed and wave height. Science, 364(6440),
548-552. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aav9527

24.

Neale, P. J., & Smyth, R. L. (2018). Are warmer waters, brighter waters? An examination of the irradiance environment of lakes
and oceans in a changing climate. In D. P. Hader, & K. Gao (Eds.), Aquatic Ecosystems in a Changing Climate, (pp. 89-115). CRC.
https://doi.org/10.1201/9780429436130

25.

Sallée, J. B., Pellichero, V., Akhoudas, C., Pauthenet, E., Vignes, L., Schmidtko, S., Garabato, A. N., Sutherland, P., & Kuusela, M.
(2021). Summertime increases in upper-ocean stratification and mixed-layer depth. Nature, 591(7851), 592-598. https://doi.
org/10.1038/s41586-021-03303-x

26.

Waugh, D. W., Garfinkel, C. I., & Polvani, L. M. (2015). Drivers of the recent tropical expansion in the southern hemisphere:
Changing SSTs or ozone depletion? Journal of Climate, 28(16), 6581-6586. https://doi.org/10.1175/jcli-d-15-0138.1

27.

Bernhard, G. H., Bais, A. F., Aucamp, P. J., Klekociuk, A. R., Liley, J. B., & McKenzie, R. L. (2022). Stratospheric ozone, UV
radiation, and climate interactions. Chapter 1

28.

Li, K.-x., & Zheng, F. (2022). Effects of a freshening trend on upper-ocean stratification over the central tropical Pacific and theirrepresentation by CMIP6 models. Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography, 195, 104999. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.dsr2.2021.104999

29.

Kraemer, B. M., Anneville, O., Chandra, S., Dix, M., Kuusisto, E., Livingstone, D. M., Rimmer, A., Schladow, S. G., Silow, E., Sitoki,
L. M., Tamatamah, R., Vadeboncoeur, Y., & McIntyre, P. B. (2015). Morphometry and average temperature affect lake stratification
responses to climate change. Geophysical Research Letters, 42(12), 4981-4988. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GL064097

30.

Stefanidis, K., Varlas, G., Papaioannou, G., Papadopoulos, A., & Dimitriou, E. (2022). Trends of lake temperature, mixing depth
and ice cover thickness of European lakes during the last four decades. Science of the Total Environment, 830, 154709. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.154709

31.

Stetler, J., Girdner, S., Mack, J., Winslow, L., Leach, T., & Rose, K. (2020). Atmospheric stilling and warming air temperatures drive
long-term changes in lake stratification in a large oligotrophic lake. Limnology and Oceanography, 66(3), 954-964. https://doi.
org/10.1002/lno.11654

32.

Woolway, R. I., Meinson, P., Nõges, P., Jones, I. D., & Laas, A. (2017). Atmospheric stilling leads to prolonged thermal stratification
in a large shallow polymictic lake. Climatic Change, 141(4), 759-773. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-017-1909-0

33.

Vautard, R., Cattiaux, J., Yiou, P., Thépaut, J.-N., & Ciais, P. (2010). Northern Hemisphere atmospheric stilling partly attributed to
an increase in surface roughness. Nature Geoscience, 3(11), 756-761. https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo979

34.

Zeng, Z., Ziegler, A. D., Searchinger, T., Yang, L., Chen, A., Ju, K., Piao, S., Li, L. Z. X., Ciais, P., Chen, D., Liu, J., Azorin-Molina,
C., Chappell, A., Medvigy, D., & Wood, E. F. (2019). A reversal in global terrestrial stilling and its implications for wind energy
production. Nature Climate Change, 9(12), 979-985. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-019-0622-6

35.

Zhang, Z., Wang, K., Chen, D., Li, J., & Dickinson, R. (2019). Increase in surface friction dominates the observed surface windspeed decline during 1973–2014 in the northern hemisphere lands. Journal of Climate, 32(21), 7421-7435. https://doi.
org/10.1175/jcli-d-18-0691.1

36.

Pilla, R. M., Williamson, C. E., Zhang, J., Smyth, R. L., Lenters, J. D., Brentrup, J. A., Knoll, L. B., & Fisher, T. J. (2018). Browningrelated decreases in water transparency lead to long-term increases in surface water temperature and thermal stratification in two
small lakes. Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences, 123(5), 1651-1665. https://doi.org/10.1029/2017jg004321

37.

Woolway, R. I., Sharma, S., Weyhenmeyer, G. A., Debolskiy, A., Golub, M., Mercado-Bettín, D., Perroud, M., Stepanenko, V.,
Tan, Z., Grant, L., Ladwig, R., Mesman, J., Moore, T. N., Shatwell, T., Vanderkelen, I., Austin, J. A., DeGasperi, C. L., Dokulil, M.,
La Fuente, S., Mackay, E. B., et al. (2021). Phenological shifts in lake stratification under climate change. Nature Communications,12(1), 2318. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-22657-4

38.

Woolway, R. I., & Merchant, C. J. (2019). Worldwide alteration of lake mixing regimes in response to climate change. Nature
Geoscience, 12(4), 271-276. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-019-0322-x

39.

van Vuuren, D. P., Edmonds, J., Kainuma, M., Riahi, K., Thomson, A., Hibbard, K., Hurtt, G. C., Kram, T., Krey, V., Lamarque, J.-F.,
Masui, T., Meinshausen, M., Nakicenovic, N., Smith, S. J., & Rose, S. K. (2011). The representative concentration pathways: an
overview. Climatic Change, 109(1-2), 5-31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-0148-z

243

Chapter 5
40.

Jane, S. F., Hansen, G. J. A., Kraemer, B. M., Leavitt, P. R., Mincer, J. L., North, R. L., Pilla, R. M., Stetler, J. T., Williamson, C.
E., Woolway, R. I., Arvola, L., Chandra, S., DeGasperi, C. L., Diemer, L., Dunalska, J., Erina, O., Flaim, G., Grossart, H.-P.,
Hambright, K. D., Hein, C., et al. (2021). Widespread deoxygenation of temperate lakes. Nature, 594(7861), 66-70. https://doi.
org/10.1038/s41586-021-03550-y

41.

Warren, S. G. (2019). Optical properties of ice and snow. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical,
Physical and Engineering Sciences, 377(2146), 20180161. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2018.0161

42.

Katlein, C., Arndt, S., Belter, H. J., Castellani, G., & Nicolaus, M. (2019). Seasonal evolution of light transmission distributions
through Arctic sea ice. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, 124(8), 5418-5435. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018jc014833

43.

Arndt, S., Meiners, K. M., Ricker, R., Krumpen, T., Katlein, C., & Nicolaus, M. (2017). Influence of snow depth and surface flooding
on light transmission through Antarctic pack ice. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, 122(3), 2108-2119. https://doi.
org/10.1002/2016jc012325

44.

Matthes, L. C., Mundy, C. J., L.-Girard, S., Babin, M., Verin, G., & Ehn, J. K. (2020). Spatial heterogeneity as a key variableinfluencing spring-summer progression in UVR and PAR transmission through Arctic sea ice. Frontiers in Marine Science, 7, 183.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2020.00183

45.

Oziel, L., Massicotte, P., Randelhoff, A., Ferland, J., Vladoiu, A., Lacour, L., Galindo, V., Lambert-Girard, S., Dumont, D., Cuypers,
Y., Bouruet-Aubertot, P., Mundy, C. J., Ehn, J., Bécu, G., Marec, C., Forget, M. H., Garcia, N., Coupel, P., Raimbault, P., Houssais,
M. N., et al. (2019). Environmental factors influencing the seasonal dynamics of spring algal blooms in and beneath sea ice inwestern Baffin Bay. Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene, 7(1), 34. https://doi.org/10.1525/elementa.372

46.

Meier, W. N., Perovich, D., Farrell, S., Haas, C., Hendricks, S., Petty, A. A., Webster, M., Divine, D., Gerland, S., Kaleschke, L.,
Ricker, R., Steer, A., Tian-Kunze, X., Tschudi, M., & Wood, K. (2021). Sea Ice. In T. A. Moon, M. L. Druckenmiller, & R. L. Thoman(Eds.), Arctic Report Card: Update for 2021, (pp. NOAA Technical Report OAR ARC. https://doi.org/10.25923/y2wd-fn85

47.

Serreze, M. C., & Meier, W. N. (2019). The Arctic's sea ice cover: trends, variability, predictability, and comparisons to the
Antarctic. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1436(1), 36-53. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.13856

48.

Goyal, R., England, M. H., Sen Gupta, A., & Jucker, M. (2019). Reduction in surface climate change achieved by the 1987 Montreal
Protocol. Environmental Research Letters, 14(12), 124041. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab4874

49.

Polvani, L. M., Previdi, M., England, M. R., Chiodo, G., & Smith, K. L. (2020). Substantial twentieth-century Arctic warming causedby ozone-depleting substances. Nature Climate Change, 10(2), 130-133. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-019-0677-4

50.

Fetterer, F., Knowles, K., Meier, W. N., Savoie, M., & Windnagel, A. K. (2021). Sea Ice Index, Version 3. National Snow and Ice
Data Center.

51.

Moore, J. K., Fu, W., Primeau, F., Britten, G. L., Lindsay, K., Long, M., Doney, S. C., Mahowald, N., Hoffman, F., & Randerson, J.
T. (2018). Sustained climate warming drives declining marine biological productivity. Science, 359(6380), 1139. https://doi.
org/10.1126/science.aao6379

52.

Woolway, R. I., Kraemer, B. M., Lenters, J. D., Merchant, C. J., O’Reilly, C. M., & Sharma, S. (2020). Global lake responses toclimate change. Nature Reviews Earth & Environment, 1(8), 388-403. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-020-0067-5

53.

Sharma, S., Richardson, D. C., Woolway, R. I., Imrit, M. A., Bouffard, D., Blagrave, K., Daly, J., Filazzola, A., Granin, N., Korhonen,J., Magnuson, J., Marszelewski, W., Matsuzaki, S. I. S., Perry, W., Robertson, D. M., Rudstam, L. G., Weyhenmeyer, G. A., & Yao,
H. (2021). Loss of ice cover, shifting phenology, and more extreme events in Northern Hemisphere lakes. Journal of GeophysicalResearch: Biogeosciences, 126(10), e2021JG006348. https://doi.org/10.1029/2021jg006348

54.

Filazzola, A., Blagrave, K., Imrit, M. A., & Sharma, S. (2020). Climate change drives increases in extreme events for lake ice in the
Northern Hemisphere. Geophysical Research Letters, 47(18), e2020GL089608. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020gl089608

55.

Sharma, S., Blagrave, K., Magnuson, J. J., O’Reilly, C. M., Oliver, S., Batt, R. D., Magee, M. R., Straile, D., Weyhenmeyer, G. A.,
Winslow, L., & Woolway, R. I. (2019). Widespread loss of lake ice around the Northern Hemisphere in a warming world. Nature
Climate Change, 9(3), 227-231. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0393-5

56.

Häder, D. P., & Cabrol, N. A. (2020). Monitoring of solar irradiance in the high Andes. Photochemistry and Photobiology, 96(5),1133-1139. https://doi.org/10.1111/php.13276

57.

Häder, D.-P., & Barnes, P. W. (2019). Comparing the impacts of climate change on the responses and linkages between terrestrial
and aquatic ecosystems. Science of the Total Environment, 682, 239-246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.05.024

58.

Wu, Y., Zhang, M., Li, Z., Xu, J., & Beardall, J. (2020). Differential responses of growth and photochemical performance ofmarine diatoms to ocean warming and high light irradiance. Photochemistry and photobiology, 96(5), 1074-1082. https://doi.
org/10.1111/php.13268

59.

Li, G., Gao, K., & Gao, G. (2011). Differential impacts of solar UV radiation on photosynthetic carbon fixation from the coastal tooffshore surface waters in the South China Sea. Photochemistry and Photobiology, 87(2), 329-334. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1751-1097.2010.00862.x

244Chapter 5
60.

Valiñas, M. S., Villafañe, V. E., & Walter Helbling, E. (2018). Effects of global change on aquatic lower trophic levels of coastal
south west Atlantic Ocean environments. In D. P. Häder, & K. Gao (Eds.), Aquatic Ecosystems in a Changing Climate, (pp. 116145). https://doi.org/10.1201/9780429436130-7

61.

Chen, J., Wang, H., Yang, A. Q., Si, R. R., & Guan, W. C. (2018). Short-term and diurnal temperature changes alter the response ofharmful algal blooms of Pseudo-nitzschia pungens to solar ultraviolet radiation. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater
Research, 52(1), 69-81. https://doi.org/10.1080/00288330.2017.1331454

62.

Pilla, R. M., Williamson, C. E., Adamovich, B. V., Adrian, R., Anneville, O., Chandra, S., Colom-Montero, W., Devlin, S. P., Dix, M.
A., Dokulil, M. T., Gaiser, E. E., Girdner, S. F., Hambright, K. D., Hamilton, D. P., Havens, K., Hessen, D. O., Higgins, S. N., Huttula,
T. H., Huuskonen, H., Isles, P. D. F., et al. (2020). Deeper waters are changing less consistently than surface waters in a global
analysis of 102 lakes. Scientific Reports, 10(1), 20514. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-76873-x

63.

Jiang, X., Zhang, Y., Hutchins, D. A., & Gao, K. (2022). Nitrogen-limitation exacerbates the impact of ultraviolet radiation on the
coccolithophore Gephyrocapsa oceanica. Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology B: Biology, 226, 112368. https://doi.
org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jphotobiol.2021.112368

64.

Zhang, Y., Li, K., Zhou, Q., Chen, L., Yang, X., & Zhang, H. (2021). Phytoplankton responses to solar UVR and its combination
with nutrient enrichment in a plateau oligotrophic Lake Fuxian: a mesocosm experiment. Environmental Science and Pollution
Research, 28(23), 29931-29944. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-12705-3

65.

Birk, S., Chapman, D., Carvalho, L., Spears, B. M., Andersen, H. E., Argillier, C., Auer, S., Baattrup-Pedersen, A., Banin, L.,
Beklioğlu, M., Bondar-Kunze, E., Borja, A., Branco, P., Bucak, T., Buijse, A. D., Cardoso, A. C., Couture, R.-M., Cremona, F., deZwart, D., Feld, C. K., et al. (2020). Impacts of multiple stressors on freshwater biota across spatial scales and ecosystems. Nature
Ecology & Evolution, 4(8), 1060-1068. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-020-1216-4

66.

Gao, K., Beardall, J., Häder, D. P., Hall-Spencer, J. M., Gao, G., & Hutchins, D. A. (2019). Effects of ocean acidification on marine
photosynthetic organisms under the concurrent influences of warming, UV radiation and deoxygenation. Frontiers in Marine
Science, 6, 322. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2019.00322

67.

Boyd, P., Collins, S., Dupont, S., Fabricius, K., Gattuso, J.-P., Havenhand, J., Hutchins, D., Riebesell, U., Rintoul, M., Vichi, M.,
Biswas, H., Gao, K., Gehlen, M., Hurd, C., Kurihara, H., McGraw, C., Navarro, J., Nilsson, G., Passow, U., & Pörtner, H.-O. (2018).
Experimental strategies to assess the biological ramifications of multiple drivers of ocean global ocean - a review. Global Change
Biology, 24, 2239-2261. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14102

68.

Gao, K., & Häder, D.-P. (2020). Photosynthetic performances of marine microalgae under influences of rising CO2 and solar UV
radiation. In Q. Wang (Ed.), Microbial photosynthesis, (pp. 139-150). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-3110-1_7

69.

Byrne, M., & Fitzer, S. (2019). The impact of environmental acidification on the microstructure and mechanical integrity of marine
invertebrate skeletons. Conservation Physiology, 7(1), coz062. https://doi.org/10.1093/conphys/coz062

70.

Sobrino, C., Neale, P. J., Phillips-Kress, J. D., Moeller, R. E., & Porter, J. (2009). Elevated CO2 increases sensitivity to ultraviolet
radiation in lacustrine phytoplankton assemblages. Limnology and Oceanography, 54, 2448-2459. https://doi.org/10.4319/
lo.2009.54.6_part_2.2448

71.

Lorenzo, M. R., Neale, P. J., Sobrino, C., León, P., Vázquez, V., Bresnan, E., & Segovia, M. (2019). Effects of elevated CO2 on
growth, calcification and spectral dependence of photoinhibition in the coccolithophore Emiliania huxleyi (Prymnesiophyceae)
Journal of Phycology, 55(4), 775-778. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpy.12885

72.

Miao, H., Beardall, J., & Gao, K. (2018). Calcification moderates the increased susceptibility to UV radiation of thecoccolithophorid Gephryocapsa oceanica grown under elevated CO2 concentration: Evidence based on calcified and non‐calcified cells. Photochemistry and Photobiology, 94(5), 994-1002. https://doi.org/10.1111/php.12928

73.

Riebesell, U., Czerny, J., von Bröckel, K., Boxhammer, T., Büdenbender, J., Deckelnick, M., Fischer, M., Hoffmann, D., Krug,
S. A., Lentz, U., Ludwig, A., Muche, R., & Schulz, K. G. (2013). Technical Note: A mobile sea-going mesocosm system – newopportunities for ocean change research. Biogeosciences, 10(3), 1835-1847. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-10-1835-2013

74.

Ma, K., Powers, L. C., Seppälä, J., Norkko, J., & Brandes, J. A. (2022). Effects of added humic substances and nutrients on
photochemical degradation of dissolved organic matter in a mesocosm amendment experiment in the Gulf of Finland, Baltic Sea.
Photochemistry and Photobiology, 98(5), 1025-1042. https://doi.org/10.1111/php.13597

75.

Riebesell, U., Aberle-Malzahn, N., Achterberg, E. P., Algueró-Muñiz, M., Alvarez-Fernandez, S., Arístegui, J., Bach, L. T., Boersma,
M., Boxhammer, T., & Guan, W. (2018). Toxic algal bloom induced by ocean acidification disrupts the pelagic food web. Nature
Climate Change, 8(12), 1082-1086. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0344-1

76.

Duran-Romero, C., Medina-Sanchez, J. M., & Carrillo, P. (2020). Uncoupled phytoplankton-bacterioplankton relationship bymultiple drivers interacting at different temporal scales in a high-mountain Mediterranean lake. Scientific Reports, 10(1), 350.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-57269-y77.

Boehm, A. B., Silverman, A. I., Schriewer, A., & Goodwin, K. (2019). Systematic review and meta-analysis of decay rates ofwaterborne mammalian viruses and coliphages in surface waters. Water Research, 164, 114898. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
watres.2019.114898

245

Chapter 5
78.

Nelson, K. L., Boehm, A. B., Davies-Colley, R. J., Dodd, M. C., Kohn, T., Linden, K. G., Liu, Y., Maraccini, P. A., McNeill, K., Mitch,
W. A., Nguyen, T. H., Parker, K. M., Rodriguez, R. A., Sassoubre, L. M., Silverman, A. I., Wigginton, K. R., & Zepp, R. G. (2018).
Sunlight-mediated inactivation of health-relevant microorganisms in water: a review of mechanisms and modeling approaches.
Environmental Science: Processes & Impacts, 20(8), 1089-1122. https://doi.org/10.1039/c8em00047f

79.

Zepp, R. G., Cyterski, M., Wong, K., Georgacopoulos, O., Acrey, B., Whelan, G., Parmar, R., & Molina, M. (2018). Biologicalweighting functions for evaluating the role of sunlight-induced inactivation of coliphages at selected beaches and nearby
tributaries. Environmental Science & Technology, 52(22), 13068-13076. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b02191

80.

Sulzberger, B., Austin, A. T., Cory, R. M., Zepp, R. G., & Paul, N. D. (2019). Solar UV radiation in a changing world: roles ofcryosphere–land–water–atmosphere interfaces in global biogeochemical cycles. Photochemical & Photobiological Sciences,18(3), 747-774. https://doi.org/10.1039/C8PP90063A

81.

Silverman, A. I., & Boehm, A. B. (2020). Systematic review and meta-analysis of the persistence and disinfection of humancoronaviruses and their viral surrogates in water and wastewater. Environmental Science & Technology Letters, 7, 544-553.
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.0c00313

82.

Silverman, A. I., Tay, N., & Machairas, N. (2019). Comparison of biological weighting functions used to model endogenous
sunlight inactivation rates of MS2 coliphage. Water Research, 151, 439-446. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2018.12.015

83.

Bernhard, G. H., Neale, R. E., Barnes, P. W., Neale, P. J., Zepp, R. G., Wilson, S. R., Andrady, A. L., Bais, A. F., McKenzie, R. L., &Aucamp, P. J. (2020). Environmental effects of stratospheric ozone depletion, UV radiation and interactions with climate change:
UNEP Environmental Effects Assessment Panel, update 2019. Photochemical & Photobiological Sciences, 19(5), 542-584.
https://doi.org/10.1039/D0PP90011G

84.

Medema, G., Heijnen, L., Elsinga, G., Italiaander, R., & Brouwer, A. (2020). Presence of SARS-Coronavirus-2 RNA in sewage andcorrelation with reported COVID-19 prevalence in the early stage of the epidemic in the Netherlands. Environmental Science &Technology Letters, 7(7), 511-516. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.0c00357

85.

Rimoldi, S. G., Stefani, F., Gigantiello, A., Polesello, S., Comandatore, F., Mileto, D., Maresca, M., Longobardi, C., Mancon,
A., Romeri, F., Pagani, C., Cappelli, F., Roscioli, C., Moja, L., Gismondo, M. R., & Salerno, F. (2020). Presence and infectivityof SARS-CoV-2 virus in wastewaters and rivers. Science of the Total Environment, 744, 140911. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2020.140911

86.

Seyer, A., & Sanlidag, T. (2020). Solar ultraviolet radiation sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2. The Lancet Microbe, 1(1), e8-e9. https://doi.
org/10.1016/s2666-5247(20)30013-6

87.

Paul, D., Kolar, P., & Hall, S. G. (2021). A review of the impact of environmental factors on the fate and transport of coronaviruses inaqueous environments. npj Clean Water, 4(1), 7. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41545-020-00096-w

88.

Biasin, M., Strizzi, S., Bianco, A., Macchi, A., Utyro, O., Pareschi, G., Loffreda, A., Cavalleri, A., Lualdi, M., Trabattoni, D.,
Tacchetti, C., Mazza, D., & Clerici, M. (2022). UV and violet light can Neutralize SARS-CoV-2 Infectivity. Journal of Photochemistry
and Photobiology, 10, 100107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpap.2021.100107

89.

Bernhard, G. H., Madronich, S., Lucas, R. M., Byrne, S. Schikowski, T., & Neale, R. E. (2022). Linkages between COVID-19, solar
UV radiation, and the Montreal Protocol. Chapter 2

90.

Berry, N. L., Overholt, E. P., Fisher, T. J., & Williamson, C. E. (2020). Dissolved organic matter protects mosquito larvae fromdamaging solar UV radiation. Plos One, 15(10), e0240261. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0240261

91.

Wood, C. L., & Johnson, P. T. (2015). A world without parasites: exploring the hidden ecology of infection. Frontiers in Ecology
and the Environment, 13(8), 425-434. https://doi.org/10.1890/140368

92.

Overholt, E. P., Duffy, M. A., Meeks, M. P., Leach, T. H., & Williamson, C. E. (2020). Light exposure decreases infectivity of theDaphnia parasite Pasteuria ramosa. Journal of Plankton Research, 42(1), 41-44. https://doi.org/10.1093/plankt/fbz070

93.

Rogalski, M. A., & Duffy, M. A. (2020). Local adaptation of a parasite to solar radiation impacts disease transmission potential,
spore yield, and host fecundity. Evolution, 74, 1856-1864. https://doi.org/10.1111/evo.13940

94.

Shaw, C. L., Hall, S. R., Overholt, E. P., Cáceres, C. E., Williamson, C. E., & Duffy, M. A. (2020). Shedding light on environmentallytransmitted parasites: lighter conditions within lakes restrict epidemic size. Ecology, 101(11), e03168. https://doi.org/10.1002/
ecy.316895.

Henard, C., Saraiva, M. R., Ściślak, M. E., Ruba, T., McLaggan, D., Noguera, P., & van West, P. (2022). Can ulcerative dermal
necrosis (UDN) in Atlantic salmon be attributed to ultraviolet radiation and secondary Saprolegnia parasitica infections? Fungal
Biology Reviews, 40, 70-75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fbr.2022.02.002

96.

Villafañe, V., Sundbäck, K., Figueroa, F., & Helbling, E. (2003). Photosynthesis in the aquatic environment as affected by UVR. In E.
W. Helbling, & H. E. Zagarese (Eds.), UV effects in aquatic organisms and ecosystems, (pp. 357-397). Royal Society of Chemistry.
https://doi.org/10.1039/9781847552266-00357

246Chapter 5
97.

García-Corral, L. S., Duarte, C. M., & Agusti, S. (2020). Impact of UV radiation on plankton net community production: responses
in Western Australian estuarine and coastal waters. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 651, 45-56. https://doi.org/10.3354/
meps13456

98.

Regaudie-de-Gioux, A., Agustí, S., & Duarte, C. M. (2014). UV sensitivity of planktonic net community production in ocean surface
waters. Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences, 119(5), 929-936. https://doi.org/10.1002/2013jg002566

99.

Ossola, R. (2021). Advancing the Photochemistry of Dissolved Organic Matter: Quantification of Singlet Oxygen and Formation
Mechanism of Selected Photoproducts. PhD Dissertation, ETH Zurich. https://doi.org/10.3929/ethz-b-000482128

100. Barnes, P. W., Robson, T. M., Zepp, R. G., Bornman, J. F., Jansen, M. A. K., Ossola, R., Wang, Q.-W., Robinson, S. A., Foereid,
B., Klekociuk, A. R., Martinez-Abaigar, J., Hou, W.-C., Mackenzie, R. L., & Paul, N. D. (2022). Interactive effects of changes in UV
radiation and climate on terrestrial ecosystems, biogeochemical cycles, and feedbacks to the climate system. Chapter 4
101. Madronich, S., Sulzberger, B., Longstreth, J. D., Schikowski, T., Andersen, M. P. S., Solomon, K. R., & Wilson, S. R. (2022).
Changes in tropospheric air quality related to the protection of stratospheric ozone and a changing climate. Chapter 6102. Hugelius, G., Strauss, J., Zubrzycki, S., Harden, J. W., Schuur, E. A. G., Ping, C. L., Schirrmeister, L., Grosse, G., Michaelson, G.
J., Koven, C. D., O'Donnell, J. A., Elberling, B., Mishra, U., Camill, P., Yu, Z., Palmtag, J., & Kuhry, P. (2014). Estimated stocks ofcircumpolar permafrost carbon with quantified uncertainty ranges and identified data gaps. Biogeosciences, 11(23), 6573-6593.
https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-11-6573-2014
103. Hugelius, G., Loisel, J., Chadburn, S., Jackson, R. B., Jones, M., MacDonald, G., Marushchak, M., Olefeldt, D., Packalen, M.,
Siewert, M. B., Treat, C., Turetsky, M., Voigt, C., & Yu, Z. (2020). Large stocks of peatland carbon and nitrogen are vulnerable
to permafrost thaw. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(34), 20438-20446. https://doi.org/10.1073/
pnas.1916387117
104. Gagné, K. R., Ewers, S. C., Murphy, C. J., Daanen, R., Walter Anthony, K., & Guerard, J. J. (2020). Composition and photoreactivity of organic matter from permafrost soils and surface waters in interior Alaska. Environmental Science: Processes &Impacts, 22(7), 1525-1539. https://doi.org/10.1039/d0em00097c
105. Allesson, L., Koehler, B., Thrane, J.-E., Andersen, T., & Hessen, D. O. (2021). The role of photomineralization for CO2 emissions
in boreal lakes along a gradient of dissolved organic matter. Limnology and Oceanography, 66(1), 158-170. https://doi.
org/10.1002/lno.11594
106. Koehler, B., Landelius, T., Weyhenmeyer, G. A., Machida, N., & Tranvik, L. J. (2014). Sunlight-induced carbon dioxide emissions
from inland waters. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 28(7), 2014GB004850. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014GB004850
107. Maavara, T., Logozzo, L., Stubbins, A., Aho, K., Brinkerhoff, C., Hosen, J., & Raymond, P. (2021). Does photomineralization ofdissolved organics matter in temperate rivers? Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences, 126(7), e2021JG006402.
https://doi.org/10.1029/2021JG006402
108. Clark, J. B., Long, W., & Hood, R. R. (2020). A comprehensive estuarine dissolved organic carbon budget using an enhanced
biogeochemical model. Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences, 125(5), e2019JG005442. https://doi.
org/10.1029/2019JG005442
109. Stubbins, A., Law, C. S., Uher, G., & Upstill-Goddard, R. C. (2011). Carbon monoxide apparent quantum yields andphotoproduction in the Tyne estuary. Biogeosciences, 8(3), 703-713. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-8-703-2011110. Zimov, S. A., Schuur, E. A. G., & Chapin, F. S. (2006). Permafrost and the global carbon budget. Science, 312(5780), 1612-1613.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1128908
111. Grunert, B. K., Tzortziou, M., Neale, P., Menendez, A., & Hernes, P. (2021). DOM degradation by light and microbes along the
Yukon River-coastal ocean continuum. Scientific Reports, 11(1), 10236. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-89327-9112. Rocher-Ros, G., Harms, T. K., Sponseller, R. A., Väisänen, M., Mörth, C.-M., & Giesler, R. (2021). Metabolism overrides
photo-oxidation in CO2 dynamics of Arctic permafrost streams. Limnology and Oceanography, 66(S1), 11564. https://doi.
org/10.1002/lno.11564
113. Stubbins, A., Mann, P. J., Powers, L., Bittar, T. B., Dittmar, T., McIntyre, C. P., Eglinton, T. I., Zimov, N., & Spencer, R. G. M. (2017).
Low photolability of yedoma permafrost dissolved organic carbon. Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences, 122(1),200-211. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JG003688
114. Bowen, J. C., Ward, C. P., Kling, G. W., & Cory, R. M. (2020). Arctic amplification of global warming strengthened bysunlight oxidation of permafrost carbon to CO2. Geophysical Research Letters, 47(12), e2020GL087085. https://doi.
org/10.1029/2020GL087085
115. Cory, R. M., Ward, C. P., Crump, B. C., & Kling, G. W. (2014). Sunlight controls water column processing of carbon in arctic fresh
waters. Science, 345(6199), 925-928. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1253119
116. Mazoyer, F., Laurion, I., & Rautio, M. (2022). The dominant role of sunlight in degrading winter dissolved organic matter from athermokarst lake in a subarctic peatland. Biogeosciences. 19(17), 3959-3977. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-19-3959-2022

247

Chapter 5
117. Koehler, B., Powers, L. C., Cory, R. M., Einarsdóttir, K., Gu, Y., Tranvik, L. J., Vähätalo, A. V., Ward, C. P., & Miller, W. L. (2022).
Inter-laboratory differences in the apparent quantum yield for the photochemical production of dissolved inorganic carbon in
inland waters and implications for photochemical rate modeling. Limnology and Oceanography: Methods, 20(6), 320-337.
https://doi.org/10.1002/lom3.10489
118. Zheng, B., Chevallier, F., Yin, Y., Ciais, P., Fortems-Cheiney, A., Deeter, M. N., Parker, R. J., Wang, Y., Worden, H. M., & Zhao,
Y. (2019). Global atmospheric carbon monoxide budget 2000–2017 inferred from multi-species atmospheric inversions. Earth
System Science Data, 11(3), 1411-1436. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-11-1411-2019
119. Conte, L., Szopa, S., Séférian, R., & Bopp, L. (2019). The oceanic cycle of carbon monoxide and its emissions to the atmosphere.
Biogeosciences, 16(4), 881-902. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-16-881-2019
120. Mopper, K., Kieber, D. J., & Stubbins, A. (2015). Marine photochemistry of organic matter: Processes and impacts. In C. A. Carlson(Ed.), Biogeochemistry of Marine Dissolved Organic Matter, (2nd ed., pp. 389-450). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/
B978-0-12-405940-5.00008-X
121. Reader, H. E., & Miller, W. L. (2012). Variability of carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide apparent quantum yield spectra in three
coastal estuaries of the South Atlantic Bight. Biogeosciences, 9(11), 4279-4294. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-9-4279-2012122. Campen, H. I., Arévalo-Martínez, D. L., Artioli, Y., Brown, I. J., Kitidis, V., Lessin, G., Rees, A. P., & Bange, H. W. (2022). The role ofa changing Arctic Ocean and climate for the biogeochemical cycling of dimethyl sulphide and carbon monoxide. Ambio, 51(2),411-422. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-021-01612-z
123. Song, G., & Xie, H. (2017). Spectral efficiencies of carbon monoxide photoproduction from particulate and dissolved
organic matter in laboratory cultures of Arctic sea ice algae. Marine Chemistry, 190, 51-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marchem.2017.02.002
124. Saunois, M., Stavert, A. R., Poulter, B., Bousquet, P., Canadell, J. G., Jackson, R. B., Raymond, P. A., Dlugokencky, E. J.,
Houweling, S., Patra, P. K., Ciais, P., Arora, V. K., Bastviken, D., Bergamaschi, P., Blake, D. R., Brailsford, G., Bruhwiler, L., Carlson,
K. M., Carrol, M., Castaldi, S., et al. (2020). The global methane budget 2000–2017. Earth System Science Data, 12(3), 15611623. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-12-1561-2020
125. Li, Y., Fichot, C. G., Geng, L., Scarratt, M. G., & Xie, H. (2020). The contribution of methane photoproduction to the oceanic
methane paradox. Geophysical Research Letters, 47(14), e2020GL088362. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL088362
126. Whelan, M. E., Lennartz, S. T., Gimeno, T. E., Wehr, R., Wohlfahrt, G., Wang, Y., Kooijmans, L. M. J., Hilton, T. W., Belviso, S.,
Peylin, P., Commane, R., Sun, W., Chen, H., Kuai, L., Mammarella, I., Maseyk, K., Berkelhammer, M., Li, K.-F., Yakir, D., Zumkehr,A., et al. (2018). Reviews and syntheses: Carbonyl sulfide as a multi-scale tracer for carbon and water cycles. Biogeosciences,15(12), 3625-3657. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-15-3625-2018
127. Launois, T., Belviso, S., Bopp, L., Fichot, C. G., & Peylin, P. (2015). A new model for the global biogeochemical cycle ofcarbonyl sulfide - Part 1: Assessment of direct marine emissions with an oceanic general circulation and biogeochemistry model.
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 15(5), 2295-2312. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-2295-2015
128. Lennartz, S. T., Marandino, C. A., von Hobe, M., Cortes, P., Quack, B., Simo, R., Booge, D., Pozzer, A., Steinhoff, T., ArevaloMartinez, D. L., Kloss, C., Bracher, A., Röttgers, R., Atlas, E., & Krüger, K. (2017). Direct oceanic emissions unlikely to accountfor the missing source of atmospheric carbonyl sulfide. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 17(1), 385-402. https://doi.
org/10.5194/acp-17-385-2017129. Lennartz, S. T., von Hobe, M., Booge, D., Bittig, H. C., Fischer, T., Gonçalves-Araujo, R., Ksionzek, K. B., Koch, B. P., Bracher,A., Röttgers, R., Quack, B., & Marandino, C. A. (2019). The influence of dissolved organic matter on the marine production ofcarbonyl sulfide (OCS) and carbon disulfide (CS2) in the Peruvian upwelling. Ocean Science, 15(4), 1071-1090. https://doi.
org/10.5194/os-15-1071-2019
130. Cory, R. M., & Kling, G. W. (2018). Interactions between sunlight and microorganisms influence dissolved organic matter
degradation along the aquatic continuum. Limnology and Oceanography Letters, 3(3), 102-116. https://doi.org/10.1002/
lol2.10060
131. Ward, C. P., Nalven, S. G., Crump, B. C., Kling, G. W., & Cory, R. M. (2017). Photochemical alteration of organic carbon draining
permafrost soils shifts microbial metabolic pathways and stimulates respiration. Nature Communications, 8(1), 772. https://doi.
org/10.1038/s41467-017-00759-2
132. Nalven, S. G., Ward, C. P., Payet, J. P., Cory, R. M., Kling, G. W., Sharpton, T. J., Sullivan, C. M., & Crump, B. C. (2020).
Experimental metatranscriptomics reveals the costs and benefits of dissolved organic matter photo-alteration for freshwater
microbes. Environmental Microbiology, 22(8), 3505-3521. https://doi.org/10.1111/1462-2920.15121
133. Ward, C. P., & Cory, R. M. (2020). Assessing the prevalence, products, and pathways of dissolved organic matter partial photooxidation in arctic surface waters. Environmental Science: Processes & Impacts, 22, 1214-1223. https://doi.org/10.1039/
C9EM00504H

248

Chapter 5
134. Cory, R. M., McNeill, K., Cotner, J. B., Amado, A., Purcell, J. M., & Marshall, A. G. (2010). Singlet oxygen in the coupled
photochemical and biochemical oxidation of dissolved organic matter. Environmental Science & Technology, 44(10), 3683-3689.
https://doi.org/10.1021/es902989y
135. Clark, J. B., Neale, P., Tzortziou, M., Cao, F., & Hood, R. R. (2019). A mechanistic model of photochemical transformationand degradation of colored dissolved organic matter. Marine Chemistry, 214, 103666. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marchem.2019.103666
136. Ossola, R., Tolu, J., Clerc, B., Erickson, P. R., Winkel, L. H. E., & McNeill, K. (2019). Photochemical production of sulfate andmethanesulfonic acid from dissolved organic sulfur. Environmental Science & Technology, 53(22), 13191-13200. https://doi.
org/10.1021/acs.est.9b04721
137. Doane, T. A. (2017). The abiotic nitrogen cycle. ACS Earth and Space Chemistry, 1(7), 411-421. https://doi.org/10.1021/
acsearthspacechem.7b00059
138. von Friesen, L. W., & Riemann, L. (2020). Nitrogen fixation in a changing Arctic ocean: An overlooked source of nitrogen?
Frontiers in Microbiology, 11, 596426. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2020.596426
139. Bowen, J. (2021). Impact of Dissolved Organic Matter Photodegradation on Carbon and Nitrogen Cycling in Freshwaters. Thesis,
University of Michigan. https://doi.org/10.7302/3033
140. Vähätalo, A. V., Salonen, K. M., & Wetzel, R. G. (2003). Photochemical transformation of allochthonous organic matterprovides bioavailable nutrients in a humic lake. Archiv für Hydrobiologie, 156(3), 287-324. https://doi.org/10.1127/00039136/2003/0156-0287
141. Yang, Y., Sun, P., Padhye, L. P., & Zhang, R. (2020). Photo-ammonification in surface water samples: Mechanism and influencing
factors. Science of the Total Environment, 759, 143547. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.143547
142. Guo, M., Li, X., Song, C., Liu, G., & Zhou, Y. (2020). Photo-induced phosphate release during sediment resuspension inshallow lakes: A potential positive feedback mechanism of eutrophication. Environmental Pollution, 258, 113679. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.envpol.2019.113679
143. Li, X., Zhou, Y., Liu, G., Lei, H., & Zhu, D. (2017). Mechanisms of the photochemical release of phosphate from resuspended
sediments under solar irradiation. Science of the Total Environment, 595(Supplement C), 779-786. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2017.04.039
144. Cheng, F., Zhang, T., Liu, Y., Zhang, Y., & Qu, J. (2021). Non-negligible effects of UV irradiation on transformation andenvironmental risks of microplastics in the water environment. Journal of Xenobiotics, 12(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.3390/
jox12010001
145. Jansen, M. A. K., Barnes, P. W., Bornman, J. F., Rose, K. C., Madronich, S., White, C. C., Zepp, R. G., & Andrady, A. L. (2022). The
Montreal Protocol and the fate of environmental plastic debris. Chapter 8146. Wilson, B. D., Moon, S., & Armstrong, F. (2012). Comprehensive review of ultraviolet radiation and the current status on
sunscreens. The Journal of Clinical and Aesthetic Dermatology, 5(9), 18-23.
147. Downs, C. A., Cruz, O. T., & Remengesau, T. E. (2022). Sunscreen pollution and tourism governance: Science and innovation
are necessary for biodiversity conservation and sustainable tourism. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems,
32(5), 896-906. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.3791
148. Schneider, S. L., & Lim, H. W. (2019). Review of environmental effects of oxybenzone and other sunscreen active ingredients.
Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 80(1), 266-271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2018.06.033
149. Tovar-Sanchez, A., Sanchez-Quiles, D., & Rodriguez-Romero, A. (2019). Massive coastal tourism influx to the Mediterranean
Sea: The environmental risk of sunscreens. Science of the Total Environment, 656, 316-321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2018.11.399
150. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2022). Review of Fate, Exposure, and Effects of Sunscreens in
Aquatic Environments and Implications for Sunscreen Usage and Human Health. The National Academies Press, Washington,
D.C. https://doi.org/10.17226/26381
151. Mitchelmore, C. L., He, K., Gonsior, M., Hain, E., Heyes, A., Clark, C., Younger, R., Schmitt-Kopplin, P., Feerick, A., Conway,
A., & Blaney, L. (2019). Occurrence and distribution of UV-filters and other anthropogenic contaminants in coastal surface
water, sediment, and coral tissue from Hawaii. Science of the Total Environment, 670, 398-410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2019.03.034
152. de Miranda, L. L. R., Harvey, K. E., Ahmed, A., & Harvey, S. C. (2021). UV-filter pollution: current concerns and future prospects.
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 193(12), 840. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-021-09626-6
153. Lozano, C., Matallana-Surget, S., Givens, J., Nouet, S., Arbuckle, L., Lambert, Z., & Lebaron, P. (2020). Toxicity of UV filters on
marine bacteria: Combined effects with damaging solar radiation. Science of the Total Environment, 722, 137803. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137803

249

Chapter 5
154. Vuckovic, D., Tinoco, A. I., Ling, L., Renicke, C., Pringle, J. R., & Mitch, W. A. (2022). Conversion of oxybenzone sunscreen to
phototoxic glucoside conjugates by sea anemones and corals. Science, 376(6593), 644-648. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.
abn2600
155. Yuan, S., Huang, J., Jiang, X., Huang, Y., Zhu, X., & Cai, Z. (2022). Environmental fate and toxicity of sunscreen-derived Inorganic
ultraviolet filters in aquatic environments: A review. Nanomaterials, 12(4), 699. https://doi.org/10.3390/nano12040699
156. He, K., Hain, E., Timm, A., Tarnowski, M., & Blaney, L. (2019). Occurrence of antibiotics, estrogenic hormones, and UV-filters inwater, sediment, and oyster tissue from the Chesapeake Bay. Science of the Total Environment, 650(Pt 2), 3101-3109. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.10.021
157. Du, Y., Wang, W. Q., Pei, Z. T., Ahmad, F., Xu, R. R., Zhang, Y. M., & Sun, L. W. (2017). Acute toxicity and ecological risk
assessment of benzophenone-3 (BP-3) and benzophenone-4 (BP-4) in ultraviolet (UV)-filters. International Journal ofEnvironmental Research and Public Health, 14(11), 1414. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14111414
158. Downs, C. A., Bishop, E., Diaz-Cruz, M. S., Haghshenas, S. A., Stien, D., Rodrigues, A. M. S., Woodley, C. M., Sunyer-Caldú,A., Doust, S. N., Espero, W., Ward, G., Farhangmehr, A., Tabatabaee Samimi, S. M., Risk, M. J., Lebaron, P., & DiNardo, J. C.
(2022). Oxybenzone contamination from sunscreen pollution and its ecological threat to Hanauma Bay, Oahu, Hawaii, U.S.A.
Chemosphere, 291, 132880. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.132880
159. Moeller, M., Pawlowski, S., Petersen-Thiery, M., Miller, I. B., Nietzer, S., Heisel-Sure, Y., Kellermann, M. Y., & Schupp, P. J. (2021).
Challenges in current coral reef protection – Possible impacts of UV filters used in sunscreens, a critical review. Frontiers in Marine
Science, 8, 665548. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2021.665548
160. Araújo, C. V. M., Rodríguez-Romero, A., Fernández, M., Sparaventi, E., Medina, M. M., & Tovar-Sánchez, A. (2020). Repellency
and mortality effects of sunscreens on the shrimp Palaemon varians: Toxicity dependent on exposure method. Chemosphere,
257, 127190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.127190
161. He, T., Tsui, M. M. P., Tan, C. J., Ma, C. Y., Yiu, S. K. F., Wang, L. H., Chen, T. H., Fan, T. Y., Lam, P. K. S., & Murphy, M. B. (2019).
Toxicological effects of two organic ultraviolet filters and a related commercial sunscreen product in adult corals. Environmental
Pollution, 245, 462-471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2018.11.029
162. He, T., Tsui, M. M. P., Tan, C. J., Ng, K. Y., Guo, F. W., Wang, L. H., Chen, T. H., Fan, T. Y., Lam, P. K. S., & Murphy, M. B. (2019).
Comparative toxicities of four benzophenone ultraviolet filters to two life stages of two coral species. Science of the Total
Environment, 651, 2391-2399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.10.148
163. Fitt, W. K., & Hofmann, D. K. (2020). The effects of the UV-blocker oxybenzone (benzophenone-3) on planulae swimming andmetamorphosis of the Scyphozoans Cassiopea xamachana and Cassiopea frondosa. Oceans, 1(4), 174-180. https://doi.
org/10.3390/oceans1040013
164. Cocci, P., Mosconi, G., & Palermo, F. A. (2020). Sunscreen active ingredients in loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta) and theirrelation to molecular markers of inflammation, oxidative stress and hormonal activity in wild populations. Marine Pollution Bulletin,
153, 111012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.111012
165. Raffa, R. B., Pergolizzi, J. V., Taylor, R., & Kitzen, J. M. (2019). Sunscreen bans: Coral reefs and skin cancer. Journal of ClinicalPharmacy and Therapeutics, 44(1), 134-139. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpt.12778
166. Catalano, R., Labille, J., Gaglio, D., Alijagic, A., Napodano, E., Slomberg, D., Campos, A., & Pinsino, A. (2020). Safety evaluationof TiO2 nanoparticle-based sunscreen UV Filters on the development and the immunological state of the sea urchin Paracentrotus
lividus. Nanomaterials, 10(11), 2102. https://doi.org/10.3390/nano10112102
167. Corinaldesi, C., Marcellini, F., Nepote, E., Damiani, E., & Danovaro, R. (2018). Impact of inorganic UV filters contained insunscreen products on tropical stony corals (Acropora spp.). Science of the Total Environment, 637-638, 1279-1285. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.05.108
168. Fel, J.-P., Lacherez, C., Bensetra, A., Mezzache, S., Béraud, E., Léonard, M., Allemand, D., & Ferrier-Pagès, C. (2018).
Photochemical response of the scleractinian coral Stylophora pistillata to some sunscreen ingredients. Coral Reefs, 38(1), 109122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00338-018-01759-4
169. Cunningham, B., Torres-Duarte, C., Cherr, G., & Adams, N. (2020). Effects of three zinc-containing sunscreens on developmentof purple sea urchin (Strongylocentrotus purpuratus) embryos. Aquatic Toxicology, 218, 105355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
aquatox.2019.105355
170. Hanigan, D., Truong, L., Schoepf, J., Nosaka, T., Mulchandani, A., Tanguay, R. L., & Westerhoff, P. (2018). Trade-offs in ecosystem
impacts from nanomaterial versus organic chemical ultraviolet filters in sunscreens. Water Research, 139, 281-290. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.watres.2018.03.062
171. Fastelli, P., & Renzi, M. (2019). Exposure of key marine species to sunscreens: Changing ecotoxicity as a possible indirect effect of
global warming. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 149, 110517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.110517

250

Chapter 5
172. Chaves Lopes, F., Rosa de Castro, M., Caldas Barbosa, S., Primel, E. G., & de Martinez Gaspar Martins, C. (2020). Effect of the
UV filter, Benzophenone-3, on biomarkers of the yellow clam (Amarilladesma mactroides) under different pH conditions. Marine
Pollution Bulletin, 158, 111401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.111401
173. Wijgerde, T., van Ballegooijen, M., Nijland, R., van der Loos, L., Kwadijk, C., Osinga, R., Murk, A., & Slijkerman, D. (2020).
Adding insult to injury: Effects of chronic oxybenzone exposure and elevated temperature on two reef-building corals. Science of
the Total Environment, 733, 139030. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.139030
174. Rosic, N. N. (2019). Mycosporine-like amino acids: Making the foundation for organic personalised sunscreens. Marine drugs,
17(11), 638. https://doi.org/10.3390/md17110638
175. Sen, S., & Mallick, N. (2021). Mycosporine-like amino acids: Algal metabolites shaping the safety and sustainability profiles ofcommercial sunscreens. Algal Research, 58, 102425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2021.102425
176. Singh, A., Čížková, M., Bišová, K., & Vítová, M. (2021). Exploring mycosporine-like amino acids (MAAs) as safe and naturalprotective agents against UV-induced skin damage. Antioxidants, 10(5), 683. https://doi.org/10.3390/antiox10050683
177. Rangel, K. C. (2020). Assessment of the photoprotective potential and toxicity of Antarctic red macroalgae extracts from Curdiea
racovitzae and Iridaea cordata for cosmetic use. Algal Research, 50, 101984. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2020.101984
178. Woolley, J. M., Staniforth, M., Horbury, M. D., Richings, G. W., Wills, M., & Stavros, V. G. (2018). Unravelling the photoprotection
properties of mycosporine amino acid motifs. The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters, 9(11), 3043-3048. https://doi.
org/10.1021/acs.jpclett.8b00921
179. Geraldes, V., & Pinto, E. (2021). Mycosporine-like amino acids (MAAs): Biology, chemistry and identification features.
Pharmaceuticals, 14(1), 63. https://doi.org/10.3390/ph14010063
180. Bhatia, S., Sardana, S., Sharma, A., Vargas De La Cruz, C. B., Chaugule, B., & Khodaie, L. (2019). Development of broad
spectrum mycosporine loaded sunscreen formulation from Ulva fasciata delile. BioMedicine, 9(3), 17. https://doi.org/10.1051/
bmdcn/2019090317
181. Lawrence, K. P., Long, P. F., & Young, A. R. (2019). Mycosporine-like amino acids for skin photoprotection. Current Medicinal
Chemistry, 25(40), 5512-5527. https://doi.org/10.2174/0929867324666170529124237
182. Prasedya, E. S., Syafitri, S. M., Geraldine, B. A., Hamdin, C. D., Frediansyah, A., Miyake, M., Kobayashi, D., Hazama, A., &Sunarpi, H. (2019). UVA photoprotective activity of Brown macroalgae Sargassum cristafolium. Biomedicines, 7(4), 77. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines7040077
183. Yang, G., Cozad, M. A., Holland, D. A., Zhang, Y., Luesch, H., & Ding, Y. (2018). Photosynthetic production of sunscreen
shinorine using an engineered cyanobacterium. ACS Synthetic Biology, 7(2), 664-671. https://doi.org/10.1021/
acssynbio.7b00397
184. Bhatia, S., Al-Harrasi, A., Behl, T., Anwer, M. K., Ahmed, M. M., Mittal, V., Kaushik, D., Chigurupati, S., Kabir, M. T., Sharma, P.
B., Chaugule, B., & Vargas-de-la-Cruz, C. (2021). Unravelling the photoprotective effects of freshwater alga Nostoc commune
Vaucher ex Bornet et Flahault against ultraviolet radiations. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(10), 14380-14392.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-16704-2
185. Amador-Castro, F., Rodriguez-Martinez, V., & Carrillo-Nieves, D. (2020). Robust natural ultraviolet filters from marine ecosystems
for the formulation of environmental friendlier bio-sunscreens. Science of the Total Environment, 749, 141576. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141576
186. Sánchez-Suárez, J., Villamil, L., Coy-Barrera, E., & Díaz, L. (2021). Cliona varians-derived actinomycetes as bioresources ofphotoprotection-related Bioactive end-products. Marine Drugs, 19(12), 674. https://doi.org/10.3390/md19120674
187. Brunt, E. G., & Burgess, J. G. (2018). The promise of marine molecules as cosmetic active ingredients. International Journal of
Cosmetic Science, 40(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1111/ics.12435
188. Vega, J., Bonomi-Barufi, J., Gómez-Pinchetti, J. L., & Figueroa, F. L. (2020). Cyanobacteria and red macroalgae as potential sourcesof antioxidants and UV radiation-absorbing compounds for cosmeceutical applications. Marine Drugs, 18(12), 659. https://doi.
org/10.3390/md18120659
189. Andrady, A. L., Heikkilä, A. M., Pandey, K. K., Bruckman, L. S., White, C. C., Zhu, M., & Zhu, L. (2022). Effects of UV radiation on
natural and synthetic materials. Chapter 7
190. Ward, C. P., & Overton, E. B. (2020). How the 2010 Deepwater Horizon spill reshaped our understanding of crude oil
photochemical weathering at sea: a past, present, and future perspective. Environmental Science: Processes & Impacts, 22(5),1125-1138. https://doi.org/10.1039/d0em00027b191. Freeman, D. H., & Ward, C. P. (2022). Sunlight-driven dissolution is a major fate of oil at sea. Science Advances, 8(7), eabl7605.
https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abl7605

251Chapter 5
192. Zito, P., Podgorski, D. C., Bartges, T., Guillemette, F., Roebuck, J. A., Spencer, R. G. M., Rodgers, R. P., & Tarr, M. A. (2020).
Sunlight-induced molecular progression of oil into oxidized oil soluble species, interfacial material, and dissolved organic matter.
Energy & Fuels, 34(4), 4721-4726. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.9b04408
193. Nordborg, F. M., Jones, R. J., Oelgemoller, M., & Negri, A. P. (2020). The effects of ultraviolet radiation and climate on oil
toxicity to coral reef organisms - A review. Science of the Total Environment, 720, 137486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2020.137486
194. Nordborg, F. M., Brinkman, D. L., Ricardo, G. F., Agustí, S., & Negri, A. P. (2021). Comparative sensitivity of the early life
stages of a coral to heavy fuel oil and UV radiation. Science of the Total Environment, 781, 146676. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2021.146676
195. Nielsen, K. M., Alloy, M. M., Damare, L., Palmer, I., Forth, H. P., Morris, J., Stoeckel, J. A., & Roberts, A. P. (2020). Planktonic
fiddler crab (Uca longisignalis) are susceptible to photoinduced toxicity following in ovo exposure in oiled mesocosms.
Environmental Science & Technology, 54(10), 6254-6261. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c00215
196. Knightes, C. D., Ambrose Jr, R. B., Avant, B., Han, Y., Acrey, B., Bouchard, D. C., Zepp, R., & Wool, T. (2019). Modeling frameworkfor simulating concentrations of solute chemicals, nanoparticles, and solids in surface waters and sediments: WASP8 Advanced
Toxicant Module. Environmental Modelling & Software, 111, 444-458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2018.10.012
197. Vione, D., & Scozzaro, A. (2019). Photochemistry of surface fresh waters in the framework of climate change. Environmental
Science & Technology, 53(14), 7945-7963. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b00968
198. Han, Y., Knightes, C. D., Bouchard, D., Zepp, R., Avant, B., Hsieh, H.-S., Chang, X., Acrey, B., Henderson, W. M., & Spear, J.
(2019). Simulating graphene oxide nanomaterial phototransformation and transport in surface water. Environmental Science:
Nano, 6(1), 180-194. https://doi.org/10.1039/C8EN01088A
199. Beecraft, L., Watson, S. B., & Smith, R. E. H. (2019). Innate resistance of PSII efficiency to sunlight stress is not an advantage forcyanobacteria compared to eukaryotic phytoplankton. Aquatic Ecology, 53(3), 347-364. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10452-01909694-4
200. Paerl, H. W., Otten, T. G., & Kudela, R. (2018). Mitigating the expansion of harmful algal blooms across the freshwater-to-marine
continuum. Environmental Science & Technology, 52(10), 5519-5529. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b05950
201. Wang, X., Feng, X., Zhuang, Y., Lu, J., Wang, Y., Gonçalves, R. J., Li, X., Lou, Y., & Guan, W. (2019). Effects of ocean acidificationand solar ultraviolet radiation on physiology and toxicity of dinoflagellate Karenia mikimotoi. Harmful Algae, 81, 1-9. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.hal.2018.11.013
202. Ren, L., Wang, P., Wang, C., Paerl, H. W., & Wang, H. (2020). Effects of phosphorus availability and phosphorus utilization
behavior of Microcystis aeruginosa on its adaptation capability to ultraviolet radiation. Environmental Pollution, 256, 113441.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2019.113441
203. Xu, Z., Gao, G., Tu, B., Qiao, H., Ge, H., & Wu, H. (2019). Physiological response of the toxic and non-toxic strains of a bloomforming cyanobacterium Microcystis aeruginosa to changing ultraviolet radiation regimes. Hydrobiologia, 833(1), 143-156.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-019-3896-9
204. Jokiel, P. L. (1980). Solar ultraviolet radiation and coral reef epifauna. Science, 207(4435), 1069-1071. https://doi.org/10.1126/
science.207.4435.1069
205. Figueroa, F. L. (2021). Mycosporine-like amino acids from marine resource. Marine Drugs, 19(1), 18. https://doi.org/10.3390/
md19010018
206. Llewellyn, C. A., & Airs, R. L. (2010). Distribution and abundance of MAAs in 33 species of microalgae across 13 classes. Marine
Drugs, 8(4), 1273-1291. https://doi.org/10.3390/md8041273
207. Bandaranayake, W. M. (1998). Mycosporines: are they nature’s sunscreens? Natural Product Reports, 15(2), 159-172. https://doi.
org/10.1039/A815159Y
208. Banaszak, A. T., & Lesser, M. P. (2009). Effects of solar ultraviolet radiation on coral reef organisms. Photochemical &Photobiological Sciences, 8(9), 1276-1294. https://doi.org/10.1039/b902763g
209. Bentley, R. (1990). The shikimate pathway--a metabolic tree with many branches. Critical Reviews in Biochemistry and Molecular
Biology, 25(5), 307-384. https://doi.org/10.3109/10409239009090615
210. Lalegerie, F., Stiger-Pouvreau, V., & Connan, S. (2020). Temporal variation in pigment and mycosporine-like amino acidcomposition of the red macroalga Palmaria palmata from Brittany (France): Hypothesis on the MAA biosynthesis pathway underhigh irradiance. Journal of Applied Phycology, 32(4), 2641-2656. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10811-020-02075-7
211. Nishida, Y., Kumagai, Y., Michiba, S., Yasui, H., & Kishimura, H. (2020). Efficient extraction and antioxidant capacity of
mycosporine-like amino acids from red alga dulse Palmaria palmata in Japan. Marine Drugs, 18(10), 502. https://doi.
org/10.3390/md18100502

252

Chapter 5212. Orfanoudaki, M., Hartmann, A., Karsten, U., Ganzera, M., & Müller, K. (2019). Chemical profiling of mycosporine-like amino acidsin twenty-three red algal species. Journal of Phycology, 55(2), 393-403. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpy.12827
213. Sun, Y., Zhang, N., Zhou, J., Dong, S., Zhang, X., Guo, L., & Guo, G. (2020). Distribution, contents, and types of mycosporinelike amino acids (MAAs) in marine macroalgae and a database for MAAs based on these characteristics. Marine Drugs, 18(1), 43.
https://doi.org/10.3390/md18010043
214. Hylander, S. (2020). Mycosporine-like amino acids (MAAs) in zooplankton. Marine Drugs, 18(2), 72. https://doi.org/10.3390/
md18020072
215. Kokabi, M., Yousefzadi, M., Nejad Ebrahimi, S., & Zarei, M. (2020). Extraction and characterization of UV-absorbing compounds
from sea urchin Echinometra mathaei. Aquatics Physiology and Biotechnology, 8(8), 99-115. https://doi.org/10.22124/
japb.2020.14293.1346
216. Pathak, J., Ahmed, H., Singh, P. R., Singh, S. P., Häder, D.-P., & Sinha, R. P. (2019). Mechanisms of photoprotection incyanobacteria. In A. K. Mishra, D. N. Tiwari, & A. N. Rai (Eds.), Cyanobacteria, (pp. 145-171). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/
b978-0-12-814667-5.00007-6
217. Xu, J., Zhang, X., Fu, Q., Gao, G., & Gao, K. (2018). Water depth-dependant photosynthetic and growth rates of Gracilaria
lemaneiformis, with special reference to effects of solar UV radiation. Aquaculture, 484, 28-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
aquaculture.2017.10.035
218. Gómez, I., Navarro, N. P., & Huovinen, P. (2019). Bio-optical and physiological patterns in Antarctic seaweeds: A functional
trait based approach to characterize vertical zonation. Progress in Oceanography, 174, 17-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
pocean.2018.03.013
219. Jofre, J., Celis-Plá, P. S. M., Figueroa, F. L., & Navarro, N. P. (2020). Seasonal variation of mycosporine-like amino acids in threesubantarctic red seaweeds. Marine Drugs, 18(2), 75. https://doi.org/10.3390/md18020075
220. Lalegerie, F., Gager, L., Stiger-Pouvreau, V., & Connan, S. (2020). The stressful life of red and brown seaweeds on the temperateintertidal zone: Effect of abiotic and biotic parameters on the physiology of macroalgae and content variability of particular
metabolites. In N. Bourgougnon (Ed.), Seaweeds Around the World: State of Art and Perspectives, 95, (pp. 247-287). https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.abr.2019.11.007
221. Gómez, I., & Huovinen, P. (2020). Brown algal phlorotannins: an overview of their functional roles. In I. Gómez, & P. Huovinen(Eds.), Antarctic Seaweeds, (pp. 365-388). Springer Cham, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-39448-6_18
222. Mannino, A. M., & Micheli, C. (2020). Ecological function of phenolic compounds from mediterranean fucoid algae andseagrasses: An overview on the genus Cystoseira sensu lato and Posidonia oceanica (L.) Delile. Journal of Marine Science andEngineering, 8(1), 19. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse8010019
223. Polo, L. K., & Chow, F. (2020). Physiological performance by growth rate, pigment and protein content of the brown seaweed
Sargassum filipendula (Ochrophyta: Fucales) induced by moderate UV radiation exposure in the laboratory. Scientia Marina,
84(1), 59. https://doi.org/10.3989/scimar.04982.22A
224. Schmitz, C., Ramlov, F., de Lucena, L. A. F., Uarrota, V., Batista, M. B., Sissini, M. N., Oliveira, I., Briani, B., Martins, C. D. L., Nunes,
J. M. d. C., Rörig, L., Horta, P. A., Figueroa, F. L., Korbee, N., Maraschin, M., & Bonomi-Barufi, J. (2018). UVR and PAR absorbing
compounds of marine brown macroalgae along a latitudinal gradient of the Brazilian coast. Journal of Photochemistry andPhotobiology B: Biology, 178, 165-174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jphotobiol.2017.10.029
225. Pescheck, F. (2019). UV-A screening in Cladophora sp. lowers internal UV-A availability and photoreactivation as compared to
non-UV screening in Ulva intestinalis. Photochemical & Photobiological Sciences, 18(2), 413-423. https://doi.org/10.1039/
C8PP00432C
226. Berkelmans, R., & Willis, B. L. (1999). Seasonal and local spatial patterns in the upper thermal limits of corals on the inshore Central
Great Barrier Reef. Coral Reefs, 18(3), 219-228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s003380050186
227. Hoegh-Guldberg, O. (1999). Climate change, coral bleaching and the future of the world's coral reefs. Marine and Freshwater
Research, 50(8), 839-866. https://doi.org/10.1071/mf99078
228. van de Water, J. A. J. M., Courtial, L., Houlbrèque, F., Jacquet, S., & Ferrier-Pagès, C. (2018). Ultraviolet radiation has alimited impact on seasonal differences in the Acropora muricata holobiont. Frontiers in Marine Science, 5, 275. https://doi.
org/10.3389/fmars.2018.00275
229. Zhou, J., Fan, T.-Y., Beardall, J., & Gao, K. (2017). UV-A induced delayed development in the larvae of coral Seriatopora
caliendrum. Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology B: Biology, 167, 249-255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jphotobiol.2017.01.007
230. Zhou, J., Huang, H., Beardall, J., & Gao, K. (2017). Effect of UV radiation on the expulsion of Symbiodinium from the coral
Pocillopora damicornis. Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology B: Biology, 166, 12-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jphotobiol.2016.11.003

253

Chapter 5
231. Mouchi, V., Chapron, L., Peru, E., Pruski, A. M., Meistertzheim, A. L., Vetion, G., Galand, P. E., & Lartaud, F. (2019). Long-term
aquaria study suggests species-specific responses of two cold-water corals to macro-and microplastics exposure. Environmental
Pollution, 253, 322-329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2019.07.024
232. Nordborg, F. M., Flores, F., Brinkman, D. L., Agustí, S., & Negri, A. P. (2018). Phototoxic effects of two common marine fuels on
the settlement success of the coral Acropora tenuis. Scientific Reports, 8(1), 8635. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-269727
233. McCauley, M., Banaszak, A. T., & Goulet, T. L. (2018). Species traits dictate seasonal-dependent responses of octocoral–algal
symbioses to elevated temperature and ultraviolet radiation. Coral Reefs, 37(3), 901-917. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00338-0181716-8
234. Banaszak, A. T., Barba Santos, M. G., LaJeunesse, T. C., & Lesser, M. P. (2006). The distribution of mycosporine-like amino acids(MAAs) and the phylogenetic identity of symbiotic dinoflagellates in cnidarian hosts from the Mexican Caribbean. Journal of
Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 337(2), 131-146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jembe.2006.06.014
235. Courtial, L., Planas Bielsa, V., Houlbrèque, F., & Ferrier-Pagès, C. (2018). Effects of ultraviolet radiation and nutrient level on thephysiological response and organic matter release of the scleractinian coral Pocillopora damicornis following thermal stress. Plos
One, 13(10), e0205261. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0205261
236. Blanckaert, A. C. A., de Barros Marangoni, L. F., Rottier, C., Grover, R., & Ferrier-Pagès, C. (2021). Low levels of ultra-violet
radiation mitigate the deleterious effects of nitrate and thermal stress on coral photosynthesis. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 167,
112257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2021.112257
237. Henley, E. M., Quinn, M., Bouwmeester, J., Daly, J., Zuchowicz, N., Lager, C., Bailey, D. W., & Hagedorn, M. (2021). Reproductive
plasticity of Hawaiian Montipora corals following thermal stress. Scientific Reports, 11(1), 12525 https://doi.org/10.1038/
s41598-021-91030-8
238. Álvarez-Gómez, F., Korbee, N., Casas-Arrojo, V., Abdala-Díaz, R., & Figueroa, F. (2019). UV Photoprotection, cytotoxicity andimmunology capacity of red algae extracts. Molecules, 24(2), 341. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules24020341
239. Bonaventura, R., & Matranga, V. (2017). Overview of the molecular defense systems used by sea urchin embryos to cope with UVradiation. Marine Environmental Research, 128, 25-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marenvres.2016.05.019
240. Shick, J. M., Romaine-Lioud, S., Romaine-Lioud, S., Ferrier-Pagès, C., & Gattuso, J. P. (1999). Ultraviolet-B radiation stimulates
shikimate pathway-dependent accumulation of mycosporine-like amino acids in the coral Stylophora pistillata despite decreases
in its population of symbiotic dinoflagellates. Limnology and Oceanography, 44(7), 1667-1682. https://doi.org/10.4319/
lo.1999.44.7.1667
241. Cubillos, V. M., Ramírez, E. F., Cruces, E., Montory, J. A., Segura, C. J., & Mardones, D. A. (2018). Temporal changes inenvironmental conditions of a mid-latitude estuary (southern Chile) and its influences in the cellular response of the euryhaline
anemone Anthopleura hermaphroditica. Ecological Indicators, 88, 169-180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.01.015
242. Brasseur, L., Demeyer, M., Decroo, C., Caulier, G., Flammang, P., Gerbaux, P., & Eeckhaut, I. (2018). Identification andquantification of spinochromes in body compartments of Echinometra mathaei’s coloured types. Royal Society Open Science,
5(8), 171213. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.171213
243. Hylander, S., Grenvald, J. C., Kiørboe, T., & Pfrender, M. (2014). Fitness costs and benefits of ultraviolet radiation exposure inmarine pelagic copepods. Functional Ecology, 28(1), 149-158. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.12159
244. Williamson, C. E., Neale, P. J., Grad, G., De Lange, H. J., & Hargreaves, B. R. (2001). Beneficial and detrimental effects of UV
radiation: Implications of variation in the spectral composition of environmental radiation for aquatic organisms. EcologicalApplications, 11, 1843-1857. https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(2001)011[1843:BADEOU]2.0.CO;2245. Sonntag, B., & Sommaruga, R. (2020). Effectiveness of photoprotective strategies in three mixotrophic planktonic ciliate species.
Diversity, 12(6), 252. https://doi.org/10.3390/d12060252
246. Neale, R. E., Barnes, P. W., Robson, T. M., Neale, P. J., Williamson, C. E., Zepp, R. G., Wilson, S. R., Madronich, S., Andrady,
A. L., Heikkila, A. M., Bernhard, G. H., Bais, A. F., Aucamp, P. J., Banaszak, A. T., Bornman, J. F., Bruckman, L. S., Byrne, S. N.,
Foereid, B., Hader, D. P., Hollestein, L. M., et al. (2021). Environmental effects of stratospheric ozone depletion, UV radiation, andinteractions with climate change: UNEP Environmental Effects Assessment Panel, Update 2020. Photochemical & Photobiological
Sciences, 20(1), 1-67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43630-020-00001-x
247. Laspoumaderes, C., Bastidas Navarro, M., Souza, M. S., Modenutti, B., & Balseiro, E. (2019). Effect of ultraviolet radiation on
clearance rate of planktonic copepods with different photoprotective strategies. International Review of Hydrobiology, 104(1-2),
34-44. https://doi.org/10.1002/iroh.201801960
248. Wolinski, L., Souza, M. S., Modenutti, B., & Balseiro, E. (2020). Effect of chronic UVR exposure on zooplankton molting andgrowth. Environmental Pollution, 267, 115448. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2020.115448
249. Bancroft, B. A., Baker, N. J., & Blaustein, A. R. (2007). Effects of UVB radiation on marine and freshwater organisms: a synthesis
through meta-analysis. Ecology Letters, 10(4), 332-345. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2007.01022.x

254

Chapter 5
250. Llabrés, M., Agustí, S., Fernández, M., Canepa, A., Maurin, F., Vidal, F., Duarte, C. M., & Rex, M. (2013). Impact of elevated UVB
radiation on marine biota: a meta-analysis. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 22(1), 131-144. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.14668238.2012.00784.x
251. Peng, X., Fan, Y., Jin, J., Xiong, S., Liu, J., & Tang, C. (2017). Bioaccumulation and biomagnification of ultraviolet absorbents inmarine wildlife of the Pearl River Estuarine, South China Sea. Environmental Pollution, 225, 55-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envpol.2017.03.035
252. Bashevkin, S. M., Christy, J. H., & Morgan, S. G. (2020). Costs and compensation in zooplankton pigmentation undercountervailing threats of ultraviolet radiation and predation. Oecologia, 193(1), 111-123. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-02004648-2
253. Bashevkin, S. M., Christy, J. H., Morgan, S. G., & Clusella Trullas, S. (2019). Adaptive specialization and constraint inmorphological defences of planktonic larvae. Functional Ecology, 34(1), 217-228. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.13464
254. Eshun-Wilson, F., Wolf, R., Andersen, T., Hessen, D. O., & Sperfeld, E. (2020). UV radiation affects antipredatory defense traits inDaphnia pulex. Ecology and Evolution, 10(24), 14082-14097. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.6999
255. Stabile, F., Bronmark, C., Hansson, L. A., & Lee, M. (2021). Fitness cost from fluctuating ultraviolet radiation in Daphnia magna.
Biology Letters, 17(8), 20210261. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2021.0261
256. Hansson, L.-A., & Hylander, S. (2009). Effects of ultraviolet radiation on pigmentation, photoenzymatic repair, behavior, andcommunity ecology of zooplankton. Photochemical & Photobiological Sciences, 8(9), 1266. https://doi.org/10.1039/
b908825c
257. Lee, M., Zhang, H., Sha, Y., Hegg, A., Ugge, G. E., Vinterstare, J., Škerlep, M., Pärssinen, V., Herzog, S. D., Björnerås, C.,
Gollnisch, R., Johansson, E., Hu, N., Nilsson, P. A., Hulthén, K., Rengefors, K., Langerhans, R. B., Brönmark, C., & Hansson, L.-A.
(2019). Low-latitude zooplankton pigmentation plasticity in response to multiple threats. Royal Society Open Science, 6(7),190321. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.190321
258. Marcoval, M. A., Pan, J., Diaz, A. C., & Fenucci, J. L. (2021). Dietary bioaccumulation of UV-absorbing compounds, and postingestive fitness in larval planktotrophic crustaceans from coastal SW Atlantic. Marine Environmental Research, 170, 105433.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marenvres.2021.105433
259. Wolinski, L., Modenutti, B., & Balseiro, E. (2020). Melanin and antipredatory defenses in Daphnia dadayana under UVR
exposure. International Review of Hydrobiology, 105(3-4), 106-114. https://doi.org/10.1002/iroh.201902033
260. Fernandéz, C. E., Campero, M., Bianco, G., Ekvall, M. T., Rejas, D., Uvo, C. B., & Hansson, L. A. (2020). Local adaptation to UV
radiation in zooplankton: a behavioral and physiological approach. Ecosphere, 11, e03081. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.3081
261. Sha, Y., Tesson, S. V. M., & Hansson, L. A. (2020). Diverging responses to threats across generations in zooplankton. Ecology, 101
e03145. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.3145
262. Dur, G., Won, E.-J., Han, J., Lee, J.-S., & Souissi, S. (2021). An individual-based model for evaluating post-exposure effects of UV-B
radiation on zooplankton reproduction. Ecological Modelling, 441, 109379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2020.109379
263. Ekvall, M. T., Sha, Y., Palmér, T., Bianco, G., Bäckman, J., Åström, K., & Hansson, L. A. (2020). Behavioural responses toco-occurring threats of predation and ultraviolet radiation in Daphnia. Freshwater Biology, 65(9), 1509-1517. https://doi.
org/10.1111/fwb.13516
264. Lee, M., & Hansson, L. A. (2021). Daphnia magna trade-off safety from UV radiation for food. Ecology and Evolution, 11(24),18026-18031. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.8399
265. Rose, K. C., Williamson, C. E., Fischer, J. M., Connelly, S. J., Olson, M., Tucker, A. J., & Noe, D. A. (2012). The role of ultraviolet
radiation and fish in regulating the vertical distribution of Daphnia. Limnology and Oceanography, 57(6), 1867-1876. https://doi.
org/10.4319/lo.2012.57.6.1867
266. Urmy, S. S., Williamson, C. E., Leach, T. H., Schladow, S. G., Overholt, E. P., & Warren, J. D. (2016). Vertical redistribution of
zooplankton in an oligotrophic lake associated with reduction in ultraviolet radiation by wildfire smoke. Geophysical Research
Letters, 43(8), 3746-3753. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016gl068533
267. Williamson, C. E., Overholt, E. P., Brentrup, J. A., Pilla, R. M., Leach, T. H., Schladow, S. G., Warren, J. D., Urmy, S. S., Sadro,S., Chandra, S., & Neale, P. J. (2016). Sentinel responses to droughts, wildfires, and floods: Ultraviolet radiation and theconsequences for lakes and their ecosystem services. Frontiers in Ecology and Environment, 14, 102-109. https://doi.
org/10.1002/fee.1228
268. Scordo, F., Chandra, S., Suenaga, E., Kelson, S. J., Culpepper, J., Scaff, L., Tromboni, F., Caldwell, T. J., Seitz, C., Fiorenza, J. E.,
Williamson, C. E., Sadro, S., Rose, K. C., & Poulson, S. R. (2021). Smoke from regional wildfires alters lake ecology. Scientific
Reports, 11(1), 10922. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-89926-6

255

Chapter 5269. Sha, Y., Zhang, H., Lee, M., Björnerås, C., Škerlep, M., Gollnisch, R., Herzog, S. D., Ekelund Ugge, G., Vinterstare, J., Hu, N.,
Pärssinen, V., Hulthén, K., Nilsson, P. A., Rengefors, K., Brönmark, C., Langerhans, R. B., & Hansson, L.-A. (2020). Diel verticalmigration of copepods and its environmental drivers in subtropical Bahamian blue holes. Aquatic Ecology, 55(4), 1157-1169.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10452-020-09807-4
270. Oester, R., Greenway, R., Moosmann, M., Sommaruga, R., Tartarotti, B., Brodersen, J., & Matthews, B. (2022). The influence of
predator community composition on photoprotective traits of copepods. Ecology and Evolution, 12(4), e8862. https://doi.
org/10.1002/ece3.8862
271. Marinone, M. C., Marque, S. M., Suárez, D. A., del Carmen Diéguez, M., Pérez, P., De Los Ríos, P., Soto, D., & Zagarese, H. E.
(2006). UV radiation as a potential driving force for zooplankton community structure in Patagonian lakes. Photochemistry andPhotobiology, 82(4), 962. https://doi.org/10.1562/2005-09-09-ra-680
272. Williamson, C. E., Olson, O. G., Lott, S. E., Walker, N. D., Engstrom, D. R., & Hargreaves, B. R. (2001). Ultraviolet radiationand zooplankton community structure following deglaciation in Glacier Bay, Alaska. Ecology, 82(6), 1748-1760. https://doi.
org/10.1890/0012-9658(2001)082[1748:Urazcs]2.0.Co;2
273. Caputo, L., Huovinen, P., Sommaruga, R., & Gómez, I. (2018). Water transparency affects the survival of the medusa stage of theinvasive freshwater jellyfish Craspedacusta sowerbii. Hydrobiologia, 817(1), 179-191. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-0183520-4
274. Lindholm, M., Wolf, R., Finstad, A., & Hessen, D. O. (2016). Water browning mediates predatory decimation of the Arctic fairy
shrimp Branchinecta paludosa. Freshwater Biology, 61(3), 340-347. https://doi.org/10.1111/fwb.12712
275. Alves, R. N., & Agustí, S. (2020). Effect of ultraviolet radiation (UVR) on the life stages of fish. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries,
30(2), 335-372. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11160-020-09603-1
276. Lawrence, K. P., Young, A. R., Diffey, B. L., & Norval, M. (2019). The impact of solar ultraviolet radiation on fish:
Immunomodulation and photoprotective strategies. Fish and Fisheries, 21(1), 104-119. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12420
277. Araujo, M. J., Quintaneiro, C., Soares, A., & Monteiro, M. S. (2021). Effects of ultraviolet radiation to Solea senegalensis during
early development. Science of the Total Environment, 764, 142899. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142899
278. Pasparakis, C., Wang, Y., Heuer, R. M., Zhang, W., Stieglitz, J. D., McGuigan, C. J., Benetti, D. D., Scholey, V. P., Margulies, D.,& Grosell, M. (2022). Ultraviolet avoidance by embryonic buoyancy control in three species of marine fish. Science of the Total
Environment, 806(Pt 3), 150542. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.150542
279. Pasparakis, C., Wang, Y., Stieglitz, J. D., Benetti, D. D., & Grosell, M. (2019). Embryonic buoyancy control as a mechanismof ultraviolet radiation avoidance. Science of the Total Environment, 651(Pt 2), 3070-3078. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2018.10.093
280. Ward, C. P., Bowen, J. C., Freeman, D. H., & Sharpless, C. M. (2021). Rapid and reproducible characterization of the wavelength
dependence of aquatic photochemical reactions using light-emitting diodes. Environmental Science & Technology Letters, 8(5),437-442. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.1c00172
281. Pandey, U. C., Nayak, S. R., Roka, K., & Jain, T. K. (2021). SDG14 – Life Below Water: Towards Sustainable Management of Our
Oceans. https://doi.org/10.1108/9781800717091

256

Chapter 6

6
CHANGES IN TROPOSPHERIC AIR QUALITY
RELATED TO THE PROTECTION OF
STRATOSPHERIC OZONE IN A CHANGING
CLIMATE

S. Madronich106,107, B. Sulzberger108, J. D. Longstreth109, T. Schikowski110,
M. P. Sulbæk Andersen111, K. R. Solomon112, and S. R. Wilson113

106

National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, USA

107

USDA UV-B Monitoring and Research Program, Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, USA.

108

Academic Guest after retirement from Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, CH-8600 Duebendorf, Switzerland.

109

The Institute for Global Risk Research, LLC, Bethesda, USA.

110

IUF-Leibniz Research Institute for Environmental Medicine, Dusseldorf, Germany.

111

Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, California State University, Northridge, USA.

112

School of Environmental Sciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, Canada.

113

School of Earth, Atmospheric and Life Sciences, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia.

257

Chapter 6

Table of contents
Summary											2591

Introduction

2

UV-dependent air pollutants and their effects on human health, plants, and the self-cleaning capacityof the troposphere										260

2.1Background: The UV photochemistry of tropospheric air							

260

2.2

UV radiation and ground-level ozone									261

2.3UV radiation and particulate matter									265

2.4Health impacts of photochemical smog								267

2.5Effects of tropospheric ozone and particulates on plants							

2.6Self-cleaning capacity of the atmosphere								274

2.7Changes in atmospheric circulation and transport of pollutants

2.8

Conclusions											277

3

Trifluoroacetic acid in the global environment with relevance to the Montreal Protocol			

3.1

Background											277

3.2Chemical pathways for degradation of precursors to trifluoroacetic acid					

279

3.3

Contribution of chemicals under the purview of the Montreal Protocol to the global load of trifluoroacetic acid

281

3.4

Trifluoroacetic acid in precipitation									283

3.5Other sources of trifluoroacetic acid in the global environment						

283

3.6

Human and environmental risks associated with trifluoroacetic acid in the environment				

289

3.7

Other issues relevant to the degradation of fluorinated chemicals and release of TFA				

291

3.8

Conclusions and uncertainties									292

4

Knowledge gaps											293

5

Conclusions											294

270

277

References											295Appendix											310References											320

258

Chapter 6

Summary
Ultraviolet (UV) radiation drives the net production of tropospheric ozone (O3) and a large fraction of particulate matter (PM) including
sulfate, nitrate, and secondary organic aerosols. Ground-level O3 and PM are detrimental to human health, leading to several million
premature deaths per year globally, and have adverse effects on plants and the yields of crops. The Montreal Protocol has prevented
large increases in UV radiation that would have had major impacts on air quality. Future scenarios in which stratospheric O3 returns to1980 values or even exceeds them (the so-called super-recovery) will tend to ameliorate urban ground-level O3 slightly but worsen it
in rural areas. Furthermore, recovery of stratospheric O3 is expected to increase the amount of O3 transported into the troposphere bymeteorological processes that are sensitive to climate change.
UV radiation also generates hydroxyl radicals (OH) that control the amounts of many environmentally important chemicals in theatmosphere including some greenhouse gases, e.g., methane (CH4), and some short-lived ozone-depleting substances (ODSs). Recent
modelling studies have shown that the increases in UV radiation associated with the depletion of stratospheric ozone over 1980-2020
have contributed a small increase (~3%) to the globally averaged concentrations of OH.
Replacements for ODSs include chemicals that react with OH radicals, hence preventing the transport of these chemicals to thestratosphere. Some of these chemicals, e.g., hydrofluorocarbons that are currently being phased out, and hydrofluoroolefins now used
increasingly, decompose into products whose fate in the environment warrants further investigation. One such product, trifluoroacetic
acid (TFA), has no obvious pathway of degradation and might accumulate in some water bodies, but is unlikely to cause adverse effects
out to 2100.

1 Introduction
The protection of stratospheric ozone (O3) has had important consequences for the chemical composition of the lower atmosphere(the troposphere) and the quality of the air that humans and many other organisms breathe. Ultraviolet (UV) radiation plays an essential
role in the generation of photochemical smog, exposure to which is associated with widespread health effects, reductions in life
expectancies, damage to forests, and smaller agricultural yields. Given the number of populations and ecosystems currently affectedby photochemical smog, even small changes in UV radiation are important, such as those associated with the few percent depletion ofstratospheric O3 that occurred at midlatitudes over 1980-2000. By limiting the depletion of stratospheric O3, the Montreal Protocol has
avoided large increases in tropospheric UV radiation that would have exacerbated photochemical air pollution in urban areas.
On the global scale, UV-B radiation (280-315 nm) controls the self-cleaning capacity of the troposphere by generating hydroxyl radicals(OH). These radicals react with many chemicals emitted to the troposphere, including greenhouse gases such as methane, facilitating
their removal from the atmosphere and essentially determining their atmospheric lifetime. The Montreal Protocol has maintained
the troposphere’s self-cleaning capacity at near natural levels, but future changes remain a concern, especially if the intensity of UV-B
radiation decreases substantially due to increasing stratospheric ozone under some future scenarios.
Actions under the Montreal Protocol have led to the introduction of new chemicals to the atmosphere as replacements to some of theozone-depleting substances, including hydrofluorochlorocarbons (HCFCs), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), hydrofluoroethers (HFEs),hydrofluoroolefins (HFOs) and hydrochlorofluoroolefins (HCFOs). However, their atmospheric photo-degradation can lead to persistentsecondary pollutants such as trifluoroacetic acid (TFA), whose ultimate fate in the environment remains unclear, requiring continued
monitoring and assessment relative to other natural and/or anthropogenic sources.
We have reported on these issues in our previous assessments [1-6] and our objective here is to provide an updated overview andassessment of the scientific evidence. As will be presented in the following sections, our previous conclusions remain qualitatively
unchanged and consistent with increasingly available observations and numerical simulations. This assessment consists of two parts:
The first part (Sect. 2) focuses on the effects of depletion of stratospheric ozone, solar UV radiation (particularly UV-B), and interactions
with climate change on tropospheric air quality and how changes in tropospheric air quality affect human health and ecosystems. The
second part (Sect. 3) assesses the known sources of trifluoroacetic acid (TFA), including those related to the replacement chemicals
under the purview of the Montreal Protocol, and their potential risk to humans and ecosystems.
In conducting this assessment, we have searched the literature through PubMed®, Google Scholar, ScienceDirect®, and relevant
journals to obtain peer-reviewed papers from the recent literature (2018–2022) as well as reports from recognised international
agencies (e.g., World Health Organization) and government agencies (e.g., US Environmental Protection Agency). We have criticallyevaluated these papers and reports before including information from them in this Quadrennial Assessment.

259

Chapter 6

2 UV-dependent air pollutants and their effects on human health,plants, and the self-cleaning capacity of the troposphere
The importance of UV radiation to the formation of some types of air pollution has been known at least since the studies ofphotochemical smog in Los Angeles in the 1950s, when it was shown that ambient O3 was generated by UV-induced reactions involving
nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) [7]. Since then, many details of these photochemical reactions havebeen elucidated, such as the central role of UV-generated OH radicals in controlling the overall reactivity; and the formation of O3,
peroxides, acids, and other harmful gaseous intermediates, including some that can condense to form particulate matter (PM). This gasand solid-phase chemistry is complex, involving hundreds of different chemicals, often with rapidly changing emissions and different
environmental conditions.
A brief overview/summary of tropospheric chemistry, with emphasis on the distinct roles of UV-B and UV-A radiation, is provided in
Sect. 2.1. The formation of photochemical smog, specifically its ground-level O3 and UV-sensitive PM components, is discussed in
Sect. 2.2 and 2.3, including an assessment of the possible effects of changes in UV radiation related to the recovery of stratosphericozone over the coming decades. Exposure to photochemical smog can have large impacts on human health, particularly in vulnerable
populations even at low concentrations of pollutants (Sect. 2.4). Tropospheric O3 and PM can also affect plant health (Sect. 2.5). UV-B
radiation has beneficial effects by causing the formation of OH, the cleaning agent of the troposphere (Sect. 2.6). Finally, changes inatmospheric circulation and the transport of pollutants affects the tropospheric air quality (Sect. 2.7). A summary of our assessment isprovided in Sect. 2.8.

2.1

Background: The UV photochemistry of tropospheric air

The most important UV-induced processes that control air quality in the troposphere are shown in Fig. 1. UV-B radiation is responsible forthe formation of the OH radical, the major oxidising agent in the troposphere. This occurs through the photolysis of O3 and subsequent
reaction of an electronically excited oxygen atom with water (H2O). Hydroxyl radicals are lost by reaction with reduced chemicals,
including carbon monoxide (CO), methane (CH4), VOCs, sulfur dioxide (SO2), and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1 Simplified schematic of tropospheric photochemistry. UV-C radiation (100-280 nm) in the stratosphere generates ozone,
O3, some of which is transported to the troposphere. UV-B radiation initiates tropospheric chemistry by photo-dissociating O3
and generating highly reactive hydroxyl radicals (OH). These react with many compounds emitted by human activities and naturalprocesses, e.g., carbon monoxide, methane, volatile organic compounds including halocarbons, and others, all generalised in the
figure as RC (reduced compounds). By removing these compounds, the concentration of OH controls the self-cleaning capacityof the atmosphere. Nitrogen oxides (NOx = NO + NO2) catalyze the photo-oxidation by regenerating OH via reaction of NO with
HO2. This coupling of the NOx and HOx (OH + HO2) cycles also leads to autocatalytic production of O3, often in amounts larger
than lost initially via its UV-B photolysis, since NOx and HOx molecules can cycle many times before being removed. The cycles are
terminated by reaction with OH to make nitric acid, (HNO3) or by reaction of HO2 to inorganic or organic peroxides, e.g., hydrogen
peroxide (H2O2). Other products, depending on the reduced compounds being oxidised by OH, could include partly oxidisedorganics, secondary organic aerosols (SOA), sulfuric acid (H2SO4), and trifluoroacetic acid (TFA).

260

Chapter 6
Hydroxyl radicals control the atmospheric amounts of these chemicals as well as those of many other important trace gases, e.g., HFCs,
HCFCs, HFOs, and very-short-lived substances (VSLSs, e.g., halo-organics with a lifetime of less than or equal to 6 months).
Chemicals such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) that do not react with OH have the potential to reach the stratosphere in large amounts;
the CFCs were therefore replaced with chemicals that react with OH (HCFCs, HFCs, HFOs, etc.). UV-B and UV-A radiation are together
responsible for the net production of O3 in the troposphere. This occurs via photo-dissociation of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) to NO andO, mainly by UV-A radiation, and subsequent reaction of the oxygen atom with molecular oxygen (Fig.1). Nitrogen oxides (NOx = NO
+ NO2) are emitted primarily as NO, and the NO2 is produced via the re-cycling of the hydroxyl radical (OH) generated from the UV-B
photolysis of O3. Due to this autocatalytic production of O3 involving OH, the net production of O3 depends not only on UV A radiation
but also on UV-B radiation. The different effects of UV-B and UV-A radiation are discussed in more detail in Box 1. Note that Fig.1 isrestricted to reactions occurring in the gas phase, while heterogeneous, UV-induced processes involving aerosols are discussed in Sect.
2.3.

2.2

UV radiation and ground-level ozone

Ground-level O3 continues to be a major environmental problem, with costly impacts on human health and vegetation. Most groundlevel O3 is produced by the UV photochemical processing of pollutants (see Sect. 2.1), with occasional contributions from downward
transport of ozone-rich stratospheric air (see Sect. 2.7). It is generally accepted that concentrations of O3 have increased throughout the
global troposphere over the past century, due to increasing emissions of VOCs and NOx. This is borne out in numerical simulations withchemistry-climate models, as shown in Fig. 2. Contributions from stratospheric ozone de-pletion (1980 to current) and the associatedincreases in UV-B radiation have been negligible by comparison, at least for the global scale. Future project-ions tend to show anincreasing global burden of O3, although the details depend on the assumed scenario of greenhouse gas emissions (only one shown in
the figure, SSP370).

Fig. 2 Global tropospheric ozone (Tg) estimated by multi-model assessments (MMM, ACCMIP, TOAR) and observations (OBS,
for the year 2000). Future projections are for one Shared Socioeconomic Pathway (SSP370 scenario). From IPCC 2021 Ch. 6
[11].

261

Chapter 6

Box 1. Effects of different UV wavelengths on the photochemistry of ozone and hydroxyl radicals in the troposphere
Photochemical reactions in the troposphere are controlled by UV-B (280-315 nm) and UV-A (315-400 nm) radiation, while UV-C
(100-280 nm) photons are absorbed entirely by stratospheric O2 and O3. Among its many important effects, tropospheric UV
radiation generates hydroxyl radicals (the self-cleaning agent of the atmosphere; Sect. 2.6),
O3 + hv(λ < 330 nm) → O* + O2
O* + H2O → OH + OH
and is the final step in the production of tropospheric O3 (Sect. 2.2)NO2 + hv (λ < 420 nm) → NO + O
O + O2 → O3
Quantification of how UV radiation regulates the chemistry of the troposphere is fundamental to the development ofscientifically sound models of air quality and chemistry-climate interactions. In general, for a photo-dissociation (or photolysis)reaction,
AB + hv → A + B					where its rate is proportional to the first-order rate coefficient, JAB (s-1), which can be calculated as an integral over relevant
wavelengths ƛ,
JAB = ∫ F(λ) σ(λ) φ(λ) dλ 					(Equation 1)
where F(λ) is the spectral actinic flux (quanta cm-2 s-1) at a location and time, σ(λ) is the absorption cross section (cm2 molecule-1)of the photo-labile molecule AB, and φ(λ) is the efficiency or yield (molecule quantum-1) of the products of interest (the photofragments A and B, above).

Box 1. Continued
The graph shows the spectral dependence (theintegrand of Eq. 1) for several photolysis reactions
that are of major importance in troposphericchemistry. Both UV-B and UV-A radiation are
relevant, but with different roles because UV-B
affects primarily the photo-dissociation of O3 (JO2),
while UV-A dominates the photolysis of NO2 (JNO2).
Other UV photo-dissociation reactions, for exampleof HNO3, H2O2, and numerous organic chemicals(carbonyls, nitrates, peroxides, not shown in thegraph), also contribute to the rates of formation anddestruction of photochemical smog.
Contribution of different wavelengths to thephotolysis rate coefficient for ozone (O3, blue), nitricacid (HNO3, green), hydrogen peroxide (H2O2,
black) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2, red). Each curve
has been normalised to 1.0 at its maximum.

262

Chapter 6

Box 2 Major UV photo-dissociation reactions in the troposphere. The sensitivity is the percentage increase in the rate ofreaction for each 1 percent decrease in the O3 column. The sensitivity is the percentage increase in the rate of reaction for each 1
percent decrease in the O3 column.
Photo-dissociation reaction

Normalised sensitivity to changes in the O3 column

1. O3 + hv (+ H2O) → 2 OH + O2

1.4

2. NO2 + hv (+ O2) → O3 + NO

0.02

3. HNO3 + hv → OH + NO2

0.8

4. H2O2 + hv → 2 OH

0.3

5. CH2O + hv (+ 2 O2) → 2 HO2 + CO

0.4

6. CH3COCH3 + hv → CH3CO + CH3

1.5

Adapted from McKenzie et al. (2011) [8] for 30 N in June and O3 column of 305 DU (1 DU (Dobson Unit) = 2.69 × 1016
molecules cm-2)o

The table shows the estimated sensitivity of key photolysis reactions to the amount of overhead O3. Specifically, the sensitivity
gives the percentage increase in the photo-dissociation rate coefficient (J) for a 1% decrease in the O3 column. Reactions
which are mostly in the UV-B waveband have the largest sensitivities. Changes in UV-B radiation (i.e., those that occur withstratospheric ozone depletion) have a different effect on tropospheric chemistry than changes in UV-A radiation (which might
be due to, for example, clouds or aerosols). This is illustrated in the graph of Box 3 with a highly simplified kinetic model. It canbe seen that (i) O3 is produced rapidly in the first few hours (near sources, often in urban settings) but decreases gradually on
longer timescales and thus distance from sources; (ii) decreases in the NO2 photolysis rate coefficient (JNO2, due mostly to UV-A
wavelengths) cause lower O3 in the urban region but make little or no difference far from sources; and (iii) decreasing the O3
photolysis rate coefficient JO3 due mostly to UV-B wavelengths) decreases near-source O3 (even more than the JNO2 decrease),
but at longer times it causes an increase in O3. Thus, both positive and negative changes of ambient O3 concentrations can be
expected in response to changes in UV-B radiation. Specifically, higher (lower) UV-B amounts imply faster (slower) production as
well as faster (slower) destruction.
While the overall principles are well understood [9,10], the precise values and timing of these changes depend on the specificchemical mixtures and geographic scales of interest and are not fully known. Accurate prediction of how multiple secondary
pollutants (O3, secondary PM, peroxides) respond to changes in UV radiation remains a fundamental challenge to the modelingof air quality.

Trends in local and regional concentrations of tropospheric O3 vary greatly as shown in Fig. 3. Over the past few decades,
concentrations of O3 at ground-level and in the lower atmosphere have been generally decreasing in most developed countries, while
increasing greatly in some locations including East and South Asia, in response to changes in emissions of NOx and VOCs. Reductions
in emissions of NOx and VOCs will be necessary to reverse the observed increasing trends, but any substantial future changes in UV
radiation could modify the effectiveness of such reductions.

263

Chapter 6

Box 3. Illustration of the response of ground-level ozone to changes in JO3 (mostly UV-B) and JNO2 (mostly UV-A), calculated with asimplified kinetic model. Ozone is produced rapidly near sources of pollution (e.g., cities), but is destroyed slowly as air parcels
are transported away by winds (taken here as 10 km h-1). Less intense UV-A radiation generates less ozone initially but not atlater times. Less intense UV-B radiation leads to even less initial production of O3, but also to a slower decrease at longer times.
The lower panel shows O3 concentrations, while the upper panel shows the changes as ratios to the reference. Values of the
maximum in O3 concentration and its timing are illustrative only, with actual values sensitive to the spatial and temporal patternsof emissions, the chemical nature of the emissions, day/night cycles, and details of meteorological transport. The reference
chemical mechanism is: O3+UV-B → 2OH (7×10-6); OH+RC → HO2 (10-11); HO2+NO → OH+NO2 (8.1×10-12); O3+NO → NO2(1.9×10-14); NO2+UV-A → NO+O3 (10-2); NO2+OH → HNO3 (1.1×10-11); 2HO2 → H2O2 (2.90×10-12), with rate coefficient units ofs-1 for photolysis and cm3 molec-1 s-1 for biomolecular reactions, and initial concentrations of O3 (20 μg m-3), NO (12.5 μg m-3),
and RC (10 x NO, molar basis).

Fig. 3 Regional and local trends in tropospheric ozone at the surface and lower atmosphere. From IPCC 2021 Ch. 6 [11].

The possibility that ground level O3 can be affected by changes in UV related to depletion of stratospheric ozone was first pointed out by
Liu and Trainer [12] and has since been confirmed by several studies using numerical models [13-17], as well as observations at the South
Pole [18] and at mid-latitudes [19]. More intense UV-B irradiation generally induces faster chemical reactivity in air parcels (Box 1), leading264

Chapter 6
to faster removal of primary chemicals, but also more rapid and intense build up (and removal) of intermediate or secondary pollutants,
such as hetero-organics (e.g., aldehydes, ketones, and organic nitrates) and other byproducts including O3, peroxides, and secondary
PM. Conversely, reductions in UV radiation decrease chemical reactivity, causing slower production of O3 and other photochemical
pollutants near source regions, e.g., urban areas, while slowing the destruction on regional and global scales.
The decreases in UV radiation at the surface, expected from the recovery of stratospheric O3, to 1980 levels are estimated to have
only a small impact on ambient O3, as reported previously [14,15], since reductions of O3 at midlatitudes have been limited to only afew percent (relative to a 1980 baseline). For the United States, the recovery to 1980 levels will increase the O3 column by 4–6%, andthe resulting lower levels of UV radiation will tend to lower ambient O3 over a few large urban areas, while raising it slightly elsewhere,
consistent with an overall slower chemical reactivity. However, recent climate model simulations [20-22], also reviewed in Chapter 1(Bernhard et al. [23], suggest that under some scenarios of increasing greenhouse gas emissions, stratospheric O3 could exceed the1980 baseline (the so-called “super-recovery”). By 2100, stratospheric O3 could increase by an additional 10% (above the 1980 levels)
under high emission scenarios (SSP3-7.0, SSP4-6.0 and SSP5-8.5; see Fig. 3 in Chapter 1 [23]). This would decrease tropospheric
JO3 by about 14% (Box 2), like the changes used in the sensitivity calculation shown in Box3. Under these scenarios, the changes intropospheric O3 (urban declines and regional increases) would be about three times greater than those estimated for recovery limited
to 1980 levels [14,15]. Even at current levels (see Fig. 2 and 3), ground level O3 damages vegetation and causes economically significant
reductions in crop yields (see Sect. 2.4 and 2.5). Additional increases due to the recovery (or super-recovery) of stratospheric O3 are ofconcern but could be offset by more stringent reductions in emissions of NOx and VOCs.
Much larger changes would have occurred without the implementation of the Montreal Protocol (the “world avoided”), where
unabated growth of emissions of CFCs would have resulted in catastrophic global loss of stratospheric O3 [24], with major impacts on
UV radiation [25], incidence of skin cancer [26,27], and reduction of the global carbon sink by damage to vegetation [28]. However, to
our knowledge, calculations of the impacts of such large increases in UV radiation on air quality, particularly ambient O3 and secondary
aerosols, have not been carried out.
While large changes in UV-B radiation have been avoided by the Montreal Protocol (see Chapter 1 [23]), trends and variability in UV
radiation exist also for other reasons (especially due to aerosols and clouds), and these changes provide ongoing opportunities tobetter understand and quantify the representation of UV-driven chemical processes in models for air quality. Reduced emissions havesystematically improved air quality in many locations, but this has increased UV radiation near the surface, potentially negating someof the benefits of the reduced emissions. For example, aerosol haze in China was reduced substantially during the last decade due tolower emissions of NOx and SO2. This has led to surface brightening (e.g., by 0.70–1.16 W m-2 yr-1 in eastern China over 2014–2019)[29] but also to undesirable increases in ambient O3 [30-33] (e.g., by 2–6 μg m-3 yr-1 in megacity clusters of Beijing and Shanghai over
2013–2017) [34]. Simulations with numerical models show several possible reasons including increases in UV radiation [31,33-39], shifts
in the VOC/NOx chemical regime resulting in increased production of O3 efficiency [35,40], higher emissions of biogenic VOC due
to rising temperatures [30], and decreased competition for gas-phase radicals by aerosol surfaces [34,40], with reality likely being a
combination of these factors.
Long-term increases in UV radiation at the surface due to improved local air quality have been recorded in many other locations. For
example, increasing trends in UV radiation over 1996–2016 were found [41] for stations in Japan and Greece, and were attributed toreductions in absorbing aerosols. More recently, Ipiña et al. [42] found that the UV Index in Mexico City increased by ca. 20% over
2000–2019 (due to reductions in PM, SO2, O3, and NO2) and estimated that such increases in UV radiation would require an additional
10% reduction in VOC emissions to meet the same ground-level O3 concentrations had the UV remained constant. Brief increases in
UV radiation at the surface have been observed during the economic slowdowns related to the COVID-19 pandemic, e.g., in Brazil[43], East Asia [44], India [45], and likely in many other locations. Analysis of these data is ongoing and should yield insights on how
atmospheric pollution responds to changes in UV radiation under different conditions.

2.3

UV radiation and particulate matter

Particulate matter is a major component of air pollution, and particles smaller than about 2.5 μm (PM2.5) are believed to be particularly
damaging due to their ability to penetrate deeply into lungs. A large fraction of PM2.5 is formed by UV-initiated photochemistry. While“primary” PM is emitted directly (e.g., dust, black carbon, or sea spray) “secondary” PM is produced in the atmosphere, typically by
condensation of gases having low saturation vapour pressures. These condensable gases are mostly produced by reactions of OH with
pollutants such as SO2, NO2, or VOCs, to yield sulfate, nitrate, or secondary organic aerosols (SOA), respectively:
OH + NO2 → HNO3
OH + SO2 → … → H2SO4
OH + VOC → … → OVOC (various partly oxidised VOCs) → SOA
where the last two reactions involve several intermediate steps. The rate-limiting step in the production of these particles is the reactionof OH with the precursors (NO2, SO2, or VOCs), so that the dependence of OH on UV radiation (see Sect. 2.1) applies directly to therate of formation of secondary PM as well. Decreases (increases) in stratospheric O3 lead to increases (decreases) in tropospheric UV-B
radiation and concentrations of OH radicals, and therefore to faster (slower) formation of these PM. The Montreal Protocol, through its
influence on the amount of UV radiation reaching the troposphere, has direct consequences for the formation of secondary PM. PrimaryPM, on the other hand, is not expected to depend strongly on UV irradiation.

265

Chapter 6
The relative amounts of primary and secondary PM vary greatly in time and space, and estimates exist only for regions where reliable
emission inventories exist. For the contiguous United States (Fig. 4) modeling studies indicate that more than half of the PM2.5 issecondary in origin, and thus directly sensitive to variations in UV radiation [46]. Globally, major contributors to PM2.5 are sulfate,nitrate, organics, ammonium, and black carbon (see Fig. 6.7 of IPCC 2021 [11]). While sulfate and nitrate PM are of secondary origin,for organics the relative global contribution of primary and secondary PM is less clear. Satellite-based observations of aerosol opticalproperties provide only very limited information about chemical composition [47,48]. A better understanding of the secondary/primary
ratio of PM2.5 in all populated regions is required to fully assess the role of UV radiation and hence the relevance of the Montreal Protocol
to this global air pollution problem.

Fig. 4 Composition of PM2.5 over the contiguous UnitedStates calculated with a chemistry-transport model. Particles
produced by UV photochemical reactions (secondary
aerosols) include sulfate (SO4), ammonium nitrate (NH4NO3)
and secondary organic aerosols (SOA) from anthropogenic
or biogenic precursors (SOAAVOC and SOABVOC,
respectively), and account for more than half of the total
PM2.5, compared to directly emitted particles (primaryaerosols) such as dust, soot, and sea spray. VOC, volatileorganic compounds. From Pye et al. [46].

An emerging and rapidly evolving topic is the effect of UV radiation on chemical reactions within and on the surface of aerosol particles.
These heterogeneous processes are extremely complex and still poorly understood, at least in part because aerosols may be composedof many different chemicals, often mixed within the same particle, and each with different UV-absorbing properties and different
photolytic fragments. Depending on the specific particle, several UV-mediated processes have already been identified: (a) photolysis
of particle-bound organic chemicals into volatile gases (e.g., CO and CO2), leading to loss of particle mass [49-54]; (b) photolysis ofparticle-bound inorganic and organic nitrogen into gaseous NO, NO2, or HONO, potentially increasing the oxidising capacity of theatmosphere [55-58]; (c) conversion of SO2 gas on the surface of particles to particulate sulfate (thus increasing the mass of the particle)[59-61]; (d) formation of molecular chlorine (Cl2) leading to enhanced reactivity of a daytime suburban atmosphere [62], (e) increased
absorption of shortwave radiation (from formation of brown carbon) with consequences for radiative forcing of climate [63-67]; and(f) formation of various reactive oxygen species (ROS), some of which (e.g., peroxides) are sufficiently long-lived that they may persist
during inhalation and play a major role in deleterious health effects of air pollution [61,64,68-72].
Ultraviolet-induced photo-processes within and on the surface of aerosols can also increase the ability of aerosols to act as cloud
condensation nuclei (CCN) [73,74], which can change cloud properties and therefore indirectly impact climate. UV-B irradiation (~4.5
days solar radiation equivalent) of dissolved organic matter (DOM, used as a surrogate for organic aerosols) from freshwaters resulted
in an increase of hygroscopicity by up to 2.5 times [73]. This is a result of the photodegradation of DOM into hydrophilic low molecularweight chemicals, a process that has been reported in sunlit surface waters [75,76]. A similar effect on CCN was also observed upon
UV-B irradiation of SOA formed from the oxidation of α-pinene and naphthalene [74], which are biogenic and anthropogenic SOA
precursors, respectively. Considering that CCN are central to the lifecycle of clouds, this represents a newly recognised and potentially
important dependence of the hydrological cycle (and climate in general) on UV radiation.
In most cases, the spectral dependence of these heterogeneous photo-processes is still unknown, so that it is not yet possible to assess
reliably how much they would be influenced by changes in UV-B radiation resulting from changes in stratospheric ozone. As more
spectral data become available, our understanding of the multiple ways in which UV radiation influences aerosol properties and lifetimes
will increase and illuminate what role this plays in the natural and perturbed atmosphere.
In summary, changes in UV radiation affect the formation, transformation, and destruction of PM. Quantification of these effects of UV
radiation is still somewhat problematic because it involves complex chemical feedbacks that depend on specific physical and chemicalvariables, such as temperature, humidity, and the amounts of VOCs and NOx present. However, despite this uncertainty, even smallchanges in UV radiation should be of concern, because of the large number of people currently exposed to poor air quality and its
significance to human health.

266

Chapter 6

2.4

Health impacts of photochemical smog

Air pollution is a major public health concern. Estimates of the impacts vary but are consistently large. Thus, the World HealthOrganization (WHO) estimates that 4.2 million deaths every year occur because of exposure to ambient (outdoor) air pollution which
includes particulates and gases, such as O3, NOx, etc. [77]. These values are somewhat higher than the values reviewed in our previous
assessment, which ranged from 1.75 to 4.3 million, depending on year and source of estimates [6]. Regular reports on concentrationsof tropospheric O3 and its effects on humans and the environment are published in Tropospheric Ozone Assessment Reports, e.g.,[78]. Our previous Quadrennial Assessment [6] provided an overview of the effects of air pollution on human health with much of theinformation focusing on respiratory and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, although reproductive and neurological effects werealso briefly addressed. Information on these and other effects from exposure to air pollution continues to accumulate.
An umbrella review (a review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses) [79] evaluated 548 meta-analyses derived from 75 systematic
reviews on non-region-specific associations between outdoor air pollution and human health. Of these meta-analyses, 57% (313)
were not statistically significant. Of the 235 nominally significant meta-analyses, all but 5 indicated an adverse effect on human health.
Analyses were graded as strong (13), highly suggestive (23), suggestive (67) or weak (132). Strong evidence for an association between
outdoor air pollution exposure and cardiorespiratory diseases was found for:• an increased risk of stroke-related mortality per 10 µg m-³ increase of PM10 and PM2.5 (short-term exposure; relative risk (RR): 		
1.005 95% CI: 1.003 to 1.007 and RR: 1.014, 95% CI: 1.009 to 1.020, respectively);• hypertension per 10 µg m-³ increase of PM2.5 (short-term exposure; odds ratio (OR) 1.097, 95% CI: 1.060 to 1.136);• asthma-related admissions per 10 µg m-³ increase of PM2.5 and NO2 levels (short-term exposure; OR: 1.022, 95% CI: 1.014 to 1.031
and OR: 1.019, 95% CI: 1.1013 to 1.024, respectively);• chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma-related admissions of the elderly per 10 µg m-³ increase of NO2 (24 haverage; RR: 1.386%, 95% CI: 1.110% to 1.661%);• mortality due to pneumonia per 10 µg m-³ increase NO2 levels (long-term exposure; Hazard Ratio (HR): 1.077, 95% CI: 1.060 to
1.094).

2.4.1 Health impacts at low concentrations of air pollution
New studies, assessed here, indicate that even relatively low levels of pollution may be detrimental [80-82]. Many countries have acted
by regulating concentrations of key pollutants and there has been a remarkable decrease in air pollution levels in almost all countries
with developed economies leading to levels below the air pollution standards. With the decrease in concentrations of key pollutants,
studies now show the detrimental effects on health at relatively low levels of air pollution. Many show effects at concentrations lower
than the current annual average standard. In response to this, the World Health Organization (WHO) updated its 2005 Global Air
Quality Guidelines (AQG) in September 2021 [83,84]. These new air quality guidelines [83] set ambitious goals, which will be difficult
to achieve in most countries. They reflect the large impact that air pollution has on health globally. The new guidelines are aiming forannual mean concentrations of PM2.5 not exceeding 5 µg m-3 and NO2 not exceeding 10 µg m-3, and the peak season mean 8-hourO3 concentration not exceeding 60 µg m-3 [83]. For comparison, the corresponding 2005 WHO guideline values for PM2.5 and NO2
were 10 µg m-3 and 40 µg m-3 with no recommendation issued for long-term concentrations of O3 [85]. Table 1 presents the new WHO
guidelines in comparison to standards from the European Union, the EPA (USA) and China. Note that UV radiation is involved in theformation of many of these pollutants, including O3, NO2, and a large fraction of PM10 and PM2.5, including sulfate, nitrate, and secondaryorganic aerosols. Furthermore, UV radiation may make PM10 and PM2.5 more toxic by generating ROS (Sect. 2.3).
Table 1 Summary of air quality guidelines in several jurisdictions. EU, European Union; EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, USA.
Air pollutant
PM2.5µg m-3PM10µg m-3NO2µg m-3Time frame,
h

WHO
new

WHO
old

24-h

15

25

annual

5

10

24-h

45

annual

15

24-h

25

annual

10

1-h

EU

EPA
USA

China–
Grade 1*China–
Grade 2**

35

35

75

25

12

15

35

50

50

150

50

150

20

40

40

70

80

80

40

40

100

40

40

200

200

190

200

200

267

Chapter 6
Air pollutant
SO2µg m-3Time frame,
h

WHO
new

WHO
old

EU

24-h

40

20

125

EPA
USA

annual1-hCO
mg m-3

24-h

350
4

1h
daily, 8-h max

200
40

10

10

10

10

100

100

120

140

1h

O3
µg m

-3

daily, 8-h max

China–
Grade 1*China–
Grade 2**

50

150

20

60

150

500

4

4

10

10

160

200

100

160

PM2.5, particles with a diameter of 2.5 µm or less (≤PM2.5); PM10, particles diameter of 10 µm or less (≤PM10); NO2, nitrogendioxide; SO2, sulfur dioxide; CO, carbon monoxide; O3, ozone.
*China Grade 1 Road: National Highways; **China Grade 2 Roads: Provincial Highway

Evidence continues to accumulate demonstrating that exposure to air pollution can have serious effects on nearly all organ systemsof the human body. As outlined in our earlier assessment, the health effects of air pollution include cardiovascular and respiratory
disease, cancer, effects on the brain and the reproductive system including adverse birth outcomes [6]. Much of the more recent
support documenting the effects of low-level exposure has come from the study of large cohorts in Canada [80], Europe [81] and theUnited States [82], where regulatory efforts have reduced the average level of exposure. These studies have consistently shown that theadverse effects of air pollution are not limited to high exposures; harmful health effects can be observed at very low concentrations (seebelow), with no observable thresholds below which exposure can be considered safe.
Research conducted as part of the ‘Effects of Low-Level Air Pollution: A Study in Europe’ (ELAPSE) [81,86-92] examined the mortality
and morbidity effects of exposure to low concentrations of four air pollutants: PM2.5, NO2, black carbon (BC), and tropospheric warm
season O3, with some of the research also investigating the importance of elemental components of PM2.5 [88,92-94]. The ELAPSE
study consisted of two sets of cohorts: The first was a pooled cohort of up to 15 conventional research cohorts, most of which were ina region with at least one large city with an associated smaller town. This resulted in a rich amount of individual data for up to 325,000
participants. The second set of cohorts comprised seven large administrative cohorts, which were formed by linking census data,
population registries, and death registries. These were analysed individually, and, in some cases, meta-analyses were conductedto produce overall results. The key strength of the administrative cohorts was their large sample size (about 28 million) and national
representativeness.
The effect of low-level air pollution exposure in 22 cohorts (a combination of research and administrative cohorts) across Europe wasassociated with several health outcomes and mortality [81]. Almost all participants had annual average exposures below the European
Union guidance values (Table 1) for PM2.5 and NO2, and about 14% had mean annual exposures below the United States National
Ambient Air Quality Standards for PM2.5 (12 µg m-3). In the pooled analysis of the research cohorts, participants had been exposed to 15µg m-3 PM2.5, 1.5 × 10-5 m-1 black carbon (BC), 25 µg m-3 NO2, and 67 µg m-3 O3 on average. Among the cohorts, mean concentrationsof PM2.5 ranged from 12 to 19 µg m-3, except for the Norwegian cohort (8 µg m-3). The study followed 325,367 adults and foundsignificant positive associations between even low exposure to PM2.5, BC, and NO2 and mortality from natural-causes as well as causespecific mortality such as cardiovascular and ischemic heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, respiratory disease, COPD, diabetes,
cardiometabolic disease, and lung cancer mortality [91]. An increase of 5 µg m-3 in PM2.5 was associated with 13% (95% CI: 10.6% to15.5%) increase in natural deaths. For participants with exposures below the United States standard of 12 µg m-3, an increase of 5 µg
m-3 PM2.5 was associated with nearly a 30% [29.6% (95% CI: 14% to 47.4%)] increase in natural deaths. For NO2, hazard ratios remained
elevated and significant when analyses were restricted to observations below 20 μg m-3.
Liu and colleagues [95] analysed the association between the incidence of asthma and low concentrations of air pollution using threelarge cohorts from Scandinavia (n = 98,326). They found a hazard ratio of 1.22 (95% CI: 1.04–1.43) per 5 µg m-3 increase in PM2.5, 1.17
(95% CI: 1.10–1.25) per 10 µg m-3 for NO2 and 1.15 (95% CI: 1.08–1.23) per 0.5×10-5 m-1 for BC. Hazard ratios were larger in cohort
subsets with exposure levels below the annual average limits for the European Union and United States (Table 1) and proposed World
Health Organization guidelines for PM2.5 and NO2 (Table 1) compared to the hazard ratios in cohorts exposed to levels above the annual
limits.
A meta-analysis [96] of 107 studies on the effect of long-term exposure to air pollution on mortality showed that there was strong
evidence that exposure to PM2.5 and PM10 is associated with increased mortality from all causes, cardiovascular disease, respiratory
disease, and lung cancer. The combined Hazard Ratios (HRs) for natural-cause mortality were 1.08 (95% CI: 1.06, 1.09) per 10 µg m-3
increase in PM2.5, and 1.04 (95% CI: 1.03, 1.06) per 10 µg m-3 increase in PM10. This study also indicated that associations with PM2.5
remained relevant below the current WHO standards of 10 µg PM2.5 m-3.

268

Chapter 6

2.4.2 Health impacts due to components of particulate matter
Studies are only beginning to link health effects to specific chemicals identified in aerosols. Current guidelines and standards for PM
are based on the mass of PM2.5, without consideration of chemical composition of the particles. Although it stands to reason that thechemical composition would be an important determinant of health impacts, relatively few studies have examined this specific issue. In
the context of the Montreal Protocol, UV-dependent secondary PM (sulfate, nitrate, and secondary organics) is chemically distinct fromprimary, UV-independent, PM. Thus, the relative health impacts of secondary vs primary PM are central to this assessment.
Several groups have examined exposure to elemental constituents of aerosols, e.g., Cu, Fe, K, Ni, S, Si, V and Zn in PM2.5 [92,93,97].
While most show increases in HRs with increasing atomic abundances, they cannot identify the contribution of secondary particulates,
such as secondary organics, sulfates, and nitrates, that depend on UV radiation.
The composition of PM across the United States was modeled recently by Pye et al. [46], using the Community Multiscale Air Quality(CMAQ) model with improved representation of aerosol composition, and was analysed for associations with mortality data (for 2016)
for cardiovascular and respiratory disease. The median county-level cardiovascular and respiratory disease age-adjusted death rate
was 320 per 100,000 population across 2708 counties, while the average concentration of PM2.5 was 6.5 μg m-3, with organic aerosols(OA) being the most abundant component at 2.9 μg m-³. They estimated that, across the United States, for every 1 μg m-3 increase inPM2.5, 'there is an increase of 1.4 (95% CI:0.5-2.3) cardiovascular and respiratory deaths per 100,000 people. The sensitivity appears
much greater for OA, with increases of 1 μg m-3 leading to an increase of 8.1 (95% CI:5.4-11) cardiovascular and respiratory deaths per
100,000 people. Subdivision of OA into primary and secondary types showed greater sensitivity for the latter, especially for PM formedby the OH-initiated oxidation of natural VOCs, such as isoprene and terpenes, commonly emitted by vegetation. The importance of
secondary organic PM is consistent with a likely role of ROS in tissue damage (Sect. 2.3).
In conclusion, early indications are that secondary aerosols, including SOA, may be particularly damaging. This is of direct relevance tothe Montreal Protocol, since secondary aerosols are generated by UV-driven photochemistry. In many locations (e.g., the contiguousUnited States, see Fig. 4), secondary aerosols may be the largest and the most detrimental fraction of PM2.5.

2.4.3 Interactions of air pollution and temperature on health
Episodes of air pollution frequently occur in combination with extremes in temperature with synergistic effects on health dependingon the pollutant(s) involved, the degree and direction of temperature change, and the characteristics of the geographic area and the
populations affected. Reviews and meta-analyses of the adverse health effects from extremes of temperature (both highs and lows) haveproliferated in recent years indicating just how much research in this area is being done due to concerns about climate change [98-106].
A study from nine European cities by Analitis et al. [107] reported that the daily number of deaths increases by 2.20% (95% CI: 1.28–
3.13) on days with high O3 per 1 °C increase in temperature. The interaction of temperature with PM10 was significant for cardiovascularcauses of death for all ages (2.24% on days with low PM10 (95% CI: 1.01–3.47), while it was 2.63% (95% CI: 1.57–3.71) on days with highPM10.
In a recent meta-analysis, Areal et al. [108] showed that effects of air pollutants were modified by high temperatures, leading to higher
mortality from respiratory diseases and an increase in hospital admissions. The effect of PM10 during higher temperatures increased
the risk of mortality by 2.1%, and for hospital admissions the effects increased by 11%. The effects of ground-level O3 during hightemperatures were similar [108].

2.4.4 Health impacts of air pollution in vulnerable populations
Air pollution affects people from the beginning to the end of life, causing a wide range of acute and chronic diseases. Sensitive
populations include, among others, children, the elderly, and people with existing chronic diseases. Accordingly, people withcardiovascular diseases are more likely to suffer a heart attack, stroke, or death when exposed to air pollution [109].
Ambient air pollution not only contributes to adverse health outcomes in individuals after birth, but it may also have immediate adverse
impacts on reproductive processes. Animal and epidemiological evidence demonstrates that air pollution may influence fertility. A large
Danish study investigated 10,183 participants between 2007 and 2018 [110] who were trying to conceive. The study showed that higher
concentrations of PM10 and PM2.5 were associated with small reductions in fecundability, for example, the reductions in fecundability
ratios from a one interquartile range (IQR) increase in PM2.5 (IQR = 3.2 µg m-3) and PM10 (IQR = 5.3 µg m-3) during each menstrual cycle
were 0.93 (95% CI: 0.87–0.99) and 0.91 (95% CI: 0.84–0.99).
In another study on exposure to air pollution and the risk of pre-term birth, the authors investigated 2.7 million births across the stateof California from 2011-2017 [111]. This study found an increased risk of pre-term birth with higher concentrations of PM2.5 [adjusted
relative risks (aRR) (per interquartile increase)] 1.04, (95% CI: 1.04–1.05) and particulate matter from diesel exhaust, aRR = 1.02 (95%
CI: 1.01–1.03). Similar results were observed in another study from California, where the authors investigated 196,970 singleton
pregnancies between 2007-2015. These authors found that, during cold seasons, increased exposure to PM2.5 during the three days
prior to the premature birth was associated with 5-6% increased odds of very-early pre-term birth (ORlag3 1.06, 95% CI: 1.02–1.11). Thesestudies confirm results from human and other animal studies that air pollutants can enter a pregnant female’s circulatory system and exert
many deleterious health effects in multiple body organs including the placenta and the developing foetus [111].
In the umbrella review discussed above, Markozannes et al. [79] also found strong associations for a number of pregnancy/birth related
outcomes. These included a:

269

Chapter 6• 10 µg m-³ increase in PM2.5 for various durations of exposure was associated with an increased risk of having an infant born small for
gestational age, a) long-term exposure entire pregnancy OR: 1.151, 95% CI: 1.104–1.200; b) long-term exposure first trimester: OR:
1.074, 95% CI: 1.046–1.103; c) long-term exposure last trimester: OR: 1.062, 95% CI: 1.042–1.083.
• 13 µg m-³ increase in SO2, (24 h average) was associated with an increased risk of low birthweight OR: 1.035, 95% CI: 1.031–1.049 aswas• 10 µg m-³ increase in PM10 (long-term exposure; mean difference 7.42 g, 95% CI: 8.10–6.75.
• 10-µg m-³ increase in PM2.5 for the third trimester was associated with an increased risk for hypertension during pregnancy OR: 2.177
95% Cl: 1.710–2.773.
There is also growing evidence that exposure to air pollutants maybe detrimental to the central nervous system and contribute to deficits
in cognitive development, neurodegenerative diseases and dementia [112,113]. A recent review [113] found that, despite a substantial
increase in publications, there is only suggestive evidence that air pollution may influence late-life cognitive health as there is still
substantial heterogeneity of findings across the studies. The strongest effect found was with respect to PM2.5 and cognitive decline. The
review included two different outcomes, namely, incidence of dementia and abnormal neuroimaging. Since then, a large Canadianstudy investigated the effect of exposure to air pollution and incidence of dementia in ~2.1 million individuals [114]. The study identified
257,816 incident cases of dementia and found a positive association between an interquartile range (IQR) increase in PM2.5 of 4.8 µg
m-3 and incidence of dementia, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.04 (95% CI: 1.03–1.05) and an IQR increase of 26.7 μg m-3 in NO2 HR = 1.10
(95% CI: 1.08–1.12) over a 5-year period, respectively. A similar large study using data from Medicare from the United States examined~2.0 million incidences of dementia cases [115]. Per IQR increase in the 5-year average PM2.5 (3.2 µg m-3) and NO2 (22 µg m-3), theyfound an association with the development of dementia HR= 1.060 (95% CI: 1.054–1.066) and with exposure to NO2 HR=1.019 (95%
CI: 1.012–1.026), respectively. The authors also observed significant associations between exposure to PM2.5 and the development of
Alzheimer’s disease HR=1.078 (95% CI: 1.070–1.086) and NO2 exposure HR = 1.031 (95% CI: 1.023–1.039). The results of these newstudies lend support to the theory that there is an association between air pollution and dementia and Alzheimer’s disease.

2.5

Effects of tropospheric ozone and particulates on plants

Photochemical air pollution can damage plants, with potentially adverse effects on agriculture and other natural resources. Ground-levelozone is a particular concern, since numerous studies have demonstrated significant damage [78,116]. Other air pollutants co-producedwith O3, e.g., peroxyacetyl nitrate (CH3C(O)O2NO2) are also phytotoxic, although their specific effects are difficult to separate fromthose of O3 [117]. The understanding of mechanisms and mitigation of these effects has improved, and some effects of particulates onplants are assessed below.

2.5.1 Effects of tropospheric ozone on health and yields of plants
In the previous Quadrennial Assessment [6], we evaluated the adverse effects of O3 on crop and other plants. We noted that
tropospheric O3 could contribute to significant losses in quality and yield of crops, e.g., 10–36% for wheat and 7–24% for rice. The
adverse effects of O3 on plants continue to be documented in the literature. A metanalysis of 48 studies on the exposure of soybeans
to tropospheric O3 conducted between 1980 and 2019 showed increases in degradation of chlorophyll and foliar injury. Leaf-area was
reduced by 21%, biomass of leaves by 14%, shoots by 23%, and roots by 17% [118]. Chronic exposure to O3 of about 150 μg m-3 caused
a decrease in yield of seed by 28%. In a study in Argentina [119], exposures of soybeans (a sensitive crop) to O3 at a concentration of 274
μg m-3 for 7 days resulted in a reduction in below-ground biomass of 25%, a 30% reduction of nodule biomass, and a 21% reductionof biological nitrogen fixation. Effects were more severe in tests with soils of low fertility where production of seed and seed protein
was reduced by 10% and 12%, respectively. These effects in soybean exposed to O3 at 160 μg m-3 for 7 days were linked to decreases
in metabolism of carbon and capacity for detoxification in the roots of soybean [120]. A study on the historical losses to air pollutants
in maize and soybean grown in the United States showed that improvements in the control of O3, SO2, PM, and NO2 have improved
yields by an average of 20% [121]. Of these pollutants, PM and NO2 appeared to cause more damage than O3 and SO2. Overall, theimprovement in yields was equivalent to ca US$ 5 billion.
Observations between 2015 and 2018 in the province of Henan in China [122] showed that annual losses in yield of wheat exposed to
O3 at concentrations above 80 μg m-3 were 12.8, 8.9, 10.8, and 14.1%. These were equivalent to annual losses of US$ 2.14, 1.32, 1.68,
and 2.16 billion, respectively. A model was developed to extrapolate these losses to other crops in China [123]. Based on a four-year
average of tropospheric concentration of O3, estimated losses in wheat were 50 million tonnes per year, mostly in winter wheat (48million tonnes); 21 million tonnes in rice; 18 million tonnes in maize and 1.6 million tonnes in soybeans [123]. A separate modellingstudy estimated that current concentrations of O3 reduced yield by 6.9% for rice and 10.4% for wheat [124]. Clearly, tropospheric
O3 has significant adverse effects on food security in some countries and this might be exacerbated in the event of super-recovery ofstratospheric ozone.
A modeling study on the effects of measured concentrations of O3 on grapes in the Demarcated Region of Douro in Portugal indicatedthat, in two years of high levels of O3, productivity of grapes was reduced by 27% and sugar content by 32% [125]. Similar effects were
echoed in other grape-growing regions across the globe [126].

270

Chapter 6
Crops are not the only class of plants to suffer reductions in yields from exposure to air pollutants. Forests are important sources ofwood and fibre and can be affected by tropospheric air pollutants such as O3. In an analysis of the impacts of O3 on production offorests in Italy, Sacchelli et al. [127] calculated that the average cost of potential O3 damage to forests in Italy in 2005 ranged from 31.6
to 57.1 million € (i.e., 10–17 € ha-1 year-1). This damage resulted in a 1.1% reduction in the profitable forest areas. Estimated decreases
in the annual national production of firewood, timber for poles, roundwood and wood for pulp and paper were 7.5, 7.4, 5.0, and
4.8%, respectively. A study on the effects of O3 on trees in Mediterranean forests in Istria and Dalmatia showed that current levels
cause inhibition of growth for two species of oak (Quercus pubescens and Q. ilex) as well as pine (Pinus nigra) [128]. A climatologicalmodelling study in European forests has shown that climate change has lengthened the growing season by ca 7 days decade-1 [129].
Because of this, the total phytotoxic dose of O3 taken up by trees over the season has increased and outweighs the benefits of adecrease in concentration of tropospheric O3 (1.6%) that resulted from measures to control pollution between 2000–2014.
Because of their sensitivity, the potential effects of O3 in the environment have been more extensively studied in plants than in animals.
However, a recent study has focused on the effects of O3 in amphibians [130]. The authors exposed tadpoles of the midwife toad (Alytes
obstetricans) to airborne O3 at concentration up to 180–220 µg g m-3 for 8 h per day from an early stage of development (limbs not yet
formed) to metamorphosis. This is equivalent to the maximum concentrations observed in the Sierra de Guadarrama Mountains over a
period of 10 years. The measured responses were successful development and infection of the developing tadpoles with the aquatic
fungus Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis, which causes the disease known as chytridiomycosis. Airborne concentrations of O3 were
measured in the exposure chambers but not in the water containing the tadpoles, so that actual dose could not be calculated. Results
suggested that, at the greatest airborne exposure, development of the tadpole was delayed and that susceptibility to B. dendrobatidis
was increased. This study is preliminary and further work is needed to elucidate potential effects.
In summary, future changes in UV-B radiation will influence ground-level O3 and other pollutants. The recovery of stratospheric O3 to1980 levels is expected to contribute 1–2 μg m-3 to ground-level O3 outside major urban areas [14,15,36], but super-recovery undersome future climate scenarios could lead to larger increases (Sect. 2.2, and Box 1). This could be offset by further reductions in NO and
VOC emissions, so the actual O3 concentrations will depend on local and regional air quality control measures, as well as the impacts ofclimate change and the Montreal Protocol on stratospheric O3. These impacts could affect both food security and forests.

2.5.2 Toxicological mechanisms
Effects of ozone on plants are mediated by the formation of free radicals in the tissues of the plants. Ozone enters the leaf of the plant
through the stomata and forms ROS, which include O2•-, H2O2, OH, 1O2, as well as reactive carbonyl species such as malondialdehyde
and methylglyoxal [131]. These reaction products damage components of the cells but also stimulate signaling systems, such as therelease of isoprene [132] to activate defense mechanisms. These defences include physical actions, such as closure of the stomata,biochemical responses such as the release of superoxide dismutase, catalase, and peroxidases to destroy the ROS, and release ofchemical buffers, such as ascorbic acid, glutathione, phenolic chemicals, flavonoids, proline [133], and other amino acids, carotenoids,
tocopherols, polyamines, and sugars [131].
Some adverse effects of tropospheric air pollutants on plants are indirect. For example, air-pollutants can affect visual and chemicalsignals that mediate interaction between plants, and organisms that depend on plants or that are needed for the sustainability of plantcommunities [134] (see Fig. 5). For example, tropospheric O3 can destroy or change biogenic volatile chemicals and thus interfere withattraction of pollinators or pests to plants [135]. O3 could also interfere with sensory organs and the ability of pollinators to sense sourcesof nectar or the ability of biological-control organisms to sense their target hosts [134]. Also, physiological responses to damage from
O3 might alter the ratios of pigments in plants, the phenology (seasonal development) of flowers and whole plants [136], or the timeof flowering, thus affecting host recognition and pollinators. Pollutants may also affect reproduction in plants by directly damaging
air-borne pollen through stimulating repair mechanisms and redirecting resources to cell repair rather than reproduction [137,138]. In
addition, the allergenicity of pollen can be enhanced with implications for human health [137].

271

Chapter 6

Fig. 5 Sites at which air pollution can affect interactions mediated by olfactory or visual cues between plants and their associatedcommunity. a) Effects of pollutants on signal-emitting organisms. b) The degradation of VOCs by air pollutants and formation ofreaction products and secondary organic aerosol (SOA). c) Effects on the signal receiving organisms, e.g., pollinating insects.
In addition, exposure to air pollution can influence the interactions between herbivores and plants. d) From [134], reproducedwith permission.

2.5.3 Effects of particulates on plants
The effects of PM on plants were previously assessed to be few and minor [5,6], but new studies suggest they may be importantparticularly in polluted areas. In a study of water-extractable chemicals collected from PM2.5 samplers on roadsides in Hungary, 13
common roadside plants were tested for sensitivity using the OECD-227 guideline test [139]. Endpoints measured in the study
were shoot weight, shoot height, visible symptoms of damage on the plants, growth rate, photosynthetic pigments, and activityof peroxidase enzyme. The authors concluded that particulate pollution derived from traffic added substantial additional stress tocommunities of plants found on roadsides. The study was conducted during mid-winter and near sources, implying that most of the PM
was primary rather than secondary, and hence insensitive to any changes in UV radiation. It is unclear if similar plant damage would havebeen caused by UV-dependent secondary aerosols.
In another study, the combined effects of ambient atmospheric O3 and particulate matter on wheat were assessed [140]. The cumulative
concentration of ambient O3 above the threshold of 80 μg m-3 h-1 during the 4-month study was 453 μg m-3 h-1. Concentrations ofambient PM2.5 and PM10 ranged between 45–412 μg m-3 and 103–580 μg m-3, respectively. Controls were cleaned of particulates andwere protected from O3 by treatment with ethylene diurea, a mitigator of ozone-stress. Economic yield was reduced 34% in wheat
exposed to O3 and PM, 44% in wheat exposed to PM only and 52% in plants exposed to O3 alone. Similar observations were reported
in a modeling analysis of the effects of O3 and PM on the yields of wheat and rice in China [124]. Based on current levels of O3 andaerosols, their results indicated that anthropogenic aerosols reduced yield of rice and wheat by 4.6 and 4.7%, respectively. The authors
suggested that this was because of the effect of dimming of photosynthetically active radiation by aerosols but that there were somebenefits from cooling and nutrients provided via the aerosols. The losses due to both O3 and aerosols were estimated to be 11.3 for riceand 14.6% for wheat. The relative contributions of primary and secondary PM were not reported, so that the sensitivity to changes in UV
radiation remains unclear.
Overall, these results indicate that aerosols and tropospheric O3 alone, or in combination, have adverse effects on plants and yields ofcrops. The loss from O3 is greater than that from aerosols but they do act additively. With few studies on this interaction, the potential for
additive and/or synergistic effects of O3 and particulates, the significance to crop plants and human activities is uncertain. However, it islikely that these effects will be localised and could be mitigated by increased controls of tropospheric air pollutants.

272

Chapter 6

2.6

Self-cleaning capacity of the atmosphere

The hydroxyl radical (OH) is the major oxidant in the troposphere and its concentration largely determines the lifetime of many
tropospheric pollutants. It is produced via UV-B photolysis of O3 (see Fig. 1). Hence, increases in the tropospheric concentration of
OH are, in part, a consequence of increasing emissions of ODSs. The tropospheric concentration of OH is a balance between OH
production and consumption, where both rates are also affected by climate change.
Global mean concentrations of tropospheric OH have been calculated to have changed little from 1850 to around 1980 [141,142].
However, in the period 1980-2010 the modeled global tropospheric concentration of OH has increased, mainly because of increasing
concentrations of precursors of tropospheric O3, and UV radiation [141]. According to the combined output of three computer models(Fig. 6), there was a net increase in OH of about 8% (mean value of the models). The main precursor of tropospheric O3 is NOx, thetropospheric concentration of which has increased over 1980-2010 (Fig. 6). Global emissions of NOx peaked around 2012, followed by
reductions [143]. In addition to NOx, also ODSs and factors underlying climate change such as rising water vapour have contributed to
the net increase in modeled OH from 1980-2010. Increasing atmospheric CH4 was the main factor counteracting the trend of rising OH(by about -8%, see Fig. 6) in this period.
Fig. 6 Relative change in global
concentrations of tropospheric OH
from 1980 to 2020, estimated withthree different Earth System Models(ESMs). The net change in OH(rightmost column) has contributions
from increased emissions of nitrogenoxides and other precursors of
tropospheric ozone (ΔNOx); increased
emissions of methane (ΔCH4);
accumulation of ozone-depleting
substances now regulated under theMontreal Protocol (ΔODSs); emissionsof particulate matter and its precursors(ΔPM); and other undifferentiatedchanges attributed to underlying
climate change (e.g., water vapour),as well as interactions among theseseparate factors (ΔOther) (modified
from [141]).

Studies that infer concentrations of OH by the rate of removal of chemicals from the atmosphere have generally indicated a decreasing
trend in OH after 2000 [144]. However, the interannual variability in OH from these studies was large, i.e., the difference between
modeled and measured OH trends were not statistically significant [141]. For such studies, methyl chloroform (CH3CCl3) is often used[145] to infer concentrations of OH. The drawback of this method is that the emissions (almost entirely anthropogenic) of CH3CCl3 havedeclined substantially in the last 30 years [145], thus affecting the accuracy and precision of derived amounts of global OH.
Future trends in tropospheric concentrations of OH not only depend on solar UV-B radiation and on the concentration of precursors of
OH but also on OH sinks, particularly CO and CH4. As discussed above, the increasing global concentration of CH4 was the main factor
counteracting positive modeled OH trends in the period 1980-2010 (Fig. 6). Total global emissions of CH4 are currently ~525 Tg yr-1
[146]. If emissions of CH4 from anthropogenic and natural sources continue to rise as they have since 2007, this could decrease global
mean OH by up to 10% by 2050 [147], increasing the atmospheric lifetime and concentrations of CH4 in a positive feedback. Also,
emissions of CO, the major sink of OH, may increase as a result of more frequent and longer lasting wildfires related to climate change. Achange in the average concentration of OH in the troposphere would have large impacts on the cleaning capacity of the troposphere.
Finally, we note the importance of reactions between tropospheric OH and gases that affect stratospheric ozone (Fig. 7). These
include anthropogenic halogenated organics (the HCFCs and HFCs, specifically selected for their reactivity with OH so that they are
removed in the troposphere), as well as gases such as CH4 and VSLSs. Hydroxyl radicals control the tropospheric lifetimes of thesegases, and hence their ability to reach the stratosphere. VSLSs are important pollutants since they can reach the lower stratosphere,
despite their tropospheric lifetime of less than 6 months, and contribute to depletion of stratospheric O3 [148,149]. These chemicals
are not controlled by the Montreal Protocol and include chlorinated, brominated, and iodinated VSLSs (Cl-VSLSs, Br-VSLSs, and
I-VSLSs, respectively). Cl-VSLSs are mostly of anthropogenic origin, while I-VSLSs and Br-VSLSs, particularly bromoform (CHBr3) anddibromomethane (CH2Br2) are mainly produced in biotic processes and are affected by climate change, including increased coastal
runoff and thawing of permafrost [148]. The contribution of BrVSLSs to the total stratospheric bromine loading was estimated to be ≈25% (in 2016) [150].

273

Chapter 6
The mixing ratio of Br-VSLS at the tropopause has been measured to increase with latitude in the Northern Hemisphere, particularly
during polar winter [149] when photochemically driven losses are smallest. This results (via troposphere-to-stratosphere transport) inhigher concentrations of Br-VLSLs in the extratropical lower stratosphere, as compared to those in the tropical lower stratosphere [149].
The major sink of halogenated VSLSs is reaction with OH. Hence the tropospheric lifetime of VSLSs mainly depends on the troposphericconcentration of OH. For example, Rex et al. [151] found a lifetime of dibromomethane (CH2Br2) as long as 188 days inside an OH
minimum zone over the West Pacific, while outside the OH minimum zone, the lifetime of CH2Br2 was 55 days. In addition to CHBr3 andCH2Br2, methyl bromide (CH3Br) is an ODS. Due to the Montreal Protocol and its Amendments, atmospheric mole fractions of CH3Br
have declined considerably and, at present, emissions of CH3Br primarily stem from natural sources [152], with some anthropogenic
sources related to commercial quarantine and pre-shipment applications. The production of CH3Br in seawater is a biological process
mediated by phytoplankton such as diatoms [153]. The interannual variability of atmospheric CH3Br concentrations cannot be solely
explained by changes in the biological production of CH3Br due to changes in sea-surface temperatures (SSTs) and stratification [152].
Also, sinks of CH3Br have to be considered, where the major atmospheric sink of CH3Br is reaction with OH. Nicewonger et al. [152]found a strong correlation between the interannual variability of CH3Br and the Oceanic Niño Index (ONI) from 1995 to 2020. About
36% of the variability in global atmospheric CH3Br was explained by the variability in El Niño Southern Ocean (ENSO) during thisperiod, with increases in CH3Br during El Niño and decreases during La Niña [152]. One reason for increases in atmospheric CH3Br
concentrations during El Niño years (positive ONI) could be a global reduction in OH during El Niño years. Based on modeling studies
for the period 1980 to 2010, Zhao et al. [142] found decreases in global concentrations of OH during El Niño years that were mainly
driven by an elevated loss of OH via reaction with CO from enhanced burning of biomass (Fig. 7). The longer the tropospheric lifetimeof halogenated VSLSs, the higher is the probability that they reach the stratosphere and contribute to depletion of stratospheric O3 with
impacts on ground-level UV-B radiation. Since UV-B radiation, together with tropospheric O3 and water vapour enhance the formationof OH, increased levels of UV-B radiation could counterbalance decreasing concentrations of OH due to wildfires and thawing of
permafrost soils (Fig. 7).

2.7

Changes in atmospheric circulation and transport of pollutants

2.7.1 Ozone from the stratosphereOzone as an air quality issue has normally been considered as a local or regional issue. However, O3 from the stratosphere is alsotransported to the troposphere where it contributes an important but variable fraction of O3 at ground level and represents a baseline
upon which locally or regionally generated O3 is added. This is known as stratospheric-tropospheric exchange (STE). The magnitudeof the contribution of stratospheric O3 to tropospheric O3 is difficult to quantify but important. A comparison of measurements and 3
different models estimated the influence of stratospheric O3 on tropospheric O3, highlighting the challenges of obtaining consistent
results [154]. The study estimated the fraction of O3 near the Earth’s surface that can be attributed to O3 transported down from thestratosphere. This was found to vary between 10% year-round in the tropics increasing to greater than 50% at mid to high latitudes in
winter.

Fig. 7 Interacting effects of UV-B
radiation and climate change on
tropospheric concentrations of OH
and on the lifetime of very-shortlived substances (VSLSs). Effects
of climate change include more
frequent wildfires and thawing of
permafrost soils with the formationof thermokarst lakes, which areimportant sources of CO and CH4,
respectively. Increased emissions of
CO and CH4 tend to decrease thetropospheric OH concentration,
which in turn results in longer lifetimeof VSLSs and thus a higher probabilityof stratospheric ozone depletion.

274

Chapter 6
Estimates of STE are poorly characterised by observations and atmospheric models. An assessment of amounts of O3 in the troposphereshows that model estimates of STE were around 1000 Tg yr-1 O3 for results reported in 1995 but by 2015 models provided estimates
approaching 400 Tg yr-1, with a multi-model estimate of 535 ± 160 Tg yr-1 for the year 2000 [155]. The IPCC AR6 assessment reports avalue of 628 ± 800 Tg yr-1 for 2010, with the large uncertainty highlighting how poorly this value is known [11]. Other recent estimates
include 347 ± 12 Tg yr-1 (2007–2010) [156] and 400 ± 60 Tg yr-1 (1990–2017) [157].
Typically, the magnitude of the STE is inferred as the difference between the calculated production and loss of O3 (termed the residual)
rather than modelling STE transport itself [158]. These production and loss terms are an order of magnitude larger (around 5000 Tg yr-1)
than the estimated transport [e.g., 159], so that their difference is highly uncertain. A second confounding factor is that models haveused different definitions of the upper boundary (tropopause) of the troposphere.
The modelling of the impact of STE on tropospheric O3 for the period 1850 – 2100 shows a significant decrease in O3 from thestratosphere by the year 2000 [158] (see Fig. 9). A modelling study focusing on the period 1980–2010 calculated a decrease in thetransport of O3 from the stratosphere to the troposphere due to the impact of ODSs on stratospheric O3 [160]. The model estimated
a 4% decrease (14 Tg O3) in global tropospheric O3 resulting from ODS up until 1994. Another study using measurements of N2O toconstrain the atmospheric modelling estimated an average decrease in STE due to the Antarctic ozone hole (1990–2017) of 30 Tg yr-1
with a range of 5–55 Tg yr-1, depending on year [157].
Fig. 8 Schematic of the circulation of air into thestratosphere and its return. The general circulationis slow relative to movements in the troposphere.
Tropopause folds (shown with a dotted blue line)
occur sporadically and inject stratospheric air into
the troposphere.

In contrast, the results of a modelling and observational study of the regional changes in O3 concentration in the troposphere for theperiod 1980–1990 through to 2000–2010 [154] suggest an increase in the concentration of O3 at the Earth’s surface, but the otherstudies (noted above) found that stratospheric O3 led to a small increase over this period in the Northern Hemisphere and no significant
change in the Southern Hemisphere. Clearly more work is needed in this area.
For the period from 2000–2100, substantial increases in the amount of O3 transported from the stratosphere to the troposphere are
predicted [158]. Estimates using the output from seven atmospheric models and focusing primarily on RCP6.0, [161] suggest a 10¬–16%
increase in the amount of O3 in the troposphere from STE in the 21st century. When assessing the relative importance of changes in
GHGs vs ODSs in driving the changes in STE, they did not obtain a consistent picture from the models, although it appears that the two
factors are of similar magnitude [161]. However, there is insufficient agreement between models to quantify trends. The net change inthe concentration of O3 in the troposphere by 2100 is very dependent on the magnitude of anthropogenic emissions. The decrease in
net chemical production (red curve, Fig. 9) is driven by the predicted controls on the emission of air pollutants. Calculations using the
RCP8.5 scenario showed a marked increase in the concentration of O3 in the troposphere, with a 3-fold larger amount of O3 transported
from the stratosphere than the RCP6.0 scenario [161]. It is not possible to infer the magnitude of the changes in O3 at ground levelfrom these models, as they report O3 concentrations averaged for the entire vertical extent of the troposphere, and the impact ofstratospheric O3 is much larger in the upper troposphere than at the Earth’s surface.
Folds in the tropopause have a direct impact on air quality at ground level. These folds are not uniformly distributed longitudinally[162,163] and are common over the Eastern Mediterranean, where they have been identified as a significant cause of elevated concentrations of O3 at ground level that are greater than the European Union air-quality standards [164]. The equivalent effect is also
observed in the Southern Hemisphere over the Indian and Southern Oceans. A modelling study of tropopause folds for the period
1960–2100, using emissions as specified in RCP6.0 and including stratospheric O3 recovery, suggests that folds will increase during thisperiod. Statistically significant changes in the number of tropopause folds of around 3 % have been identified in regions that coincidewith a calculated increase of 6 µg m-3 in O3 near the Earth’s surface [165].

275

Chapter 6

Fig. 9 Drivers of tropospheric ozone concentration (redrawn with permission and assistance from Guang Zeng from Fig. 13, in[158]). The deposition amount is directly related to the concentration of O3 at the surface of the Earth. The two panels represent
the output of different chemistry-climate models considered in the study. STE, stratospheric-tropospheric exchange.

Quantifying the transport of O3 from the stratosphere is therefore important to understanding tropospheric air quality but remains
difficult. The challenge in measuring and modelling STE of O3 is partially due to the mechanism by which the downward transport
occurs. Air rich in O3 is injected into the troposphere at the edges of the tropics via “folds” (Fig. 8), where thin layers of air from thestratosphere are surrounded (vertically) by air from the troposphere and vice versa. These layers then mix. Methods for identifying folds
within model output are being improved [e.g., 165] and showing some promising consistency among different models [162].
The modelling of STE is also hampered by the relatively few measurements of the chemical composition and physical structure of
the atmosphere in the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere. As a result, there is little information that can be used to constrain
atmospheric models. Efforts are now underway to use measurements of the chemical composition of air on commercial aircraft to build
up a robust climatology, which can help modelling. [166] Similarly, there are ongoing efforts to improve the use of measurements of
O3 by satellites in atmospheric modelling [167], and potentially O3 sondes and in situ measurements. Using observations to constrainmodels introduces sensitivity to changes in quality and calibration of the input data and this requires careful assessment [167,168] In
future, these data should allow better quantification of the changes in tropospheric O3 that are caused by changes in stratospheric O3.

2.7.2 Effects of circulation changes on extreme weather events and air quality
Air quality is also affected by extreme weather events, such as wildfires. Changes in weather patterns, including extreme weather
events, are not only caused by climate change but also by polar stratospheric ozone depletion, which strengthens the stratosphericpolar vortex. Changing weather patterns due to the Antarctic ozone hole have been observed in the Southern Hemisphere (seeChapters 1 and 3 [23,169], and [170]. For example, anomalies in rainfall and droughts in the Southern Hemisphere are correlatedwith the duration of the Antarctic Ozone hole [171]. In addition to the strength of the stratospheric polar vortex, the El Niño Southern
Oscillation and the Indian Ocean Dipole also affect weather conditions in Australia [172]. Hot and dry weather increases the risk of
wildfires. The severe fire season in Australia 2019-2020 led to significant degradation of air quality within Australia and a smoke plumethat was traced around the globe [173-175]. The likelihood of wildfires is increasing globally, a trend that is expected to continue [176].
However, the recovery of stratospheric O3 should decrease the stability of the Antarctic polar vortex, which should lead to wetter
conditions in the Southern Hemisphere in the near future for this region.

276

Chapter 6
Similarly to the effects of the atmospheric dynamics of the Antarctic ozone hole, Arctic stratospheric ozone depletion results in a shift of
the Arctic Oscillation (AO) to more positive values (e.g., [177]) and a more zonal Northern Hemisphere jet stream. Consequences arecolder than normal surface temperatures in southeastern Europe and southern Asia, but warmer than normal surface temperatures inWestern Europe, Russia, and northern Asia [178]. For example, a likely consequence of the unprecedented Arctic stratospheric ozone
depletion in spring 2020 was the heat wave in Siberia accompanied by wildfires in this region [179]. Whether such events will occur inthe future depends on trends in the emissions of ODSs and GHGs, since GHGs affect the Arctic stratosphere via radiative cooling [180].
Hence, the frequency of extreme weather events such as droughts and therefore wildfires in both hemispheres is influenced by direct
effects of climate change and by changes in atmospheric circulation and in polar stratospheric O3. Wildfires decrease tropospheric air
quality with the emission of PM, CO, and other tropospheric pollutants, which impact human health.

2.8

Conclusions

Changes in stratospheric O3 concentrations and thus in ground-level UV-B radiation affect tropospheric air quality. Poor air quality
remains a major health problem globally, despite progress in reducing emissions of air primary pollutants. Much of the impact of air
pollutants is due to chemicals produced by UV-B-initiated photochemistry, including O3 and PM, i.e., secondary inorganic and organic
aerosols. PM and tropospheric O3 pose a significant health risk. Overall, recovery of stratospheric O3, and hence lower intensity ofground-level UV-B radiation, is expected to slightly improve air quality in cities in mid-latitudes but slightly worsen air quality in rural
areas. For PM, the impacts of changes in UV-B radiation on the amount and chemical composition of PM are still poorly understood.
Transport of O3 from the stratosphere into the troposphere adds to tropospheric O3 concentrations. This transport is expected toincrease because of the recovery of stratospheric O3 and changes in global circulation driven by climate change. Given the current stateof knowledge, estimating the magnitude of these changes remains a significant challenge.
UV-B radiation is also involved in the formation of OH, the major cleaning agent of the troposphere. Hence, UV-B radiation has somebeneficial effects on tropospheric air quality. Reaction with OH drives the atmospheric removal of many problematic tropospheric gases
including some pollutants and GHGs such as CH4, and VSLSs (noting also that GHGs and VSLSs affect stratospheric O3). Given current
global CH4 emission of ~500 Tg yr-1, a 1% decrease of the global OH concentration would result in an increase of ~1% in troposphericCH4 concentrations, equivalent to a sustained increase in emissions of CH4 of ~5 Tg yr-1.
The main sink of OH is reaction with CO. An important natural source of CO is wildfires, which have increased in frequency and intensity
due to climate change. Hence, UV-B radiation and climate change affect concentrations of tropospheric OH with potential feedbacks on
climate change and on stratospheric ozone.
The impact of poor air quality is not limited to human health; it affects plants and other organisms as well. This has had a substantial
impact on food production and forests through exposure to ground-level O3. There is also evidence of reduced food production due to
PM. The magnitude of these impacts will be altered by climate change and the future evolution of stratospheric O3.

3 Trifluoroacetic acid in the global environment with relevance to theMontreal Protocol
3.1

Background

Trifluoroacetic acid (TFA) is the terminal breakdown product of many fluorinated chemicals, including those that fall under the purview ofthe Montreal Protocol and its Amendments. Its properties (discussed below) include very low reactivity, high stability, and recalcitrance
to breakdown in the environment. This has raised concerns about the use of fluorinated substitutes for the ozone-depleting and thefluorinated greenhouse gases. The formation, fate, and potential effects of TFA have been the remit of the EEAP for the last two decades,
and this overview is a continuation of this activity with a primary focus on new information since the last Quadrennial Assessment [6] tothe Parties of the Montreal Protocol.

3.1.1 Classification of trifluoroacetic acid as a per- and poly-fluoroalkyl chemical
Trifluoroacetic acid CF3-COOH (CAS# 76-05-1) is a perfluorinated chemical, meaning that, aside from its functional group (-COOH), allhydrogen atoms in the molecule have been replaced with fluorine. The European Chemicals Agency has proposed that this chemical
be included in a class, the per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) [181]. Others have suggested that the definition of PFAS should
exclude TFA and chemicals that degrade to just give TFA [182]. In 2022, there were 4730 chemicals in the PFAS class, which had been
expanded to include all chemicals with at least one aliphatic -CF2- or -CF3 moiety. The PFAS class includes gases (such as those under277

Chapter 6
the purview of the Montreal Protocol), low boiling point liquids, high boiling point liquids and lubricants, and solid polymers used inindustry, medicine, and domestic equipment. As has been pointed out [183], a small number (about 256) of these PFAS are currently
used commercially and “grouping and categorizing PFAS using fundamental classification criteria based on composition and structure
can be used to identify appropriate groups of PFAS substances for risk assessment.” [183] More recently, a majority of a panel ofexperts agreed that “all PFAS should not be grouped together, persistence alone is not sufficient for grouping PFAS for the purposes ofassessing human health risk, and that the definition of appropriate subgroups can only be defined on a case-by-case manner.” [184].
In addition, the majority opinion with respect to toxicology was that “it is inappropriate to assume equal toxicity/potency across thediverse class of PFAS” [184].
This same argument applies to the inclusion of TFA, with a two-carbon chain and a single CF3 group, into a class with longer chain PFAS.
These longer chain PFAS have key chemical, physical, and biological properties that become quite different with increasing lengthof the carbon-chain (Table 2 and Appendix Table 1). For example (see Table 2), log KOW (a measure of partitioning between lipids inorganisms and water); Henry’s Law Constant (a measure of partitioning between water and air); KOC (a measure of adsorption to soil
and sediment); and the half-life in humans (related to chronic exposure and chronic toxicity) all vary with changes in the length of the
carbon chain. These relationships are well recognised [185-189] as they are important drivers of adsorption, distribution, and excretionin animals, which are major determinants of adverse effects.
Table 2 Key physical, chemical, and biological properties of the linear perfluorinated carboxylic acids from 2-8 carbons.
Property

Abbreviation
CAS#
Molecular
formulaNumber ofcarbon atoms
Log KOWHenry’s Law
Constant (atm m-3
mol-1)
KOC (L kg-1)
NOEC mostsensitive aquaticplant (ng L-1)
NOEC mostsensitive aquatic
animal (ng L-1)
Half-life inhumans f

Trifluoroacetic
acid

Perfluoropropanonic
acid

Perfluorobutanoic
acid

Perfluoropentanoic
acid

Perfluorohexanoic
acid

Perfluoroheptanoic
acid

Perfluorooctanoic
acid

TFA

PF TFA

PFBA

PFPeA

PFHxA

PFHpA

PFOA

76-05-1

422-64-0

375-22-4

2706-90-3

307-24-4

375-85-9

335-67-1

CF3COOH

CF3CF2
COOH

CF3(CF2)2COOH

CF3(CF2)3COOH

CF3(CF2)4COOH

CF3(CF2)5COOH

CF3(CF2)6COOH

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0.5

1.5 a

2.43 a3.262 a3.48

5.024 a5.905 a1.11 x 10-7

4.43 x 10-6 a

0.0051 a

0.029 a0.174 a1.521 a3.044 a0.17-20

12.7 a

58 a

270 a

1247 a5761

30,4402.5 x 106 b

1.44 x 107 c

6.21 x 108 c> 1.00 x 109 c

NA> 1.02 x 109 c

5.80 x 103 c

LC50 = 7 x
107 dLC50 = 8.0 x
107 d

LC50 = 1.1 x
108 d

LC50 = 1.3 x
108 d

LC50 = 1.4 x
108 d

LC50 > 1.02 x
106 d

LC50 = 1.5
x 108

16 h

NA

72-81 hNA

14-49 d e

1.2-1.5 yr

2.1-10 yr

Unless otherwise stated, references are from [190]. Other sources are: a [191] b [192] c [193] d [194] e [187] f [195]. NOEC, noobserved effect concentration; NA, not applicable.

278

Chapter 6
There has been considerable discussion as to the inclusion of TFA in the class PFAS for regulatory purposes [182,183,196-199].
Regulatory agencies in North America acknowledge the physical, chemical, and biological properties of chemicals in the class of PFAS
[189] and, in particular, the influence of chain length on these properties [188,189,200]. A sound assessment of the environmental
impact of TFA needs to consider the relevant physical, chemical, and toxicological data and realistic environmental concentrations (seediscussion in Sect. 3.2 to 3.6). We are of the opinion that the properties of TFA indicate that it should not be included in this class for the
purposes of generic regulatory risk assessment.
The PFAS class also includes other perfluorinated chemicals that are of concern, e.g., perfluorooctanesulfonic acid, (PFOS). PFOS differsfrom TFA and its homologues because it is a sulfonic acid and is also more toxic than its alkanoic homolog. Therefore, as these chemicals
do not fall under the purview of the Montreal Protocol, they have not been included in this discussion or in Table 2.

3.1.2 Properties of trifluoroacetic acid
The physical and chemical properties of TFA are well known [201] but key to assessing environmental risk is that it is a strong acid with a
pKa of 0.3 and is completely miscible with water [190]. In the environment, it forms salts with alkali metals, which are also very soluble
in water. These properties indicate that TFA and its salts will not bioaccumulate in organisms other than terrestrial plants and will notbiomagnify in food chains. The carbon-fluorine bond is the strongest of all bonds with carbon and TFA and its salts are very recalcitrant
in the environment. Studies on degradation by microbiota, including species and strains from contaminated areas, have not shown any
evidence of TFA being susceptible to microbiological degradation [202,203].

3.2

Chemical pathways for degradation of precursors to trifluoroacetic acid

HCFCs and HFCs have found widespread use as replacements in applications that previously used CFCs. More recently, shortchain halogenated alkenes (hydrofluoroolefins, HFOs) are finding increasing use in several commercial applications. For example,
E-CF3CH=CHF (HFO-1234ze(E)) and E-CF3-CH=CHCl (HCFO-1233zd(E)) are being used for foam blowing and in large chillers, whereas
2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene, CF3CF=CH2 (HFO-1234yf) is used as a replacement for 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane, CF3CH2F (HFC-134a), in
vehicle air conditioning units [204]. These chemicals are anthropogenic and there are no known natural sources of HCFCs, HFCs, and
HFOs.
Tropospheric degradation of HCFCs, HFCs and HFOs is initiated by reaction with OH radicals, leading to formation of small terminal
degradation products including CO, CO2, and the halo-acids hydrogen fluoride (HF) and hydrogen chloride (HCl). Some of thedegradation products are also atmospheric precursors of TFA through hydrolysis of acyl halides, e.g., CF3CFO, or via secondary
photochemistry of trifluoroacetaldehyde (CF3CHO) [205,206]. The chemistry by which the CFC replacements are converted into
precursors of TFA has been extensively studied over the last few decades and recently summarised [207,208]. Figure 10 illustrates how
atmospheric degradation of different CFC replacements, belonging to three successive generations of CFC replacements, can lead tothe formation of TFA in significantly different yields. For instance, the dominant atmospheric fate of CF3CClO and CF3CFO, generated
in the atmospheric processing of HCFC-123 and HFC-134a, respectively, is uptake into cloud water, followed by effective hydrolysis
to yield TFA, on a timescale of approximately 5-30 days [205]. However, due to competing fates of the intermediary alkoxy radicals(marked with asterisks in Fig. 10), the effective yields of TFA are significantly different (e.g., ~ 60% for HCFC-123 and 7–20% for HFC134a). In the case of HFO-1234yf, no significant competition exists in the degradation pathway and the expected yield of TFA is ~ 100%
through the hydrolysis of CF3CFO.

279

Chapter 6

A

HCFC-123

HFC-134a

CF3CCl2H + OH

CF3CFH2(1.3 y)Cl
CF3 C + H2O
O2
Cl
(µs)

CF3CCl2OOH
HO2
Cl(days)OH
NO2
CF3 C O2
Cl (mins)
CF3CCl2OONO2
hv / decomp.
(secs)NO

O

Cl(days)F
CF3 C
O2(µs) H

CF3CFHOOH
HO2(days) OH

NO2

CF3 +

CF3 + CO + Cl

cloudsF
O

F*
CF3 C O
∆
H
(µs)
H

O2

CF3 C

O

+ HO2

F
(days)

clouds60±10% CF3COOH(aq) (TFA)

7-20% CF3COOH(aq) (TFA)

Deposition

Deposition

C

+ H2O

NO2

Cl
*
CF3 C O (µs)
∆
Cl
(hv)

+ OH

(14 y)F
CF3 C O2
CF3CFHOONO2 hv / decomp. H (mins)(secs)
NO

NO2

CF3 C

B

HFO-1234yf

O H
2
CF3 C C H
(mins) F OH
NO

H
CF3 C C H
F OH
O2
(µs)

H
C C
F
H

CF3

HO H
CF3 C C H
F (µs)+ OH(11 days)HO H
CF3 C C H
(mins) F O2
NO

NO2

O H
CF3 C C H(µs) F OH

O2HOF
CF3 C +(µs) F
O

∆

CF3 C

O

F
(days)

O2

H
+ C H
OH

cloudsH

CF3 C
clouds

O

∆

NO2

HO H
CF3 C C H(µs) F O+ HO2

F(days)~100% CF3COOH(aq) (TFA)
Deposition

Fig. 10 Atmospheric degradation pathways and corresponding yields of TFA for HFCF-123 (Panel A), HFC-134a (Panel B) andHFO-1234yf (Panel C) representing three generations of important CFC replacements. Approximate atmospheric lifetimes forthe chemical species involved are indicated in parenthesis. Species marked by an asterisk have significant competing fates in
the atmosphere [205,206].

Even if they are not producing acid-halides during their atmospheric degradation, some other CFC replacements can still form TFA
in small yields through the formation of trifluoroaldehyde, CF3CHO. This aldehyde is the primary degradation product from several
CFC replacements, including HCFCs, HFCs, HFOs and HCFOs, e.g., HCFC-234fb (CF3CH2CCl2F, τ= 45 years), HFC-143a (CF3CH3,
τ = 51 years) and HFO-1234ze(E) (E-CF3CH=CHF, τ =19 days) and HCFO-1233zd(E) (CF3CH=CHCl, τ = 42 days) [209]. Here τ is theatmospheric lifetime defined as the reciprocal of the pseudo first order rate constants for the removal of the chemical species, also
sometimes referred to as the “e-folding lifetime”.

280

Chapter 6
Figure 11 illustrates the atmospheric degradation of HCFO-1233zd(E), which produces CF3CHO in essentially 100% yield. CF3CHO
has three competing fates in the atmosphere. First, it undergoes photolysis (annually averaged diurnal atmospheric lifetime in the
troposphere of ≤ 2 days at 40° latitude) giving CF3 and HCO radicals [210] (see also Sect. 3.7). Second, oxidation initiated by OH
produces acyl peroxy radicals, which can react with HO2, NO, or NO2. Reaction of these acyl peroxy radicals with HO2 radicals can leadto the formation of TFA as a minor product. Third, contact with liquid water produces hydrates, which can react with OH radicals leading
to the formation of TFA [211]. The latter two processes are currently thought to be minor fates of CF3CHO. The reaction of the hydratewith OH radicals is an efficient pathway for generating TFA; however, the importance of hydrolysis of CF3CHO to give TFA is uncertain(see Sect. 3.7.3). Due to these competing fates, an estimated 2-30% of atmospheric CF3CHO is converted into TFA (see Appendix Sect.
4).

3.3

Contribution of chemicals under the purview of the Montreal Protocol to the global loadof trifluoroacetic acid

Several CFC replacements give rise to the formation of TFA as an atmospheric oxidation product. Figure 12 provides an overview
of estimated yields of TFA (%) for CFC replacements, as well as selected chemicals not under the purview of the Montreal Protocol(non-MP). In addition, some replacements such as HCFC-225ca (CF3CF2CHCl2) yield longer-chain PFCAs, CF2CF2COOH (100%). HFC134a and HFO-1234yf are the two substitutes that have the largest predicted contribution to global TFA concentrations among thosegases that fall under the purview of the Montreal Protocol. The Science Assessment Panel (SAP) and the Technology and Economic
Assessment Panel (TEAP) of the Montreal Protocol under the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) have projected future usesand potential releases from 2020 to 2100 for these two substitutes. A summary of the projected yield of TFA from degradation in the
troposphere (Fig. 12) is provided in Table 3.

H

Cl
C C
+ OH
CF3
H

60%
F H H
F C C C Cl
F OH
O2

F H H
F C C C Cl

(43 days)

∆

F H
F C C
F OH

F H H
F C C C OH (mins)

(µs)

F

F H H
F C C C Cl+

HCl RHCl(mins)F OH O2 (mins)NO∆

OH (µs)

F

(µs)

F H H
F C C C Cl

NO2

HCFO-1233zd(E)40%Fig. 11 Atmosphericdegradation of HCFO1233zd. The OH initiatedoxidation of the product,
CF3CHO, is a minor sourceof TFA. Based on [207] and[208].

F OH O(µs)

F H H
F C C C

(2-3 days) F H
hν

Cl

O

+ OH
HCHO/COOH

CO

or

H
O (5-15 days)

OH

CO2

O2

F H
F C C O2
F OH

(mins)NO2NOF H
F C C O

∆

F OH

OH

(µs)

F

* F

F

C

+ OH
C

(mins)
CF3C(O)OONO2

H

F

C
F

F
C

HF + CO2(5-15 days)

CF3

CO

O2

F

O2

F C
hv / decomp.
F

C

NO2

COF2

(2 days) *
∆

O

+ hν

O

NO2

CO2

* NO CF C(O)O
3

O

(µs)

(mins)
OH + O2+ HO2

CF3C(O)OOH + O2
CF3COOH(g)O3

CF3COOH(aq) (TFA)
Deposition

2-30%

281

Chapter 6

Fig. 12 Yields of TFA from selected individual CFC replacement compounds, and their estimated global emissions. Also
included are selected compounds not under the purview of the Montreal Protocol and Amendments. Error bars represent
both experimental uncertainties and upper and lower yield ranges due to competing reaction channels that depends onenvironmental conditions. Yields of TFA from individual compounds are estimated based on evaluations of the available
literature as described in Online Resource Sect. 4. Note split scale for the emission of HFC-134a is much higher than that of othercompounds.

Table 3 Projected global yields of TFA from HFC-134a and HFO-1234yf and total deposition between 2020 and 2100.
HFC-134a

HFO-1234yf

SumAnnual formation of TFA (a.e., acid equivalents)
2020

0.01–0.03 Tg yr–1

0.03–0.03 Tg yr–1

0.04–0.06 Tg yr–1

2050

–1

0.02–0.05 Tg yr–1

0.34–0.49 Tg yr

0.36–0.54 Tg yr–1

2100

0.01–0.02 Tg yr–1

0.63–1.03 Tg yr–1

0.64–1.05 Tg yr–1

2020–2050

0.5–1.5 Tg

5.3–6.6 Tg

5.8–8.1 Tg

2020–2100

1.0–2.9 Tg

30.5–49.0 Tg

31.5–51.9 Tg

2050

244–246 ng L-1

2100

266–284 ng L-1

Sums of deposited TFA (a.e.)

Concentration of TFA as the sodium salt
in the oceans in

These data are taken from Table 7.3 of the 2022 report of the Science Assessment Panel [212] and currently are best estimates
for the two listed refrigerants. Releases of other potential sources of TFA (see Fig. 12) have not been included but are expected
to be much smaller. Estimated future concentration in the oceans is based on the nominal value of 200 ng a.e. L-1 in 2020 and a
total volume of 1.36 x 109 km-3. For comparison to toxicity values, concentrations have been converted to sodium salt.

282

Chapter 6
These amounts of TFA are estimated to increase concentrations in the global oceans from the nominal value of 200 ng a.e. L-1 (equivalent
to 239 ng TFA sodium salt L-1) estimated by Frank et al. [213] to 266–284 ng sodium salt L-1 in 2100 if evenly distributed across all
oceans. If the actual concentrations were less than the nominal value (239 ng TFA sodium salt L-1), the predicted values for 2100 would
be smaller. In a recent study in Germany, the contribution of currently used refrigerants to the formation of TFA was estimated [214]. The
worst-case annual formation of TFA from refrigerant R134a was estimated at 1050 tonnes yr-1, 1170 tonnes yr-1 from refrigerant R1234yf,
and 141 tonnes yr-1 from all other refrigerants. If the proportions of TFA from other refrigerants in Germany are applied to the global
estimate of deposition, the maximum value for contributions from all refrigerants would be about 6% greater i.e., 302 ng sodium salt L-1.
It should be noted that the geographic distribution of TFA released into the atmosphere across the globe has changed with theintroduction of refrigerants and blowing agents such as HFOs with short atmospheric lifetimes (days). The longer atmospheric lifetimesof the older generation HFCs allowed wider and more even distribution of parent HFCs and deposition of TFA, across the globe[215-217]. The HFOs will be degraded by tropospheric OH radicals closer to the source of release with resulting steeper gradients ofconcentration depending on wind direction and velocity [see examples of modeling of deposition in 217]. As a result of this unevendeposition, concentrations of TFA in surface waters will vary with flow rates and volumes of water. Prediction of concentrations of TFA in
surface waters will require the development of hydrologic models, such as those now used to model distribution and concentrations ofother pollutants in water. These types of models are available from the EPA (USA) [218] but would need to be modified for modeling of
the dispersion of HFOs and TFA once it reaches the surface.

3.4

Trifluoroacetic acid in precipitation

The presence of TFA in precipitation continues to be studied, with several new reports published since the last Quadrennial Assessment[6]. Unless otherwise stated, only those studies with complete descriptions of analytical methods have been included. Analysis of
rainwater samples collected in 2016 in 28 cities across China showed detectable amounts of TFA in all samples [219]. Concentrations
ranged from a low of 9.1 to a high of 320 ng TFA a.e. L-1 and fluxes from 160 to 16,000 ng TFA a.e. m-2 day-1 (Tables S7 and S8 in [219]).
A study on concentrations of TFA present in rainwater samples in eight locations across Germany from February 2018 to February 2019
showed a seasonal range of concentrations over one year [220]. Across all sites, frequency of detection was greater than 90% except inDecember, January, and February. The greatest median concentration, 703 ng TFA a.e. L-1, was in June 2018. Over the year, daily fluxes
across collection sites showed less variability with the greatest median flux of 774 ng TFA a.e. m-2 day-1 and the smallest of about 205 ng
m-2 day-1 [Table 2 in 220]. This study was continued for an additional year [220] and a similar pattern was observed (Fig. 13). The sourceof the TFA was most likely degradation of fluorinated gases in the troposphere and the authors suggest that the seasonality is because
of seasonal changes in solar UV-radiation and the photochemical formation of OH radicals responsible for production of TFA in the
troposphere [220]. Fluxes of TFA in rainwater in Germany [220] were less than those reported from China [219], probably because of
the release of more precursors in greater concentrations in the latter location. A recent study on temporal trends in concentrations of TFA
in surface waters reported increases in concentrations of 6-fold between samples collected in 1998 and those collected in 2021 [221].
Concentrations in samples collected down-wind from the San Francisco Bay area were greater in 2021 (up to 2790 ng L-1) than in 1998
(up to 287 ng L-1). The author suggests that these residues of TFA are from the breakdown of fluorinated refrigerants, but fluxes were
not reported so the role of reduced precipitation in generating the greater concentrations is unknown. Once reaching the surface, TFA
will form salts with alkali metals and mix with surface- or interstitial-water in the soil. These salts can be taken up by plants (see below)
and accumulate in plant tissues, particularly leaves. Based on this property, archived samples of various leaves of some species of trees
from the German Environmental Specimen Bank were analysed for the presence of TFA [222]. The leaves collected spanned the period
from 1989 to 2020 and showed an increase in concentrations of TFA. For example, concentrations of TFA in leaves of Lombardy poplar
increased from ca 160 µg kg-1 (d.w.) in 1991 to ca 970 µg kg-1 in 2019. The authors suggest that the sources of TFA are replacements for
the CFCs, mostly from precipitation. The authors are likely correct in this conclusion.
Breakdown products of some fluorinated chemicals include hydrofluoric acid (HF) and TFA, which are strong acids. However, theamounts generated from the oxidation of HFOs represent only a small (< 0.5%) contribution to the formation of acid rain in comparison
to other sources such as sulfur and nitrogen oxides [223] and this is judged to not be of concern.

3.5

Other sources of trifluoroacetic acid in the global environment

In previous assessments [6,224,225], we have discussed other potential sources of TFA that are not related to the chemicals under thepurview of the Montreal Protocol. In the global context, there is a paucity of information on these sources, but they fall into some generalgroupings, inter alia:• Geogenic sources• Effluents and releases from the manufacture of fluorinated chemicals, including chemicals under the purview of the Montreal Protocol
and Amendments• Combustion and degradation of fluorinated chemicals in commercial and household waste• Biological and environmental degradation of chemicals such as pharmaceuticals and pesticides that contain fluorine atoms,
specifically the -CF3 moiety.
These are discussed in more detail below.

283

Chapter 6

Fig. 13 Concentration of trifluoroacetate in composite precipitation samples from eight sites in Germany from February 2018 to
February 2020. The y-axis is on a binary logarithmic scale (log2) and the solid horizontal bar is the median, the box indicates theupper and lower quartiles, the whiskers the upper of lower quartile – or + the interquartile range x 1.5, and the data symbols are
the outliers. From Fig. 27 in [220].

3.5.1 Geogenic sources
Since the early reports of the widespread presence of TFA in marine waters [213,226] and its association with 14C-dated deep waters
older than 1000 years [227], it was believed that there are natural sources of TFA. This is consistent with the report that concentrations of
TFA increase with proximity to locations of undersea volcanic vents [227,228].
However, the theory that TFA can be formed from geogenic sources has been challenged [229]. This challenge was partially based on
potential analytical errors and lack of information on levels of detection and quantitation, and high variance in concentrations measured
in samples at different depths and in different oceanic basins. The authors focused on atmospheric sources of TFA in surface waters
and ice, which originates in precipitation and did not consider measurements in other bodies of water such as endorheic lakes andplayas located in areas of low precipitation and little fluorochemical industry. One of these locations, the Dead Sea, had a reported
concentration of 6400 ng L-1 [226]. The Dead Sea is in a rift valley with a history of geological faulting and with a volume of 114 km³, sothat this concentration is equivalent to 730 tonnes of TFA. That this amount of TFA (measured in the 1990s) is all from anthropogenic
sources is very unlikely, and geogenic sources are more plausible.
Another argument put forward that TFA does not originate from geogenic sources is the lack of TFA in older (> 2000 year-old) samplesof glacial melt, surface, and ground water. These older waters originated from precipitation from evaporated (distilled) marine andsurface waters. Like chloride, TFA from oceans (and possible endorheic lakes) could be carried to land close to the shore. However, thistransport would only be for short distances and is unlikely to be a significant source of TFA and other PFAS in precipitation and/or ice
cores [220]. While it is possible that TFA could have been released from surficial volcanos, these potential sources lack the combinationsof high temperature and high pressures found in thermal vents in the deep ocean. It should be noted that some authors have reported
the presence of fluorinated and/or chlorinated short-chain and aromatic carbon compounds (but not TFA) in emissions from surficial
volcanos [reviewed in 230,231].
The background value of 200 ng TFA L-1 in the oceans as suggested by Frank et al. [213] would be equivalent to 268 x 106 tonnes of TFA
in the global oceans if well mixed globally. However, based on analyses in several oceanic basins, lesser amounts (a range of 61–205
x 106 tonnes equivalent to 45–152 ng L-1) were suggested by Scott et al. [227]. From the total known use and release of HFC-134a,
HFC-143a, and HFC-227ea between 1990 and 2015, the total amount of TFA that could theoretically have been produced is 4.5 x 106
tonnes. This is very much less than the total based on the range of concentrations measured in the oceans, which, using an estimatedten-fold range, would be equivalent to 27–270 x 106 tonnes. Even with this assumption, this is equivalent to a discrepancy of 6 to 60fold that is much larger than would be explainable by anthropogenic activity in relation to use of the HFCs. This gap is most likely fromnatural sources.
In the absence of more rigorous and consistent sampling of the oceans, these concentrations and amounts are speculative. For the
purposes of comparisons to toxicity values and risk assessment, the EEAP [6,224,225,232] used the larger value to err on the side of
caution when estimating further contribution from the chemicals under the purview of the Montreal Protocol to the total load in the
global oceans.

284

Chapter 6
Another major unknown in characterising the source of reported concentrations of TFA in the oceans is the degradation half-life of TFA in
the environment. As discussed above, TFA is very recalcitrant and is essentially unreactive under normal environmental conditions. If, as
seems to be the case, the half-life is likely very long (≈ centuries), very small amounts could accumulate over time to explain the amounts
observed in oceans and endorheic basins.

3.5.2 Manufacturing of fluorinated chemicals
In the 1990s, there was only one manufacturer of TFA in the USA [201] and relatively few manufacturers of fluorinated refrigerants thatfall under the purview of the Montreal Protocol. Since that time, the manufacture of fluorinated chemicals has increased, and thesefacilities are found in many countries around the world. Details on the amounts produced, use, and release of most of these chemicals
and by-products are not reported in a way that is accessible to the public or the scientific community such as it is for chemicals under thepurview of the Montreal Protocol. Several recent papers have reported measurements of TFA and potential precursors in locations near
manufacturing facilities. Here we focus mostly on publications in the last four years.
A study of leachates and effluents from municipal waste disposal sites and landfills in the environs of Tianjin (China), the location ofseveral fluorochemical manufacturing facilities, showed the presence of many PFAS as well as TFA at all sampling sites [233]. Greatest
amounts of TFA (60,000 and 50,000 ng a.e. L-1) were measured in leachates from two incineration plants, although leachates from one
landfill and one transfer-site had similarly high concentrations approaching 40,000 ng a.e. L-1. TFA was detected in samples of surface
water and soils near a fluorochemical complex in Jinan (China) [234]. Concentration of TFA in lotic (flowing) surface waters ranged
from 300 to 1000 ng L-1 but two lentic (still water sites) had mean concentrations of 1700 and 2600 ng a.e. L-1. Well- and tap-water
had concentrations of about 250 ng a.e. L-1. In the same study, concentrations of TFA in soil samples close to factories ranged from 59
to 2081 ng a.e. kg-1. Uptake of TFA from nutrient solution (containing 2,000,000,000 ng a.e. L-1) by roots and leaves of wheat plants
resulted in accumulated concentrations 170,000,000 ng kg-1 in roots and 100,000,000 ng kg-1 in shoots after exposure for 80 h [235].
Given the large and unrealistic concentrations in the nutrient solution, this is not surprising. Other PFAS were also taken up but to alesser extent than TFA. This study did demonstrate uptake of TFA by plants. As discussed in the previous update report [225], maize andpoplar plants take up TFA from contaminated soils [236]. Transport to the leaves was greater than to the stalk or the maize kernels. Thisis consistent with transport with water to the sites of transpiration and loss of water vapour through the leaves, resulting in accumulationof non-volatile salts of TFA. The median bioaccumulation factor (soil:leaf) was about 200. When these authors fed maize leaves toherbivores (locusts) the leaf-to-locust transfer factors were < 1 (0.028–0.185), indicative of negative trophic magnification (trophic
dilution), most likely because locusts can excrete TFA, as has been demonstrated in mammals [201]. The large concentrations of TFA
found in the environments around factories and plants manufacturing fluorinated chemicals indicate large fugitive emissions from somefacilities that manufacture these chemicals. Given the small number of studies, the total load to the environment is very uncertain but it is
an issue that needs to be addressed regionally, even if it is outside the scope of the Montreal Protocol.

3.5.3 Combustion and thermolysis of fluorinated chemicals
Polymers containing fluorine, such as polytetrafuoroethylene (PTFE) and related products, are heavily used in urban and industrial
areas [237]. Data on amounts of fluoropolymers produced each year are not easily obtained; median estimates of value are in theregion of 8 billion US dollars; however, there were no data on the mass of the products. When these polymers are subjected tohigh temperatures, they can degrade to yield TFA or precursors of TFA [238]. When heated to 500°C in the presence of air, PTFE,
polychlorotrifluoroethylene (CPTFE), ethylene chlorotrifluoroethylene (ECTFE), and polytetrafluoroethylene-co-tetrafluoroethylene
perfluoropropylether (PFEPE) yielded 7.8, 9.5, 6.3, and 2.5% TFA, respectively (Ellis et al., 2001). A similar study on this source of
TFA in Beijing (China) indicated yields of TFA from thermolysis of PTFE, poly(vinylidene fluoride-hexafluoropropylene) (PVDF-HFP),
and poly(vinylidene fluoride-co-chlorotrifluoroethylene) (PVDF-CTFE) were 1.2%, 0.9% and 0.3%, respectively, which was estimatedto contribute 0.6–6.1 ng a.e. L-1 to precipitation over this city [239]. These are potential sources of TFA to the environment but little
information was found in the literature on the effect of conditions of combustion (ranging from very high incineration temperature ofwaste to open-burning) on the rates of formation of TFA. However, this does remain a possible, but globally uncertain, source of TFA. A
recent laboratory study of degradation of PFCAs [240], has shown that exposure of PFCAs (see Table 2) to sodium hydroxide in a polar
aprotic solvent (e.g., dimethyl sulfoxide) resulted in degradation to fluoride ions in yields between 78 and 100% in 24 h.
TFA was formed in amounts of 19 to 39 mol% for PFCAs with 5 to 9 carbon chains. The authors suggest that this observation might leadto the development of methods for disposing of PFCAs. However, the TFA produced in the process might become a source of TFA to
the environment.

3.5.4 Unidentified sources of exposure to trifluoroacetic acidA review of the global occurrence of PFCs in water from wastewater treatment plants identified only two studies (included in previous
reports from the EEAP) that had reported the presence of TFA [241]. Whether the TFA was formed during treatment of the wastewateror was present in the incoming effluent could not be determined; however, the authors speculated that it could have been formed fromdegradation of longer-chain PFAS precursors.
In a study of the concentrations of PFAS in the serum of staff and support workers in Nankai University in Tianjin (China), a location
where fluorochemicals are manufactured, TFA and other PFAS were detected [242]. The frequency of detection of TFA was 97% but
12 other PFAS had greater frequencies of detection. The median concentration of TFA in serum of the volunteers was 8460 ng L-1 and285

Chapter 6
the 75th centile was 12,550 ng a.e. L-1. Given the high solubility in water as noted above (and low KOW, Table 2), this concentration is
likely equivalent to a systemic burden of the same values in ng kg-1. These values are 4.4 orders of magnitude less than the NOED (NoObserved Effect Dose) for TFA in rats (discussed below) and do not suggest biologically significant risks for humans. Concentrations of
PFOS and PFOA were greater than TFA and these chemicals are more toxic than TFA and are retained in the body for longer periods(Table 2). The authors reported an association between the sum of the concentrations of PFAS and biomarkers of diabetes but offered no
insight as to causality by a specific chemical or the route of exposure to these chemicals.
Residues of TFA have been found in beverages such as beer and herbal infusions (teas) [243]. Analysis of samples of beer from 23
countries spanning the globe provided a range of concentrations with a median of 6100 ng L-1 and a maximum of 51,000 ng a.e. L-1.
The authors opined that the source of TFA in the beer and teas was not the water used to make the beverage, suggesting rather thatthe barley or the hops and the dried leaf of the tea(s) was the source of the contamination. Measurements of TFA in barley have not yet
been reported in the literature but uptake of TFA from soil into maize kernels (discussed above) resulted in accumulations with a rangeof 40,400 to 102,000 ng a.e. kg-1 [236]. If accumulation in barley is like maize, this is a possible explanation; however, the source of
the TFA in the barley is uncertain. It could originate from industrial sources of contamination or pesticides used in agriculture that break
down to produce TFA and a terminal residue (see below).
An earlier paper from China [244] had reported the detection of many PFAS in outdoor dust; however, they did not analyse for TFA.
Residues of TFA (and other PFAS) have now been detected in indoor and outdoor dust in China [245]. Median concentrations of TFA in
outdoor dust from six locations in China ranged from 61,000 to 222,000 µg a.e. kg-1 with no consistent differences between rural andurban sites. In urban sites, concentrations of TFA in indoor dust from six locations in China ranged from 117,000 to 470,000 µg a.e. kg-1.
Concentrations of other PFAS were much smaller [245]. Using procedures from the EPA (USA), these authors also estimated daily intake
values of PFAS of toddlers and adults that could result from ingestion of dust. The 95th centile estimated daily intakes of TFA for toddlers
and adults were 5.3 and 0.55 ng a.e. kg-1 body weight, respectively for indoor dust. The 95th centile estimated daily intakes for toddlers
and adults from outdoor dust were 3.2 and 0.33 ng a.e. kg-1 body weight. The original source(s) of the contamination in the dusts are
unknown but there were amounts of unknown precursors (37−67 mol %) for PFAS in the dust [245].

3.5.5 Pharmaceuticals and pesticides
Fluorine atoms are frequently added to pharmaceuticals and pesticides to enhance or modify their biological properties. The mostcommon use is replacement of a hydrogen with a fluorine atom. The van der Waals radii for hydrogen (0.12 nm) and fluorine (0.14 nm)
are similar and small compared to that of other halogens such as chlorine (0.18 nm) [246]. Thus, fluorine-substituted chemicals are
more likely to successfully dock with receptor sites than chemicals substituted with larger halogens such as Cl. The C-F bond is one of
the strongest in organic chemistry, so this substitution tends to make the molecule more resistant to biochemical breakdown, which
prolongs biological activity. In addition, substitution of hydrogen with fluorine can change other properties of the chemical, especiallyof adjacent chemical groups. For example, the F atom is a much stronger withdrawer of electrons than an H atom. As compared tohydrogen with a Hammett sigma value of zero, the Hammett for a single fluorine substituent on a benzene ring is +0.062 for para-effectand +0.337 for the meta-affect. For a -CF3 on a benzene ring, the Hammett sigma values are +0.54 and +0.43, respectively.
For comparison with the precursors of TFA that are under the purview of the Montreal Protocol, the following discussion is focusedon chemicals with a C-CF3 moieties since these could potentially degrade to produce TFA as a terminal residue. It is estimated thatabout 20% of pharmaceuticals currently in commerce contain one or more fluorine atoms. As of 2020, the number of pharmaceuticals
containing fluorine atom(s) was 369 [247] and in 2021, 13 new products containing fluorine were added [248]. Of these, 77 containC-CF3 moieties [from Fig. 4 in 247]. Some bacteria use fluoxetine (Prozac®, CAS# 54910-89-3) as a sole source of carbon andthe terminal metabolite is TFA [249], which is not further metabolised. These authors also reported photolytic defluorination ofintermediates formed in the degradation of fluoxetine [Fig. 7 in 249] but did not specify intensity or wavelength. Whether this photolytic
defluorination occurs under environmental conditions is unknown. TFA can also be formed from some fluoro-pharmaceuticals during
treatment of water with O3. The molar yield of TFA from fluoxetine solutions treated with O3 at 4 mg L-1 was as large as 40% [202].
Pharmaceuticals are used globally but there is a paucity of information on the amounts produced and used in the treatment of humans
and other animals. However, these pharmaceuticals and/or their breakdown products are excreted and thus enter the environment. For
example, anaesthetic procedures involving halothane (CF3CHClBr), isoflurane (CF3CHClOCHF2), and desfluorane (CF3CHFOCHF2) are
known to produce TFA as a metabolite in humans. Anaesthesia using halothane can result in significant levels of TFA in blood (20,000110,000 µg L-1), which is excreted in urine [250-253]. Those pharmaceuticals that contain the C-CF3 moiety are expected to be a sourceof TFA in the environment but there are two unknowns, the yield of TFA from the breakdown of the pharmaceutical and the amounts ofpharmaceuticals that are used. More publicly available information is needed to even begin to address this uncertainty. To estimate thecontribution of pharmaceuticals to the total global load of TFA would be highly speculative but they are a potential source of TFA.
Some pesticides also contain one or more C-CF3 moieties [254] and are potential sources of TFA in the environment [225]. Breakdownof some of these pesticides to TFA has been investigated. For example, ozonation (4 mg L-1) of solutions of trembotrione (mesotrione,
CAS# 104206-82-8), flufenacet (CAS# 142459-58-3), flurtamone (CAS# 96525-23-4), and fluopyram (CAS# 658066-35-4) at 100 µg L-1
for times between 5 and 60 min resulted in 5, 20, 43, and 32% production of TFA on a molar basis (Fig. 7 in [202]). Whether ozonation
is a good model for the formation of TFA from pesticides in agricultural soils or not is unknown. The yield of TFA from the degradationof pesticides is dependent on the other substituents on the molecule and the environmental conditions. Studies on the photolysis of
the lampricide 3-trifluoromethyl-4-nitrophenol (TFM CAS# 88-30-2) used to control the sea lamprey in the North American Great Lakes
have shown that photolysis (365 nm) results in the formation of TFA [255]. Yields were dependent on the pH of the solution and ranged286

Chapter 6
from 5–18%. Conversion of the nitro-group to an amino-group increased the rate of conversion but not the yield. In another study, yields
of TFA from photolysis of the penoxsulam (an herbicide) and sulfoxaflor (an insecticide) exposed to UV radiation in river water wereless than 5% under laboratory conditions [256]. Neither of these pesticides were included in Table 4. Yields of TFA from penoxsulam
were greater in river water than in distilled water at pH 7 (Fig. S18 in [256]). This dependence of the formation of TFA on environmental
conditions and substituents on the other parts of the molecule likely applies to other pesticides and to pharmaceuticals and otherpotential precursors of TFA.
Similarly, as for pharmaceuticals, the amounts of pesticides used across the globe are not known at the level of individual chemicals.
The Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations collects data on pesticide use by country, but these data are groupedby chemical class of pesticide and information on individual products is not available. However, data on annual estimates of the use ofindividual pesticides are available in the United States through the database on Estimated Annual Agricultural Pesticide Use, maintainedby the US Geological Survey through the National Water-Quality Assessment Project [257].
To obtain a better understanding of the possible contributions of pesticides to the global load of TFA, we estimated the use of thosepesticides containing one or more C-CF3 moieties from data available in the United States. Maps and associated estimates of amountof pesticide applied [257] were downloaded and then compiled. As a worst case, upper estimates of use were selected and all datafrom 1992 to 2018 were collected, summed, and converted to tonnes of active ingredient. The molar yield of TFA was calculated using
the ratio of the molecular weight of TFA (114.02 Daltons) and the pesticide (from Table S3 in [254]). This is a conservative assumption as
the actual yield of TFA is dependent on other substituents on the molecule and the primary driver(s) of degradation. The potential total
tonnage of TFA released from these pesticides was then calculated. These results are shown in Table 4.
Table 4 Potential release of TFA from fluorinated-pesticides used in the USA from 1992-2018.
Namea

MWa

Formulaa

Number of C-CF3
moietiesa

Molar yield of
TFA

Estimated tonnes
of TFA

361.657

C14H7ClF3NO5

1

0.315

3,332

399.366

C19H20F3NO5

1

0.286

117

422.872

C23H22ClF3O2

1

0.270

2,116

407.615

C15H11BrClF3N2O

1

0.280

315

447.454

C24H24F3NO4

1

0.255

28

449.854

C23H19ClF3NO3

1

0.253

73

449.854

C23H19ClF3NO3

1

0.253

1,431

401.41

C15H16F5NO2S2

1

0.284

1

333.267

C13H14F3N3O4

1

0.342

11,437

Fipronil

437.141

C12H4Cl2F6N4OS

2

0.522

809

Flonicamid229.162

C9H6F3N3O

1

0.498

168

327.259

C15H12F3NO4

1

0.348

1,887

465.089

C13H4Cl2F6N4O4

2

0.490

407

682.392

C23H22F7IN2O4S

2

0.334

233

Acifluorfen
Bicyclopyrone
Bifenthrin
Chlorfenapyr
Cyflumetofen
Cyhalothringamma
Cyhalothrinlambda
Dithiopyr
Ethalfluralin

Fluazifop
Fluazinam
Flubendiamide

287

Chapter 6
Namea
Flucarbazone
Flufenacet
Flumetralin
Fluometuron
Fluopicolide
Fluopyram
Fluridone
Flutolanil
Fluvalinate
Fomesafen
Isoxaflutole
Lactofen
Mesotrione(trembotrione)
Novaluron
Oxyfluorfen
Prosulfuron
Saflufenacil
Tefluthrin
Thiazopyr
Trifloxystrobin
Trifluralin
Triflusulfuron
Total
a

288

MWa

Formulaa

Number of C-CF3
moietiesa

Molar yield of
TFA

Estimated tonnes
of TFA

396.297

C12H11F3N4O6S

1

0.288

105

363.331

C14H13F4N3O2S

1

0.314

2,623

421.733

C16H12ClF4N3O4

1

0.270

306

232.206

C10H11F3N2O

1

0.491

12,618383.576

C14H8Cl3F3N2O

1

0.297

30

396.717

C16H11ClF6N2O

2

0.575

292

329.322

C19H14F3NO

1

0.346

27

323.315

C17H16F3NO2

1

0.353

1,229

502.918

C26H22ClF3N2O3

1

0.227

4

438.758

C15H10ClF3N2O6S

1

0.260

6,519

359.319

C15H12F3NO4S

1

0.317

1,405

461.774

C19H15ClF3NO7

1

0.247

1,120

461.774

C17H16ClF3O6S

1

0.259

4,565

492.706

C17H9ClF8N2O4

1

0.231

221

361.701

C15H11ClF3NO4

1

0.315

3,117

419.379

C15H16F3N5O4S

1

0.272

151

500.85

C17H17ClF4N4O5S

1

0.228

525

418.736

C17H14ClF7O2

1

0.272

1,893

396.376

C16H17F5N2O2S

1

0.288

7

408.377

C20H19F3N2O4

1

0.279

1,492

335.283

C13H16F3N3O4

1

0.340

65,327478.403

C16H17F3N6O6S

1

0.238

30
122,604

Data from [254]. Data on use of pesticides in the United States are from [257]. See Appendix Table 2 for annual quantities.

Chapter 6
It should be noted that these estimated values are based on worst case assumption of highest estimated use and complete conversionof all C-CF3 moieties in the chemical to TFA. Global use of pesticides in 2019 was estimated as 4,190,985 tonnes with 495,475 tonnes inNorth America [259], approximately 12% of the global use. Because of selection for resistance and the availability of alternatives, someof the pesticides included in Table 4 are no longer in use and the use-pattern of those currently in use will likely change in the future. For
this reason and the lack of data on global pesticide use, the estimates of total global contribution to loads of TFA are uncertain; however,in comparison to future loads of TFA resulting from the release of chemicals under the purview of the Montreal Protocol, the potential
contribution from pesticides is small.
A recent analysis of sources of TFA in the environment from the German Environment Agency [259] reported on precursors of TFA andincluded uses of refrigerants gases and other uses of chemicals for 2016–2018. Most of the TFA was estimated to be sourced from fiveproducts. The potential annual production of TFA from use of pesticides in Germany was 504 tonnes per year (Fig. 14), based on a meanof 3 years) but should not be compared directly with the data from the United States (Table 4), which presents total estimated use over
26 years.

Fig. 14 Maximum possible annual emissions of TFA from plant protection products in Germany for active ingredients that cantheoretically form TFA. Data based on mean sales volume of each of the active substances over the three years 2016, 2017 and2018 (Figure from [259]).

3.6

Human and environmental risks associated with trifluoroacetic acid in the environment

3.6.1 Risks from exposure to TFA in terrestrial animals
Since the last Quadrennial Assessment, only one report on the potential effects of TFA in mammals was found in the literature [260].
This was a report on the effects of exposure to TFA salts via drinking water in male laboratory rats. The tests followed OECD guidelines(Tests 417 and 452 [261]) and exposures were for 90, 370, and 412 days at concentrations in the drinking water of 0 (control), 30, 120,
and 600 mg TFA a.e. L-1. The latter concentration was equivalent to a daily intake of 37.8 mg TFA kg-1 (b.m.). Responses measured wereactivity of the enzymes alanine-amino-transferase (ALT) and glutamate-pyruvate-transferase (GPT) in the blood. No significant effects
were observed at 30 mg L-1 for any time of exposure but a significant increase in ALT activity was observed at 120 and 600 mg TFA a.e. L-1
at 370 days but not at 412 days. No effects on GPT were reported. In a second study with exposures for 14, 28, and 90 days to 0, 600,
1200, and 2400 mg TFA a.e. L-1, no significant effects on ALT were observed. Increases in the activity of enzymes in or originating fromthe liver are considered as compensatory unless accompanied by physiological responses such as loss of weight. This reported effectdoes not change the conclusion that TFA is of low toxicity in mammals.

289

Chapter 6
An extensive review of the potential effects of TFA in the environment published by the German Environmental Agency [214] did not
identify any risks other than the persistence of TFA in the environment, which is a legislative rather than toxicological criterion. The
concentrations of TFA in beer and tea discussed above are small when compared to the NOED of TFA in mammals. This indicates thatthe risk to humans from residues of TFA in beer and tea are de minimis (of little importance).

3.6.2 Risks of exposure to TFA in aquatic organisms
Since the last Quadrennial Assessment, one new toxicity test for an aquatic organism was located. This was a retest of the most sensitive
alga (Raphidocelis subcapitata) conducted on behalf of Solvay [192]. The study protocol followed OECD guideline 201 [261]. Effectvalues were based on growth. A no observed effect concentration (NOEC) of 2.5 mg a.e. L-1 (2,500,000 ng L-1) was reported basedon inhibition of growth. Being a more recent study conducted under OECD guidelines, this data point was substituted for the older(1999) study used in the 2016 risk assessment [232] and is illustrated in Fig. 15. Although this new study on R. subcapitata has not been
published in the literature, the study was conducted under Good Laboratory Practice Guidelines with Quality Assurance and Quality
Control [262]. The detailed report of the study was reviewed by ECHA [263] and was classified as “reliable without restriction”, hence it
has been used here in the characterisation of the toxicity of TFA to aquatic organisms.
The margin of exposure between the distribution of NOECs and the observed and expected concentrations in the oceans andendorheic basins is several orders of magnitude and is indicative of de minimis risk.

Fig. 15 A log-probability cumulative frequency plot of no observed effect concentrations (NOEC) of trifluoroacetic acid salt
compared to various environmental concentrations in water. The dashed vertical green line indicates the NOEC for TFA-Na salt
in microcosms is a toxicology-based criterion.

3.6.3 Environmental persistence of TFA as an assessment criterion
Environmental persistence is one of the criteria used to identify persistent organic pollutants (POPs), such as those regulated under thepurview of the Stockholm convention. Persistence alone has been suggested to be a criterion for regulatory action [264]. The suggested
threshold for this classification is a degradation half-life > 6 months. The stability of TFA and its salts indicates a half-life >> 6 months,
but our opinion is that persistence should only be considered as a regulatory criterion for substances that are moderately or highly toxic
and/or are bioaccumulative in organisms and/or undergo trophic magnification. TFA does not bioaccumulate nor is it toxic at the low tomoderate exposures currently measured in the environment or those predicted in the distant future.

290

Chapter 6

3.7

Other issues relevant to the degradation of fluorinated chemicals and release of TFA

3.7.1 Potential effects of hydrofluorocarbons and hydrofluoroolefins on tropospheric ozone
The photochemistry of CFC replacements, including HFCs and halogenated olefins, could impact air quality through formation of
tropospheric O3 on urban or regional scales. The spatial and temporal variation in VOC emissions, non-linear chemistry of the reacting
chemical species, and complex atmospheric mixing and transport factors, all contribute to large uncertainties and thus complicate thisassessment. In the past, e.g., [265], the potential impact has been addressed based on the indices of either the photochemical ozone
creation potential (POCP) [266] or the Maximum Incremental Reactivity (MIR) index [267]. The MIR index values reflect the mass (grams)of ozone formed relative to the mass (grams) of VOC emitted. The POCP is a relative potential determined from the effect of a small
incremental increase in the emission of a chemical on the calculated amount of O3 formed, relative to the effect of an identical massemission of ethene as a reference chemical. The former was developed with a focus on ozone formation in urban plumes and mainly
in a United States urban-scale context. The latter addresses ground-level ozone formation on the regional, multi-day episode scale,as it most often occurs in Europe, here being predominantly a long-range transboundary and transport air quality issue. Both indicesrequire fully speciated emission inventories and non-trivial model calculations. However, the POCP values can also be estimated to a first
approximation based on structure and reactivity of the VOC, which is especially useful for VOCs for which no full chemical mechanisms
have been implemented in atmospheric model studies, i.e., for many of the HFCs and HFOs discussed here.
With the exception of a 3-D global modeling study (Geos Chem) of the impact of HCFO-1233zd(E) [215], there have been no newreports of POCPs/MIR values for the HFCs and HFOs/HCFOs in the literature over the last review period. Recently, a methodological
update to the original POCP estimation method has become available [268] (see Appendix, SI Sect. 3 for details). Table SI 3 (Appendix)
lists the updated POCP values for CFCs and their replacements, based on the most recent reactivity evaluations and estimated for both
north-west European and United States urban reference conditions. These values now provide index values on the same comparable
scale and can be used as an approximate indicator of the potential impact on tropospheric ozone from the CFC replacements. In
general, first- and second-generation CFC replacements, HCFCs and HFCs, have very small POCP values. Many of the common HFOs,
with some exceptions, have POCP values that lie between those for methane (0.57/0.22) and ethane (10.91/4.52). The POCP valuesfor HFOs are generally larger than those for the analogous HFCs, but much smaller than those for the parent alkenes. This is consistent
with the few explicit MIR modeling studies of HFOs available in the literature. e.g., [267,269]. It is clear from these studies, and fromthe values in Table SI 3 (Appendix) that substitution of e.g., HFC-134a emissions for an equal mass of HFO-1234yf emissions, would
lead to an increase in POCP-weighted emissions (two orders of magnitude). Still, MIR studies and atmospheric modeling studies of
HFO-1234yf, have shown that O3 production from HFO-1234yf is indistinguishable from that from ethane (also consistent with Table SI
3, Appendix), and that replacing HFC-134a in vehicle air conditioning units with HFO-1234yf across the United States has a negligible
impact (< 0.01 %) on the formation of tropospheric ozone. It is clear from the above, that the small increases in tropospheric ozone
formation generated from a transition from HFC emissions to emissions of HFOs would not be of concern.

3.7.2 Relevance of trifluoroacetaldehyde, a precursor of TFA, is increasing
With the transition from HFCs to third-generation alternatives such as HFO-1234ze(E) and HCFO-1233zd(E), the atmospheric abundanceof CF3CHO, (estimated 40° latitude, annually averaged diurnal tropospheric lifetime of ≤ 2 days [210]) is expected to increase in source
regions. Ambient concentrations of HFO-1234ze and HCFO-1233zd(E) have been measured in central Europe (Germany) at urban,
semi-urban, and remote sites from 2011 onwards [270-272]. As discussed in Sect. 3.2, these chemicals give CF3CHO as an intermediary
product of atmospheric degradation, with a yield of 100%. In 2020 the measured mean abundances of HFO-1234ze and HCFO1233zd(E) in central Europe at Jungfraujoch (remote, 3580 m above sea level) were 0.98 ng m-3 (0.21 pptv) and 1.01 ng m-3 (0.19 pptv),
respectively. This is an increase from 0.18 ng m-3 (0.039 pptv) and 0.02 ng m-3 (0.003 pptv) in 2013 at this same measurement station.
A recent 3D global chemistry and transport model study [273] suggests significant increases in the abundance of CF3CHO in source
regions, as well as in the global background, however, it appears that the model of Wang et al. does not include photolysis of CF3CHO,
which is the major tropospheric sink for CF3CHO (see above). They employed a high and a low emissions scenario for HFO-1234ze (12.6
or 124.4 ktonne yr-1 by 2050) and predicted annual average mixing ratios of 11 ng m-3 (2.7 pptv) for CF3CHO in China (source region)
and 0.7 ng m-3 (0.18 pptv) as a global average for their low emissions scenario. For their high emissions scenario, they predict annual
mixing ratios in China of 413 ng m-3 (103 pptv). These values are all significantly larger than those (< 5 pg m-3 level) which can be inferredfrom a 3-D global chemistry model study of the atmospheric degradation of HCFO-1233zd(E) with contemporary emissions estimates(0.5 Gg yr-1) [215]. The stark difference in the two studies can be explained by the difference in CF3CHO chemistry employed by the twomodels. Due to the fast photolysis of CF3CHO, concentrations of CF3CHO are unlikely to build up to ng m-3 levels locally or globally.

3.7.3 Sinks for CF3CHO: A photolytic source of HFC-23 and CF3CHO-hydrate formation
The dominant overall sink for CF3CHO is thought to be photolysis [210]. The photolysis can proceed through three principal pathways:(1a) CF3CHO + hv → CF3 + HCO(1b) CF3CHO + hv → CF3H + CO(1c) CF3CHO + hv → CF3CO + H

291

Chapter 6
Chiappero et al. [210] reported a quantum yield of φ 1a = 0.17 ± 0.03 and no indication of reaction 1b occurring in the 308 nm photolysis
of CF3CHO. However, a recent study by Campbell et al. reported that reaction 1b has a quantum yield at 308 nm of φ 1b = 0.01 ± 0.005,
and that in effect 11 ± 5.5% of CF3CHO would undergo reaction via reaction 1b in the atmosphere to yield CF3H (HFC-23) [274]. CF3H
is a strong GHG (GWP = 12,690), and its photochemical formation through reaction 1b could, in effect, present an additional andpotentially significant contribution to the radiative forcing of climate of the parent CFC alternatives. The study of Campbell et al. 2020[274] was based on an indirect technique using CO as a marker for pathway 1b and conducted at very low, sub-atmospheric pressure
and temperatures. A subsequent chamber study at atmospheric pressures by Sulbæk Andersen and Nielsen [275] using broad-band
actinic radiation shows no formation of CF3H in the tropospheric photolysis of CF3CHO and an estimated upper limit for the yieldof CF3H of 0.3 % was established. Whereas the study of Sulbæk Andersen and Nielsen [275] was carried out under troposphericconditions, none of the past photolytic studies were performed using the same photolysis sources and detection methods. As
suggested by Sulbæk Andersen and Nielsen [275], investigations of the photolysis at wavelengths relevant to the upper troposphere/
lower stratosphere would be of interest for a more comprehensive modeling of the atmospheric photolysis of CF3CHO.
The yield of TFA from CF3CHO may depend on whether it remains in gaseous form. It has been reported that formaldehyde isefficiently converted to gaseous formic acid via a multiphase pathway involving a hydrated form of formaldehyde [276]. Earlier, using
computational methods, Rayne and Forest [277] suggested that CF3CHO will be dominantly present as the hydrated form in aqueous
solution. The reaction of OH radicals with the hydrated form of CF3CHO in the gas phase is known to be an effective route for formationof TFA (100%) [211]; however, to what extent CF3CHO could be removed from the atmosphere through wet scavenging and undergo
multiphase chemistry is unknown.

3.7.4 CF3CHO and TFA: Interactions with particle growth and formation of new particles
Recent simulations have shown that both CF3CHO and TFA can participate in particle growth and particle formation processes [278280] However, these processes are highly dependent on season and atmospheric conditions. The reaction of CF3CHO/(CH3)2NH/H2O
can compete well as a sink for CF3CHO at night (when photolysis is not occurring and concentrations of OH radical are low) if relative
humidity and dimethylamine concentrations are high.
TFA enhances the formation rate of new dimethylamine/sulfuric particles significantly (up to 227-fold [278]), but only under conditionsof relatively low temperatures and sulfuric acid concentrations, and relatively high TFA and dimethylamine concentration. With
increasingly effective regulations on emissions of sulfur-containing pollutants, the enhancement of new particle formation by TFA may
become increasingly important in urban areas where emissions of sulfur are expected to decline.

3.7.5 Potential impact of reactions of TFA with stabilised Criegee intermediates
Stabilised Criegee intermediates (SCI), highly reactive chemicals formed in the atmosphere, react rapidly with perfluorinated carboxylic
acids (PFCAs), including TFA, producing hydroperoxyfluoroesters. This is likely the dominant gas-phase fate of PFCAs [281], although
this only constitutes a temporary reservoir. SCIs exist in the greatest concentrations over forested regions, where emissions of biogenic
alkene are high. The lifetime of TFA would be as short as 2 days over land areas with significant SCI-mediated loss, such as in tropicalforests [216]. However, hydrolysis of the ester products, and reaction with OH, simply regenerates TFA; therefore, reactions of TFA withSCI are unlikely to have a substantial impact on the overall loss of gas-phase TFA [281]. In effect, the SCI-mediated oxidation products
were found to have no significant impact on concentrations or distributions of TFA in the atmosphere [216] and this is not a pathway fornet destruction of TFA in the environment.

3.8

Conclusions and uncertainties

TFA is a perfluorinated acid that has been included in the class of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). This class of chemicals
contains 4730 substances, of which about 256 are in commercial use. Even in the subclass of perfluorinated alkanoic acids, the physical,
chemical, and biological properties of these substances differ widely, mostly in relation to length of the alkyl chain. To regulate thesesubstances as a class (as has been suggested) is not scientifically defensible and TFA should be treated as a unique chemical for the
purposes of regulation.
TFA is an acid when formed in the atmosphere but on reaching the surface (soil or water) it forms salts with alkali metals (e.g., sodium,
potassium, calcium etc.). Because of its lack of reactivity, TFA salts are persistent in the environment and estimates of half-life areuncertain but could be in the range of centuries or millennia. This persistence is not a major concern because it does not react withbiomolecules. TFA and its salts are easily excreted by animals and do not bioaccumulate in food chains. Salts of TFA have low toxicity toanimals and plants and there are very wide margins between current/projected exposures and toxicity values.
One source of TFA in the environment is the degradation of replacements for chemicals that contribute to the destruction ofstratospheric O3. These are the HCFCs, HFCs, and HFOs, all of which are replacements for chemicals that fall under the purview of theMontreal Protocol. Some of these products are greenhouse gases and contribute to global climate change. Because of this, there is atrend to replace long-lived HCFCs and HFCs with HFOs, which have very short atmospheric lifespans and do not contribute to climatechange. The use of these replacements is monitored under the auspices of the Montreal Protocol and estimates of current and future
releases of TFA are regularly assessed. These releases will add to the existing load of TFA in the environment but predicted amounts arewell below the threshold for concern with respect to human and environmental health.

292

Chapter 6
Initial reactions in the atmospheric degradation of HCFCs, HFCs, and HFOs that lead to TFA are well understood. Some uncertainties
still exist for the atmospheric fate of CF3CHO. With the transition from HFCs to HFOs, the importance of the degradation product,
CF3CHO, in the environment is increasing. Nevertheless, CF3CHO is likely to be only a minor source of TFA. Other than HCFCs, HFCs,
and HFOs, there are additional sources of TFA in the environment. TFA is used as a laboratory reagent and is the starting material
for many industrial products. It is formed from combustion of fluoropolymers and as a terminal breakdown product of fluorinatedpharmaceuticals and pesticides. Fugitive releases have resulted in high levels of contamination near manufacturing facilities and
TFA is routinely detected in surface waters. Other than precipitation, which contains TFA formed in the atmosphere, the sources for
TFA in surface waters are uncertain. However, preliminary estimates of possible releases from use of pesticides in the United Statesand Germany suggest that total amounts are less than those from HCFCs, HFCs, and HFOs. Amounts released from degradation ofpharmaceuticals are very uncertain and amounts from fugitive releases from manufacturing are completely unknown.
TFA released into the environment will eventually collect in terminal basins such as endorheic lakes or the oceans. Because the HCFCs
and HFCs are long-lived in the atmosphere, they distribute globally and TFA from these substances is more evenly deposited. The HFOs
and HCFOs have shorter lifetimes in the atmosphere and deposition of TFA from these substances is likely to be more localised. This
will result in greater concentrations near the locations of release. This is unlikely to present a risk to humans or the environment in theselocations but changes in concentration in surface water (or soil) would respond rapidly to releases. Monitoring of the environment forresidues of TFA would provide an early warning if trends in concentration indicate rapid increases.
Presence of TFA in precipitation and flowing waters will be driven by release from precursors and other sources as well as the hydrology
and will likely fluctuate. Concentrations in terminal basins such as the oceans will fluctuate less but will be dependent on rates of inputs
from precipitation and rivers. Once in the oceans, concentrations will be influenced by rates of input of fresh water as well as currents
and mixing in the oceans. Current and projected (to 2100) concentrations of TFA in the oceans provide a very large margin of exposure(thousand-fold) when compared to thresholds of toxicity and risks to the environment and human health are de minimis. However, there
is some uncertainty in the environmental toxicity values because only two marine species are included in the toxicity data set for aquatic
species; and marine macrophytes, which are keystone species with respect to habitat, have not been tested.
There are several national and regional programmes that monitor and report on concentrations of chemicals such as pesticides insurface water. For example, the National Water-Quality Assessment programme in the United States [257] and NAIADES programme inFrance [282]. These programmes have the infrastructure to routinely sample flowing waters from many watersheds and analyse these forresidues of pesticides. It should not be difficult or costly to include TFA in these analyses. If started soon, these data could be useful incharacterising inputs of TFA from the short-lived HFOs as well as in identifying point-sources of industrial inputs.

4 Knowledge gaps
There have been significant efforts to improve air quality through reductions in VOCs and NOx emissions. However, major uncertainties
remain for future emissions scenarios, as well as changes in environmental conditions such as UV-B radiation, temperature, and humidity,
which are sensitive to changes in stratospheric O3 and climate. Furthermore, models need to be improved to better characterise theproduction and destruction of ground-level O3 in complex urban VOC-NOx mixtures, the propensity for producing SOA, and thecontribution of the transport of stratospheric O3 to the troposphere.
Knowledge of global OH concentrations and their variability must be enhanced to constrain the estimated atmospheric lifetime of themany gases removed by OH. This will require improved assessment of anthropogenic and natural emissions of species that control
the concentration of atmospheric OH, including CO, methane, and NOx. Better methods are needed to estimate global-scale OH
concentrations, since the use of methyl chloroform for this purpose has become less reliable due to its rapidly decreasing emissions.
Some uncertainties remain in our understanding of the sources, routes of formation, and environmental fate of TFA. Identification andquantification of potential natural sources of TFA are urgently needed.
Similarly, better local/regional emission inventories are needed for short-lived precursors of TFA arising from CFC-replacements, as well
as characterisation of all other anthropogenic sources of TFA. In addition, reliable estimates of yields of TFA are required for current andnew replacement compounds and their partially oxidised degradation intermediates. Finally, there is some uncertainty in toxicity values
for TFA because of the limited number of marine species tested.

293

Chapter 6

5 Conclusions
UV-B radiation has positive and negative impacts on tropospheric air quality. UV-B radiation is essential to the formation ofphotochemical smog, including ground-level O3, particulate matter, but is also essential for removing pollutants from the atmosphere.
Thus, changes in UV-B radiation have consequences for both air quality and the lifetime of many gases, including some GHGs and
VSLSs. Poor air quality remains a major health problem globally, despite progress in reducing anthropogenic emissions of air pollutants.
The Montreal Protocol has prevented large increases in UV-B radiation; however, interactions with climate change complicate
predictions. Future changes in UV-B radiation are uncertain but present substantial dangers given the widespread vulnerability ofhumans to e.g., photochemical smog.
The Montreal Protocol has led to the replacement of ODSs with fluorinated chemicals, some of which can undergo degradation in theatmosphere to give TFA in various yields. TFA is known to have a long environmental lifetime and accumulates in surface and groundwaters. At present, there are large uncertainties associated with the concentrations of TFA in various environmental compartments insome regions, as well as the relative proportion of anthropogenic sources related to the Montreal Protocol, compared to the otheranthropogenic and natural sources. There is some uncertainty in toxicity values because of the limited number of marine species tested.
Current and predicted concentrations (to year 2100) of TFA in the oceans provide a large margin of exposure (thousand-fold) whencompared to thresholds of toxicity.
The topics of this assessment align closely with several of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) [283]. Issues in air-quality (Sect.
2) specifically relate to SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being), but also inform SDG 2 (Zero Hunger – via damage to crops), SDG 11(Sustainable Cities and Communities – via impacts on livability), and SDG 13 (Climate Action – via OH controlling the lifetimes of many
climate-relevant gases). Atmospheric processing of CFC-replacements leading to persistent chemicals such as TFA (Sect. 3) raises
concerns about SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production) and in the context of SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation – via
accumulation in sources of drinking water).

Acknowledgements Generous contributions by UNEP/Ozone Secretariat were provided for the convened author meeting. SM
acknowledges partial support by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) UV-B Monitoring and Research Program, Colorado State
University, under USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture Grant 2019-34263-30552; 2022-34263-38472, and travel support
from the U.S. Global Change Research Program.
Author contributions All authors contributed to the conception, assessment, and writing of the content.
Conflict of interest The authors have no conflicts of interest.

294

Chapter 6

References1.

Tang, X., Madronich, S., Wallington, T., & Calamari, D. (1998). Changes in tropospheric composition and air quality. Journal of
Photochemistry and Photobiology B: Biology, 46, 83–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1011-1344(98)00187-0

2.

Solomon, K. R., Tang, X., Wilson, S. R., Zanis, P., & Alkiviadis F Bais (2003). Changes in tropospheric composition and air quality
due to stratospheric ozone depletion. Photochemical & Photobiological Sciences, 2, 62–67. https://doi.org/10.1039/B211086E

3.

Wilson, S. R., Solomon, K. R., & Tang, X. (2007). Changes in tropospheric composition and air quality due to stratospheric ozone
depletion and climate change. Photochemical & Photobiological Sciences, 6, 301-310. https://doi.org/10.1039/B700022G

4.

Tang, X., Wilson, S. R., Solomon, K. R., Shao, M., & Madronich, S. (2011). Changes in tropospheric composition and air quality
due to stratospheric ozone depletion and interactions with changes in climate. Photochemical & Photobiological Sciences, 10,
280–291. https://doi.org/10.1039/C0PP90039G

5.

Madronich, S., Shao, M., Wilson, S. R., Solomon, K. R., Longstreth, J. D., & Tang, X. Y. (2015). Changes in air quality andtropospheric composition due to depletion of stratospheric ozone and interactions with changing climate: implications for humanand environmental health. Photochemical & Photobiological Sciences, 14, 149-169. https://doi.org/10.1039/c4pp90037e

6.

Wilson, S. R., Madronich, S., Longstreth, J. D., & Solomon, K. R. (2019). Interactive effects of changing stratospheric ozone andclimate on tropospheric composition and air quality, and the consequences for human and ecosystem health. Photochemical &Photobiological Sciences, 18, 775-803. https://doi.org/10.1039/c8pp90064g

7.

Haagen-Smit, A. J., Bradley, C. E., & Fox, M. M. (1953). Ozone formation in photochemical oxidation of organic substances.
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry, 45(9), 2086-2089. https://doi.org/10.1021/ie50525a044

8.

McKenzie, R. L., Aucamp, P. J., Bais, A. F., Bjoern, L. O., Ilyas, M., & Madronich, S. (2011). Ozone depletion and climate change:
Impacts on UV radiation. Photochemical & Photobiological Sciences, 10(2), 182-198. https://doi.org/10.1039/c0pp90034f

9.

Seinfeld, J. H., & Pandis, S. N. (2016). Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics: From Air Pollution to Climate Change (3rd ed.): John
Wiley and Sons

10.

Brasseur, G. P., & Jacob, D. J. (2017). Modeling of Atmospheric Chemistry: Cambridge University Press.

11.

Szopa, S., Naik, V., Adhikary, B., Artaxo, P., Berntsen, T., Collins, W. D., Fuzzi, S., Gallardo, L., Scharr, A. K., Z.Klimont, Liao,
H., Unger, N., & Zanis, P. (2021). Short-Lived Climate Forcers. In V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S. L. Connors, C. Péan,
S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M. I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J. B. R. Matthews, T. K. Maycock, T.
Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu, & B. Zhou (Eds.), Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working GroupI to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Cambridge University Press

12.

Liu, S. C., & Trainer, M. (1988). Responses of the tropospheric ozone and odd hydrogen radicals to column ozone change. Journalof Atmospheric Chemistry, 6(3), 221-233. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00053857

13.

Thompson, A. M., Stewart, R. W., Owens, M. A., & Herwehe, J. A. (1989). Sensitivity of tropospheric oxidants to global chemical
and climate change. Atmospheric Environment (1967), 23(3), 519-532. https://doi.org/10.1016/0004-6981(89)90001-2

14.

Zhang, H., Wu, S., Huang, Y., & Wang, Y. (2014). Effects of stratospheric ozone recovery on photochemistry and ozone air quality
in the troposphere. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 14(8), 4079-4086. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-4079-2014

15.

Hodzic, A., & Madronich, S. (2018). Response of surface ozone over the continental United States to UV radiation declines fromthe expected recovery of stratospheric ozone. npj Climate and Atmospheric Science, 1(1), 35. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41612018-0045-5

16.

Bekki, S., Law, K. S., & Pyle, J. A. (1994). Effect of ozone depletion on atmospheric CH4 and CO concentrations. Nature,371(6498), 595-597. https://doi.org/10.1038/371595a0

17.

Fuglestved, J. S., Jonson, J. E., & Isaksen, I. S. A. (1994). Effects of reductions in stratospheric ozone on tropospheric chemistry
through changes in photolysis rates. Tellus B: Chemical and Physical Meteorology, 46(3), 172-192. https://doi.org/10.3402/
tellusb.v46i3.15790

18.

Schnell, R. C., Liu, S. C., Oltmans, S. J., Stone, R. S., Hofmann, D. J., Dutton, E. G., Deshler, T., Sturges, W. T., Harder, J. W., Sewell,
S. D., Trainer, M., & Harris, J. M. (1991). Decrease of summer tropospheric ozone concentrations in Antarctica. Nature, 351(6329),
726-729. https://doi.org/10.1038/351726a0

19.

Isaksen, I. S. A., Zerefos, C., Kourtidis, K., Meleti, C., Dalsøren, S. B., Sundet, J. K., Grini, A., Zanis, P., & Balis, D. (2005).
Tropospheric ozone changes at unpolluted and semipolluted regions induced by stratospheric ozone changes. [https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JD004618]. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 110(D2). https://doi.org/https://doi.
org/10.1029/2004JD004618

295

Chapter 6
20.

Butler, A. H., Daniel, J. S., Portmann, R. W., Ravishankara, A. R., Young, P. J., Fahey, D. W., & Rosenlof, K. H. (2016). Diverse policy
implications for future ozone and surface UV in a changing climate. Environmental Research Letters, 11(6), 064017. https://doi.
org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/6/064017

21.

Keeble, J., Hassler, B., Banerjee, A., Checa-Garcia, R., Chiodo, G., Davis, S., Eyring, V., Griffiths, P. T., Morgenstern, O., Nowack,P., Zeng, G., Zhang, J., Bodeker, G., Burrows, S., Cameron-Smith, P., Cugnet, D., Danek, C., Deushi, M., Horowitz, L. W., Kubin,A., et al. (2021). Evaluating stratospheric ozone and water vapour changes in CMIP6 models from 1850 to 2100. Atmospheric
Chemistry and Physics, 21(6), 5015-5061. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-5015-2021

22.

Shepherd, T. G. (2008). Dynamics, stratospheric ozone, and climate change. Atmosphere-Ocean, 46(1), 117-138. https://doi.
org/10.3137/ao.460106

23.

Bernhard, G. H., Bais, A. F., Aucamp, P. J., Klekociuk, A. R., Liley, J. B., & McKenzie, R. L. (2022). Stratospheric ozone, UV
radiation, and climate interactions. Chapter 1

24.

Newman, P. A., Oman, L. D., Douglass, A. R., Fleming, E. L., Frith, S. M., Hurwitz, M. M., Kawa, S. R., Jackman, C. H., Krotkov,
N. A., Nash, E. R., Nielsen, J. E., Pawson, S., Stolarski, R. S., & Velders, G. J. M. (2009). What would have happened to the ozone
layer if chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) had not been regulated? Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 9(6), 2113-2128. https://doi.
org/10.5194/acp-9-2113-2009

25.

McKenzie, R., Bernhard, G., Liley, B., Disterhoft, P., Rhodes, S., Bais, A., Morgenstern, O., Newman, P., Oman, L., Brogniez, C., &Simic, S. (2019). Success of Montreal Protocol demonstrated by comparing high-quality UV measurements with "World Avoided"
calculations from two chemistry-climate models. Scientific Reports, 9, 13. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-48625-z

26.

26. van Dijk, A., Slaper, H., den Outer, P. N., Morgenstern, O., Braesicke, P., Pyle, J. A., Garny, H., Stenke, A., Dameris, M.,
Kazantzidis, A., Tourpali, K., & Bais, A. F. (2013). Skin cancer risks avoided by the Montreal Protocol--worldwide modelingintegrating coupled climate-chemistry models with a risk model for UV. Photochemistry & Photobiology, 89(1), 234-246. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-1097.2012.01223.x

27.

Madronich, S., Lee-Taylor, J. M., Wagner, M., Kyle, J., Hu, Z., & Landolfi, R. (2021). Estimation of skin and ocular damage avoided
in the United States through implementation of the Montreal Protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer. ACS Earth andSpace Chemistry, 5(8), 1876-1888. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsearthspacechem.1c00183

28.

Young, P. J., Harper, A. B., Huntingford, C., Paul, N. D., Morgenstern, O., Newman, P. A., Oman, L. D., Madronich, S., & Garcia,
R. R. (2021). The Montreal Protocol protects the terrestrial carbon sink. Nature, 596(7872), 384-388. https://doi.org/10.1038/
s41586-021-03737-3

29.

Shi, H., Zhang, J., Zhao, B., Xia, X., Hu, B., Chen, H., Wei, J., Liu, M., Bian, Y., Fu, D., Gu, Y., & Liou, K.-N. (2021). Surface
brightening in Eastern and Central China since the implementation of the Clean Air Action in 2013: Causes and implications.
Geophysical Research Letters, 48(3), e2020GL091105. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL091105

30.

Ma, M., Gao, Y., Wang, Y., Zhang, S., Leung, L. R., Liu, C., Wang, S., Zhao, B., Chang, X., Su, H., Zhang, T., Sheng, L., Yao, X., &Gao, H. (2019). Substantial ozone enhancement over the North China Plain from increased biogenic emissions due to heat waves
and land cover in summer 2017. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 19(19), 12195-12207. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-1912195-2019

31.

Wang, W., Li, X., Shao, M., Hu, M., Zeng, L., Wu, Y., & Tan, T. (2019). The impact of aerosols on photolysis frequencies and ozone
production in Beijing during the 4-year period 2012–2015. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 19(14), 9413-9429. https://doi.
org/10.5194/acp-19-9413-2019

32.

Wang, Y., Gao, W., Wang, S., Song, T., Gong, Z., Ji, D., Wang, L., Liu, Z., Tang, G., Huo, Y., Tian, S., Li, J., Li, M., Yang, Y.,
Chu, B., Petaja, T., Kerminen, V. M., He, H., Hao, J., Kulmala, M., et al. (2020). Contrasting trends of PM2.5 and surface-ozone
concentrations in China from 2013 to 2017. National Science Review, 7, 1331-1339. https://doi.org/10.1093/nsr/nwaa032

33.

Wu, J., Bei, N., Hu, B., Liu, S., Wang, Y., Shen, Z., Li, X., Liu, L., Wang, R., Liu, Z., Cao, J., Tie, X., Molina, L. T., & Li, G. (2020).
Aerosol-photolysis interaction reduces particulate matter during wintertime haze events. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences of the United States of America, 117(18), 9755-9761. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1916775117

34.

Li, K., Jacob, D. J., Liao, H., Shen, L., Zhang, Q., & Bates, K. H. (2019). Anthropogenic drivers of 2013-2017 trends in summer
surface ozone in China. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 116(2), 422-427.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1812168116

35.

Liu, Y., & Wang, T. (2020). Worsening urban ozone pollution in China from 2013 to 2017 – Part 2: The effects of emission changes
and implications for multi-pollutant control. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 20(11), 6323-6337. https://doi.org/10.5194/
acp-20-6323-2020

36.

Hollaway, M., Wild, O., Yang, T., Sun, Y., Xu, W., Xie, C., Whalley, L., Slater, E., Heard, D., & Liu, D. (2019). Photochemical impactsof haze pollution in an urban environment. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 19(15), 9699-9714. https://doi.org/10.5194/
acp-19-9699-2019

296

Chapter 6
37.

Tian, R., Ma, X., Jia, H., Yu, F., Sha, T., & Zan, Y. (2019). Aerosol radiative effects on tropospheric photochemistry with GEOSChem simulations. Atmospheric Environment, 208, 82-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2019.03.032

38.

Gao, J., Li, Y., Zhu, B., Hu, B., Wang, L., & Bao, F. (2020). What have we missed when studying the impact of aerosols on surface
ozone via changing photolysis rates? Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 20, 10831-10844. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp2020-14039.

Gao, J., Li, Y., Xie, Z., Hu, B., Wang, L., Bao, F., & Fan, S. (2022). The impact of the aerosol reduction on the worsening ozone
pollution over the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region via influencing photolysis rates. Science of the Total Environment, 153197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.153197

40.

Ma, X., Huang, J., Zhao, T., Liu, C., Zhao, K., Xing, J., & Xiao, W. (2020). Rapid increase in summer surface ozone over the North
China Plain during 2013–2019: A side effect of particulate matters reduction control? Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 20.
https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-2020-385

41.

Fountoulakis, I., Zerefos, C. S., Bais, A. F., Kapsomenakis, J., Koukouli, M.-E., Ohkawara, N., Fioletov, V., De Backer, H., Lakkala,K., Karppinen, T., & Webb, A. R. (2018). Twenty-five years of spectral UV-B measurements over Canada, Europe and Japan: Trends
and effects from changes in ozone, aerosols, clouds, and surface reflectivity. Comptes Rendus de l'Academie d'Geoscience deFrance, 350(7), 393-402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crte.2018.07.011

42.

Ipiña, A., López-Padilla, G., Retama, A., Piacentini, R. D., & Madronich, S. (2021). Ultraviolet radiation environment of a tropicalmegacity in transition: Mexico City 2000–2019. Environmental Science & Technology. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c08515

43.

Becerra-Rondón, A., Ducati, J., & Haag, R. (2021). Partial COVID-19 lockdown effect in atmospheric pollutants and indirect impact
in UV radiation in Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. Atmósfera. https://doi.org/10.20937/atm.53027

44.

Ming, Y., Lin, P., Naik, V., Paulot, F., Horowitz, L. W., Ginoux, P. A., Ramaswamy, V., Loeb, N. G., Shen, Z., Singer, C.
E., Ward, R. X., Zhang, Z., & Bellouin, N. (2021). Assessing the influence of COVID-19 on the shortwave radiative fluxes
over the East Asian marginal seas. Geophysical Research Letters, 48(3), e2020GL091699. https://doi.org/https://doi.
org/10.1029/2020GL091699

45.

Bera, B., Bhattacharjee, S., Shit, P. K., Sengupta, N., & Saha, S. (2022). Variation and correlation between ultraviolet index
and tropospheric ozone during COVID-19 lockdown over megacities of India. Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk
Assessment, 36(2), 409-427. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-021-02033-w

46.

Pye, H. O. T., Ward-Caviness, C. K., Murphy, B. N., Appel, K. W., & Seltzer, K. M. (2021). Secondary organic aerosol association
with cardiorespiratory disease mortality in the United States. Nature Communications, 12(1), 7215. https://doi.org/10.1038/
s41467-021-27484-1

47.

Sowden, M., & Blake, D. (2021). Using infrared geostationary remote sensing to determine particulate matter ground-levelcomposition and concentration. Air Quality, Atmosphere & Health, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11869-021-01061-3

48.

Si, Y., Lu, Q., Zhang, X., Hu, X., Wang, F., Li, L., & Gu, S. (2021). A review of advances in the retrieval of aerosol properties
by remote sensing multi-angle technology. Atmospheric Environment, 244, 117928. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
atmosenv.2020.117928

49.

Hodzic, A., Kasibhatla, P. S., Jo, D. S., Cappa, C. D., Jimenez, J. L., Madronich, S., & Park, R. J. (2016). Rethinking the global
secondary organic aerosol (SOA) budget: Stronger production, faster removal, shorter lifetime. Atmospheric Chemistry andPhysics, 16(12), 7917-7941. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-7917-2016

50.

O'Brien, R. E., & Kroll, J. H. (2019). Photolytic aging of secondary organic aerosol: Evidence for a substantial photo-recalcitrant
fraction. Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters, 10(14), 4003-4009. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpclett.9b01417

51.

Baboomian, V. J., Gu, Y., & Nizkorodov, S. A. (2020). Photodegradation of secondary organic aerosols by long-term exposure tosolar actinic radiation. ACS Earth and Space Chemistry, 4(7), 1078-1089. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsearthspacechem.0c00088

52.

Wang, T., Liu, Y., Deng, Y., Cheng, H., Yang, Y., Feng, Y., Zhang, L., Fu, H., & Chen, J. (2020). Photochemical oxidation ofwater-soluble organic carbon (WSOC) on mineral dust and enhanced organic ammonium formation. Environmental Science &Technology, 54, 15631-15642. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c04616

53.

Zawadowicz, M. A., Lee, B. H., Shrivastava, M., Zelenyuk, A., Zaveri, R. A., Flynn, C., Thornton, J. A., & Shilling, J. E. (2020).
Photolysis controls atmospheric budgets of biogenic secondary organic aerosol. Environmental Science & Technology, 54(7),3861-3870. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b07051

54.

Hodzic, A., Madronich, S., Kasibhatla, P. S., Tyndall, G., Aumont, B., Jimenez, J. L., Lee-Taylor, J., & Orlando, J. (2015). Organic
photolysis reactions in tropospheric aerosols: Effect on secondary organic aerosol formation and lifetime. Atmospheric Chemistry
and Physics, 15(16), 9253-9269. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-9253-2015

55.

Ndour, M., Conchon, P., D'Anna, B., Ka, O., & George, C. (2009). Photochemistry of mineral dust surface as a potential
atmospheric renoxification process. Geophysical Research Letters, 36(5). https://doi.org/10.1029/2008gl036662

297

Chapter 656.

Tuite, K., Thomas, J. L., Veres, P. R., Roberts, J. M., Stevens, P. S., Griffith, S. M., Dusanter, S., Flynn, J. H., Ahmed, S., Emmons, L.,
Kim, S. W., Washenfelder, R., Young, C., Tsai, C., Pikelnaya, O., & Stutz, J. (2021). Quantifying nitrous acid formation mechanisms
using measured vertical profiles during the CalNex 2010 Campaign and 1D Column Modeling. Journal of Geophysical ResearchAtmospheres, 126(13). https://doi.org/10.1029/2021jd034689

57.

Ye, C., Heard, D. E., & Whalley, L. K. (2017). Evaluation of novel routes for NOx formation in remote regions. Environmental
Science & Technology, 51(13), 7442-7449. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b06441

58.

Reed, C., Evans, M. J., Crilley, L. R., Bloss, W. J., Sherwen, T., Read, K. A., Lee, J. D., & Carpenter, L. J. (2017). Evidence forrenoxification in the tropical marine boundary layer. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 17(6), 4081-4092. https://doi.
org/10.5194/acp-17-4081-2017

59.

Wang, X., Gemayel, R., Hayeck, N., Perrier, S., Charbonnel, N., Xu, C., Chen, H., Zhu, C., Zhang, L., Wang, L., Nizkorodov,
S. A., Wang, X., Wang, Z., Wang, T., Mellouki, A., Riva, M., Chen, J., & George, C. (2020). Atmospheric photosensitization:
A new pathway for sulfate formation. Environmental Science & Technology, 54(6), 3114-3120. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.
est.9b06347

60.

Chen, Y., Tong, S., Li, W., Liu, Y., Tan, F., Ge, M., Xie, X., & Sun, J. (2021). Photocatalytic oxidation of SO2 by TiO2: Aerosol
formation and the key role of gaseous reactive oxygen species. Environmental Science & Technology, 55(14), 9784-9793.
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c01608

61.

Ye, C., Chen, H., Hoffmann, E. H., Mettke, P., Tilgner, A., He, L., Mutzel, A., Bruggemann, M., Poulain, L., Schaefer, T., Heinold,B., Ma, Z., Liu, P., Xue, C., Zhao, X., Zhang, C., Zhang, F., Sun, H., Li, Q., Wang, L., et al. (2021). Particle-phase photoreactions of
HULIS and TMIs establish a strong source of H2O2 and particulate sulfate in the winter North China Plain. Environmental Science& Technology. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c00561

62.

Chen, Q., Xia, M., Peng, X., Yu, C., Sun, P., Li, Y., Liu, Y., Xu, Z., Xu, Z., & Wu, R. (2022). Large daytime molecular chlorine missing
source at a suburban site in East China. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 127(4), e2021JD035796. https://doi.
org/10.1029/2021JD035796

63.

Laskin, A., Laskin, J., & Nizkorodov, S. A. (2015). Chemistry of atmospheric brown carbon. Chemical Reviews, 115(10), 43354382. https://doi.org/10.1021/cr5006167

64.

Aiona, P. K., Luek, J. L., Timko, S. A., Powers, L. C., Gonsior, M., & Nizkorodov, S. A. (2018). Effect of photolysis on absorption andfluorescence spectra of light-absorbing secondary organic aerosols. ACS Earth and Space Chemistry, 2(3), 235-245. https://doi.
org/10.1021/acsearthspacechem.7b00153

65.

Walhout, E. Q., Yu, H., Thrasher, C., Shusterman, J. M., & O’Brien, R. E. (2019). Effects of photolysis on the chemical and opticalproperties of secondary organic material over extended time scales. ACS Earth and Space Chemistry, 3(7), 1226-1236. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsearthspacechem.9b00109

66.

Fleming, L. T., Lin, P., Roberts, J. M., Selimovic, V., Yokelson, R., Laskin, J., Laskin, A., & Nizkorodov, S. A. (2020). Molecularcomposition and photochemical lifetimes of brown carbon chromophores in biomass burning organic aerosol. Atmospheric
Chemistry and Physics, 20(2), 1105-1129. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-1105-2020

67.

Vo, L., Legaard, E., Thrasher, C., Jaffe, A., Berden, G., Martens, J., Oomens, J., & O’Brien, R. E. (2021). UV/Vis and IRMPD
spectroscopic analysis of the absorption properties of methylglyoxal brown carbon. ACS Earth and Space Chemistry. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsearthspacechem.1c00022

68.

Li, N., Xia, T., & Nel, A. E. (2008). The role of oxidative stress in ambient particulate matter-induced lung diseases and its
implications in the toxicity of engineered nanoparticles. Free Radical Biology & Medicine, 44(9), 1689-1699. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2008.0128

69.

Bates, J. T., Fang, T., Verma, V., Zeng, L., Weber, R. J., Tolbert, P. E., Abrams, J. Y., Sarnat, S. E., Klein, M., Mulholland, J. A., &Russell, A. G. (2019). Review of acellular assays of ambient particulate matter oxidative potential: Methods and relationships withcomposition, sources, and health effects. Environmental Science & Technology, 53(8), 4003-4019. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.
est.8b03430

70.

Manfrin, A., Nizkorodov, S. A., Malecha, K. T., Getzinger, G. J., McNeill, K., & Borduas-Dedekind, N. (2019). Reactive oxygen
species production from secondary organic aerosols: The importance of singlet oxygen. Environmental Science & Technology,
53(15), 8553-8562. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b01609

71.

Liu, F., Whitley, J., Ng, N. L. S., & Lu, H. (2020). Time-resolved single-cell assay for measuring intracellular reactive oxygen species
upon exposure to ambient particulate matter. Environmental Science & Technology. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c02889

72.

Hwang, B., Fang, T., Pham, R., Wei, J., Gronstal, S., Lopez, B., Frederickson, C., Galeazzo, T., Wang, X., Jung, H., & Shiraiwa, M.
(2021). Environmentally persistent free radicals, reactive oxygen species generation, and oxidative potential of highway PM2.5.
ACS Earth and Space Chemistry. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsearthspacechem.1c00135

73.

Borduas-Dedekind, N., Ossola, R., David, R. O., Boynton, L. S., Weichlinger, V., Kanji, Z. A., & McNeill, K. (2019).
Photomineralization mechanism changes the ability of dissolved organic matter to activate cloud droplets and to nucleate ice
crystals. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 19(19), 12397-12412. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-12397-2019

298

Chapter 6
74.

Borduas-Dedekind, N., Nizkorodov, S., & McNeill, K. (2020). UVB-irradiated laboratory-generated secondary organic aerosol
extracts have increased cloud condensation nuclei abilities: Comparison with dissolved organic matter and implications for thephotomineralization mechanism. Chimia (Aarau), 74(3), 142-148. https://doi.org/10.2533/chimia.2020.14275.

Erickson, D. J. I., Sulzberger, B., Zepp, R. G., & Austin, A. T. (2015). Effects of stratospheric ozone depletion, solar UV radiation,and climate change on biogeochemical cycling: interactions and feedbacks. [10.1039/C4PP90036G]. Photochemical &Photobiological Sciences, 14(1), 127-148. https://doi.org/10.1039/C4PP90036G

76.

Sulzberger, B., Austin, A. T., Cory, R. M., Zepp, R. G., & Paul, N. D. (2019). Solar UV radiation in a changing world: roles ofcryosphere–land–water–atmosphere interfaces in global biogeochemical cycles. [10.1039/C8PP90063A]. Photochemical &Photobiological Sciences, 18(3), 747-774. https://doi.org/10.1039/C8PP90063A

77.

WHO (2022). Air Pollution. https://www.who.int/health-topics/air-pollution#tab=tab_1. Accessed April 2022.

78.

Lefohn, A. S., Malley, C. S., Smith, L., Wells, B., Hazucha, M., Simon, H., Naik, V., Mills, G., Schultz, M. G., Paoletti, E., De
Marco, A., Xu, X., Zhang, L., Wang, T., Neufeld, H. S., Musselman, R. C., Tarasick, D., Brauer, M., Feng, Z., Tang, H., et al. (2018).
Tropospheric ozone assessment report: Global ozone metrics for climate change, human health, and crop/ecosystem research.
Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene, 6. https://doi.org/10.1525/elementa.279

79.

Markozannes, G., Pantavou, K., Rizos, E. C., Sindosi, O., Tagkas, C., Seyfried, M., Saldanha, I. J., Hatzianastassiou, N.,
Nikolopoulos, G. K., & Ntzani, E. (2022). Outdoor air quality and human health: An overview of reviews of observational studies.
Environmental Pollution, 306, 119309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2022.119309

80.

Brauer, M., Brook, J. R., Christidis, T., Chu, Y., Crouse, D. L., Erickson, A., Hystad, P., Li, C., Martin, R. V., Meng, J., Pappin, A. J.,
Pinault, L. L., Tjepkema, M., van Donkelaar, A., Weichenthal, S., & Burnett, R. T. (2019). Mortality-air pollution associations in lowexposure environments (MAPLE): Phase 1. Research Reports: Health Effects Institute(203), 1-87.

81.

Brunekreef, B., Strak, M., Chen, J., Andersen, Z. J., Atkinson, R., Bauwelinck, M., Bellander, T., Boutron-Ruault, M. C., Brandt, J.,
Carey, I., Cesaroni, G., Forastiere, F., Fecht, D., Gulliver, J., Hertel, O., Hoffmann, B., de Hoogh, K., Houthuijs, D., Hvidtfeldt, U.
A., Janssen, N. A. H., et al. (2021). Mortality and morbidity effects of long-term exposure to low-level PM2.5, BC, NO2, and O3: An
analysis of European cohorts in the ELAPSE project (Vol. Vol. WA 754 R432 No. 208, HEI Report Series): Health Effects Institute.

82.

Dominici, F., Schwartz, J., Di, Q., Braun, D., Choirat, C., & Zanobetti, A. (Eds.). (2022). Assessing Adverse Health Effects of LongTerm Exposure to Low Levels of Ambient Air Pollution: Phase 1 (2020/01/08 ed., Vol. 211, HEI Research Reports): Health Effects
Institute.

83.

WHO (2021). WHO Global Air Quality Guidelines: Particulate Matter (PM2.5 and PM10), Ozone, Nitrogen Dioxide, Sulfur Dioxide
and Carbon Monoxide. Geneva: World Health Organization.

84.

WHO (2017). Evolution of WHO Air Quality Guidelines: Past, Present and Future (2017). Geneva: World Health Organization.

85.

WHO (2006). Air Quality Guidelines: Global Update 2005: Particulate Matter, Ozone, Nitrogen Dioxide and Sulfur Dioxide (Vol.
EUR/05/5046029). Copenhagen: World Health Organization. Regional Office for Europe.

86.

Liu, S., Jørgensen, J. T., Ljungman, P., Pershagen, G., Bellander, T., Leander, K., Magnusson, P. K. E., Rizzuto, D., Hvidtfeldt, U.
A., Raaschou-Nielsen, O., Wolf, K., Hoffmann, B., Brunekreef, B., Strak, M., Chen, J., Mehta, A., Atkinson, R. W., Bauwelinck,
M., Varraso, R., Boutron-Ruault, M. C., et al. (2021). Long-term exposure to low-level air pollution and incidence of chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease: The ELAPSE project. Environment International, 146, 106267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envint.2020.106267

87.

Wolf, K., Hoffmann, B., Andersen, Z. J., Atkinson, R. W., Bauwelinck, M., Bellander, T., Brandt, J., Brunekreef, B., Cesaroni, G.,
Chen, J., de Faire, U., de Hoogh, K., Fecht, D., Forastiere, F., Gulliver, J., Hertel, O., Hvidtfeldt, U. A., Janssen, N. A. H., Jørgensen,
J. T., Katsouyanni, K., et al. (2021). Long-term exposure to low-level ambient air pollution and incidence of stroke and coronary
heart disease: a pooled analysis of six European cohorts within the ELAPSE project. Lancet Planet Health, 5(9), e620-e632.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s2542-5196(21)00195-9

88.

Chen, J., Rodopoulou, S., Strak, M., de Hoogh, K., Taj, T., Poulsen, A. H., Andersen, Z. J., Bellander, T., Brandt, J., Zitt, E., Fecht,
D., Forastiere, F., Gulliver, J., Hertel, O., Hoffmann, B., Hvidtfeldt, U. A., Verschuren, W. M. M., Jørgensen, J. T., Katsouyanni, K.,
Ketzel, M., et al. (2022). Long-term exposure to ambient air pollution and bladder cancer incidence in a pooled European cohort:the ELAPSE project. British Journal of Cancer. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41416-022-01735-4

89.

Samoli, E., Rodopoulou, S., Hvidtfeldt, U. A., Wolf, K., Stafoggia, M., Brunekreef, B., Strak, M., Chen, J., Andersen, Z. J., Atkinson,
R., Bauwelinck, M., Bellander, T., Brandt, J., Cesaroni, G., Forastiere, F., Fecht, D., Gulliver, J., Hertel, O., Hoffmann, B., de Hoogh,K., et al. (2021). Modeling multi-level survival data in multi-center epidemiological cohort studies: Applications from the ELAPSE
project. Environment International, 147, 106371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2020.106371

90.

Stafoggia, M., Oftedal, B., Chen, J., Rodopoulou, S., Renzi, M., Atkinson, R. W., Bauwelinck, M., Klompmaker, J. O., Mehta, A.,
Vienneau, D., Andersen, Z. J., Bellander, T., Brandt, J., Cesaroni, G., de Hoogh, K., Fecht, D., Gulliver, J., Hertel, O., Hoffmann, B.,
Hvidtfeldt, U. A., et al. (2022). Long-term exposure to low ambient air pollution concentrations and mortality among 28 million
people: results from seven large European cohorts within the ELAPSE project. Lancet Planet Health, 6(1), e9-e18. https://doi.
org/10.1016/s2542-5196(21)00277-1

299

Chapter 6
91.

Strak, M., Weinmayr, G., Rodopoulou, S., Chen, J., de Hoogh, K., Andersen, Z. J., Atkinson, R., Bauwelinck, M., Bekkevold,
T., Bellander, T., Boutron-Ruault, M. C., Brandt, J., Cesaroni, G., Concin, H., Fecht, D., Forastiere, F., Gulliver, J., Hertel, O.,
Hoffmann, B., Hvidtfeldt, U. A., et al. (2021). Long term exposure to low level air pollution and mortality in eight European cohorts
within the ELAPSE project: Pooled analysis. British Medical Journal, 374, n1904. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n1904

92.

Rodopoulou, S., Stafoggia, M., Chen, J., de Hoogh, K., Bauwelinck, M., Mehta, A. J., Klompmaker, J. O., Oftedal, B., Vienneau,D., Janssen, N. A. H., Strak, M., Andersen, Z. J., Renzi, M., Cesaroni, G., Nordheim, C. F., Bekkevold, T., Atkinson, R., Forastiere,
F., Katsouyanni, K., Brunekreef, B., et al. (2022). Long-term exposure to fine particle elemental components and mortality inEurope: Results from six European administrative cohorts within the ELAPSE project. Science of the Total Environment, 809,
152205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.152205

93.

Chen, J., Rodopoulou, S., de Hoogh, K., Strak, M., Andersen, Z. J., Atkinson, R., Bauwelinck, M., Bellander, T., Brandt, J.,
Cesaroni, G., Concin, H., Fecht, D., Forastiere, F., Gulliver, J., Hertel, O., Hoffmann, B., Hvidtfeldt, U. A., Janssen, N. A. H., Jöckel,
K. H., Jørgensen, J., et al. (2021). Long-Term Exposure to Fine Particle Elemental Components and Natural and Cause-Specific
Mortality-a Pooled Analysis of Eight European Cohorts within the ELAPSE Project. Environmental Health Perspectives, 129(4),47009. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp8368

94.

So, R., Chen, J., Mehta, A. J., Liu, S., Strak, M., Wolf, K., Hvidtfeldt, U. A., Rodopoulou, S., Stafoggia, M., Klompmaker, J. O.,
Samoli, E., Raaschou-Nielsen, O., Atkinson, R., Bauwelinck, M., Bellander, T., Boutron-Ruault, M. C., Brandt, J., Brunekreef, B.,
Cesaroni, G., Concin, H., et al. (2021). Long-term exposure to air pollution and liver cancer incidence in six European cohorts.
International Journal of Cancer, 149(11), 1887-1897. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.33743

95.

Liu, S., Jørgensen, J. T., Ljungman, P., Pershagen, G., Bellander, T., Leander, K., Magnusson, P. K. E., Rizzuto, D., Hvidtfeldt, U.
A., Raaschou-Nielsen, O., Wolf, K., Hoffmann, B., Brunekreef, B., Strak, M., Chen, J., Mehta, A., Atkinson, R. W., Bauwelinck,
M., Varraso, R., Boutron-Ruault, M. C., et al. (2021). Long-term exposure to low-level air pollution and incidence of asthma: The
ELAPSE project. European Respiratory Journal, 57(6). https://doi.org/10.1183/13993003.030992020

96.

Chen, J., & Hoek, G. (2020). Long-term exposure to PM and all-cause and cause-specific mortality: A systematic review and metaanalysis. Environment International, 143, 105974. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2020.105974

97.

Chowdhury, S., Pozzer, A., Haines, A., Klingmuller, K., Munzel, T., Paasonen, P., Sharma, A., Venkataraman, C., & Lelieveld,
J. (2022). Global health burden of ambient PM2.5 and the contribution of anthropogenic black carbon and organic aerosols.
Environment International, 159, 107020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2021.107020

98.

Chersich, M. F., Pham, M. D., Areal, A., Haghighi, M. M., Manyuchi, A., Swift, C. P., Wernecke, B., Robinson, M., Hetem, R.,
Boeckmann, M., Hajat, S., Nakstad, B., Wright, C. Y., Harvey, C., Wang, C., Durusu, D., Scorgie, F., Rees, H., Harden, L., Roos,N., et al. (2020). Associations between high temperatures in pregnancy and risk of preterm birth, low birth weight, and stillbirths:
Systematic review and meta-analysis. British Medical Journal, 371, m3811. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m3811

99.

Liu, Z., Meng, Y., Xiang, H., Lu, Y., & Liu, S. (2020). Association of short-term exposure to meteorological factors and risk of hand,foot, and mouth disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public
Health, 17(21). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17218017

100. Moghadamnia, M. T., Ardalan, A., Mesdaghinia, A., Keshtkar, A., Naddafi, K., & Yekaninejad, M. S. (2017). Ambient temperatureand cardiovascular mortality: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PeerJ, 5. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.3574
101. Gronlund, C. J., Sullivan, K. P., Kefelegn, Y., Cameron, L., & O’Neill, M. S. (2018). Climate change and temperature extremes:a review of heat- and cold-related morbidity and mortality concerns of municipalities. Maturitas, 114, 54-59. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.maturitas.2018.06.002
102. Ryti, N. R., Guo, Y., & Jaakkola, J. J. (2016). Global association of cold spells and adverse health effects: A systematic review andmeta-analysis. Environmental Health Perspectives, 124(1), 12-22. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1408104
103. Sharpe, I., & Davison, C. M. (2022). A scoping review of climate change, climate-related disasters, and mental disorders amongchildren in low- and middle-income countries. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(5). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19052896
104. Syed, S., O’Sullivan, T. L., & Phillips, K. P. (2022). Extreme heat and pregnancy outcomes: A scoping review of theepidemiological evidence. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(4). https://doi.org/10.3390/
ijerph19042412
105. Vu, A., Rutherford, S., & Phung, D. (2019). Heat health prevention measures and adaptation in older populations—A systematic
review. International Jorunal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(22). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16224370
106. Zanobetti, A., & O’Neill, M. S. (2018). Longer-term outdoor temperatures and health effects: A review. Current Epidemiology
Reports, 5(2), 125-139. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40471-018-0150-3
107. Analitis, A., De' Donato, F., Scortichini, M., Lanki, T., Basagana, X., Ballester, F., Astrom, C., Paldy, A., Pascal, M., Gasparrini, A.,
Michelozzi, P., & Katsouyanni, K. (2018). Synergistic effects of ambient temperature and air pollution on health in Europe: Resultsfrom the PHASE Project. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(9). https://doi.org/10.3390/
ijerph15091856

300

Chapter 6108. Areal, A. T., Zhao, Q., Wigmann, C., Schneider, A., & Schikowski, T. (2022). The effect of air pollution when modified bytemperature on respiratory health outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Science of the Total Environment, 811,
152336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.152336
109. Rajagopalan, S., Al-Kindi, S. G., & Brook, R. D. (2018). Air pollution and cardiovascular disease: JACC state-of-the-art review.
Journal of the American College of Cardiologists, 72(17), 2054-2070. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2018.07.099
110. Wesselink, A. K., Wang, T. R., Ketzel, M., Mikkelsen, E. M., Brandt, J., Khan, J., Hertel, O., Laursen, A. S. D., Johannesen, B. R.,
Willis, M. D., Levy, J. I., Rothman, K. J., Sørensen, H. T., Wise, L. A., & Hatch, E. E. (2022). Air pollution and fecundability: Resultsfrom a Danish preconception cohort study. Pediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology, 36(1), 57-67. https://doi.org/10.1111/
ppe.12832
111. Costello, J. M., Steurer, M. A., Baer, R. J., Witte, J. S., & Jelliffe-Pawlowski, L. L. (2022). Residential particulate matter, proximity tomajor roads, traffic density and traffic volume as risk factors for preterm birth in California. Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology,
36(1), 70-79. https://doi.org/10.1111/ppe.12820
112. Tham, R., & Schikowski, T. (2021). The role of traffic-related air pollution on neurodegenerative diseases in older people: An
epidemiological perspective. Journal of Alzheimer's Disease, 79(3), 949-959. https://doi.org/10.3233/jad-200813
113. Weuve, J., Bennett, E. E., Ranker, L., Gianattasio, K. Z., Pedde, M., Adar, S. D., Yanosky, J. D., & Power, M. C. (2021). Exposure to
air pollution in relation to risk of dementia and related outcomes: An updated systematic review of the epidemiological literature.
Environmental Health Perspectives, 129(9), 96001. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP8716
114. Chen, H., Kwong, J. C., Copes, R., Hystad, P., van Donkelaar, A., Tu, K., Brook, J. R., Goldberg, M. S., Martin, R. V., Murray, B. J.,
Wilton, A. S., Kopp, A., & Burnett, R. T. (2017). Exposure to ambient air pollution and the incidence of dementia: A populationbased cohort study. Environment International, 108, 271-277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2017.08.020
115. Shi, L., Steenland, K., Li, H., Liu, P., Zhang, Y., Lyles, R. H., Requia, W. J., Ilango, S. D., Chang, H. H., Wingo, T., Weber, R. J., &Schwartz, J. (2021). A national cohort study (2000-2018) of long-term air pollution exposure and incident dementia in older adults
in the United States. Nature Communications, 12(1), 6754. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-27049-2
116. Paoletti, E., Feng, Z., De Marco, A., Hoshika, Y., Harmens, H., Agathokleous, E., Domingos, M., Mills, G., Sicard, P., Zhang, L., &Carrari, E. (2020). Challenges, gaps and opportunities in investigating the interactions of ozone pollution and plant ecosystems.
Science of the Total Environment, 709, 136188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.136188
117. Gaffney, J. S., & Marley, N. A. (2021). The impacts of peroxyacetyl nitrate in the atmosphere of megacities and large urban areas: A
historical perspective. ACS Earth and Space Chemistry, 5(8), 1829-1841.
118. Li, C., Gu, X., Wu, Z., Qin, T., Guo, L., Wang, T., Zhang, L., & Jiang, G. (2021). Assessing the effects of elevated ozone on
physiology, growth, yield and quality of soybean in the past 40 years: A meta-analysis. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety,
208, 111644. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2020.111644
119. Biancari, L., Cerrotta, C., Menéndez, A. I., Gundel, P. E., & Martínez-Ghersa, M. A. (2021). Episodes of high tropospheric ozone
reduce nodulation, seed production and quality in soybean (Glycine max (L.) merr.) on low fertility soils. Environmental Pollution,
269, 116117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2020.116117
120. Tisdale, R. H., Zobel, R. W., & Burkey, K. O. (2021). Tropospheric ozone rapidly decreases root growth by altering carbon
metabolism and detoxification capability in growing soybean roots. Science of the Total Environment, 766, 144292. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.144292
121. Lobell, D. B., & Burney, J. A. (2021). Cleaner air has contributed one-fifth of US maize and soybean yield gains since 1999.
Environmental Research Letters, 16(7), 074049. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac0fa4
122. Wang, T., Zhang, L., Zhou, S., Zhang, T., Zhai, S., Yang, Z., Wang, D., & Song, H. (2021). Effects of ground-level ozone
pollution on yield and economic losses of winter wheat in Henan, China. Atmospheric Environment, 262, 118654. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2021.118654
123. Wang, Y., Wild, O., Ashworth, K., Chen, X., Wu, Q., Qi, Y., & Wang, Z. (2022). Reductions in crop yields across China fromelevated ozone. Environmental Pollution, 292(Pt A), 118218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2021.118218
124. Zhang, T., Yue, X., Unger, N., Feng, Z., Zheng, B., Li, T., Lei, Y., Zhou, H., Dong, X., & Liu, Y. (2021). Modeling the joint impactsof ozone and aerosols on crop yields in China: An air pollution policy scenario analysis. Atmospheric Environment, 247, 118216.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2021.118216
125. Ascenso, A., Gama, C., Blanco-Ward, D., Monteiro, A., Silveira, C., Viceto, C., Rodrigues, V., Rocha, A., Borrego, C., & Lopes,
M. (2021). Assessing Douro vineyards exposure to tropospheric ozone. Atmosphere, 12(2), 200. https://doi.org/10.3390/
atmos12020200
126. Blanco-Ward, D., Ribeiro, A., Paoletti, E., & Miranda, A. (2021). Assessment of tropospheric ozone phytotoxic effects
on the grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.): A review. Atmospheric Environment, 244, 117924. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
atmosenv.2020.117924

301

Chapter 6
127. Sacchelli, S., Carrari, E., Paoletti, E., Anav, A., Hoshika, Y., Sicard, P., Screpanti, A., Chirici, G., Cocozza, C., & De Marco, A.
(2021). Economic impacts of ambient ozone pollution on wood production in Italy. Scientific Reports, 11(1), 1-9. https://doi.
org/10.1038/s41598-020-80516-6
128. Jakovljevic, T., Lovreskov, L., Jelic, G., Anav, A., Popa, I., Fornasier, M. F., Proietti, C., Limic, I., Butorac, L., Vitale, M., & De Marco,
A. (2021). Impact of ground-level ozone on Mediterranean forest ecosystems health. Science of the Total Environment, 783,
147063. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.147063
129. Anav, A., De Marco, A., Friedlingstein, P., Savi, F., Sicard, P., Sitch, S., Vitale, M., & Paoletti, E. (2019). Growing season extension
affects ozone uptake by European forests. Science of the Total Environment, 669, 1043-1052. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2019.03.020
130. Bosch, J., Elvira, S., Sausor, C., Bielby, J., Gonzalez-Fernandez, I., Alonso, R., & Bermejo-Bermejo, V. (2021). Increased
tropospheric ozone levels enhance pathogen infection levels of amphibians. Science of the Total Environment, 759, 143461.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.143461
131. Oksanen, E., & Kontunen-Soppela, S. (2021). Plants have different strategies to defend against air pollutants. Current Opinion in
Environmental Science & Health, 19, 100222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coesh.2020.10.010
132. Li, S., Yuan, X., Feng, Z., Du, Y., Agathokleous, E., & Paoletti, E. (2022). Whole-plant compensatory responses of isopreneemission from hybrid poplar seedlings exposed to elevated ozone. Science of the Total Environment, 806(Pt 4), 150949. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.150949
133. Boublin, F., Cabassa-Hourton, C., Leymarie, J., & Leitao, L. (2021). Potential involvement of proline and flavonols in plant
responses to ozone. Environmental Research, 207, 112214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2021.112214
134. Blande, J. D. (2021). Effects of air pollution on plant–insect interactions mediated by olfactory and visual cues. Current Opinion in
Environmental Science & Health, 19, 100228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coesh.2020.100228
135. Masui, N., Agathokleous, E., Mochizuki, T., Tani, A., Matsuura, H., & Koike, T. (2021). Ozone disrupts the communication
between plants and insects in urban and suburban areas: an updated insight on plant volatiles. Journal of Forest Research, 32,
1337–1349. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11676-020-01287-4
136. Duque, L., Poelman, E. H., & Steffan-Dewenter, I. (2021). Effects of ozone stress on flowering phenology, plant-pollinatorinteractions and plant reproductive success. Environmental Pollution, 272, 115953. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envpol.2020.115953
137. Galveias, A., Arriegas, R., Mendes, S., Ribeiro, H., Abreu, I., Costa, A., & Antunes, C. (2021). Air pollutants NO2- and O3-induced
Dactylis glomerata L. pollen oxidative defences and enhanced its allergenic potential. Aerobiologia, 37(1), 127-137. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10453-020-09676-2
138. Pereira, S., Fernández-González, M., Guedes, A., Abreu, I., & Ribeiro, H. (2021). The strong and the stronger: The effects ofincreasing ozone and nitrogen dioxide concentrations in pollen of different forest species. Forests, 12(1), 88. https://doi.
org/10.3390/f12010088
139. Kováts, N., Hubai, K., Diósi, D., Sainnokhoi, T.-A., Hoffer, A., Tóth, Á., & Teke, G. (2021). Sensitivity of typical European roadsideplants to atmospheric particulate matter. Ecological Indicators, 124, 107428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2021.107428
140. Mina, U., Smiti, K., & Yadav, P. (2021). Thermotolerant wheat cultivar (Triticum aestivum L. var. WR544) response toe, EDU, andparticulate matter interactive exposure. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 193(6), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10661-021-09079-x
141. Stevenson, D. S., Zhao, A., Naik, V., O'Connor, F. M., Tilmes, S., Zeng, G., Murray, L. T., Collins, W. J., Griffiths, P. T., Shim, S. B.,
Horowitz, L. W., Sentman, L. T., & Emmons, L. (2020). Trends in global tropospheric hydroxyl radical and methane lifetime since1850 from AerChemMIP. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 20(21), 12905-12920. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-129052020
142. Zhao, Y. H., Saunois, M., Bousquet, P., Lin, X., Berchet, A., Hegglin, M. I., Canadell, J. G., Jackson, R. B., Deushi, M., Jockel, P.,
Kinnison, D., Kirner, O., Strode, S., Tilmes, S., Dlugokencky, E. J., & Zheng, B. (2020). On the role of trend and variability in thehydroxyl radical (OH) in the global methane budget. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 20(21), 13011-13022. https://doi.
org/10.5194/acp-20-13011-2020
143. McDuffie, E. E., Smith, S. J., O'Rourke, P., Tibrewal, K., Venkataraman, C., Marais, E. A., Zheng, B., Crippa, M., Brauer, M., &Martin, R. V. (2020). A global anthropogenic emission inventory of atmospheric pollutants from sector- And fuel-specific sources(1970-2017): An application of the Community Emissions Data System (CEDS). Earth System Science Data, 12(4), 3413-3442.
https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-12-3413-2020
144. Patra, P. K., Krol, M. C., Prinn, R. G., Takigawa, M., Mühle, J., Montzka, S. A., Lal, S., Yamashita, Y., Naus, S., Chandra, N., Weiss,
R. F., Krummel, P. B., Fraser, P. J., O'Doherty, S., & Elkins, J. W. (2021). Methyl chloroform continues to constrain the hydroxyl(OH) variability in the troposphere. Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres, 126(4), e2020JD033862. https://doi.
org/10.1029/2020JD033862

302

Chapter 6145. Naus, S., Montzka, S. A., Patra, P. K., & Krol, M. C. (2021). A three-dimensional-model inversion of methyl chloroform to constrain
the atmospheric oxidative capacity. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 21(6), 4809-4824. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-214809-2021
146. Worden, J. R., Cusworth, D. H., Qu, Z., Yin, Y., Zhang, Y., Bloom, A. A., Ma, S., Byrne, B. K., Scarpelli, T., Maasakkers, J. D.,
Crisp, D., Duren, R., & Jacob, D. J. (2022). The 2019 methane budget and uncertainties at 1° resolution and each country through
Bayesian integration Of GOSAT total column methane data and a priori inventory estimates. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics,
22(10), 6811-6841. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-6811-2022
147. Turner, A. J., Frankenberg, C., & Kort, E. A. (2019). Interpreting contemporary trends in atmospheric methane. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 116(8), 2805-2813. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1814297116
148. Fang, X. K., Pyle, J. A., Chipperfield, M. P., Daniel, J. S., Park, S., & Prinn, R. G. (2019). Challenges for the recovery of the ozone
layer. Nature Geoscience, 12(8), 592-596. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-019-0422-7
149. Keber, T., Bonisch, H., Hartick, C., Hauck, M., Lefrancois, F., Obersteiner, F., Ringsdorf, A., Schohl, N., Schuck, T., Hossaini, R.,
Graf, P., Jockel, P., & Engel, A. (2020). Bromine from short-lived source gases in the extratropical northern hemispheric upper
troposphere and lower stratosphere (UTLS). Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 20(7), 4105-4132. https://doi.org/10.5194/
acp-20-4105-2020
150. Engel, A., Rigby, M., Burkholder, J. B., Fernandez, R. P., Froidevaux, L., Hall, B. D., Hossaini, R., Saito, T., Vollmer, M. K., & Yao, B.
(2018). Update on Ozone-Depleting Substances (ODS) and Other Gases of Interest to the Montreal Protocol, Chap. 1. Scientific
Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2018, Global Ozone Research and Monitoring Project-Report No. 58, World MeteorologicalOrganization. World Meteorological Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
151. Rex, M., Wohltmann, I., Ridder, T., Lehmann, R., Rosenlof, K., Wennberg, P., Weisenstein, D., Notholt, J., Kruger, K., Mohr, V., &Tegtmeier, S. (2014). A tropical West Pacific OH minimum and implications for stratospheric composition. Atmospheric Chemistry
and Physics, 14(9), 4827-4841. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-4827-2014
152. Nicewonger, M. R., Saltzman, E. S., & Montzka, S. A. (2022). ENSO-driven fires cause large interannual variability in thenaturally emitted, ozone-depleting trace gas CH3Br. Geophysical Research Letters, 49, e2021GL094756. https://doi.
org/10.1029/2021GL094756
153. Liu, S. S., Yang, G. P., He, Z., Gao, X. X., & Xu, F. (2021). Oceanic emissions of methyl halides and effect of nutrients concentrationon their production: A case of the western Pacific Ocean (2 degrees N to 24 degrees N). Science of the Total Environment, 769,
144488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.144488
154. Williams, R. S., Hegglin, M. I., Kerridge, B. J., Jöckel, P., Latter, B. G., & Plummer, D. A. (2019). Characterising the seasonal andgeographical variability in tropospheric ozone, stratospheric influence and recent changes. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics,
19(6), 3589-3620. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-3589-2019
155. Archibald, A. T., Neu, J. L., Elshorbany, Y. F., Cooper, O. R., Young, P. J., Akiyoshi, H., Cox, R. A., Coyle, M., Derwent, R. G.,
Deushi, M., Finco, A., Frost, G. J., Galbally, I. E., Gerosa, G., Granier, C., Griffiths, P. T., Hossaini, R., Hu, L., Jöckel, P., Josse, B., etal. (2020). Tropospheric Ozone Assessment Report: A critical review of changes in the tropospheric ozone burden and budget
from 1850 to 2100. Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1525/elementa.2020.034
156. Wang, M., & Fu, Q. (2021). Stratosphere-troposphere exchange of air masses and ozone concentrations based onreanalyses and observations. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 126(18), e2021JD035159. https://doi.
org/10.1029/2021JD035159
157. Ruiz, D. J., & Prather, M. J. (2022). From the middle stratosphere to the surface, using nitrous oxide to constrain the stratosphere–
troposphere exchange of ozone. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 22(3), 2079-2093. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-222079-2022
158. Griffiths, P. T., Murray, L. T., Zeng, G., Shin, Y. M., Abraham, N. L., Archibald, A. T., Deushi, M., Emmons, L. K., Galbally, I. E.,
Hassler, B., Horowitz, L. W., Keeble, J., Liu, J., Moeini, O., Naik, V., O'Connor, F. M., Oshima, N., Tarasick, D., Tilmes, S., Turnock,
S. T., et al. (2021). Tropospheric ozone in CMIP6 simulations. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 21(5), 4187-4218. https://doi.
org/10.5194/acp-21-4187-2021
159. Hu, L., Jacob, D. J., Liu, X., Zhang, Y., Zhang, L., Kim, P. S., Sulprizio, M. P., & Yantosca, R. M. (2017). Global budget of
tropospheric ozone: Evaluating recent model advances with satellite (OMI), aircraft (IAGOS), and ozonesonde observations.
Atmospheric Environment, 167, 323-334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2017.08.036
160. Griffiths, P. T., Keeble, J., Shin, Y. M., Abraham, N. L., Archibald, A. T., & Pyle, J. A. (2020). On the changing role ofthe stratosphere on the tropospheric ozone budget: 1979–2010. Geophysical Research Letters, 47, 9. https://doi.
org/10.1029/2019gl086901
161. Abalos, M., Orbe, C., Kinnison, D. E., Plummer, D., Oman, L. D., Jöckel, P., Morgenstern, O., Garcia, R. R., Zeng, G., Stone, K.
A., & Dameris, M. (2020). Future trends in stratosphere-to-troposphere transport in CCMI models. Atmospheric Chemistry andPhysics, 20(11), 6883-6901. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-6883-2020

303

Chapter 6
162. Akritidis, D., Pozzer, A., Flemming, J., Inness, A., & Zanis, P. (2021). A global climatology of tropopause folds in CAMS
and MERRA-2 reanalyses. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 126(8), e2020JD034115. https://doi.
org/10.1029/2020JD034115
163. Liu, J. H., Rodriguez, J. M., Oman, L. D., Douglass, A. R., Olsen, M. A., & Hu, L. (2020). Stratospheric impact on the Northern
Hemisphere winter and spring ozone interannual variability in the troposphere. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 20(11), 64166432. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-6417-2020
164. Dafka, S., Akritidis, D., Zanis, P., Pozzer, A., Xoplaki, E., Luterbacher, J., & Zerefos, C. (2021). On the link between the Etesian
winds, tropopause folds and tropospheric ozone over the Eastern Mediterranean during summer. Atmospheric Research, 248.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosres.2020.105161
165. Akritidis, D., Pozzer, A., & Zanis, P. (2019). On the impact of future climate change on tropopause folds and tropospheric ozone.
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 19(22), 14387-14401. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-14387-2019
166. Cohen, Y., Marecal, V., Josse, B., & Thouret, V. (2021). Interpol-IAGOS: a new method for assessing long-term chemistry-climate
simulations in the UTLS based on IAGOS data, and its application to the MOCAGE CCMI REF-C1SD simulation. Geoscientific
Model Development, 14(5), 2659-2689. https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-2659-2021
167. Huijnen, V., Miyazaki, K., Flemming, J., Inness, A., Sekiya, T., & Schultz, M. G. (2020). An intercomparison of tropospheric ozone
reanalysis products from CAMS, CAMS interim, TCR-1, and TCR-2. Geoscientific Model Development, 13(3), 1513-1544. https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-1513-2020
168. Krizan, P., Kozubek, M., & Lastovicka, J. (2019). Discontinuities in the ozone concentration time series from MERRA 2 reanalysis.
Atmosphere, 10(12). https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos10120812
169. Barnes, P. W., Robson, T. M., Zepp, R. G., Bornman, J. F., Jansen, M. A. K., Ossola, R., Wang, Q.-W., Robinson, S. A., Foereid, B.,
Klekociuk, A. R., Martinez-Abaigar, J., Hou, W. C., & Paul, N. D. (2022). Interactive effects of changes in UV radiation and climate
on terrestrial ecosystems, biogeochemical cycles, and feedbacks to the climate system. Chapter 4
170. Robinson, S. A., & Erickson Iii, D. J. (2015). Not just about sunburn – the ozone hole's profound effect on climate has significant
implications for Southern Hemisphere ecosystems. Global Change Biology, 21(2), 515-527. https://doi.org/https://doi.
org/10.1111/gcb.12739
171. Damiani, A., Cordero, R. R., Llanillo, P. J., Feron, S., Boisier, J. P., Garreaud, R., Rondanelli, R., Irie, H., & Watanabe, S. (2020).
Connection between Antarctic Ozone and climate: interannual precipitation changes in the southern hemisphere. Atmosphere,
11(6), 579. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos11060579
172. Lim, E.-P., Hendon, H. H., Boschat, G., Hudson, D., Thompson, D. W. J., Dowdy, A. J., & Arblaster, J. M. (2019). Australian hot
and dry extremes induced by weakenings of the stratospheric polar vortex. Nature Geoscience, 12(11), 896-901. https://doi.
org/10.1038/s41561-019-0456-x
173. Santee, M. L., Lambert, A., Manney, G. L., Livesey, N. J., Froidevaux, L., Neu, J. L., Schwartz, M. J., Millán, L. F., Werner, F.,
Read, W. G., Park, M., Fuller, R. A., & Ward, B. M. (2022). Prolonged and pervasive perturbations in the composition of thesouthern hemisphere midlatitude lower stratosphere from the Australian New Year's fires. Geophysical Research Letters, 49(4),e2021GL096270. https://doi.org/10.1029/2021GL096270
174. Tencé, F., Jumelet, J., Bekki, S., Khaykin, S., Sarkissian, A., & Keckhut, P. (2022). Australian black summer smoke observed bylidar at the French Antarctic station Dumont d’Urville. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 127(4), e2021JD035349.
https://doi.org/10.1029/2021JD035349
175. NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (2021). Global Transport of Australian Bushfire Smoke. https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/202/global-transport-of-australian-bushfire-smoke/. Accessed 16 March 2022 2022.
176. Jia, G., Shevliakova, E., Artaxo, P., Noblet-Ducoudré, N. D., Houghton, R., House, J., Kitajima, K., Lennard, C., Popp, A., Sirin,A., Sukumar, R., & Verchot, L. (2019). Land–climate interactions. In P. R. Shukla, J. Skea, E. C. Buendia, V. Masson-Delmotte, H.-O.
Pörtner, D. C. Roberts, P. Zhai, R. Slade, S. Connors, R. v. Diemen, M. Ferrat, E. Haughey, S. Luz, S. Neogi, M. Pathak, J. Petzold, J.
P. Pereira, P. Vyas, E. Huntley, et al. (Eds.), Climate Change and Land: an IPCC special report on climate change, desertification,
land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems. https://doi.org/https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl/
177. Lawrence, Z. D., Perlwitz, J., Butler, A. H., Manney, G. L., Newman, P. A., Lee, S. H., & Nash, E. R. (2020). The remarkably strong
arctic stratospheric polar vortex of winter 2020: Links to record-breaking Arctic oscillation and ozone loss. Journal of GeophysicalResearch: Atmospheres, 125(22). https://doi.org/10.1029/2020jd033271
178. Friedel, M., Chiodo, G., Stenke, A., Domeisen, D. I. V., Fueglistaler, S., Anet, J. G., & Peter, T. (2022). Springtime arctic ozone
depletion forces northern hemisphere climate anomalies. Nature Geoscience, 15(7), 541-547. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561022-00974-7
179. Overland, J. E., & Wang, M. Y. (2021). The 2020 Siberian heat wave. International Journal of Climatology, 41, E2341-E2346.
https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.6850

304

Chapter 6
180. von der Gathen, P., Kivi, R., Wohltmann, I., Salawitch, R. J., & Rex, M. (2021). Climate change favours large seasonal loss of Arctic
ozone. Nature Communications, 12(1), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-24089-6
181. OECD (2022). Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). https://www.oecd.org/chemicalsafety/portal-perfluorinatedchemicals/. Accessed February 2022.
182. Wallington, T. J., Sulbæk Andersen, M. P., & Nielsen, O. J. (2021). The case for a more precise definition of regulated PFAS.
Environmental Science: Processes & Impacts, 23(12), 1834-1838. https://doi.org/10.1039/d1em00296a
183. Buck, R. C., Korzeniowski, S. H., Laganis, E., & Adamsky, F. (2021). Identification and classification of commercially relevant perand poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 17, 1045-1055. https://doi.
org/10.1002/ieam.4450
184. Anderson, J. K., Brecher, R. W., Cousins, I. T., DeWitt, J., Fiedler, H., Kannan, K., Kirman, C. R., Lipscomb, J., Priestly, B., Schoeny,
R., Seed, J., Verner, M., & Hays, S. M. (2022). Grouping of PFAS for human health risk assessment: Findings from an independent
panel of experts. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 105226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2022.105226
185. DEPA. (2015). Short-chain Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS). Vol. 1707. Danish Environmental Protection Agency, Copenhagen.
186. EFSA (2020). Risk to human health related to the presence of perfluoroalkyl substances in food. EFSA Journal, 18(9), e06223.
https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2020.6223
187. NICNAS. (2016). Short Chain Perfluorocarboxylic Acids and their Direct Precursors: Human Health Tier II Assessment. National
Industrial Chemicals Notification and Assessment Scheme (NICNAS), Canberra AU.
188. ECCC. (2022). Canada’s Great Lakes Strategy for PFOS, PFOA, and LC-PFCAs Risk Management. Environment and Climate
Change Canada, Ottawa, ON.
189. United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2022). PFAS Master List of PFAS Substances https://comptox.epa.gov/
dashboard/chemical_lists/pfasmaster. Accessed April 2022.
190. PubChem (2022). Trifluoroacetic acid. https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/6422. Accessed January 2022.
191. RSC (2022). ChemSpider. http://www.chemspider.com/. Accessed May 2022.
192. Chabot, L. (2017). Chabot L. (2017). ALGA, GROWTH INHIBITION TEST Effect of the trifuoroacetic acid on the growth of theunicellular alga Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata, according to OECD guideline 201 (Study conducted for RHODIA OPERATIONS– SOLVAY). Vol. 17-005-167094. Verneuil-En-Halatte, Verneuil-En-Halatte, France.
193. Boudreau, T. M. (2002). Toxicity of Perfluorinated Organic Acids to Selected Freshwater Organisms under Laboratory and Field
Conditions. M.Sc., University of Guelph, Guelph.
194. Wang, Y., Niu, J., Zhang, L., & Shi, J. (2014). Toxicity assessment of perfluorinated carboxylic acids (PFCAs) towards therotifer Brachionus calyciflorus. The Science of the Total Environment, 491-492, 266-270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2014.02.028
195. ATSDR. (2021). Toxicological Profile for Perfluoroalkyls. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Washington DC.
196. Kwiatkowski, C. F., Andrews, D. Q., Birnbaum, L. S., Bruton, T. A., DeWitt, J. C., Knappe, D. R. U., Maffini, M. V., Miller, M.
F., Pelch, K. E., Reade, A., Soehl, A., Trier, X., Venier, M., Wagner, C. C., Wang, Z., & Blum, A. (2020). Scientific basis for
managing PFAS as a chemical class. Environmental Science & Technology Letters, 7(8), 532-543. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.
estlett.0c00255
197. Cousins, I. T., Dewitt, J. C., Glüge, J., Goldenman, G., Herzke, D., Lohmann, R., Ng, C. A., Scheringer, M., & Wang, Z. (2020).
The high persistence of PFAS is sufficient for their management as a chemical class. Environmental Science: Processes & Impacts,
22(12), 2307-2312. https://doi.org/10.1039/d0em00355g
198. Singh, R. R., & Papanastasiou, D. K. (2021). Comment on “Scientific basis for managing PFAS as a chemical class”. Environmental
Science & Technology Letters, 8(2), 192-194. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.0c00765
199. Kwiatkowski, C. F., Andrews, D. Q., Birnbaum, L. S., Bruton, T. A., DeWitt, J. C., Knappe, D. R. U., Maffini, M. V., Miller, M. F.,
Pelch, K. E., Reade, A., Soehl, A., Trier, X., Venier, M., Wagner, C. C., Wang, Z., & Blum, A. (2021). Response to “Comment on
scientific basis for managing PFAS as a chemical class”. Environmental Science & Technology Letters, 8(2), 195-197. https://doi.
org/10.1021/acs.estlett.1c00049
200. Hogue, C. (2022, July 4. 2022). How to define PFAS. Chemical & Engineering News, pp. 18-19.
201. Boutonnet, J. C., Bingham, P., Calamari, D., Rooij, C. d., Franklin, J., Kawano, T., Libre, J.-M., McCul-Loch, A., Malinverno, G., &Odom, J. M. (1999). Environmental risk assessment of trifluoroacetic acid. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 5, 59-124.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10807039991289644
202. Scheurer, M., Nödler, K., Freeling, F., Janda, J., Happel, O., Riegel, M., Müller, U., Storck, F. R., Fleig, M., Lange, F. T., Brunsch,A., & Brauch, H.-J. (2017). Small, mobile, persistent: Trifluoroacetate in the water cycle – Overlooked sources, pathways, andconsequences for drinking water supply. Water Research, 126, 460-471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2017.09.045

305

Chapter 6
203. Alexandrino, D. A. M., Ribeiro, I., Pinto, L. M., Cambra, R., Oliveira, R. S., Pereira, F., & Carvalho, M. F. (2018). Biodegradationof mono-, di- and trifluoroacetate by microbial cultures with different origins. New Biotechnology, 43, 23-29. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.nbt.2017.08.005
204. Wallington, T. J., Sulbæk Andersen, M. P., & Nielsen, O. J. (2015). Atmospheric chemistry of short-chain haloolefins:Photochemical ozone creation potentials (POCPs), global warming potentials (GWPs), and ozone depletion potentials (ODPs).
Chemosphere, 129, 135-141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2014.06.092
205. Wallington, T. J., Schneider, W. F., Worsnop, D. R., Nielsen, O. J., Sehested, J., Debruyn, W. J., & Shorter, J. A. (1994). The
environmental impact of CFC replacements HFCs and HCFCs. Environmental Science & Technology, 28(7), 320A-326A. https://doi.org/10.1021/es00056a714
206. Hurley, M. D., Wallington, T. J., Javadi, M. S., & Nielsen, O. J. (2008). Atmospheric chemistry of CF3CFCH2: Products andmechanisms of Cl atom and OH radical initiated oxidation. Chemical Physics Letters, 450(4-6), 263-267. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.cplett.2007.11.051
207. Burkholder, J. B., Cox, R. A., & Ravishankara, A. R. (2015). Atmospheric degradation of ozone depleting substances, theirsubstitutes, and related species. Chemical Reviews, 115(10), 3704-3759. https://doi.org/10.1021/cr5006759
208. Wallington, T. J., Andersen, M. P. S., & Nielsen, O. J. (2017). Atmospheric Chemistry of Halogenated Organic Compounds. In J.
R. Barker, A. L. Steiner, & T. J. Wallington (Eds.), Advances in Atmospheric Chemistry, 2, 305-402. New Jersey: World Scientific.
https://doi.org/10.1142/9789813147355_0005
209. IPCC (2021). Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Reportof the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
210. Chiappero, M. S., Malanca, F. E., Argüello, G. A., Wooldridge, S. T., Hurley, M. D., Ball, J. C., Wallington, T. J., Waterland, R. L., &Buck, R. C. (2006). Atmospheric chemistry of perfluoroaldehydes (CxF2x+1CHO) and fluorotelomer aldehydes (CxF2x+1CH2CHO):
Quantification of the important role of photolysis. The Journal of Physical Chemistry A, 110(43), 11944-11953. https://doi.
org/10.1021/jp064262k
211. Sulbæk Andersen, M. P., Toft, A., Nielsen, O. J., Hurley, M. D., Wallington, T. J., Chishima, H., Tonokura, K., Mabury, S. A., Martin,
J. W., & Ellis, D. A. (2006). Atmospheric chemistry of perfluorinated aldehyde hydrates (n-CxF2x+1CH(OH)2, x = 1, 3, 4): Hydration,
dehydration, and kinetics and mechanism of Cl atom and OH radical initiated oxidation. The Journal of Physical Chemistry A,
110(32), 9854-9860. https://doi.org/10.1021/jp060404z
212. WMO (2022). Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2022, GAW Report No. 278. World Meteorological Organization,
Geneva, Switzerland.
213. Frank, H., Christoph, E. H., Holm-Hansen, O., & Bullister, J. L. (2002). Trifluoroacetate in ocean waters. Environmental Science &Technology, 36, 12-15. https://doi.org/10.1021/es0101532
214. UBA. (2021). Persistent Degradation Products of Halogenated Refrigerants and Blowing Agents in the Environment: Type,
Environmental Concentrations, and Fate with Particular Regard to New Halogenated Substitutes with Low Global Warming
Potential. Vol. FB000452/ENG. Umwelt Bundesamt, Dessau-Roßlau.
215. Sulbæk Andersen, M. P., Schmidt, J. A., Volkova, A., & Wuebbles, D. J. (2018). A three-dimensional model of the atmosphericchemistry of E and Z-CF3CH=CHCl (HCFO-1233(zd) (E/Z)). Atmospheric Environment, 179, 250-259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
atmosenv.2018.02.018
216. Holland, R., Khan, M. A. H., Driscoll, I., Chhantyal-Pun, R., Derwent, R. G., Taatjes, C. A., Orr-Ewing, A. J., Percival, C. J., &Shallcross, D. E. (2021). Investigation of the production of trifluoroacetic acid from two halocarbons, HFC-134a and HFO-1234yf
and its fates using a global three-dimensional chemical transport model. ACS Earth and Space Chemistry, 5, 849–857. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsearthspacechem.0c00355
217. David, L. M., Barth, M., Höglund-Isaksson, L., Purohit, P., Velders, G. J., Glaser, S., & Ravishankara, A. R. (2021). Trifluoroacetic
acid deposition from emissions of HFO-1234yf in India, China, and the Middle East. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 21(19),14833-14849. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-14833-2021
218. United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2020). Models for Pesticide Risk Assessment. https://www.epa.gov/
pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/models-pesticide-risk-assessment#AgDrift. Accessed January 2022.
219. Chen, H., Zhang, L., Li, M., Yao, Y., Zhao, Z., Munoz, G., & Sun, H. (2019). Per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) in
precipitation from mainland China: Contributions of unknown precursors and short-chain (C2C3) perfluoroalkyl carboxylic acids.
Water Research, 153, 169-177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2019.01.019
220. Freeling, F., Behringer, D., Heydel, F., Scheurer, M., Ternes, T. A., & Nödler, K. (2020). Trifluoroacetate in precipitation: Deriving abenchmark dataset. Environmental Science & Technology, 54, 11210−11219. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c02910
221. Cahill, T. M. (2022). Increases in trifluoroacetate concentrations in surface waters over two decades. Environmental Science &Technology, 56(13), 9428–9434. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.2c01826

306

Chapter 6
222. Freeling, F., Scheurer, M., Koschorreck, J., Hoffmann, G., Ternes, T. A., & Nödler, K. (2022). Levels and temporal trends oftrifluoroacetate (TFA) in archived plants: evidence for increasing emissions of gaseous TFA precursors over the last decades.
Environmental Science & Technology Letters, 5, 400-405. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.2c00164
223. Lindley, A., McCulloch, A., & Vink, T. (2019). Contribution of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and hydrofluoro-olefins (HFOs)
atmospheric breakdown products to acidification (“Acid Rain”) in the EU at present and in the future. Open Journal of Air Pollution,
8, 81-95. https://doi.org/doi: 10.4236/ojap.2019.84004
224. Bernhard, G. H., Neale, R. E., Barnes, P. W., Neale, P. J., Zepp, R. G., Wilson, S. R., Andrade, A. J., Bais, A. F., McKenzie, R. L.,
Aucamp, P. J., Young, P. J., Liley, B. J., Lucas, R. M., Yazar, S., Rhodes, L. E., Byrne, S. N., Hollestein, L. M., Olsen, L. M., Young, A.
R., Robson, T. M., et al. (2020). Environmental effects of stratospheric ozone depletion, UV radiation and interactions with climatechange: UNEP Environmental Effects Assessment Panel, update 2019. Photochemical & Photobiological Sciences, 19, 542-584.
https://doi.org/10.1039/d0pp90011g
225. Neale, R. E., Barnes, P. W., Robson, T. M., Neale, P. J., Bernhard, G. H., Neale, R. E., Williamson, C. E., Zepp, R. G., Wilson, S.
R., Madronich, S., Andrade, A. J., Heikkila, A. M., Bernhard, G. H., Bais, A. F., Aucamp, P. J., Banaszak, A. T., Bornman, J. F.,
Bruckman, L. S., Byrne, S. N., Føreid, B., et al. (2021). Environmental effects of stratospheric ozone depletion, UV radiation andinteractions with climate change: UNEP Environmental Effects Assessment Panel, Update 2020. Photochemical & Photobiological
Sciences, 20, 1-67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43630-020-00001-x
226. Frank, H., Klein, A., & Renschen, D. (1996). Environmental trifluoroacetate. Nature, 382, 34-34. https://doi.
org/10.1038/382034a0
227. Scott, B., Macdonald, R., Kannan, K., Fisk, A., Witter, A., Yamashita, N., Durham, L., Spencer, C., & Muir, D. (2005).
Trifluoroacetate profiles in the Arctic, Atlantic, and Pacific oceans. Environmental Science & Technology, 39, 6555-6560. https://doi.org/10.1021/es047975u
228. Scott, B. F., Spencer, C., Martin, J. W., Barra, R., Bootsma, H. A., Jones, K. C., Johnston, A. E., & Muir, D. C. G. (2005). Comparisonof haloacetic acids in the environment of the Northern and Southern Hemispheres. Environmental Science & Technology, 39(22),8664-8670. https://doi.org/10.1021/es050118L
229. Joudan, S., DeSilva, A. O., & Young, C. (2021). Insufficient evidence for the existence of natural trifluoroacetic acid. Environmental
Science: Processes & Impacts, 23, 1641–1649. https://doi.org/10.1039/d1em00306b
230. Klobas, J. E., & Wilmouth, D. M. (2019). Volcanogenic Chlorofluorocarbons and the Recent CFC Anomalies. A white paper
prepared at the request of the Scientific Assessment Panel (SAP) of the Montreal Protocol. Harvard University Library, Boston.
231. Gribble, G. W. (2002). Fluorine in the Environment, a Review of its Sources and Geochemistry. In A. H. Neilson (Ed.), The
Handbook of Environmental Chemistry, 3, 121-136. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag
232. Solomon, K., Velders, G., Wilson, S., Madronich, S., Longstreth, J., Aucamp, P., & Bornman, J. (2016). Sources, fates, toxicity, andrisks of trifluoroacetic acid and its salts: Relevance to substances regulated under the Montreal and Kyoto protocols. Journal of
Toxicology and Environmental Health B, 19, 289-304. https://doi.org/10.1080/10937404.2016.1175981
233. Wang, B., Yao, Y., Chen, H., Chang, S., Tian, Y., & Sun, H. (2020). Per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances and the contribution of
unknown precursors and short-chain (C2–C3) perfluoroalkyl carboxylic acids at solid waste disposal facilities. Science of the Total
Environment, 705, 135832. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135832
234. Xie, G., Zhai, Z., & Zhang, J. (2020). Distribution characteristics of trifluoroacetic acid in the environments surrounding
fluorochemical production plants in Jinan, China. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27, 983-991. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11356-019-06689-4
235. Zhang, L., Sun, H., Wang, Q., Chen, H., Yao, Y., Zhao, Z., & Alder, A. C. (2019). Uptake mechanisms of perfluoroalkyl acids withdifferent carbon chain lengths (C2-C8) by wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Science of the Total Environment, 654, 19-27. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.10.443
236. Lan, Z., Yao, Y., Xu, J., Chen, H., Ren, C., Fang, X., Zhang, K., Jin, L., Hua, X., & Alder, A. C. (2020). Novel and legacy per-and
polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) in a farmland environment: Soil distribution and biomonitoring with plant leaves and locusts.
Environmental Pollution, 263, 114487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2020.114487
237. Gardiner, J. (2015). Fluoropolymers: Origin, production, and industrial and commercial applications. Australian Journal ofChemistry, 68(1), 13-22. https://doi.org/10.1071/CH14165
238. Ellis, D. A., Mabury, S. A., Martin, J. W., & Muir, D. C. (2001). Thermolysis of fluoropolymers as a potential source of halogenatedorganic acids in the environment. Nature, 412, 321-324. https://doi.org/10.1038/35085548
239. Cui, J. N., Guo, J. Y., Zhai, Z. H., & Zhang, J. B. (2019). The contribution of fluoropolymer thermolysis to trifluoroacetic acid (TFA) inenvironmental media. Chemosphere, 222, 637-644. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.01.174
240. Trang, B., Li, Y., Xue, X.-S., Ateia, M., Houk, K. N., & Dichtel, W. R. (2022). Low-temperature mineralization of perfluorocarboxylic
acids. Science, 377(6608), 839-845. https://doi.org/doi:10.1126/science.abm8868

307

Chapter 6241. Lenka, S. P., Kah, M., & Padhye, L. P. (2021). A review of the occurrence, transformation, and removal of poly- and perfluoroalkyl
substances (PFAS) in wastewater treatment plants. Water Research, 199, 117187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2021.117187
242. Duan, Y., Sun, H., Yao, Y., Meng, Y., & Li, Y. (2020). Distribution of novel and legacy per-/polyfluoroalkyl substances in serum
and its associations with two glycemic biomarkers among Chinese adult men and women with normal blood glucose levels.
Environment International, 134, 105295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2019.105295
243. Scheurer, M., & Nödler, K. (2021). Ultrashort-chain perfluoroalkyl substance trifluoroacetate (TFA) in beer and tea–An unintended
aqueous extraction. Food Chemistry, 351, 129304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2021.129304
244. Yao, Y., Sun, H., Gan, Z., Hu, H., Zhao, Y., Chang, S., & Zhou, Q. (2016). Nationwide distribution of per- and polyfluoroalkyl
substances in outdoor dust in Mainland China from eastern to western areas. Environmental Science & Technology, 50(7), 36763685. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b00649
245. Wang, B., Yao, Y., Wang, Y., Chen, H., & Sun, H. (2021). Per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances in outdoor and indoor dust
from Mainland China: Contributions of unknown precursors and implications for human exposure. Environmental Science &Technology, 56(10), 6036–6045. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c08242
246. Siegemund, G., Schwertfeger, W., Feiring, A., Smart, B., Behr, F., Vogel, H., McKusick, B., & Kirsch, P. (2016). Fluorine
Compounds, Organic. In Ullmann's Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry, n/a. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co
247. Inoue, M., Sumii, Y., & Shibata, N. (2020). Contribution of organofluorine compounds to pharmaceuticals. ACS Omega, 5(19),10633-10640. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.0c00830
248. Yu, Y., Liu, A., Dhawan, G., Mei, H., Zhang, W., Izawa, K., Soloshonok, V. A., & Han, J. (2021). Fluorine-containing
pharmaceuticals approved by the FDA in 2020: Synthesis and biological activity. Chinese Chemical Letters. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.cclet.2021.05.042
249. Khan, M. F., & Murphy, C. D. (2021). Bacterial degradation of the anti-depressant drug fluoxetine produces trifluoroacetic acidand fluoride ion. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, 105, 9359-9369. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-021-11675-3
250. Morio, M., Fujii, K., Takiyama, R., Chikasue, F., Kikuchi, H., & Ribarić, L. (1980). Quantitative analysis of trifluoroacetate in the urine
and blood by isotachophoresis. Anesthesiology, 53(1), 56-59. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000542-198007000-00011
251. Mirkov, M. I., Morio, M., Kawahara, M., Yuge, O., Kinoshita, H., & Fujii, K. (1988). Excretion of trifluoroacetic acid as a metaboliteof halothane in digestive juices. Journal of Anesthesia, 2(2), 133-138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s0054080020133
252. Sutton, T. S., Koblin, D. D., Gruenke, L. D., Weiskopf, R. B., Rampil, I. J., Waskell, L., & Eger 2nd, E. (1991). Fluoride metabolites
after prolonged exposure of volunteers and patients to desflurane. Anesthesia and Analgesia, 73(2), 180-185. https://doi.
org/10.1213/00000539-199108000-00011
253. Wark, H., Earl, J., Chau, D. D., & Overton, J. (1990). Halothane metabolism in children. British Journal of Anaesthesia, 64, 474481. https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/64.4.474
254. Ogawa, Y., Tokunaga, E., Kobayashi, O., Hirai, K., & Shibata, N. (2020). Current contributions of organofluorine compounds tothe agrochemical industry. Iscience, 23, 101467. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2020.101467
255. Ellis, D. A., & Mabury, S. A. (2000). The aqueous photolysis of TFM and related trifluoromethylphenols. An alternate source oftrifluoroacetic acid in the environment. Environmental Science & Technology, 34, 632-637. https://doi.org/10.1021/es990422c
256. Bhat, A. P., Pomerantz, W. C. K., & Arnold, W. A. (2022). Finding fluorine: Photoproduct formation during the photolysis offluorinated pesticides. Environmental Science & Technology, 56(17), 12336-12346. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.2c04242
257. NAWQA, U. (2021). National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Project. Estimated Annual Agricultural Pesticide Use. https://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/pnsp/usage/maps/compound_listing.php. Accessed December 2021.
258. FAO STAT (2021). Pesticide Use. https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/?#data/RP. Accessed December 2021.
259. UBA. (2021). Reducing Chemical Input into Water Bodies – Trifluoroacetate (TFA) as a Persistent and Mobile Substance from
Many Sources. Vol. ISSN 2363-829X. Umweld Bundesampt, German Environment Agency, Dessau-Roßlau.
260. UBA. (2019). Ableitung Eines Gesundheitlichen Leitwertes für Trifluoressigsäure (TFA). Umwelt Bundesampt.
261. OECD (2022). OECD Test Guidelines for Chemicals https://www.oecd.org/chemicalsafety/testing/oecdguidelinesforthetestingofchemicals.htm. Accessed April 2022.
262. OECD (2022). Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) https://www.oecd.org/chemicalsafety/testing/good-laboratory-practiceglp.
htm. Accessed April 2022.
263. ECHA (2021). Trifluoroacetic Acid: Toxicity to Aquatic Algae and Cyanobacteria. https://echa.europa.eu/registration-dossier/-/registered-dossier/5203/6/2/6/?documentUUID=9e9959f8-a994-4b8c-93d7-de7a1a3c1cfa. Accessed December 2021.
264. Cousins, I. T., Ng, C. A., Wang, Z., & Scheringer, M. (2019). Why is high persistence alone a major cause of concern?
Environmental Science: Processes & Impacts, 21(5), 781-792. https://doi.org/10.1039/c8em00515J

308

Chapter 6
265. IPCC/TEAP. (2005). Special Report Safeguarding the Ozone Layer and the Global Climate System: Issues Related to
Hydrofluorocarbons and Perfluorocarbons. World Meteorological Organization (WMO) ; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change ; United Nations Environment Programme.
266. Derwent, R. G., Jenkin, M. E., & Saunders, S. M. (1996). Photochemical ozone creation potentials for a large number ofreactive hydrocarbons under European conditions. Atmospheric Environment, 30(2), 181-199. https://doi.org/10.1016/13522310(95)00303-g
267. Carter, W. P. L. (1994). Development of ozone reactivity scales for volatile organic compounds. Air & Waste, 44, 881-899.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1073161X.1994.10467290
268. Jenkin, M. E., Derwent, R. G., & Wallington, T. J. (2017). Photochemical ozone creation potentials for volatile organic compounds:
Rationalization and estimation. Atmospheric Environment 163, 128–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2017.05.024
269. Carter, W. P. L. (2009). Investigation of Atmospheric Ozone Impacts of Trans 2,3,3,3-Tetrafluoropropene, Final Report forContract UCR-09010016. Center for Environmental Research and Technology, College of Engineering, University of California,
Riverside, California.
270. Lefrancois, F., Jesswein, M., Thoma, M., Engel, A., Stanley, K., & Schuck, T. (2021). An indirect-calibration method for non-target
quantification of trace gases applied to a time series of fourth-generation synthetic halocarbons at the Taunus Observatory(Germany). Atmospheric Measurement Techniques, 14(6), 4669-4687. https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-14-4669-2021
271. Vollmer, M. K., Reimann, S., Hill, M., & Brunner, D. (2015). First observations of the fourth generation synthetic halocarbons
HFC-1234yf, HFC-1234ze(E), and HCFC-1233zd(E) in the atmosphere. Environmental Science & Technology, 49(5), 2703-2708.
https://doi.org/10.1021/es505123x
272. Vollmer, M. K., Reimann, S., Hill, M., & Brunner, D. (2020). Update to Vollmer, M. K., S. Reimann, M. Hill, D. Brunner, First
observations of the fourth generation synthetic halocarbons HFC-1234yf, HFC-1234ze(E), and HCFC-1233zd(E) in theatmosphere, Environ. Sci. Technol., 49, 2703-2708, https://doi.org/doi/10.1021/es505123x, 2015. https://www.empa.ch/documents/56101/190047/HFO+update+Report/fe3b26b5-fcb6-4cd9-a6f6-5c39ac01f20a. Accessed 2/7/2022.
273. Wang, Y., Wang, Z., Sun, M., Guo, J., & Zhang, J. (2021). Emissions, degradation and impact of HFO-1234ze from China PU foam
industry. Science of the Total Environment, 780, 146631. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.146631
274. Campbell, J. S., Hansen, C. S., & Kable, S. (2020). New HFO refrigerants transform in the atmosphere to ultimately produce
problematic old HFCs. Paper presented at the American Geophysical Union Fall Metting 2020,
275. Sulbæk Andersen, M. P., & Nielsen, O. J. (2022). Tropospheric photolysis of CF3CHO. Atmospheric Environment, 272, 118935.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2021.118935
276. Franco, B., Blumenstock, T., Cho, C., Clarisse, L., Clerbaux, C., Coheur, P. F., De Mazière, M., De Smedt, I., Dorn, H. P.,
Emmerichs, T., Fuchs, H., Gkatzelis, G., Griffith, D. W. T., Gromov, S., Hannigan, J. W., Hase, F., Hohaus, T., Jones, N., Kerkweg,
A., Kiendler-Scharr, A., et al. (2021). Ubiquitous atmospheric production of organic acids mediated by cloud droplets. Nature,593(7858), 233-237. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03462-x
277. Rayne, S., & Forest, K. (2016). Aqueous phase hydration and hydrate acidity of perfluoroalkyl and n:2 fluorotelomer aldehydes.
Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part A, 51(7), 579-582. https://doi.org/10.1080/10934529.2016.1141625
278. Liu, L., Yu, F., Tu, K., Yang, Z., & Zhang, X. (2021). Influence of atmospheric conditions on the role of trifluoroacetic acid in
atmospheric sulfuric acid–dimethylamine nucleation. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 21(8), 6221-6230. https://doi.
org/10.5194/acp-21-6221-2021
279. Lu, Y., Liu, L., Ning, A., Yang, G., Liu, Y., Kurtén, T., Vehkamäki, H., Zhang, X., & Wang, L. (2020). Atmospheric sulfuric aciddimethylamine nucleation enhanced by trifluoroacetic acid. Geophysical Research Letters, 47(2), e2019GL085627. https://doi.
org/10.1029/2019GL085627
280. Dong, Z.-G., Xu, F., Mitchell, E., & Long, B. (2021). Trifluoroacetaldehyde aminolysis catalyzed by a single water molecule: An
important sink pathway for trifluoroacetaldehyde and a potential pathway for secondary organic aerosol growth. Atmospheric
Environment, 249, 118242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2021.118242
281. Taatjes, C. A., Khan, M. A. H., Eskola, A. J., Percival, C. J., Osborn, D. L., Wallington, T. J., & Shallcross, D. E. (2019). Reactionof perfluorooctanoic acid with Criegee intermediates and implications for the atmospheric fate of perfluorocarboxylic acids.
Environmental Science & Technology, 53(3), 1245-1251. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b05073
282. NAIADES (2022). Données sur la qualité des eaux de surface. http://www.naiades.eaufrance.fr/acces-donnees#/physicochimie.
Accessed April 2022.
283. UN (2022). Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-developmentgoals/. Accessed September 2022

309

Chapter 6

APPENDIX
Changes in tropospheric air quality related to the protection ofstratospheric ozone in a changing climate
S. Madronich, B. Sulzberger, J. D. Longstreth, T. Schikowski, M. P.
Sulbæk Andersen, K. R. Solomon, and S. R. Wilson
SI 1 Physical, chemical, and biological properties of the linear perfluorinated carboxylic acids
SI Table 1. Physical, chemical, and biological properties of the linear perfluorinated carboxylic acids from 2-8 carbons. BP,
boiling point; NOEL, no observed effect level; NOEC, no observed effect concentration.
Propertyacid

Perfluoropropanonic
acid

Perfluorobutanoic
acid

Perfluoropentanoic
acid

Perfluorohexanoic
acid

Perfluoroheptanoic
acid

Perfluorooctanoicacid

Abbreviation

TFA

PFPrA

PFBA

PFPeA

PFHxA

PFHpA

PFOA

CAS#

76-05-1

422-64-0

375-22-4

2706-90-3

307-24-4

375-85-9

335-67-1

Molecular
formula

CF3COOH

CF3CF2CO OH

CF3(CF2)2COOH

CF3(CF2)3
COOH

CF3(CF2)4
COOH

CF3(CF2)5
COOH

CF3(CF2)6
COOH# of C atoms

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Molecular
weight114.02164.03214.04264.05314.05414.0

464.08BP (°C)

73

96.5

121.0

140 a

157

188-192

189 f

Solubility(H2O mg L-1)

Miscible

Miscible

Miscible

122,600

21,7003400-9500

9500

Vapourpressure (Pa)

11

3.93*

1307 a1057

263

1.77 a1.72 aLog KOW

0.5

1.5 a

2.43 a3.262 a3.48

5.024 a5.905 aHenry’s Law
Constant (atmm-3 mol-1)

1.11 × 10-7

4.43 × 10-6 a

0.0051 a

0.029 a0.174 a1.521 a3.044 apKa

0.3

0.38 a-0.2-0.7

-0.06

-0.13

KOC (L kg )0.17-20

12.7

a

58

a

270

1247

Acute oral
toxicity in rat(mg kg-1)

> 500

> 750

NA

NOEL (rat mg
kg-1)

114 b

NA

3.01

-1

310

Trifluoroacetic-0.15-0.16-3.8

a5761

30,440NA

1750-5000a

NA

NA

NA

15-30 bNA

NA

a

Chapter 6
Property

Trifluoroacetic
acid

Perfluoropropanonic
acid

Perfluorobutanoic
acid

Perfluoropentanoic
acid

Perfluorohexanoic
acid

Perfluoroheptanoic
acid

Perfluorooctanoic
acid

NOEL Repro.
(rat, mg kg-1)

NA

NA

50

NA

35 j

100 c

0.1 c

NOEC mostsensitive
aquatic plant(ng L-1)

2.5 x 106 d

1.44 x 107 e

6.21 x 108 e> 1.00 x 109 e

NA> 1.02 x 109 e

5.80 x 103 e

NOEC mostsensitive
aquatic
animal (ng L-1)

LC50 = 7 ×
107 e

LC50 =

LC50 =

LC50 =

LC50 =

LC50 >

LC50 =

8.0 × 107 f

1.1 × 108 f

1.3 × 108 f

1.4 × 108 f

1.02 × 106 f

1.5 × 108

Half-life inrats g

34–48 h i

NA

1-9 h

NA

2-5 h

1.4-2.4 h

44-322 h

Half-life inhumans g

16 hNA

72-81 hNA

14-49 d j

1.2-1.5 y

2.1-10 y

Unless otherwise stated, references are from (PubChem, 2022). Other sources are: a (RSC, 2022) b (NICNAS, 2016) c (EFSA,
2020) d (Chabot, 2017) e (Boudreau, 2002) f (Wang et al., 2014) g (ATSDR, 2021) h (Boutonnet et al., 1999).

SI 2. Pesticide usage in the USA
SI Table 2. Annual usage of pesticides containing one or more trifluoromethyl moieties in the USA from 1992 to 2018.

acifluorfen
bicyclopyrone
bifenthrin
chlorfenapyr
cyflumetofen
cyhalothrin-gamma
cyhalothrin-lambda

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

1000

66

28

0.302

1000000

0 0.1 0.1

73

88

1

0.253

0.302

1000000 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9

1431

1707

0.498

0.594

1000000

0.416

1000000 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.1

1 1.3

0

0

0

0

0

0

40

0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

70

65

0.1 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.1 1.8 2.2 1.7
4 4.6 5.1 4.2 3.2 4.6 4.5

3 2.8 2.2 2.7 2.7

2 1.8 1.5 1.5 1.7 1.6 1.2 1.5 1.4 1.6 1.7 1.4

0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1
0

0

0

0

0

0

4 2.4
0

0

1000000

0.399

1000000
1000

363.331 C14H13F4N3O2S
421.733 C16H12ClF4N3O4

1

0.314

0.374

1000000

1

0.270

0.323

1000000 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

232.206 C10H11F3N2O
383.576 C14H8Cl3F3N2O

1

0.491

0.586

1000000 4.7 4.9

1

0.297

0.355

1000

396.717 C16H11ClF6N2O
329.322 C19H14F3NO
323.315 C17H16F3NO2

2

0.575

0.686

1000000

1

0.346

0.413

1000

1

0.353

0.421

1000000

1

0.227

0.270

1

0.260

0.310

prosulfuron

361.701 C15H11ClF3NO4
419.379 C15H16F3N5O4S

saflufenacil

500.85

tefluthrin

418.736 C17H14ClF7O2
396.376 C16H17F5N2O2S
408.377 C20H19F3N2O4

C17H17ClF4N4O5S

0

0 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1

0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2

10

18

30

19

42

35

60

62

0

233

278

35

80

105

125

55

82

54

58

55

1 0.6 1.1 0.7 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.8 1.1 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.8
3

485

0 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.1

33

41

0.9 1.2 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.3 0.9 1.3 0.9 1.4 0.7 0.4 0.8 0.3 0.1 0.9 0.1
6 7.2 5.8 4.9 4.9 3.2

407

0.1

7

8

17

26

31

29

0 0.6

1

1 1.2

19

22

2623

3129

306

365

12618

15051

32

30

36

0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3

292

348

29

24

27

33

0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.9 0.7 0.9 0.7

1229

1465

1000 5.7 1.8 2.5 6.5 2.6 1.7 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.2 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.7

4

5

6519

7776

42

1000000 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.4 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 1.6

356

3 3.6 5.1 6.7

24

7 6.3

0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7

1495

1784

1

0.247

0.295

1000000 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.5 1.2

1120

1336

0.259

0.309

1000000

4565

1

0.231

0.276

1000000

1

0.315

0.376

1000000 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.7 1.2 0.7 0.8

1

0.272

0.324

1000000

0.228

1000000

2 2.6

31

32

1

1

0.379

965
201

0.585

0.317

1
13643

809

2251

0.343

1

1
11437
168

0.334

lactofenmesotrione (tembotrio 440.814 C17H16ClF3O6S
novaluron492.706 C17H9ClF8N2O4

33

1887

0.288

359.319 C15H12F3NO4S
461.774 C19H15ClF3NO73975

0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

2502.918 C26H22ClF3N2O3
438.758 C15H10ClF3N2O6S

3332

1 0.1 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.4
0

0

0

1

682.392 C23H22F7IN2O4S
396.297 C12H11F3N4O6S

0.490

1 1.1

0
1

0.348

2

0

0

1

0 0.5 0.8 1.5 1.8
0 0.1
0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

0.272

1000000

1

0.272

0.325

1000000 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.8

0.288

0.343

1000

1
0.279
0.333
1
0.340
0.406
335.283 C13H16F3N3O4
triflusulfuron
478.403 C16H17F3N6O6S
1
0.238
0.284
US use data from https://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/pnsp/usage/maps/compound_listing.php
Upper estimate of use.

1000000
1000000
1000

27

28

31

29

2 2.1 1.9 1.8

2 2.1 2.5 2.6 2.5 2.9 3.4 4.1 4.4

0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.9 0.1 0.1

1 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.9 0.9 1.1 0.9 0.91

trifluralin

2013

0.304

0.253

1

trifloxystrobin

2012

0.255

1

327.259 C15H12F3NO4
465.089 C13H4Cl2F6N4O4

thiazopyr

2011

1

1000

oxyfluorfen

2010

376

447.454 C24H24F3NO4
449.854 C23H19ClF3NO3
449.854 C23H19ClF3NO3

1000000

isoxaflutole

2009

315

1 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.8 1.2

0.1 1.4 0.1 0.9

1000000 4.8

fomesafen

2008

1000000

0.622

flutolanil

2007

0.334

0.408

fluvalinate

2006

0.280

0.339

fluopyram

2005

1

0.522

fluridone

2004

139
2524

0.342

fluopicolide

2003

117
2116

0.284

fluometuron

2002

0 0.2 0.3 0.4

1000000 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.8 0.8 0.8 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.3 1.4 1.7 1.8

2

flumetralin

2001

1000000

0.322

1

flufenacet

2000

1000000 1.5 1.4 2.1 1.6 2.2 1.7

0.341

0.270

1

fluazinam

1999

0.376

0.286

1

C15H16F5NO2S2

flucarbazone

1998

0.315

1

401.41

flubendiamide

1997

1

333.267 C13H14F3N3O4
437.141 C12H4Cl2F6N4OS
229.162 C9H6F3N3O

fluazifop

TFA-Natonnes422.872 C23H22ClF3O2
407.615 C15H11BrClF3N2O

ethalfluralin
flonicamid

TFA
tonnes361.657 C14H7ClF3NO5
399.366 C19H20F3NO5

dithiopyr
fipronil

1996

Molar Yield Molar Yield Multiplier
TFA
TFA-Na salt
in lb

#C-CF3

1995

Formula

1994

MW

1993

Name

1992

SI Table 2. Annual usage of pesticides containing one or more trifluoromethyl moieties in the USA from 1992 to 2018.

0 0.1

0

0

0

0

0 0.1

0

0

5446

221

263

1 1.2 1.6

3117

3718

0

151

181

0

0

0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.8

525

626

1 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.2

1893

2259

2

0 1.8 3.2 2.6 6.7 2.6 1.8 6.3

14 2.6 3.60

0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.8 0.6 0.7

1

1 1.8

1 0.8 1.2 0.9

1492

1780

28

27

23

23

21

14

13

13

12

11

11

11

11 7.5

8 8.5

10

8

12

11

10

8

65327

77926

15

22

22

19

17

20

23

17

19

23

18

30

10

3 3.5

1

1

1

2 2.5 2.5

1

30

35

2

0

3 3.5

3

7
8

9

3

311

Chapter 6
SI 3 Estimated photochemical ozone creation potentials (POCPͼs) for ODSs, replacement compounds and related VOCs
The POCP estimation method employed here (Jenkin, 2017) is based on structure and reactivity for the species and different parameters
for each geographical region (Northwest European or urban USA), and follows the equation POCPͼ = (A × ϓS × R × S × F)+P+ RO3 )-Q,
where A is a simple multiplier, ϓSdescribes the structure of the VOC, R is a OH reactivity element, S is a parameter related to the sizeof the VOC, and F is parameter that can account for the impact of unreactive carbonyl degradation products (set to 1 for all chemicals
in SI Table 3). P applies only for chemicals that undergo photolysis at tropospheric conditions (set to 0 for all chemicals in Table 6) andRo3 accounts for the formation of free radicals through the direct reaction of O3 with the VOC. The latter is only included for the aliphaticalkenes in SI Table 3, as a) of the compounds in SI Table 3, only these compounds have significant reactivities towards O3, b) the main
OH formation mechanism requires at least one H atom attached to the carbon adjacent to the double bond – none of the HFO/HCFOs
have this (Cox et al., 2020), and c) any additional OH formation routes (e.g., from excited CH2OO radicals) are likely to be unimportant.
Finally, Q applies only for a specific set of aromatic VOCs.
It is germane to note that the POCP estimation method was developed and tested for application on hydrocarbons, aliphatic olefins,and oxygenated VOCs. It was not developed explicitly cover halogenated compounds. Note also that the most recent POCP estimation
equation published by Jenkin and co-workers (Jenkin, 2017) “for alkenes and unsaturated oxygenates that react significantly with O3",
contains an error in Eq. (9), which should correctly read “RO3 = E × m” (Jenkin, 2022). The values below are POCPs estimated for both
North-West European and USA urban conditions, using updated OH radical kinetics.
SI Table 3. Atmospheric lifetimes, OH radical rate coefficients, estimated photochemical ozone creation potentials (POCPε)for olefins and related chemicals, calculated for North-West European conditions and USA urban conditions. Unlessotherwise noted, estimated total atmospheric lifetimes are those quoted in IPCC AR6 (Smith, 2021) and OH rate coefficientsare from Burkholder et al. (Burkholder et al., 2020). POCP calculated using the (updated) approach by Jenkin et al. (Jenkin,2022; Jenkin, 2017). See main text for details.
ChemicalIndustrial
Designation

Total Atmospheric
Lifetime

OH radical ratecoefficient, (kOH,
cm3 molecule-1 s-1,
298 K, 1 atm)

POCPε, Northwest European
conditions(relative units)

POCPε,
USA urban
conditions(relative units)

CH4

Methane11.8 years

6.3 x 10-15

0.6

0.2

CH3CH3Ethane58 days

2.4 x 10-13

10.9

4.5

CH2=CH2

Ethene1.5 days a

7.9 x 10-15

100.4

98.6

CH3CH=CH2

Propene

0.4 days a

2.5 x 10-13

110.6

134.5

CH3CH2CH=CH2

But-1-ene

0.4 days a

3.2 x 10-15

107.1

127.3

CH3CCl3

Methyl chloroform

5 years

1.0 x 10-14

0.11

0.04

CHCl2F

HCFC-21

1.7 years

2.9 × 10-14

0.38

0.16

CHClF2

HCFC-2211.9 years

4.0 × 10-15

0.08

0.03

HFC-23228 years

3.0 × 10-16

0.01

<0.01

Alkanes

Alkenes

ODSs

HFCs
CHF3

312

Chapter 6
ChemicalIndustrial
Designation

Total Atmospheric
Lifetime

OH radical ratecoefficient, (kOH,
cm3 molecule-1 s-1,
298 K, 1 atm)

CH2F2

HFC-32

5.4 years

1.0 × 10-14

CF3CHF2

HFC-125

30 years

1.0 × 10-15

CF3CH3

HFC-143a3.6 years

1.0 × 10-15

CF3CH2F

HFC-134a

14 years

4.0 × 10-15

CHF2CH3

HFC-152a

1.6 years

3.0 × 10-14

CF3CHFCF3

HFC-227ea

36 years

1.0 × 10-15

CF3CH2FCHF

HFC-245eb

3.2 years

1.0 × 10-14

CHF2CHFCF3

HFC-236ea

11.4 years

5.2 × 10-15

CF2=CH2

HFO-1132a

4.7 days

2.8 × 10-12

CHF=CF2

HFO-1123

1.5 days

8.1 × 10-12

CH2=CHF

HFO-1141

2.6 days

5.0 × 10-12

CF2=CF2

HFO-1114

1.1 days

1.0 × 10-11

CF3CH=CH2

HFO-1243zf

9.1 days

1.5 × 10-12

CF3CF=CH2

HFO-1234yf

12 days

1.1 × 10-12

CF3CF=CF2

HFO-1216

5.5 days

2.2 × 10-12

Z-CF3CF=CHF

HFO-1225ye(Z)9.9 days

1.3 × 10-12

E-CF3CF=CHF

HFO-1225ye(E)

5.8 days

2.3 × 10-12

E-CF3CH=CHF

HFO-1234ze(E)19 days

7.0 × 10-13

Z-CF3CH=CHF

HFO-1234ze(Z)9.9 days

1.4 × 10-12 c

CF3CF2CH=CH2

HFO-1345zfc

9 days

1.4 × 10-12

E-CF3CH=CHCF3

HFO-1336mzz(E)122 days

1.3 × 10-13

POCPε, Northwest European
conditions(relative units)

POCPε,
USA urban
conditions(relative units)

0.30

0.12

0.02

0.01

0.02

0.01

0.06

0.02

0.70

0.27

0.01

<0.01

0.18

0.07

0.05

0.02

19.8

15.6

15.1

17.5

38.0

33.6

8.69

11.3

11.2

6.56

7.32

4.23

4.65

4.16

5.91

3.92

7.25

5.81

5.60

2.88

1.51

0.61

6.96

3.96

0.98

0.39

HFCs

HFOs/HCFOs

313

Chapter 6
ChemicalIndustrial
Designation

Total Atmospheric
Lifetime

OH radical ratecoefficient, (kOH,
cm3 molecule-1 s-1,
298 K, 1 atm)

Z-CF3CH=CHCF3

HFO-1336mzz(Z)27 days

4.8 × 10-13

E-CF3CF=CFCF3

Octafluoro-2butene

31 days

5.8 × 10-13

POCPε, Northwest European
conditions(relative units)

POCPε,
USA urban
conditions(relative units)

2.90

1.35

2.07

1.19

4.02

2.08

HFOs/HCFOs(CF3)2C=CH2

3,3,3-Trifluoro-2(trifluoromethyl)prop-1-ene

10 days

7.8 × 10-13 dE-(CF3)2CFCH=CHF

HFO-1438ezy(E)43 days b

3.2 × 10-13

1.55

0.65

E-CF3CH=CHCl

HCFO-1233zd(E)42 days

3.5 × 10-13

0.55

0.21

Z-CF3CH=CHCl

HCFO-1233zd(Z)13 days

9.4 × 10-13

1.64

0.67

cyc(-CH=CFCF2CF2-)

1,3,3,4,4-Pentafluorocyclobutene

270 days

6.2 × 10-14

2.97

1.34

cyc(-CH=CHCF2CF2-)

3,3,4,4Tetrafluorocyclobutene

84 days

1.7 × 10-13 d

5.86

3.24

a

Estimated total lifetime as quoted in Calvert et al. (Calvert et al., 2000).

IPCC AR6 (Smith, 2021) erroneously gives an atmospheric lifetime of 122 days for this species. The atmospheric lifetime of 43days quoted here is calculated as the tropospheric partial lifetime only due reaction with the OH radical. The value is a scaling to
the lifetime for CH3CCl3 (6.1 years) using k(OH+CH3CCl3, 272 K) = 6.14 × 10−15 cm3 molecule-1 s-1 (Burkholder et al., 2020), andthe OH rate-coefficient listed in SI Table 3 for E-(CF3)2CFCH=CHF which is essentially temperature independent from 214-296 K(Papadimitriou & Burkholder, 2016).
b

JPL Evaluation Number 19 (Burkholder et al., 2020) lists this as 1.35 × 10-13 but it should be 1.37 × 10-12 cm3 molecule-1s-1 (Zhang etal., 2015).
cd

OH rate coefficient from Papadimitriou et al. (Papadimitriou et al., 2015).

SI 4 Estimated molar yields (%) of TFA from ODS replacements
Emissions and TFA yields in Figure 12 of the main text were estimated as outlined below.
SI 4.1.1 HCFC-123 (CF3CHCl2), 60 ± 10 %CF3CHCl2 has a global annually averaged lifetime of 1.3 years (Smith, 2021). The main atmospheric fate of CF3CHCl2 is reaction withOH radicals in the troposphere. Atmospheric degradation leads to CF3CCl2O alkoxy radicals. Reaction of CF3CCl2O with O2 is ofminor importance and CF3CCl2O is converted to CF3CClO through Cl elimination (Edney et al., 1991; Hayman et al., 1994; Tuazon &Atkinson, 1993). The estimated tropospheric photolytic lifetime for CF3CClO for an overhead sun is 23 days (Calvert et al., 2008). The
atmospheric lifetime of CF3CClO with respect to uptake and hydrolysis in cloud water is 5-30 days (Wallington et al., 1994). On average
about 60% of CF3CClO is converted into TFA (Hayman et al., 1994) (see Figure 10 in the main text). The uncertainty in this yield is of theorder of ± 5%. The yield of TFA in the atmospheric degradation of CF3CHCl2 is expected to be 60 ± 10 %.
CF3CHCl2 has been used as a refrigerant and a fire suppressant. Global annual emissions have been provided in a bottom-up estimate
by Wuebbles & Patten (Wuebbles & Patten, 2009) as 0.130-0.135 Gg yr−1 for 2009.
SI 4.1.2 HCFC-124 (CF3CHFCl), ~100%
CF3CHFCl has a global annually averaged lifetime of 5.9 years (Smith, 2021). The main atmospheric fate of CF3CHFCl is reaction withOH radicals in the troposphere. Atmospheric degradation of CF3CHFCl leads to CF3CFClO alkoxy radicals. The dominant, if not sole,314

Chapter 6
fate of CF3CFClO is decomposition to give CF3CFO and Cl (Bhatnagar & Carr, 1995; Tuazon & Atkinson, 1993). The atmospheric fate of
CF3CFO is incorporation into water droplets followed by hydrolysis to give TFA, occurring on a time scale of 5-15 days (Wallington et al.,1994). The yield of TFA in the atmospheric degradation of CF3CHFCl is expected to be very close to 100%.
CF3CHFCl has been used as a refrigerant and fire suppressant. Global annual emissions have been estimated by Simmonds et al.
(Simmonds et al., 2017) as 3.3±0.89 Gg yr−1 for 2015.
SI 4.1.3 HCFC-133a (CF3CH2Cl), 22 – 55 %CF3CH2Cl has a global annually averaged lifetime of 4.6 years (Smith, 2021). The main atmospheric fate of CF3CH2Cl is reaction with OH
radicals in the troposphere. The degradation initiated by OH radicals leads to the formation CF3CHClO alkoxy radicals. The atmosphericfate of CF3CHClO is decomposition and reaction with O2 (Møgelberg, Nielsen, et al., 1995). Reaction with O2 gives CF3CClO and HO2
while decomposition can proceed through three channels:
CF3CHClO +M → CF3 + HCOCl + M		

(1)

CF3CHClO +M → CF3CO + HCl + M		

(2)

CF3CHClO +M → CF3CHO + Cl + M		

(3)

At ground level and at room temperature, decomposition and reaction with O2 are of equal importance, i.e., the yield of CF3CClO is
52% (Møgelberg, Nielsen, et al., 1995).
At higher altitudes, the importance of reaction with O2 will increase. If CH3CHClO is formed through reaction of CF3CHClO2 radicals
with NO this can result in chemical activation of the resulting CF3CHClO radicals, and in turn lead to enhanced decomposition.
The O2 reaction channel product, CF3CClO, undergoes photolysis in competition with incorporation into water droplets. The estimatedtropospheric photolytic lifetime for CF3CClO for an overhead sun is 23 days (Calvert et al., 2008). The atmospheric lifetime of CF3CClO
with respect to uptake and hydrolysis in cloud water is 5-30 days (Wallington et al., 1994). It has been estimated that, on average, 60%
of CF3CClO is converted into TFA (Hayman et al., 1994). Further reactions of CF3CHClO decomposition products from reaction 2 and
3, CF3CHO and CF3CO, have the potential to yield TFA. Current understanding of the atmospheric fate of CF3CHO suggests that its
atmospheric fate is dominated by destruction by photolysis resulting in an atmospheric lifetime of the order of two days (Chiappero
et al., 2006) (see also Sections 3.2 and 3.7.2 in the main text). Photolysis of CF3CHO leads to CF3 and CHO radicals which cannot
contribute to the formation of TFA (Sulbæk Andersen & Nielsen, 2022). The rate of reaction of CF3CHO with OH radicals is slow
(atmospheric lifetime of approximately 20 days), and thus of less importance in the fate of CF3CHO. Any oxidation of CF3CHO initiatedby OH radicals will produce CF3CO radicals, which undergo reaction with O2 to yield acyl peroxy radicals, CF3C(O)O2. These acyl
peroxy radicals can react with HO2, NO, or NO2. Reaction of CF3C(O)O2 with HO2 radicals can lead to the formation of TFA (39% yield)(Hurley et al., 2006). Finally, on contact with liquid water, CF3CHO can produce aldehyde hydrates (gem-diols). These can, at leastin the gas-phase, react with OH radicals (lifetime of approximately 90 days) and present an efficient way of generating TFA (Sulbæk
Andersen et al., 2006). The latter two processes are likely minor fates for CF3CHO. The importance of formation of TFA from the reactionof OH with CF3CHO was indirectly accessed by Sulbæk Andersen et al. (Sulbæk Andersen, Schmidt, et al., 2018) in a global modelingstudy of HCFO-1233(zd). This model, which did not include potential CF3CHO-hydrate formation, suggested a 2% yield of TFA from
CF3CHO. The contribution to TFA from CF3CHO hydrate formation and processing remains highly uncertain (Franco et al., 2021; Sulbæk
Andersen et al., 2006). Assuming that uptake into cloud water and hydration is efficient, effectively converting CF3CHO into TFA on atimescale of 5 days (only limited by transport limitations, i.e., the lower limit for the time taken for transport into clouds (Wallington et al.,1994)), then a maximum TFA yield of 27% can be expected from the hydrate formation. Thus, the TFA yield from processing of CF3CHO
is estimated at 2% with an upper theoretical limit of ~ 30%.
The acyl radical, CF3CO, generated directly in reaction 2 can also lead to formation of TFA, though the reaction with O2 and subsequent
reaction of the acyl peroxy acyl radical with HO2, as described above. Reaction with HO2 radicals occurs in competition with reaction
with NO which significantly reduces the maximum possible yield (39%) of TFA from the HO2 reaction with CF3C(O)OO (Hurley etal., 2006). If the atmospheric lifetimes for CF3CHO are 2 days and 20 days with respect to photolysis and reaction with OH radicals,
respectively, then the model results of Sulbæk Andersen and co-workers (Sulbæk Andersen, Schmidt, et al., 2018) suggest, that themolar yield of TFA, starting with CF3CO, can be on the order of ~20 ± 10 %.
Based on the discussion above regarding the fate of CF3CClO, the yield of TFA from hydrolysis of CF3CClO can be calculated as 0.52 ×(60%) = 31%. An uncertainty of ± 10% is estimated for this yield. Additional contributions from the atmospheric processing of CF3CHO
or CF3CO could be as much as 0.48 × (2-30%) = 1-14%. Hence, the best estimate of the yield of TFA in the atmospheric degradationof CF3CH2Cl is 32%, but with an upper limit of 55% and a lower limit of 22%. Without a detailed atmospheric chemistry and transportmodel study, a more quantitative assessment of the yield of TFA is not possible.
CF3CH2Cl has been used as a chemical feedstock/ intermediate. Global annual emissions have been estimated by Vollmer et al.
(Vollmer, Rigby, et al., 2015) as ~1.5 Gg yr−1 for 2014.
SI 4.2.1 HFC-125 (CF3CF2H), ~1–10%
CF3CF2H has an atmospheric lifetime of approximately 30 years (Smith, 2021). The atmospheric fate of CF3CF2H is reaction with OH
radicals. Reaction with OH produces an alkyl radical that reacts with oxygen to give the peroxy radical CF3CF2O2. The peroxy radical

315Chapter 6
reacts with NO to yield the alkoxy radical CF3CF2O which decomposes to give COF2 and CF3 radicals. However, Ellis et al. (Ellis et al.,2004) suggested a mechanism by which CF3CF2O2 radicals can react with α-hydrogen containing peroxy radicals (e.g., CH3O2) in theatmosphere to give CF3CF2OH in small amounts (1-10%) (Wallington et al., 2006)). CF3CF2OH will eliminate HF to give CF3CFO. The soleatmospheric fate of CF3CFO is incorporation into water droplets followed by hydrolysis, occurring on a time scale of 5-15 days to give
TFA (Wallington et al., 1994). Thus, the yield of TFA from CF3CF2H is estimated as 1–10%.
CF3CF2H is used as a fire suppressant. Global annual emissions have been estimated as 59.7±9.5 Gg yr−1 in 2015 (Simmonds et al.,2017).
SI 4.2.2 HFC-134a (CF3CH2F), 7–20 %CF3CH2F has an atmospheric lifetime of 14 years (Smith, 2021). Reaction of OH radicals with CF3CH2F yields CF3CHFO2 radicals, which
react with either other peroxy radicals, RO2, or NO. Reaction with RO2 yields a stabilized CF3CHFO radical, which can either decompose
or react with O2 to give CF3CFO. The atmospheric fate of CF3CFO is incorporation into water droplets occurring on a time scale of 5–15
days (Wallington et al., 1994) and subsequent hydrolysis yields TFA. Reaction of CF3CFO2 with NO can produce excited peroxy radicals,
CF3CFHO, which undergo rapid decomposition and limit the formation of CF3CFO to a range of 7 to 20 %, depending on conditions(see Figure 10 in the main text) (Wallington et al., 1996). Thus, the TFA yield is estimated as 7–20%.
CF3CH2F is used as a refrigerant. Global annual emissions in 2015 were estimated at 209.0±42.9 Gg yr−1 (Simmonds et al., 2017)
and estimated in the Science Assessment Panel 2022 report (WMO (2022) as 64-192 Gg yr-1 for 2020. The latter is currently the best
estimate for this refrigerant (see also Table 3 in the main text).
SI 4.2.3 HFC-143a (CF3CH3), 2–30%
CH3CF3 has a global annually averaged lifetime of 51 years (Smith, 2021). The atmospheric fate of CH3CF3 is reaction with OH
radicals. Reaction with OH produces an alkyl radical that reacts with O2 and NO to yield the alkoxy radical, CF3CH2O. The dominantfate of CF3CH2O in the atmosphere is reaction with O2 to give CF3CHO and HO2 (Nielsen et al., 1994). Current understanding of
the atmospheric fate of CF3CHO suggests that its atmospheric lifetime is dominated by photolysis. As discussed in SI Section 4.1.3,
atmospheric processing of CF3CHO can lead to formation of TFA in small amounts. Thus, the TFA yield from processing of CH3CF3 isestimated at 2%, with an upper limit of ~ 30%.
CH3CF3 is used as a refrigerant. Global annual emissions in 2015 have been estimated as 27.4±3.0 Gg yr−1 (Simmonds et al., 2017).
SI 4.2.4 HFC-227ea (CF3CHFCF3), ~100%
CF3CHFCF3 has an atmospheric lifetime of 36 years (Smith, 2021). The atmospheric fate of CF3CHFCF3 is reaction with OH radicals.
Reaction with OH produces an alkyl radical that reacts with O2 and NO to yield the alkoxy radical CF3CFOCF3. The atmospheric fate of
CF3CFOCF3 is decomposition via C-C cleavage to give CF3CFO and CF3 radicals (Zellner et al., 1994). The atmospheric fate of CF3CFO isincorporation into water droplets followed by hydrolysis to give TFA, occurring on a time scale of 5-15 days (Wallington et al., 1994). The
yield of TFA in the atmospheric degradation of CF3CHFCF3 is 100%.
CF3CHFCF3 is used as a fire extinguishant. Global annual emissions have been estimated as 2.53±0.99 Gg yr−1 for 2010 (Vollmer et al.,2011).
SI 4.2.5 HFC-236fa (CF3CH2CF3), 20 ± 10 %CF3CH2CF3 has an atmospheric lifetime of 213 years (Smith, 2021). Reaction of OH radicals with CF3CH2CF3 generate CF3CHCF3 radicals
which react with oxygen and NO to yield the alkoxy radicals, CF3CHOCF3. The sole fate of CF3CHOCF3 is reaction with O2 to yield
CF3COCF3 (Møgelberg, Platz, et al., 1995). The dominant fate of CF3COCF3 is likely tropospheric photolysis to give CF3 and CF3CO
radicals. As discussed in SI Section 4.1.3, further reaction of CF3CO radicals with O2 and HO2 radicals can lead to formation of TFA insmall amounts. Thus, the yield of TFA in the atmospheric oxidation of CF3CH2CF3 is estimated at 20% (± 10%).
CF3CH2CF3 is used as a fire suppressant. Global annual emissions have been estimated as 0.16±0.11 Gg yr−1 for 2010 (Vollmer et al.,2011).
SI 4.2.6 HFC-245fa (CHF2CH2CF3) 1 – 17%
CHF2CH2CF3 has an atmospheric lifetime of 7.9 years (Smith, 2021). The atmospheric fate of CHF2CH2CF3 is reaction with OH radicals.
Structure activity relationships (SAR) suggests that approximately 56% of the reaction of OH radicals with CHF2CH2CF3 proceeds
through hydrogen abstraction from the terminal -CHF2 group (Calvert et al., 2008). This will lead to the formation of COF2 and CF3CHO
as major products (Chen et al., 1997). Hydrogen abstraction from the -CH2- group is expected to produce a ketone, CHF2C(O)CF3,
through reaction of CHF2CHOCF3 with O2. By analogy to CF3COCH3 (Wallington et al., 1994), the main sink for CHF2C(O)CF3 is
expected to be photolysis, yielding COF2 and CO2. Thus, the expected yield of TFA in the atmospheric oxidation of CF3CH2CF2CH3 is
0.56 × (2 – 30%) = 1%, with 17% as an upper limit.
CHF2CH2CF3 is used as a blowing agent. Global annual emissions have been estimated as 6.77±0.79 Gg yr−1 for 2010 (Vollmer et al.,2011).

316

Chapter 6
SI 4.2.7 HFC-365mfc (CF3CH2CF2CH3), 2–30%
CF3CH2CF2CH3 has an atmospheric lifetime of 8.9 years (Smith, 2021). The atmospheric fate of CF3CH2CF2CH3 is reaction with OH
radicals. The reaction of OH radicals with CF3CH2CF2CH3 proceeds mainly via attack on the –CH3 group leading to formation of
CF3CH2CF2CHO, which in turn is oxidized to CF3CHO and COF2 (Inoue et al., 2008). Oxidation of CF3CH2CF2CHO will generate
CF3CHO and COF2 as secondary products. The only study in the literature on the atmospheric oxidation mechanism of CF3CH2CF2CHO
used Cl atoms as a surrogate for OH radicals. However, based on SAR, approximately 76% of the reaction of OH radicals, proceeds
through abstraction at the -CH3 site (Calvert et al., 2008). Reaction at the -CH2- group would produce a ketone, CF3C(O)CF2CH3.
Further oxidation of CF3C(O)CF2CH3 initiated by OH radicals will generate CF3CO radicals (and COF2, CO and CO2). As discussed in SI
Section 4.1.3 both CF3CHO and CF3CO radicals can lead to formation of TFA in small amounts. Thus, the expected yield of TFA in theatmospheric oxidation of CF3CH2CF2CH3 is 2%, with 30% as the upper limit. CF3CH2CF2CH3 is used as a blowing agent and refrigerant.
Global annual emissions have been estimated as 2.87±0.60 Gg yr−1 for 2010 (Vollmer et al., 2011).
SI 4.2.8 HFC-43-10mee (CF3CF2CFHCFHCF3), 54 – 60%
CF3CF2CFHCFHCF3 has an atmospheric lifetime of 17 years (Smith, 2021). The atmospheric fate of CF3CF2CFHCFHCF is reaction withOH radicals. There has been no mechanistic study conducted on the atmospheric degradation of CF3CF2CFHCFHCF3. SAR suggeststhat approximately half of the reaction proceeds through hydrogen abstraction from the -CHF- group, alpha to the terminal CF3 group.
(Calvert et al., 2008). Reaction of OH radicals with CF3CF2CFHCFHCF3 followed by reactions with O2 and NO will therefore yield both
CF3CF2CFOCFHCF3 and CF3CF2CFHCFOCF3 radicals. These will likely undergo decomposition to the give acyl fluorides, CF3CF2CFO
and CF3CFO, and radicals CFHCF3 and CF3CF2CFH. The latter two will react with O2 and RO2/NO yielding CF3CHFO and CF3CF2CHFO
radicals. Reaction of CF3CHFO and CF3CF2CHFO (Møgelberg et al., 1997) with NO can produce excited peroxy radicals which undergo
rapid decomposition (see discussion in SI Section 4.2.2 and Figure 10 in the main text). The decomposition pathways will give CFHO,
CF3 and CF3CF2 radicals. Reaction with O2 will lead to CF3CFO, and CF3CF2CFO. The atmospheric fate of CF3CFO, and likely also
CF3CF2CFO, is incorporation into water droplets followed by hydrolysis to give TFA and CF3CF2COOH, occurring on a time scale of 5-15
days (Wallington et al., 1994). Thus, the yield of TFA in the atmospheric oxidation of CF3CF2CFHCFHCF3 is estimated as 50% + ~0.5 ×(7 – 20%) = 54 – 60%. A similar yield of CF3CF2COOH is also expected.
CF3CF2CFHCFHCF3 is used a solvent. Annual global emissions of CF3CF2CFHCFHCF have been estimated as 1.13±0.31 Gg yr−1 for 2012
(Arnold et al., 2014).
SI 4.3.1 HFO-1234yf (CF3CF=CH2), ~100%
CF3CF=CH2 has an atmospheric lifetime of 12 days (Smith, 2021). Atmospheric oxidation of CF3CF=CH2 proceeds through OH addition
to the double bond (see Fig. 10 in the main text). CF3CFO is subsequently formed in a yield of 100%, independent of which side of the
double bond is involved in the initial OH-addition step (Hurley et al., 2008). The atmospheric fate of CF3CFO is incorporation into water
droplets occurring on a time scale of 5–15 days (Wallington et al., 1994), and subsequent hydrolysis yields TFA. The yield of TFA in theatmospheric oxidation of CF3CF=CH2 is estimated at 100%.
CF3CF=CH2 is used as a refrigerant. Annual global emissions of CF3CF=CH2 have been estimated in the Science Assessment Panel 2022
report (WMO 2022) as 30 Gg yr-1 for 2020 (see also Table 3 in the main text).
SI 4.3.2 HFO-1234ze(E) (CF3CH=CHF), 2–30%
CF3CF=CH2 has an atmospheric lifetime of 19 days (Smith, 2021). Atmospheric oxidation of CF3CH=CHF proceeds through OH
addition to the double bond (Javadi et al., 2008). Subsequent reaction with O2 and NO/RO2 leads to the formation of CF3CHO andHC(O)F in yields indistinguishable from 100%. As discussed in SI Section 4.1.3, atmospheric processing of CF3CHO can lead toformation of TFA in small amounts. Thus, the TFA yield from processing of CF3CF=CH2 is estimated at 2%, with an upper limit of ~ 30%.
CF3CH=CHF is used as an aerosol propellant, in expanded polystyrene (styrofoam) insulation industry, and as a refrigerant. Annual
global emissions of CF3CH=CHF are not known.
SI 4.3.3 HFO-1336mzz(E) (E-CF3CH=CHCF3) and HFO-1336mzz(Z) (Z-CF3CH=CHCF3), 4–60%
E- and Z- CF3CH=CHCF3 have atmospheric lifetimes of 122 and 27 days, respectively (Smith, 2021). Atmospheric oxidation of E- and
Z- CF3CH=CHCF3 proceeds through OH addition to the double bond. Østerstrøm et al. (Østerstrøm et al., 2017) used Cl atoms in theirstudy of the atmospheric oxidation of E- and Z- CF3CH=CHCF3. The OH initiated mechanism has not been studied in detail and remains
speculative. The initially formed hydroxy-substituted alkoxy radicals will have competing fates of decomposition and reaction with O2. It
is possible that CF3CHO is formed in this initial step through decomposition, or later through further reactions of possible degradation
products, such as CF3CH(OH)C(O)CF3. An upper limit for the yield of CF3CHO is 200%. As discussed in SI Section 4.1.3, atmosphericprocessing of CF3CHO can lead to formation of TFA in small amounts. Thus, the TFA yield from processing of CF3CHO is estimated at
4%, with an upper limit of ~ 60%.
E- and Z- CF3CH=CHCF3 are used as refrigerants. Annual global emissions are not known.

317

Chapter 6
SI 4.3.4 HCFO-1233zd(E) (E-CF3CH=CHCl) and HCFO-1233zd(Z) (Z-CF3CH=CHCl), 2–30%
E- and Z- CF3CH=CHCl have atmospheric lifetimes of 42 and 13 days, respectively (Smith, 2021). Atmospheric oxidation of E- and
Z- CF3CH=CHCl proceeds through OH addition to the double bond (Sulbæk Andersen et al., 2012; Sulbæk Andersen, Sølling, et al.,2018). The atmospheric degradation pathway for CF3CH=CHCl is complex and produces CF3CHO with estimated yield of 100% (seeSection 3.2 and Figure 11 in the main text). As discussed in detail in SI Section 4.1.3, atmospheric processing of CF3CHO can lead toformation of TFA in small amounts. Thus, the TFA yield from processing of CF3CH=CHCl is estimated at 2%, with an upper limit of ~30%.
E-CF3CH=CHCl is used as a polyurethane foam blowing agent and as a refrigerant. Z- CF3CH=CHCl is used for degreasing of
mechanical parts and dry cleaning. Annual global emissions for E- CF3CH=CHCl have been estimated by Vollmer et al. (Vollmer,
Reimann, et al., 2015) as 0.5 Gg yr−1 for 2014.
SI 4.3.5 2-BTP (CF3CBr=CH2), 2–30%
CF3CBr=CH2 has an estimated atmospheric lifetime of approximately 3 days (Sulbæk Andersen et al., 2009). Atmospheric oxidationof CF3CBr=CH2 proceeds through OH addition to the double bond. There is no mechanistic study available in the literature of theatmospheric oxidation of CF3CBr=CH2. Sulbæk Andersen et al. (Sulbæk Andersen et al., 2009) speculate that the OH relation leads
to the formation of an enol CF3C(OH)=CH2 or a carbonyl/alcohol compound, CF3C(O)-CH2OH. These oxidation products would
be reactive towards OH radicals and, in the case of CF3C(OH)=CH2, possibly undergo keto-enol tautomerization. It is possible that
CF3CHO is formed though reaction of OH radicals with the oxidation products or though photolysis of the carbonyl products. An upper
limit for the yield of CF3CHO is 100%. As discussed in SI Section 4.1.3, atmospheric processing of CF3CHO can lead to formation of TFA
in small amounts. Thus, the TFA yield from atmospheric processing of CF3CBr=CH2 is estimated at 2%, with an upper limit of ~ 30%.
CF3CBr=CH2 is used as a fire extinguishant. Global annual emissions are not known.
SI 4.4.1 Halothane (CF3CHBrCl), 60 ± 10%
CF3CHBrCl has an atmospheric lifetime of 1 year (Smith, 2021). The reaction of OH radicals with CF3CHBrCl proceeds via hydrogen
abstraction followed by reaction with O2 and NO, and subsequent Br elimination, to give CF3CClO in a yield indistinguishable from
100% (Bilde et al., 1998). The estimated tropospheric photolytic lifetime for CF3CClO for an overhead sun is 23 days (Calvert et al.,2008). The atmospheric lifetime of CF3CClO with respect to uptake and hydrolysis in cloud water is 5-30 days (Wallington et al., 1994).
It has been estimated that, on average, 60% of CF3CClO is converted into TFA (Hayman et al., 1994). The uncertainty on this yield is
likely on the order of ± 10%. Thus, the TFA yield from atmospheric processing of CF3CHBrCl is estimated at 60 ±10%.
Halothane is used as an inhaled anesthetic agent. Global annual emissions have been estimated by Vollmer et al. (Vollmer, Rhee, et al.,2015) as 0.25 Gg yr−1 for 2014.
SI 4.4.2 Isoflurane (CF3CHClOCHF2), 95 ± 3%
CF3CHClOCHF2 has an atmospheric lifetime of approximately 3 years (Mads P. Sulbæk Andersen et al., 2012). The atmosphericoxidation of CF3CHClOCHF2 proceeds via OH-mediated hydrogen abstraction. An estimated 95% of the reaction occurs at the-CHCl- group. Cl elimination subsequently yields the main oxidation product, CF3C(O)OCHF2 (95 ± 3%) (Wallington et al., 2002).
The atmospheric lifetime of CF3C(O)OCHF2 with respect to reaction with OH is unknown. The atmospheric lifetime for a similar ester,
CF3C(O)OCH3 is approximately 7.5 months (Blanco et al., 2010; Wallington et al., 1988). The atmospheric lifetime is likely to be longer
for CF3C(O)OCHF2. Reaction of OH with CF3C(O)OCHF2 is not expected to lead to the formation of TFA. Loss of CF3C(O)OCHF2 via
uptake into sea water followed by hydrolysis to give TFA is therefore estimated to be a major atmospheric sink for CF3C(O)OCHF2(Kutsuna et al., 2004). The expected yield of TFA in the atmospheric oxidation of CF3CHClOCHF2 is 95 ± 3%.
Isoflurane is used as an inhaled anesthetic agent. Global annual emissions have been estimated by Vollmer et al. (Vollmer, Rhee, et al.,2015) as 0.88 Gg yr−1 for 2014.
SI 4.4.3 Desflurane (CF3CHFOCHF2), 3–20%
CF3CHFOCHF2 has an atmospheric lifetime of 9 years (Smith, 2021). The atmospheric fate of CF3CHFOCHF2 is reaction with OH
radicals. No study of the OH initiated oxidation mechanism for CF3CHFOCHF2 exists in the literature. Based on a study of the chlorine
atom initiated oxidation, Sulbæk Andersen et al. (2012) proposed that the hydrogen abstraction reaction proceeds predominantly
from the -CHF- carbon group (83%). Only hydrogen abstraction from the terminal carbon will have the potential to lead to TFA (Sulbæk
Andersen et al., 2012). Hydrogen abstraction from the terminal carbon (17%) will generate CF3CHFOCF2 radicals, which will reactwith O2 and NO to give CF3CHFOCF2O radicals. These will undergo decomposition to give COF2 and CF3CHFO radicals. The latter
will in one atmosphere of air react with O2 to give CF3CFO (18%) (Sulbæk Andersen et al., 2012). The atmospheric fate of CF3CFO isincorporation into water droplets followed by hydrolysis to give TFA, occurring on a time scale of 5-15 days (Wallington et al., 1994). The
TFA yield from atmospheric processing of CF3CHClOCHF2 can be estimated as 0.17 × 0.18 × (100%) = 3 %. A 20% upper limit of theestimate to account for possible differences in the location of hydrogen abstraction for the OH mediated abstraction, i.e., 3 – ~20%.
Desflurane is used as an inhaled anesthetic agent. Global annual emissions have been estimated as 0.96 Gg yr−1 for 2014 (Vollmer,
Rhee, et al., 2015).

318

Chapter 6
SI 4.4.4 Sevoflurane ((CF3)2HCOCH2F), 2–95%(CF3)2HCOCH2F has an atmospheric lifetime of 1.4 years (Sulbæk Andersen et al., 2021). The atmospheric fate of (CF3)2HCOCH2F isreaction with OH radicals. No study of the OH initiated oxidation mechanism for CF3CHFOCHF2 exists in the literature. Based on a studyof the chlorine atom initiated oxidation, Sulbæk Andersen et al. (2012) proposed that the hydrogen abstraction reaction proceeds
exclusively from the terminal -CH2F group. Reaction of the initially formed alkoxy radical with O2 and NO yields (CF3)2HCOCHFO, which
in one atmosphere of air was found to give 7% CF3COCF3 (through decomposition) and 93% (CF3)2HCOCFO (through reaction with O2).
The dominant fate of CF3COCF3 is likely tropospheric photolysis to give CF3 and CF3CO radicals (Calvert et al., 2008). As discussed in SI
Section 4.1.3, further reaction of CF3CO radicals with O2 and HO2 radicals can lead to formation of TFA in small amounts (20 ± 10%). The
major fate of (CF3)2HCOCFO will be dissolution into seawater followed by hydrolysis (Kutsuna et al., 2004). Hydrolysis would possibly
result in the formation of (CF3)2HCOCOOH(aq), but it is unclear if the hydrolysis of (CF3)2HCOCFO would also lead to TFA. A possible
upper limit for the estimated yield of TFA from ocean uptake and hydrolysis of (CF3)2HCOCFO is 93%. Thus, the yield of TFA fromatmospheric processing of (CF3)2HCOCH2F can be estimated as 2% (photolysis of CF3COCF3), with an upper limit of 95% (ocean uptake
and hydrolysis of (CF3)2HCOCFO).
Sevoflurane is used as an inhaled anesthetic agent. Global annual emissions have been estimated as 1.20 Gg yr−1 for 2014 (Vollmer,
Rhee, et al., 2015).
SI 4.4.5 FK-5-1-12 (CF3CF2C(O)CF(CF3)2), 101-110%
CF3CF2C(O)CF(CF3)2 has an atmospheric lifetime of 7 days (Smith, 2021). The atmospheric oxidation of CF3CF2C(O)CF(CF3)2 hasbeen studied by Taniguchi et al. (Taniguchi et al., 2003). The main atmospheric fate of CF3CF2C(O)CF(CF3)2 is removal by photolysis.
Photolysis yields CF3CF2 + C(O)CF(CF3)2 radicals and subsequent reactions of the C(O)CF(CF3)2 yields CF3CFO in a molar yield of unity.
The atmospheric fate of CF3CFO is incorporation into water droplets followed by hydrolysis to give TFA, occurring on a time scale of
5-15 days (Wallington et al., 1994). CF3CF2 will react with O2 and NO to give CF3CF2O radicals. Ellis et al. (Ellis et al., 2004) suggested amechanism by which the reaction of molecules such as CF3CF2O react with α-hydrogen containing peroxy radicals (e.g., CH3O2) in theatmosphere to give CF3CF2OH in small amounts (1-10%) (Wallington et al., 2006)). CF3CF2OH will eliminate HF to give CF3CFO. Thus,
the yield of TFA in the atmospheric degradation of CF3CF2C(O)CF(CF3)2 is expected to be essentially 101%, with an upper limit of 110%.
CF3CF2(O)CF(CF3)2 is used as a fire suppressant. Global annual emissions are unknown.

319

Chapter 6

References
1.

Arnold, T., Ivy, D. J., Harth, C. M., Vollmer, M. K., Mühle, J., Salameh, P. K., Paul Steele, L., Krummel, P. B., Wang, R. H. J., Young,D., Lunder, C. R., Hermansen, O., Rhee, T. S., Kim, J., Reimann, S., O'Doherty, S., Fraser, P. J., Simmonds, P. G., Prinn, R. G., &Weiss, R. F. (2014). HFC-43-10mee atmospheric abundances and global emission estimates. Geophysical Research Letters, 41(6),2228-2235. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/2013GL059143

2.

ATSDR. (2021). Toxicological Profile for Perfluoroalkyls. ATSDR. https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp200.pdf

3.

Bhatnagar, A., & Carr, R. W. (1995). Temperature dependence of the reaction of CF3CFClO2 Radicals with NO and theunimolecular decomposition of the CF3CFClO radical. The Journal of Physical Chemistry, 99(49), 17573-17577. https://doi.
org/10.1021/j100049a017

4.

Bilde, M., Wallington, T. J., Ferronato, C., Orlando, J. J., Tyndall, G. S., Estupiñan, E., & Haberkorn, S. (1998). Atmosphericchemistry of CH2BrCl, CHBrCl2, CHBr2Cl, CF3CHBrCl, and CBr2Cl2. The Journal of Physical Chemistry A, 102(11), 1976-1986.
https://doi.org/10.1021/jp9733375

5.

Blanco, M. B., Bejan, I., Barnes, I., Wiesen, P., & Teruel, M. a. (2010). Atmospheric photooxidation of fluoroacetates as a source offluorocarboxylic acids. Environmental Science & Technology, 44(7), 2354-2359. https://doi.org/10.1021/es903357j

6.

Boudreau, T. M. (2002). Toxicity of Perfluorinated Organic Acids to Selected Freshwater Organisms under Laboratory and Field
Conditions [M.Sc., University of Guelph]. Guelph.

7.

Boutonnet, J. C., Bingham, P., Calamari, D., Rooij, C. d., Franklin, J., Kawano, T., Libre, J.-M., McCul-Loch, A., Malinverno, G., &Odom, J. M. (1999). Environmental risk assessment of trifluoroacetic acid. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 5, 59-124.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10807039991289644

8.

Burkholder, J. B., Sander, S. P., Abbatt, J., Barker, J. R., Cappa, C., Crounse, J. D., Dibble, T. S., Huie, R. E., Kolb, C. E., Kurylo,
M. J., Orkin, V. L., Perciva, C. J., Wilmouth, D. M., & Wine, P. H. (2020). Chemical Kinetics and Photochemical Data for Use in
Atmospheric Studies. http://jpldataeval.jpl.nasa.gov

9.

Calvert, J. G., Atkinson, R., Kerr, J. A., & Madronich, S., Moortgat, G., Wallington, T. J., & Yarwood, G. (2000). The Mechanisms of
Atmospheric Oxidation of the Alkenes. Oxford University Press.

10.

Calvert, J. G., Derwent, R. G., Orlando, J. J., Tyndall, G. S., & Wallington, T. J. (2008). Mechanisms of Atmospheric Oxidation of
the Alkanes. Oxford University Press.

11.

Chabot, L. (2017). Chabot L. (2017). ALGA, GROWTH INHIBITION TEST Effect of the trifuoroacetic acid on the growth of theunicellular alga Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata, according to OECD guideline 201 (Study conducted for RHODIA OPERATIONS– SOLVAY).

12.

Chen, J., Young, V., Niki, H., & Magid, H. (1997). Kinetic and Mechanistic Studies for Reactions of CF3CH2CHF2 (HFC-245fa)
Initiated by H-Atom Abstraction Using Atomic Chlorine. The Journal of Physical Chemistry A, 101(14), 2648-2653. https://doi.
org/10.1021/jp963735s

13.

Chiappero, M. S., Malanca, F. E., Argüello, G. A., Wooldridge, S. T., Hurley, M. D., Ball, J. C., Wallington, T. J., Waterland, R. L., &Buck, R. C. (2006). Atmospheric chemistry of perfluoroaldehydes (CXF2X+1CHO) and fluorotelomer aldehydes (CXF2X+1CH2CHO):
Quantification of the important role of photolysis. The Journal of Physical Chemistry A, 110(43), 11944-11953. https://doi.
org/10.1021/jp064262k

14.

Cox, R. A., Ammann, M., Crowley, J. N., Herrmann, H., Jenkin, M. E., McNeill, V. F., Mellouki, A., Troe, J., & Wallington, T. J.
(2020). Evaluated kinetic and photochemical data for atmospheric chemistry: Volume VII – Criegee intermediates. Atmospheric
Chemistry and Physics, 20(21), 13497-13519. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-13497-2020

15.

Edney, E. O., Gay, B. W., & Driscoll, D. J. (1991). Chlorine initiated oxidation studies of hydrochlorofluorocarbons: Results for
HCFC-123 (CF3CHCl2) and HCFC-141b (CFCl2CH3). Journal of Atmospheric Chemistry, 12(2), 105-120. https://doi.org/10.1007/
BF00115774

16.

EFSA. (2020). Risk to human health related to the presence of perfluoroalkyl substances in food. EFSA Journal, 18(9), e06223.
https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2020.6223

17.

Ellis, D. A., Martin, J. W., De Silva, A. O., Mabury, S. A., Hurley, M. D., Sulbæk Andersen, M. P., & Wallington, T. J. (2004).
Degradation of fluorotelomer alcohols: A likely atmospheric source of perfluorinated carboxylic acids. Environmental Science &Technology, 38, 3316-3321. https://doi.org/10.1021/es049860w

18.

Franco, B., Blumenstock, T., Cho, C., Clarisse, L., Clerbaux, C., Coheur, P. F., De Mazière, M., De Smedt, I., Dorn, H. P.,
Emmerichs, T., Fuchs, H., Gkatzelis, G., Griffith, D. W. T., Gromov, S., Hannigan, J. W., Hase, F., Hohaus, T., Jones, N., Kerkweg,
A., . . . Taraborrelli, D. (2021). Ubiquitous atmospheric production of organic acids mediated by cloud droplets. Nature,593(7858), 233-237. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03462-x

320Chapter 6
19.

Hayman, G. D., Jenkin, M. E., Murrells, T. P., & Johnson, C. E. (1994). Trospospheric degradation chemistry of HCFC-123(CF3CHCl2): A proposed replacement chlorofluorocarbon. Atmospheric Environment, 28(3), 421-437. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/1352-2310(94)90121-X

20.

Hurley, M. D., Ball, J. C., Wallington, T. J., Sulbæk Andersen, M. P., Nielsen, O. J., Ellis, D. A., Martin, J. W., & Mabury, S. A. (2006).
Atmospheric chemistry of n-CXF2X+1CHO (x = 1, 2, 3, 4): Fate of n-CXF2X+1C(O) radicals. The Journal of Physical Chemistry A,
110(45), 12443-12447. https://doi.org/10.1021/jp064029m

21.

Hurley, M. D., Wallington, T. J., Javadi, M. S., & Nielsen, O. J. (2008). Atmospheric chemistry of CF3CFCH2: Products andmechanisms of Cl atom and OH radical initiated oxidation. Chemical Physics Letters, 450(4-6), 263-267. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.cplett.2007.11.051

22.

Inoue, Y., Kawasaki, M., Wallington, T. J., & Hurley, M. D. (2008). Atmospheric chemistry of CF3CH2CF2CH3 (HFC-365mfc):
Kinetics and mechanism of chlorine atom initiated oxidation, infrared spectrum, and global warming potential. Chemical Physics
Letters, 462(4), 164-168. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cplett.2008.07.054

23.

Javadi, M. S., Søndergaard, R., Nielsen, O. J., Hurley, M. D., & Wallington, T. J. (2008). Atmospheric chemistry of transCF3CH=CHF: products and mechanisms of hydroxyl radical and chlorine atom initiated oxidation. Atmospheric Chemistry andPhysics, 8(12), 3141-3147. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-8-3141-2008

24.

Jenkin, M. E. (2022). Personal Communication.

25.

Jenkin, M. E., Derwent, R.G., Wallington, T.J. (2017). Photochemical ozone creation potentials for volatile organic compounds:
Rationalization and estimation. Atmospheric Environment 163, 128–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2017.05.024

26.

Kutsuna, S., Chen, L., Ohno, K., Tokuhashi, K., & Sekiya, A. (2004). Henry's law constants and hydrolysis rate constants of
2,2,2-trifluoroethyl acetate and methyl trifluoroacetate. Atmospheric Environment, 38(5), 725-732. https://doi.org/https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2003.10.019

27.

Møgelberg, T. E., Nielsen, O. J., Sehested, J., & Wallington, T. J. (1995). Atmospheric chemistry of HCFC-133a: the UV absorption
spectra of CF3CClH and CF3CClHO2 radicals, reactions of CF3CClHO2 with NO and NO2, and fate of CF3CClHO radicals. The
Journal of Physical Chemistry, 99(36), 13437-13444. https://doi.org/10.1021/j100036a018

28.

Møgelberg, T. E., Platz, J., Nielsen, O. J., Sehested, J., & Wallington, T. J. (1995). Atmospheric chemistry of HFC-236fa:
spectrokinetic investigation of the CF3CHO2CF3 radical, its reaction with NO, and the fate of the CF3CHOCF3 radical. The Journalof Physical Chemistry, 99(15), 5373-5378. https://doi.org/10.1021/j100015a021

29.

Møgelberg, T. E., Sehested, J., Tyndall, G. S., Orlando, J. J., Fracheboud, J.-M., & Wallington, T. J. (1997). Atmospheric chemistryof HFC-236cb: Fate of the alkoxy radical CF3CF2CFHO. The Journal of Physical Chemistry A, 101(15), 2828-2832. https://doi.
org/10.1021/jp963021h

30.

NICNAS. (2016). Short Chain Perfluorocarboxylic Acids and their Direct Precursors: Human Health Tier II Assessment. N.
I. C. N. a. A. S. (NICNAS). https://www.nicnas.gov.au/chemical-information/imap-assessments/imap-group-assessmentreport?assessment_id=1686

31.

Nielsen, O. J., Gamborg, E., Sehested, J., Wallington, T. J., & Hurley, M. D. (1994). Atmospheric chemistry of HFC-143a:
Spectrokinetic investigation of the CF3CH2O2 radical, its reactions with NO and NO2, and the fate of CF3CH2O. The Journal of
Physical Chemistry, 98(38), 9518-9525. https://doi.org/10.1021/j100089a026

32.

Østerstrøm, F. F., Andersen, S. T., Sølling, T. I., Nielsen, O. J., & Sulbæk Andersen, M. P. (2017). Atmospheric chemistry of Z- andE-CF3CH=CHCF3 [10.1039/C6CP07234H]. Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics, 19(1), 735-750. https://doi.org/10.1039/
C6CP07234H

33.

Papadimitriou, V. C., & Burkholder, J. B. (2016). OH radical reaction rate coefficients, infrared spectrum, and global warming
potential of (CF3)2CFCH=CHF (HFO-1438ezy(E)). The Journal of Physical Chemistry A, 120(33), 6618-6628. https://doi.
org/10.1021/acs.jpca.6b06096

34.

Papadimitriou, V. C., Spitieri, C. S., Papagiannakopoulos, P., Cazaunau, M., Lendar, M., Daële, V., & Mellouki, A. (2015).
Atmospheric chemistry of (CF3)2C=CH2: OH radicals, Cl atoms and O3 rate coefficients, oxidation end-products and IR spectra[10.1039/C5CP03840E]. Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics, 17(38), 25607-25620. https://doi.org/10.1039/C5CP03840E

35.

PubChem. (2022). Trifluoracetic acid. National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine.
Retrieved January 2022 from https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/6422

36.

RSC. (2022). ChemSpider. Royal Society of Chemistry. Retrieved May from http://www.chemspider.com/

37.

Simmonds, P. G., Rigby, M., McCulloch, A., O'Doherty, S., Young, D., Mühle, J., Krummel, P. B., Steele, P., Fraser, P. J.,
Manning, A. J., Weiss, R. F., Salameh, P. K., Harth, C. M., Wang, R. H. J., & Prinn, R. G. (2017). Changing trends and emissions ofhydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) and their hydrofluorocarbon (HFCs) replacements. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 17(7),4641-4655. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-4641-2017

321Chapter 6
38.

Smith, C., Z.R.J. Nicholls, K. Armour, W. Collins, P. Forster, M. Meinshausen, M.D. Palmer, M. Watanabe. (2021). The Earth’s
Energy Budget, Climate Feedbacks, and Climate Sensitivity Supplementary Material. In V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, A. Pirani,
S.L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M.I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J.B.R. Matthews,
T.K. Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu, B. Zhou (Ed.), Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution ofWorking Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

39.

Sulbæk Andersen, M. P., Hurley, M. D., & Wallington, T. J. (2009). Kinetics of the gas phase reactions of chlorine atoms and
OH radicals with CF3CBr=CH2 and CF3CF2CBr=CH2. Chemical Physics Letters, 482(1), 20-23. https://doi.org/https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.cplett.2009.09.056

40.

Sulbæk Andersen, M. P., & Nielsen, O. J. (2022). Tropospheric photolysis of CF3CHO. Atmospheric Environment, 272, 118935.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2021.118935

41.

Sulbæk Andersen, M. P., Nielsen, O. J., Hurley, M. D., & Wallington, T. J. (2012). Atmospheric chemistry of t-CF3CH=CHCl:
products and mechanisms of the gas-phase reactions with chlorine atoms and hydroxyl radicals [10.1039/C1CP22925G]. Physical
Chemistry Chemical Physics, 14(5), 1735-1748. https://doi.org/10.1039/C1CP22925G

42.

Sulbæk Andersen, M. P., Nielsen, O. J., Karpichev, B., Wallington, T. J., & Sander, S. P. (2012). Atmospheric chemistry of
isoflurane, desflurane, and sevoflurane: Kinetics and mechanisms of reactions with chlorine atoms and OH radicals and global
warming potentials. The Journal of Physical Chemistry A, 116(24), 5806-5820. https://doi.org/10.1021/jp2077598

43.

Sulbæk Andersen, M. P., Nielsen, O. J., & Sherman, J. D. (2021). The global warming potentials for anesthetic gas sevofluraneneed significant corrections. Environmental Science & Technology, 55(15), 10189-10191. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.
est.1c02573

44.

Sulbæk Andersen, M. P., Schmidt, J. A., Volkova, A., & Wuebbles, D. J. (2018). A three-dimensional model of the atmosphericchemistry of E and Z-CF3CH=CHCl (HCFO-1233(zd) (E/Z)). Atmospheric Environment, 179, 250-259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
atmosenv.2018.02.018

45.

Sulbæk Andersen, M. P., Sølling, T. I., Andersen, L. L., Volkova, A., Hovanessian, D., Britzman, C., Nielsen, O. J., & Wallington, T.
J. (2018). Atmospheric chemistry of (Z)-CF3CH=CHCl: products and mechanisms of the Cl atom, OH radical and O3 reactions, androle of (E)–(Z) isomerization [10.1039/C8CP04903C]. Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics, 20(44), 27949-27958. https://doi.
org/10.1039/C8CP04903C

46.

Sulbæk Andersen, M. P., Toft, A., Nielsen, O. J., Hurley, M. D., Wallington, T. J., Chishima, H., Tonokura, K., Mabury, S. A., Martin,
J. W., & Ellis, D. A. (2006). Atmospheric chemistry of perfluorinated aldehyde hydrates (n-CXF2X+1CH(OH)2, x = 1, 3, 4): Hydration,
dehydration, and kinetics and mechanism of Cl atom and OH radical initiated oxidation. The Journal of Physical Chemistry A,
110(32), 9854-9860. https://doi.org/10.1021/jp060404z

47.

Taniguchi, N., Wallington, T. J., Hurley, M. D., Guschin, A. G., Molina, L. T., & Molina, M. J. (2003). Atmospheric chemistry of
C2F5C(O)CF(CF3)2: Photolysis and reaction with Cl atoms, OH radicals, and ozone. The Journal of Physical Chemistry A, 107(15),2674-2679. https://doi.org/10.1021/jp0220332

48.

Tuazon, E. C., & Atkinson, R. (1993). Tropospheric transformation products of a series of hydrofluorocarbons andhydrochlorofluorocarbons. Journal of Atmospheric Chemistry, 17(2), 179-199. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00702825

49.

Vollmer, M. K., Miller, B. R., Rigby, M., Reimann, S., Mühle, J., Krummel, P. B., O'Doherty, S., Kim, J., Rhee, T. S., Weiss, R. F.,
Fraser, P. J., Simmonds, P. G., Salameh, P. K., Harth, C. M., Wang, R. H. J., Steele, L. P., Young, D., Lunder, C. R., Hermansen,
O., . . . Prinn, R. G. (2011). Atmospheric histories and global emissions of the anthropogenic hydrofluorocarbons HFC-365mfc,
HFC-245fa, HFC-227ea, and HFC-236fa. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 116(D8). https://doi.org/https://doi.
org/10.1029/2010JD015309

50.

Vollmer, M. K., Reimann, S., Hill, M., & Brunner, D. (2015). First observations of the fourth generation synthetic halocarbons
HFC-1234yf, HFC-1234ze(E), and HCFC-1233zd(E) in the atmosphere. Environmental Science & Technology, 49(5), 2703-2708.
https://doi.org/10.1021/es505123x

51.

Vollmer, M. K., Rhee, T. S., Rigby, M., Hofstetter, D., Hill, M., Schoenenberger, F., & Reimann, S. (2015). Modern inhalation
anesthetics: Potent greenhouse gases in the global atmosphere. Geophysical Research Letters, 42(5), 1606-1611. https://doi.
org/https://doi.org/10.1002/2014GL062785

52.

Vollmer, M. K., Rigby, M., Laube, J. C., Henne, S., Rhee, T. S., Gooch, L. J., Wenger, A., Young, D., Steele, L. P., Langenfelds, R.
L., Brenninkmeijer, C. A. M., Wang, J.-L., Ou-Yang, C.-F., Wyss, S. A., Hill, M., Oram, D. E., Krummel, P. B., Schoenenberger,
F., Zellweger, C., . . . Reimann, S. (2015). Abrupt reversal in emissions and atmospheric abundance of HCFC-133a (CF3CH2Cl).
Geophysical Research Letters, 42(20), 8702-8710. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GL065846

53.

Wallington, T. J., Hurley, M. D., Fedotov, V., Morrell, C., & Hancock, G. (2002). Atmospheric Chemistry of CF3CH2OCHF2 andCF3CHClOCHF2: Kinetics and mechanisms of reaction with Cl atoms and OH radicals and atmospheric fate of CF3C(O•)HOCHF2
and CF3C(O•)ClOCHF2 Radicals. The Journal of Physical Chemistry A, 106(36), 8391-8398. https://doi.org/10.1021/jp020017z

322Chapter 6
54.

Wallington, T. J., Hurley, M. D., Fracheboud, J. M., Orlando, J. J., Tyndall, G. S., Sehested, J., Møgelberg, T. E., & Nielsen, O. J.
(1996). Role of excited CF3CFHO radicals in the atmospheric chemistry of HFC-134a. The Journal of Physical Chemistry, 100(46),18116-18122. https://doi.org/10.1021/jp9624764

55.

Wallington, T. J., Hurley, M. D., Xia, J., Wuebbles, D. J., Sillman, S., Ito, A., Penner, J. E., Ellis, D. A., Martin, J., Mabury, S. A.,
Nielsen, O. J., & Sulbæk Andersen, M. P. (2006). Formation of C7F15COOH (PFOA) and other perfluorocarboxylic acids during
the atmospheric oxidation of 8:2 fluorotelomer alcohol. Environmental Science & Technology, 40(3), 924-930. https://doi.
org/10.1021/es051858x

56.

Wallington, T. J., Liu, R., Dagaut, P., & Kurylo, M. J. (1988). The gas phase reactions of hydroxyl radicals with a series of aliphatic
ethers over the temperature range 240–440 K. International Journal of Chemical Kinetics, 20(1), 41-49. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/kin.550200106

57.

Wallington, T. J., Schneider, W. F., Worsnop, D. R., Nielsen, O. J., Sehested, J., Debruyn, W. J., & Shorter, J. A. (1994). The
environmental impact of CFC replacements HFCs and HCFCs. Environmental Science & Technology, 28(7), 320A-326A. https://doi.org/10.1021/es00056a714

58.

Wang, Y., Niu, J., Zhang, L., & Shi, J. (2014). Toxicity assessment of perfluorinated carboxylic acids (PFCAs) towards the rotifer
Brachionus calyciflorus [Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't]. The Science of the Total Environment, 491-492, 266-270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.02.028

59.

WMO (2022). Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2022. GAW Report No. 278. World Meteorological Organization,
Geneva, Switzerland. https://ozone.unep.org/science/assessment/sap

60.

Wuebbles, D. J., & Patten, K. O. (2009). Three-dimensional modeling of HCFC-123 in the atmosphere: Assessing its potential
environmental impacts and rationale for continued use. Environmental Science & Technology, 43(9), 3208-3213. https://doi.
org/10.1021/es802308m

61.

Zellner, R., Bednarek, G., Hoffmann, A., Kohlmann, J. P., Mörs, V., & Saathoff, H. (1994). Rate and mechanism of the atmosphericdegradation of 2H-heptafluoropropane (HFC-227), Berichte der Bunsengesellschaft für physikalische Chemie, 98(2), 141-146.
https://doi.org/10.1002/bbpc.19940980202

62.

Zhang, N., Chen, L., Mizukado, J., Quan, H., & Suda, H. (2015). Rate constants for the gas-phase reactions of (Z)-CF3CHCHF
and (E)-CF3CHCHF with OH radicals at 253–328K. Chemical Physics Letters, 621, 78-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cplett.2014.12.044

323

Chapter 7

7
EFFECTS OF UV RADIATION ON NATURALAND SYNTHETIC MATERIALS

A. L. Andrady114, A. M. Heikkilä115, K. K. Pandey116, L. S. Bruckman117,
C.C. White118, M. Zhu119, and L. Zhu120

114

Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA

115

Finnish Meteorological Institute, Helsinki, Finland

116

Indian Academy of Wood Science, Bangalore, India

117

Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA

118

Exponent Inc, Bowie MD, USA

119

College of Materials Science and Engineering, Donghua University, Shanghai, China

120

State Key Laboratory for Modification of Chemical Fibres and Polymer Materials, Donghua University, Shanghai, China

324

Chapter 7

Table of contents
Summary											3261

Introduction											326

1.1Building industry trends and materials use								328

1.2Greener additives used in plastics and wood								329

2

Wood in building applications									329

2.1Thermal treatment for improved resistance to UV radiation							

2.2Sustainable stabilisers derived from wood								330

2.3Novel wood-based building materials									330

3

Nanoparticulate filler-UV stabilisers									331

3.1Nano-oxides and aramid fibres									331

3.2Nanocomposite films										332

3.3Nanoscale carbon fillers in plastics									333

4

Photovoltaic module components									333

4.1Durable encapsulation strategies									334

4.2Durable backsheets										335

4.3Cable sheath											336

5

Micro- and nano-particle and composite fibres							

337

5.1

UV-protection fabrics based on nano-oxides in textile fibres						

337

5.2

Solar UV radiation generates micro- and nanofibres and particles						

338

6Knowledge gaps											339

7

Conclusions											3408

Montreal Protocol and the Sustainable Development Goals						

330

340

References											341

325

Chapter 7

Summary
The deleterious effects of solar ultraviolet (UV) radiation on construction materials, especially wood and plastics, and their consequent
impacts on their useful lifetimes, are well documented in scientific literature. Any future increase in solar UV radiation and ambient
temperature due to climate change will therefore shorten service lifetimes of materials, which will require higher levels of stabilisationor other interventions to maintain their lifetimes at the present levels. The implementation of the Montreal Protocol and its Amendments
on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer controls the solar UV-B radiation received on Earth. This current Quadrennial Assessment
provides a comprehensive update on the deleterious effects of solar UV radiation on the durability of natural and synthetic materials, aswell as recent innovations in better stabilising materials against solar UV radiation-induced damage. Pertinent emerging technologies
for wood and plastics used in construction, composite materials used in construction, textile fibres, comfort fabric, and photovoltaic
materials are addressed in detail. Also addressed are the trends in technology designed to increase sustainability via replacing toxic,
unsustainable legacy additives with ‘greener’ benign substitutes that may indirectly affect the UV-stability of the redesigned materials.
An emerging class of efficient photostabilisers are the nanoscale particles that include oxide fillers and nanocarbons used in highperformance composites, which provide good UV stability to materials. They also allow the design of UV-shielding fabric materials withimpressive UV protection factors. An emerging environmental issue related to the photodegradation of plastics is the generation ofubiquitous micro-scale particles from plastic litter exposed to solar UV radiation.

1 Introduction
The Montreal Protocol and its Amendments over the last 35 years have successfully contributed to the stability of the stratosphericozone layer, limiting the solar ultraviolet (UV) radiation, particularly the UV-B wavebands (280-315 nm) of terrestrial solar radiation
reaching the Earth’s surface. Any future increase in solar UV radiation reaching the Earth, particularly the UV-B radiation, especially if
accompanied by higher ambient temperatures, will shorten the service lifetimes of wood, plastics, and other organic materials. Given
the low to moderate activation energies of photodegradation of these materials, even a small increase in the ambient temperature
due to climate change, may accelerate degradation and shorten their service life. The presently available UV-stabilisation and coating
technologies are expected to be adequate to mitigate these changes and maintain the service lifetimes of materials at the present
level. However, elevated amounts of solar UV radiation in terrestrial solar radiation would require using correspondingly higher levelsof UV stabilisers or more frequent surface treatment in the case of wood to ensure adequate service lifetimes. This strategy could
invariably add significantly to the lifetime cost of materials. The materials industry is continuously researching more efficient and lower
cost UV stabiliser systems for wood and plastics. In recent years, this search has been increasingly guided by long-term sustainability
considerations that encourage the preferred development of 'greener' additives, such as natural UV stabilisers in place of conventional
synthetic additives for both plastics and wood [1]. Using nanoparticles (NPs) as stabiliser/fillers in coatings, plastics, or textile fibres,
which results in efficient light-shielding at very low fractions, is an especially promising development in new stabilisers.
With the projected increase in world population, the demand for wood and plastic materials popularly used in building construction
will increase in the medium term. Global production volumes for both these are the highest reported over the past 70 years. For
instance, 2.03 billion m3 of industrial round wood processed in 2018 was mostly used as building materials [2]. Of the 359 million
metric tons (MMTs) of plastic resins produced in 2018, about 30 % was used in building applications [3]. With the number of buildings
worldwide estimated to double by 2060 [4], with the addition of 230 billion m2 of new floor area (relative to 2017), the demand forconstruction materials will correspondingly increase. This increase will likely have significant environmental impacts at the global scale.
The construction industry already accounts for 36% of energy expenditure and 37% of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions globally [5].
Increased sustainability requirements in the industry will be critical in the coming decade. The trend towards sustainability is alreadyapparent in the sector; the global investment in certified energy-efficient buildings increased by 11 % in 2020, reflecting this trend.
Wood is a traditional, low-cost, and sustainable building material that has a relatively small carbon footprint relative to concretes, metals,
or plastics [6]. For instance, a recent analysis illustrated the advantages of using wood over plastics as the material for fabricating pallets,
a product with an annual global demand of 6.87 billion units [7]. Life cycle analysis (LCA) found wood to have a significant advantage
over plastics in this application. Assuming incineration as the disposal method, the carbon footprint of a wood pallet was 0.34 kg ofcarbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-e) four times lower than that of a plastic unit [8]. A Finnish study [7] agreed with the finding, but foundwood-plastic composites (WPC) to have even a lower carbon footprint relative to wood. Using recycled post-consumer plastics in the
WPC further decreases emissions. A similar comparison between metal, poly(vinyl chloride) (PVC), and wood used in constructing
window frames found the latter to have the least environmental costs as measured by embodied non-renewable energy and carbon

326

Chapter 7
emissions [9]. Findings from LCA studies can vary with location because of transportation and energy mix used. Therefore, they are
not necessarily comparable across studies. These sustainability advantages make wood, especially the new ‘mass timber’ (or theengineered wood designed to compete with concrete or metal in strength), extremely attractive for use in buildings. Cross-laminatedtimber, a popular category of mass timber, was recently used to replace concrete in a high-rise building that is 18 stories high [10].
Materials used in building construction, transportation, and outdoor furniture are routinely exposed to solar UV radiation and undergo
gradual photodegradation. The duration of their exposure to solar UV radiation determines the service life of these products suchas composites used in vehicles, exterior panels in buildings, greenhouse glazing in agriculture, stadium seating, and synthetic turf.
Photodegradation negatively affects appearance, compromises mechanical integrity, and encourages subsequent biodegradation,
which all limit their service life [11]. With plastics, it is the UV-induced autocatalytic photo-oxidation reactions that result in surface
discolouration or cracking accompanied by the loss of mechanical integrity over time. Photodamage to plastics, however, is mostly
limited to a thin surface layer, resulting in damage modes such as yellowing, chalking, and cracking. As the base plastic resins are
inherently photolabile, several groups of additives (UV-stabilisers) are typically compounded with plastics intended for extended
outdoor use to mitigate the damaging effects of solar UV radiation [12-14]. These include UV-absorbers, insoluble pigments that absorb
or scatter UV radiation, and additives that inhibit oxidative reactions. Potent radical traps, such as tertiary amines of tertiary phenols, areoften used to inhibit the free-radical photodegradation reactions [15,16].
For instance, weathering of high-density polyethylene (HDPE) stabilised with UV-absorbers under accelerated weathering usinga Xenon lamp (generally following ASTM G155), showed that the non-stabilised HDPE was embrittled, with its tensile strength
extensibility reducing to 21 %, in 300 h of exposure, while the UV-stabilised HDPE was stable up to 900 h of exposure [17]. However,the combination of a UV-absorber (0.15 wt.%) with the radical-quencher hindered amine stabilisers (HALS) used at 0.45 wt.%, yields
synergistic stabilisation with little degradation up to 1300 h of exposure. Accelerated weathering of polypropylene (PP) with a HALS
(0.5 wt.%) and the UV screener, nano-ZnO (0.5 wt.%), showed synergistic stabilisation [15]. However, the latter study used a highintensity UV-A lamp. The effect of this high-intensity UV lamp with a narrow wavelength emission range (very different from spectral
qualities of solar radiation) cannot be reasonably compared to that of natural weathering exposure. A recent investigation [18] on
the natural weathering of UV-stabilised plastics over 4 years at a total UV irradiance of 1020 MJ m-2, ranked the durability of common
plastic materials used in building. Their ranking was based on percentage retention of fracture strain after exposure. PP, poly(butylene
terephthalate) (PBT), HDPE, and polycarbonate (PC) showed 47, 27, 20, and 17 % retention of the property, respectively. The result,however, cannot be generalised as it will strongly depend on the additives, especially UV stabilisers, used in plastics.
Studies on the photodegradation of plastics mostly focus on polyethylene (PE), polystyrene (PS), PVC, and poly(ethylene terephthalate)(PET). These plastics are also found in solid waste stream, urban litter, fresh waters, and especially marine debris. A recent summaryof the existing data on plastics degradation in air and aquatic environments in terms of mass or area loss rates was carried out [19,20].
However, it relates primarily to fragmentation losses and perhaps including some photo-mineralisation. The latter process that converts
the polymer into simple products such as CO2 and water, defines the environmentally desirable endpoint of biological degradation.
Using a simple model, the study [19] demonstrates the geometry-dependence of the kinetics of photodegradation of HDPE (Fig. 1).
Despite the simplifying assumptions used in the analysis, it highlights the significance of the geometric form of a plastic material indetermining degradation rates, a factor often overlooked in other studies. Another model on the rate of surface area loss on degradationin environmental degradation is based on polymer characteristics, such as the hydrophobicity, glass transition temperature, and thefractional crystallinity [21].

Fig. 1 A comparison of predicted degradation profiles for high-density polyethylene (HDPE) pieces with the same mass (mo),density (mo), and surface loss rate for different shapes (thin film, fibre, and bead). The dashed lines correspond to extrapolations
assuming constant surface area; the solid lines correspond to a model that assumes a shrinking radius, and therefore a surface
area, decreasing with duration of degradative exposure. Figure from [19], CC BY 4.0.

327

Chapter 7
The predominant type of plastic used in building construction is PVC, which is particularly susceptible to damage by solar UV radiation.
The polymer undergoes photo-dehydrochlorination, releasing hydrogen chloride and yielding conjugated unsaturation. The PVC
surface appears yellow to orange in colour on weathering, depending on the sequence lengths of the unsaturated units generated on
the polymer molecules.
Degradation of the PVC surface releases the opacifier, titanium dioxide (TiO2), compounded into the plastic and results in chalking or
removal of the loose oxide on handling. However, it is the uneven discolouration of PVC products used in residential construction that
determines their useful service life. Therefore, effective photo-stabilisers are critical to maintaining their outdoor service life under solar
UV irradiation. In outdoor uses such as siding or panels, PVC is compounded with rutile titania as an opacifier and tin-based organic
photostabilisers to control UV-induced degradation and thermal oxidation, respectively.
Several studies investigated the use of tin-based stabilisers for this purpose. A novel tin-based stabiliser, tin-sulfadiazine complexes, at
a 0.5 wt.% in rigid PVC, reduced the dehydrochlorination rate constants to less than half that for control PVC samples in accelerated
weathering studies [22]. Different organotin complexes with similar stabiliser function include fusidate [23], captopril [24], atenolol [25],mefenamic acid [26], naphthalene sulfonic acid [27], 4-methoxybenzoic acid [28], and carvedilol tin complexes [29]. While some ofthese show good stabiliser effectiveness, further development in terms of cost-effective manufacture and their environmental impacts
will be needed before their commercialisation is considered.
In wood products, the photoreactions generally increase surface hydrophilicity that encourages subsequent biological degradation[30]. Using opaque or UV-absorbing surface coatings on wood ensures good stability under UV radiation [31]. However, the solventborne coatings contribute to the release of volatile organic chemicals (VOCs) into the atmosphere. Biodegradation, that also takes
place concurrently on weathering can be controlled by treating the wood thermally or chemically. Chemicals typically used in treatedwood (chromated copper arsenate, creosotes, and chlorophenols), however, can leach into the environment. As with plastics, theemphasis on developing sustainable strategies also guides the criteria in selecting coatings and stabilisers for wood, with candidates for
substitutes of legacy additives such as plasticisers, fillers, thermal stabilisers, colourants, and flame retardants. The incidental effects ofthese ‘greener’ substitute additives such as natural oil preservatives on the UV-stability of wood still needs to be evaluated.

1.1

Building industry trends and materials use

Several emerging trends in the building industry will indirectly affect the mix of organic building materials to be used in futurebuildings. These may have important implications on their useful life under projected climate warming and increased UV radiationin areas of reduced cloud cover (Chapter 1, Bernhard et al. [32]). There are two such trends apparent in the building industry that
may indirectly impact the choice of materials and their durability. Among these are 3-D printed homes and waste plastic utilisations
in building technology. The trend in the building industry towards environmental sustainability encourages builders to qualify for
LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) [33] certification in the USA or BREEAM (Building Research Establishment
Environmental Assessment Method) in Europe [34]. Carbon emissions in the sector are mostly due to the use of Portland cement andneither engineered wood products [35] nor plastic materials typically have comparably high carbon emissions. The ambitious LEED
Zero program [33] aims at offsetting all energy, carbon emissions, and waste costs associated with future buildings.
A recent sustainable approach to building is 3-D printing that promises lower cost, comparable durability, and increased design
freedom, with at least the same durability as conventional-built homes [36]. At this time these structures are mostly based on
inorganic materials (mortar, clay, concrete), but plastic-based 3-D homes are feasible. At least two commercial operations, one using
polyurethane-carbon fibre composites (PassivDom in Ukraine) and another using waste plastic as the primary material (Azure Homes,
Los Angeles, CA) have started operations. With just $10 million revenue in 2020, the printed-home industry has a high compound
annual growth rate of >91% in the near term with revenues increasing to over $1 billion by 2028 [37]. Using large volumes of plastics inprinted homes would require managing the large VOC emissions, associated occupational hygiene concerns, waste disposal issues,
and water contamination. While the approach will conserve wood, the effect of solar UV radiation on the entire printed plastic structure
will need to be carefully evaluated in their use.
The recycled plastic waste is formed into plastic blocks or bricks for building [38], especially in emerging economies [39]. The mixed
plastic waste stream composed primarily of PE, PP, PS, and PET will continue to increase in step with the world population and provide
a low-cost reliable raw material. Being mostly thermoplastic, plastic waste can be readily melted into low-cost geocomposites fordrainage systems and infill material for geosynthetic-encased granular columns [40]. Not only do they provide excellent durability ata low cost, but they also attain very significant labour savings in building operations compared to conventional materials. However,
the material must be rendered fire resistant and the possibility of outgassing from slow degradation reactions in bricks needs to beaddressed for the approach to be viable. Several commercial vendors offer such homes, including Conceptos Plásticos (Columbia) andOthalo (Norway). This trend will also reduce the demand for wood in buildings, contributing towards a more sustainable future.

1.2

Greener additives used in plastics and wood

An integral aspect of the drive toward sustainable building materials is the replacement of toxic legacy additives that are harmful to theenvironment with ‘greener’ alternatives [41-43]. In selecting additives, including UV-stabilisers [44] for plastics or coatings, increasing
attention is being paid to minimising their potential ecotoxicity as these additives often leach out to contaminate the environment [45].
Wang et al. [46] reported the presence of UV absorbers at ~100 ng/g level in marine organisms including fish. In the plastics industry,
this trend is illustrated by the phase-out of two classes of additives, phthalate plasticiser, and brominated flame retardants, a process

328Chapter 7
well underway in Europe, USA, and Japan. While greener additives selected for their functionality may improve the overall sustainabilityof plastics or coatings, their use may inadvertently compromise the UV-stability of materials, requiring a reassessment of the UV-stabilityof plastic compounds that carry the new ‘greener’ additives. However, the present phase of R&D appears to be primarily devoted
to identifying substitutes with comparable functionality and increased sustainability. Two classes of additives, both toxic endocrine
disruptor chemicals, that can potentially leach out to contaminate the environment [47], deserve special attention.
Of the 10.4 million metric tons (MMT) of plasticisers manufactured worldwide in 2021 [48], about 55 % were phthalates intended foruse in poly(vinyl chloride) (PVC), primarily in the building and packaging sectors. Flexible PVC compounds that may carry up to 60
wt.% of phthalates account for 80-90 % of the consumption. Phthalates, identified as a common pollutant in the environment [49,50],
are also endocrine disruptor (ED) chemicals, that may cause inter-generational adverse impacts on reproductive and neurologicalhealth, especially in children [51]. In July 2020, the EU restricted the use of bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP), benzyl butyl phthalate(BBP), dibutyl phthalate (DBP), and di-isobutyl phthalate (DIBP) in consumer goods or products that posed risks to humans throughdermal contact or by inhalation. Likewise, responding to consumer and regulatory pressure, the USA has restricted the use of particularphthalates in plastics.
The validation of sustainable alternatives for phthalates in PVC is well underway [52] and several classes of candidates have been
identified: a) branched and hyperbranched plastics [53-55]; b) vegetable oil-based plasticisers [56,57]; and c) other promising
compounds such as esters derived from biomass [58,59]. These are being evaluated for their efficacy as plasticisers, especially in
PVC, and their migration resistance from moulded plastic products. While selected on the criterion of having effective plasticiser
performance, these green substitutes can also affect the UV-stability of PVC. Encouraging results were reported for cardanol, a ‘green’
plasticiser for PVC derived from waste cashew nut shells, which also displayed UV-stabiliser properties that are superior to the dioctyl
phthalate (DOT) it replaced [60].
Another class of additives being phased out because of their activity as endocrine disruptors and toxicity are flame retardants basedon polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE) used at 10-20 wt.% in some plastic compounds [61-63]. As with plasticisers, the phase-outof PBDEs does not significantly reduce the levels of these compounds in the environment in the medium term, because of persisting
residue from their early use since 2004 [64]. PBDE levels in human serum and breast milk are up to 160.3 ng/g [61]. The levels reported
in e-waste workers in China are over twice that [65]. The concentration of PBDE replacements in the aquatic environment is higher thanthat of legacy PBDE’s and these are often bio-accumulative [66]. Exposure to PBDE adversely affects reproductive and neurologicalhealth [67,68]. It is an additive listed in the Stockholm Convention and was phased out in the EU. In the USA, penta- and octa-PBDEs
have been banned since 2004 [69], while the decabromo-PBDE, which was excluded, was regulated under the Toxic Substances
Control Act in 2021 [70]. China, the largest producer and consumer of fire retardant chemicals, has regulated the levels of penta- andocta-PBDEs but only in electronic goods that use them in circuit boards [71].
Several ‘greener’ alternatives to PBDEs have emerged, including different (non-PBDE) brominated compounds, organophosphates[72,73], dechlorane compounds, and aluminium hydroxides [74]. The potential toxicity of the substitute fire retardants are being
investigated [75]. The presence of conventional fire retardant additives in the compound often decreases the UV stability of polymers[76]. Whether or not the alternative fire retardants also have this problem has not been fully investigated.

2 Wood in building applications
Wood used in building applications, including that exposed routinely to the elements, is expected to be durable over extended
periods. Solar UV radiation is well known to cause photodegradation of wood [77-79] as well as of protective paints and coatings
used on wood products [80]. Routine exposure of wood to solar UV radiation results in the loss of both their aesthetic and mechanicalproperties [81]. These changes occur in in both natural and artificial weathering, primarily due to primarily due to photodegradation.
Photodamage to wood surfaces is quantified as: a) changes in surface colour, an important criterion of consumer acceptability of wood
[77,81-83]; and b) chemical analysis using Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy to assess the extent of oxidative changes [82,84,85].
In accelerated weathering of wood [86], a higher intensity of UV radiation and increased temperatures are typically employed, as withplastics; in some instances, a water spray is also used to simulate the effect of rain [87]. Photodegraded wood contains compounds
extracted by water [85] making this a reasonable test parameter.
Cellulose and hemicellulose in wood (unlike its lignin fraction) are structurally saturated compounds carrying no chromophores. It is theabsorption of solar UV radiation (290-400 nm) by lignin in wood that initiates the degradation and discolouration often accompanied
by surface cracking [77,78,88]. Lignin is a strong light absorber with broad absorption in the UV-B (280-315 nm) and UV-A (315−400nm) wavebands. Higher-density wood species appear to be relatively more stable against UV-induced colour changes [89]. Given thecomplexity of the mix of products formed and concurrent biodegradation of the surface, colour changes are only suited for assessing
the early stages of weathering [78]. Preferential photodegradation of lignin leaves the wood surface rich in carbohydrate fraction,329

Chapter 7
which encourages biological decay [30]; non-degraded lignin, being phenolic in nature, is more resistant to microbial attack. The
rate of photodegradation depends on the anatomical structure of wood species [88]. An exponential dependence of the rate ofphotodegradation of lignin with temperature was reported in a study based on changes in diffuse reflectance infrared spectroscopy[90]. Surface cracking due to destruction of the middle lamella (that holds adjacent cells together) with a high lignin content, is a major
cause of the loss of mechanical properties [81] accompanying the weathering of wood.
Accelerated weathering in the laboratory, where the test conditions can be controlled, results in faster degradation than natural
weathering. However, correlating durations of laboratory accelerated exposure with natural weathering remains elusive [91]. The
correlation depends on the test parameters employed [92].

2.1

Thermal treatment for improved resistance to UV radiation

Heat-treated wood is a sustainable alternative to pressure-impregnated wood that is resistant to UV-induced and biologicaldegradation. Environmental considerations have made the chemical-free heat treatment of wood an increasingly popular approach toincrease durability. Subjecting wood to high temperatures under humid conditions in heat treatment results primarily in the cleavageof the acetyl groups of the hemicellulose fraction and its hydrolysis into oligomeric products. Thermal treatment yields appealingly
darker [93,94] treated wood that is less hygroscopic and has improved dimensional stability [95]. Neural network-based algorithms
that predict the properties of treated wood as a function of variables such as temperature, are being developed [96]. However, these
improvements are obtained at the expense of its UV resistance with the treated wood discolouring readily on exposure to solar UV
radiation [97,98]. Coating the treated surface can address this limitation. However, designing chemically coatings that adhere well tothe hydrophobic surface of treated wood is a challenge, but several promising candidates have been identified.
Impregnating Scots pine wood with a titania sol in paraffin (at 212 °C) improved its UV resistance [98], with the colour change and lignin
degradation reduced by more than 50 % with the treatment compared to the control, after 1176 h of accelerated weathering. Ashwood
heat-treated at 192-212 °C and clear-coated with polyurethane coating also yielded good resistance to discolouration in laboratory
exposure of up to 2000 h under UV-340 fluorescent lamps [99]. Further treatment of hardened surfaces with air saturated with steam
at 95 °C to 135 °C enhances the colour stability of wood. For instance, change in surface colour after 298 h exposure to a xenon
Weather-O-meter (simulates solar radiation with filtering systems designed for weathering) of untreated maple wood was reduced by
31.8, 43.8, and 61.1 % with steam treatment at 95, 115, and 135 °C, respectively [100]. While thermal treatment improves the desirable
characteristics of wood, the accompanying reduced outdoor lifetimes under solar UV irradiation needs to be controlled using costeffective surface coatings for wider acceptance of the approach.

2.2

Sustainable stabilisers derived from wood

As with plastics, sustainability considerations drive the search for non-toxic sustainable UV stabilisers for protecting the wood in outdoor
applications. Plant-based compounds have shown promise as efficient UV stabilisers controlling surface discolouration in a range ofwood species [101-105]. Flavonoids extracted from Acacia confusa heartwood significantly reduced the UV-induced degradation oflignin in wood [101]. Two most abundant flavones (okanin and melanoxetin) in Acacia confusa sp., have marked radical-scavenging
and singlet-oxygen quenching properties [102]. Extractives of the wood of other species, such as that of Japanese cedar (Cryptomeria
japonica) [106], Merbau (Intsia sp.) [31,107] Dalbergia cohinchinensis [31] as well as the bark of Trembling Aspen (Populus tremuloides),lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta), and western red cedar (Thuja plicata) [108] have all been demonstrated to have UV-stabilising activity
either in wood or wood composites.
Wood bark extracts are particularly rich in polyphenols including condensed tannins and flavonoids, which are very good absorbersof UV radiation. For instance, a 1 wt.% solution of the extractive of Phoebe zhennan wood by polar solvent ethyl acetate completely
absorbs solar UV-A and UV-B wavelengths in laboratory studies [109]. The extractives accounted for 3.8 wt.% of the wood. Such extracts
can be used to stabilise surface coatings on wood as well. Polyurethane-acrylate wood coatings stabilised with 2 wt.% of the bark
extracts from Chinese fir, for instance, effectively controlled the photo-discolouration of wood [108]. The colour change on exposure toa UV source for 898 h was reduced by ca 67 % compared to a control coated with polyurethane without any extractive. Also, extracts
from the bark of alder and maritime pine species at a concentration of 5 % in alkyd-based coatings provided excellent UV-protection of
Scot pine surfaces [110]. These stabilisers also work well in WPCs that also undergo UV-induced discolouration and loss of mechanicalintegrity [111]. Bark extractives from Western red cedar (Thuja plicata) at 2 wt.% mixed into bulk wood-plastic showed good stabiliser
effectiveness, yielding about 25 % less discolouration at 1200 h of accelerated weathering, with less severe surface cracking andchemical degradation as indicated by Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy [1].
Lignin is the second most abundant biopolymer after cellulose in wood and is rich in UV-absorbing chromophores. It can therefore
serve as a promising ‘greener’ substitute for synthetic UV-absorbers [112,113]. The UV-shielding properties of lignin depend upon its
extraction process, methoxyl content, and the shape and size of lignin domains. Lignin NPs have even better UV-shielding properties.
However, the undesirable dark colour of lignin is a drawback with lignin-based UV-absorbing products. Laboratory exposures of
coatings with lignin NPs derived from waste wood on beech wood panels show good control of UV-induced discolouration [114].

2.3

Novel wood-based building materials

A novel, scalable, and optically transparent UV-blocking wood composite is a potential sustainable replacement for glazing (plastics or
glass) in buildings and in greenhouse applications. Some of these novel transparent wood composite (TWC) materials have better UV

330

Chapter 7
stability compared to polycarbonates used in glazing. In this technology, the lignin fraction of wood is replaced by either a synthetic[115] or a biopolymer [116,117], to obtain a composite of cellulosic materials and polymer (Fig. 2). For instance, a 2 mm thick sample
of Douglas ﬁr wood/epoxy TWC transmits 80 % of visible light but blocks UV radiation over the wavelength range of 200–400 nm[115]. A luminescent TWC was reported from Basswood with poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) [118]. The synthetic fraction included
the additives, ammonium polyphosphate (APP), and lanthanide-doped strontium aluminate (LSA; SrAl2O4:Eu2+, Dy3+) phosphor
nanoparticles. The luminescent material is suited for applications such as smart windows, lighting, and safety directional signs inbuildings. With good thermal stability up to 315 °C, TWCs can be designed to filter out UV-B radiation and have potential applications
in smart building technology [119,120]. TWC materials based on biopolymers such as chitosan or cellulose in place of synthetic resins,
have also been synthesised [116]. For instance the use of cellulose–lignin slurry from poplar wood displays high mechanical strength,
excellent water stability, resistance to UV radiation, and improved thermal stability [121].
However, even with the chromophore-carrying lignin removed, TWCs still undergo some photo-discolouration and degradation
on extended exposure to solar UV radiation [122,123] that might be due to photodegradation of residual lignin or the polymericcomponent (epoxy in this case). With extended exposure to solar UV radiation, the transparency of the material is compromised.
This drawback, however, can be addressed using established UV stabiliser technologies. Blending 1.0 wt.% of a conventional UV
stabiliser (2-(2H-benzotriazol-2-yl)-4, 6-di-tert-pentylphenol) into the epoxy resin used in epoxy/poplar wood TWC, reduced the loss intransmittance of visible light on weathering. For example, after 250 h of irradiation under UVA-340 fluorescent lamps, only a 1.4 % loss
in transmittance was obtained with the stabilised TWC at 550 nm compared to a 27.5 % decrease in the untreated controls [122].

Fig. 2 (a) Piece of poplar wood (left) and piece of transparent wood composite (TWC, right) prepared using poplar wood andepoxy resin; (b) optical transmittance of TWC of 2 mm thickness.

3 Nanoparticulate filler-UV stabilisers
3.1

Nano-oxides and aramid fibres

Aramids constitute a high-value, high-performance class of industrial fibres that account for a few percent of the global synthetic fibre
production. These fibres with exceptionally high strength (2.4-3 GPa) and modulus of elasticity (45-160 GPa) [124] are well suited for
demanding applications such as bullet-proof vests, firefighter protective garments, and in military applications [125-127]. Nanofibres ofaramids in the size range of 10-100 nm are also used to reinforce nanocomposites [128]. However, a significant drawback of the material
is their inherent poor UV stability mostly because of their aromatic structural features, limiting their use in outdoor applications [129].
It is challenging to incorporate UV stabilisers into aramids, as organic compounds do not dissolve well in the highly crystalline fibre.

331

Chapter 7
Nano-fillers of wide-band-gap oxides, which decorate the fibre surface or are grown on the fibre's surface [130] are especially effective
stabilisers. Different strategies based on nanoscale oxide fillers are being developed to improve the UV stability of aramids.
Ma et al. [130] functionalised aramid fibres with nano-ZnO-structures grown on the fibre surface, resulting in improved UV resistance.
After 168 h of UV irradiation under a 3-kW source with a wavelength range of 290–365 nm, the loss in tensile strength of the surfacemodified was less than 5 %, while it was 20 % in the unmodified fibre. Seeding ZnO NPs onto aramid fibre surfaces coated with poly
L-3,4-dihydroxyphenylalanine resulted in ZnO nanowires growing in the seeded layer as illustrated in Fig. 3 [131]. After 168 h of UV
irradiation of 0.76 W m-2 nm-1 at 340 nm, the retention of the tensile strength for the modified oxide and control fibres was 97.2 and80.4 %, respectively. ZnO NPs have also been crystallised onto aramid fibres by a sol-gel process with drying in supercritical CO2.
Subsequent exposure to UV radiation for up to 216 h, under a 40 W UV lamp (wavelength range 280–315 nm, complying with the
Chinese Standard GB/T 14522-93) at 60 °C, the treated aramid fibres retained 93 % of their average tensile strength, while thatof control fibres was only ca 25 % [132]. While the quantitative results of these studies are not comparable due to differences in theexperimental settings, they indicate the potential of these techniques in improving the performance of aramid fibres in a way that could
be transferable to functionalisation of other materials.
Sun et al. [129] used drying in supercritical CO2 to improve the UV resistance and durability of aramid fibres treated with TiO2 NPs.
When exposed for 168 h under a UV-B lamp (40 W, wavelength range 280-315 nm, lamp length of 1220 mm, Dongguan Instrument
Co. Ltd., Guangzhou, China; yielding an exposure of 40 W m-2 complying with the Chinese Standard GB/T 14522-93), absorption of
UV-B radiation increased by ~15 % at a TiO2 loading of 2.38 wt.% on the fibre surface. The tensile strength and modulus retention also
improved by 5-14 %. Surface decoration of fibres with nano-oxides suggests a useful approach to improving the UV stability of otherfibres. Where supercritical CO2 is used, the technique needs to be evaluated for economic feasibility.

Fig. 3 Seeding of ZnO nanoparticles onto aramid fibres (AF) and subsequent growing of ZnO nanowires (NW) on theseeded layer for improved UV resistance and enhanced mechanical properties of the fibres; PDOPA referring to poly L-3,4dihydroxyphenylalanine, IFSS to interfacial shear strength. Figure from [131], CC BY NC ND.

3.2

Nanocomposite films

Nanoparticle (NP) additives increasingly find application as UV stabilisers in films, as demonstrated by their use in greenhouse covers;
for instance, incorporation of 2 wt.% each (total 6 wt.%) of ZnO, TiO2, and SiO2 NPs in a size range of 20-45 nm as light stabilisers, into
PET films [133]. The mixture of three NPs improved the UV-blocking properties (94 % under UV-B and 60 % under UV-A radiation).
A reduction of 57 % in UV-B and 36 % in UV-A transmission relative to that by a control film was achieved without affecting the highphotosynthetically active radiation (PAR, 400-700 nm) transmittance of the film. Moreover, these properties persisted over 90 daysof irradiation under a Xe lamp (Air Mass 1.5 Standard Spectrum, 60 W m-2). Functionalised NPs, such as those coated to obtain adouble-shell structure, are sophisticated nanofillers with tailored properties. ZnO NPs coated with amphiphilic polyurethane (APU)
was investigated as a stabiliser in UV-cured poly(urethane acrylate) (PUA) [134]. Transparent polymer films with NP loading of 0.3 wt.%
exhibited a >50 % increase in tensile strength and up to 80 % absorbance of UV-B radiation compared to the untreated PUA. The
APU-functionalised ZnO are effective multifunctional fillers even at the low concentrations used in these studies. TiO2 NPs have been332

Chapter 7
coated with SiO2 and then poly(D-lactide) (PDLA) grafted onto the coated surface to obtain a double-shell (TiO2@SiO2-g-PDLA) hybrid
nanoparticle [135]. When incorporated into a poly(L-lactide) (PLLA) matrix (at a loading of 2 wt.% TiO2), the hybrid nanocomposite
showed almost a 10-fold increase in UV absorbance at 350 nm relative to the untreated PLLA and with a higher tensile strength, evenafter 72 h irradiation under a 300 W UV lamp. Sophisticated core-shell or double-core-shell NPs used in these studies may be expensive
relative to NP-fillers. The fact that they are used at such low weight fractions to obtain desirable multiple functionalities may offset theircost at least in some film applications.

3.3

Nanoscale carbon fillers in plastics

Carbon materials are excellent absorbers of both visible and UV radiation. They may also be used as reinforcing fillers in polymer
composites. [136]. In addition to reinforcement, fillers like carbon nanotubes (CNTs) and graphene-family nanomaterials (GFNs)
also impart increased UV stability to polymer composites. GFNs and CNTs are used, for instance, in batteries, sensors, andbiomedical (antibacterial) applications. [137,138]. Because of their small dimensions, nanomaterials are very efficient in UV-shielding
photostabilisation.
UV-resistant glass-fibre-reinforced composites have been produced by dispersing 0.25–1.0 wt.% of multi-walled carbon nanotubes infibre-filled epoxy matrices [139]. When exposed under a UV radiation source (six spectral UVA-365 lamps with nominal wavelength 365
nm, Worldwide Specialty Lamp, Austell, GA, yielding 0.77–0.95 W m-2 nm-1 to comply with the ASTM specification of 0.89 W m-2 nm-1)
for 2160 h in cycles of exposure (4 h light and 4 h darkness), the filled composites showed very good UV resistance as evidenced by theabsence of microcracks typically observed in untreated composite samples. Epoxy nanocomposites have been studied that contain
0.5 wt.% multiwalled carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs) (outer / inner diameter < 20 nm / 4 nm, length 1-12 μm) dispersed in the resin thatwas based on diglycidyl ether of bisphenol A (DGEBA) and cured with 2,2,4-trimethylene-1,6-hexadiamine (TMDA) [140]. These were
subjected to accelerated weathering under UV-A lamps (140 W m-2 over 295–400 nm range) in alternating humidity and temperature
conditions for a total irradiation time of 1-6 months. The DGEBA–TMDA/0.5 wt.% MWCNT samples displayed improved resistanceagainst UV-degradation compared to the DGEBA–TMDA samples with no carbon filler. A novel UV-stabiliser for polypropylene has
also been synthesised, based on functionalised graphene oxide (GO, thickness 3.4–7 nm, diameter 10–50 μm), where a hinderedamine stabiliser was grafted onto GO nanoplatelets [141]. Samples of the plastic stabilised with 0.5 wt.% of GO and functionalised GO
were artificially aged under OSRAM Ultra Vitalux 300 W sunlamp up to 600 h. The functionalised filler efficiently retarded the rate ofphoto-oxidation, as measured by the retention of tensile properties. Hybrids of graphene (8 nm flakes) and MWCNTs (length 5-15 μm,
diameter 10-30 nm) have been used in waterborne polymer coating synthesised via mini-emulsion polymerisation [142]. Only 1 wt.%of hybrid G/CNT was used in the resin of 50 wt.% MMA and 50 wt.% butyl acrylate (BA). This was adequate to completely suppress
photodegradation in accelerated aging of 400 h under a UV lamp (nominal wavelength 366 nm, P-Lab, 550 mW cm-2, distance 15 cm)
at 55 °C [142].
Studies reporting on the enhanced performance of materials with nanoscale carbon fillers are specific in terms of the size of the filler, thetechnique applied, the polymers and fillers used, the ageing conditions and the characterisation methods employed. However, it would
seem that these kinds of fillers are finding more applications as the demand for more durable and more sustainable materials increases.
In these recent studies it is significant that less than 1 wt.% of the carbonaceous filler was able to impart very significant improvements in
UV-stability of the thermoset composites studied.
Graphene is currently used in electronics as well as in composites to take advantage of its unique electrical and reinforcing
characteristics. The accompanying photo-stabilisation can be important in composite applications. High-volume use of graphene incomposites is currently limited by the high manufacturing costs and uncertainties related to their lifetime, operational stability, andreproducibility [143]. In the future, graphene is nevertheless expected to find ever more applications (e.g., sensors, solar cells, and selfcleaning surfaces) [144-146].

4 Photovoltaic module components
Solar photovoltaic (PV) energy is a leading sustainable substitute for fossil-fuel energy and its rapid installation is critical to meetingthe agreed-upon reductions in future global CO2 emissions [5]. This will require the continuation of the accelerated growth of the
PV industry globally. In 2020 there was ~940 gigawatt peak (GWp) of installed capacity. The newly installed 173 GWp in 2021 was
the largest ever installed capacity in a single year. The continued competitiveness of PV power generation will be supported by the
reduction in PV system costs by optimising manufacturing and having increased cell and module performance. The market is still
dominated by crystalline silicon modules, but has shifted to mono-silicon cells with new cell types being commercialised. Bi-facial
modules have been introduced in the market. The production capacity of PV has increased to over 470 GWp with the expansion oflarger wafers and improved module area efficiency. Modules have grown in efficiency with passivated emitter and rear contact (PERC)

333

Chapter 7
module and half-cell interconnect technologies. Maintaining long service lifetimes with minimal failure rates for PV modules is essential
to meet the ambitious rates of growth expected of the technology [147]. Given the recent large-scale installations of PV modules andtheir long lifetimes (warranties of 25-30 years on performance), accelerated laboratory testing is also used in addition to field data toidentify potential degradation mechanisms and failure risks. Accelerated laboratory testing has been changing to better understandthe different degradation mechanisms that are present in PV modules; however, these types of testing do not always provide accurate
prediction of degradation under in-use conditions and correlation between accelerated testing and in-use conditions is still lacking[148,149].
The basic structure of a crystalline silicon PV module is shown in Fig. 4. The encapsulant is a protective adhesive layer of a soft polymer
that is used to cover the top and the bottom of the active layer (the solar cells). The encapsulant provides electrical insulation andphysical support for the fragile cells and has historically been made of ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA) copolymers. A second plastic
component is the backsheet, which provides environmental protection for the module and safety for humans to the high voltage. It
is typically made of three polymer layers (outer or air-side, core, and inner layer construction) with the inner layer typically consistingof PET. In the majority of backsheets, the multiple layers are combined with an adhesive layer while some backsheets are coextruded[150]. Encapsulant and backsheet materials are key to ensuring PV module lifetime and are major components of the cost of the module.
Degradation in each component layer in a PV module can accelerate degradation in other component layers (Fig. 5).
Transparent EVA is the most common encapsulant and will continue to be the most widely used encapsulant (~52 % in the next 10
years). Additionally, EVA with TiO2 filler (white) will claim ~10 % of the market share to be used with bifacial cells. Polyolefin is expected
to be 20 % and extruded EVA with polyolefin ~10 % in the next 10 years [147]. Polymer backsheets will continue to be the most common
materials, with PET core-layers continuing to be used to provide electrical resistance, and with the outer-layer of poly(vinylidene
difluoride) (PVDF) as the main backsheet type. However, in the next 10 years polymer backsheets are expected to decrease from ~75
to 45 % of the market share with glass-glass modules increasing over that time [147]. Solar UV radiation-induced degradation of theseplastic components is a major factor in PV module failure [151] and many material failures in PV modules observed in the field involve
encapsulant degradation, backsheet failure, or de-bonding of elements due to adhesive failure [151-154].

4.1

Durable encapsulation strategies

It is critical to select encapsulants that are durable under continuous outdoor exposure; discolouration of encapsulants accounts forabout 10% of the module failure [153]. Transparent EVA is the most common encapsulant in PV modules [147]. Still, there is a needfor a more durable, UV-stable material for next-generation encapsulants. Degradation of EVA encapsulant appears to be a complex
inhomogeneous process involving solar UV radiation, temperature, and moisture. The installation location and how the modules are
installed, especially their tilt angle (e.g., normal through 90°) can affect the amount of UV irradiance the module is exposed to [155]. The
overall microclimate or stressor conditions within a PV module are non-uniform due to differences in moisture ingress, oxygen diffusion,
module temperature, and physical strain within the module. There is a relationship between the photodegradation of the frontside
EVA encapsulant and the location of the EVA in the module. Oxygen and moisture diffuse through the backsheet and the edges of themodule; therefore, frontside EVA has lower transmittance at the centre of the cell compared to the edges of the cells. This is due tooxygen bleaching of photodegradation produced chromophores [156]. EVA is impacted on the edges of the solar cells more so thanother locations, resulting in the formation of acetic acid, which leads to corrosion of metallisation and power loss [157]. A range of EVAs
with different copolymer compositions are available commercially. Based on an accelerated weathering study of several candidate EVA
copolymers, one with 18–33% by weight of vinyl acetate was found to be the most UV stable, making it potentially well suited for PV use[158].
The ongoing effort to find a better replacement for the encapsulant material has yielded several candidate polymers, such as ionomers
and thermoplastic polyolefin (TPO) [159]. TPO has been investigated as an alternative to EVA [160,161] and has superior thermal stability,
adhesive strength and resistance to discolouration. For instance, the discolouration of TPO on exposure to UV radiation of 365 nm froman LED light source at 900 W m-2 at 90 °C and 10-13 % RH was found to be nine times slower relative to EVA, and the polymer may also
be easier to process [160]. While the initial research on TPO is promising, developmental work to validate its efficacy and economic
feasibility is necessary especially in field studies of operational PV modules [162].
Among the candidate polymers being investigated is thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU). A multi-laboratory study compared five
representative formulations of EVA encapsulants to TPU encapsulants of unknown formulation. Different sources including xenon,
UVA‐340, and metal-halide lamps with different filter types were used in the study. Samples were continuously exposed for 180 days at
a relative humidity (RH) ranging from 7–50 % and temperatures from 40 – 90 °C. The encapsulants, EVA and TPU, exposed in the dark
conditions showed minimal degradation compared to those exposed to UV radiation, which drives degradation. UV radiation-induced
degradation was synergistically impacted at higher temperatures and humidity over the duration of exposure. The TPU in this particularstudy had the largest decrease in transmittance compared to the EVA formulations. The variability in degradation behaviour of the five
EVAs suggests that their copolymer composition, residual monomer, and additives are important determinants of their UV degradation
behaviour [163]. The synergy between UV radiation and temperature identifies climate change as a possible risk factor in reducing theservice lifetime of these modules.
The UV degradation of four different encapsulants, TPO, TPU, silicone, and EVA was determined under accelerated aging whilelaminated between glass. A 1000 W Hg-Xe arc lamp was used with an accelerated exposure over 1694 h. This was calculated to beequivalent to 2.74 years of natural exposure to UV radiation in Atacama Desert conditions, corresponding to 1.34 years of UV-A and24.7 years of exposure to UV-B radiation [164]. The TPU and silicone candidate materials yielded a 5 and 0.9 % loss in the transmittance334

Chapter 7
in visible light, respectively. TPO and EVA underwent similar chemical changes determined by Raman spectroscopy, but EVA showeda slightly lower reduction in light transmittance [164]. One study suggests that the more UV-transparent the encapsulant is, the higher
the short circuit (Isc) losses in heterojunction (HJT) PV cells will be, which is not the case with other architectures [165]. Although silicon
HJT cells are presently a small fraction of the commercial PV market, they are currently being considered as the next step in technology
because of their ability to respond to a broader spectrum compared to current PERC technology [147]. This suggests that UV radiation
through the encapsulant has different degradation on the cell technology.

4.2

Durable backsheets

The most common types of backsheet have an outer layer made of either PVDF, PET, polyvinyl fluoride (PVF), polyamide (PA), or
fluoroethylene vinyl ether (FEVE). Additional research on new types of backsheets is underway [166]. These polymeric backsheets
can fail if they crack due to environmental degradation, leading to potential electrical leakage causing PV modules to be replaced or
repaired to address the safety concern [154]. Repairing defects in PV module backsheets in the field has become a new approach inorder to prevent the need to fully replace existing installed modules [167,168]. Backsheets are exposed to UV irradiance from the front
side of the PV module in between the PV cells and from the rear-side albedo. White backsheets often turn yellow due to UV degradation
and although these backsheets do not have an optical function, yellowing can cause an aesthetic problem especially in PV modules
mounted in car parks. Importantly, yellowing is an indicator of degradation in progress of the backsheet, which can lead to more severe
degradation. Advanced stages of degradation lead to delamination, embrittlement, or cracking resulting in the backsheet no longer
providing electrical insulation [154,169-171]. Cross-sections of weathered-adhered laminate sandwich constructions of a PV module(glass/encapsulate/backsheet), using spatially resolved fluorescence imaging, for instance, show disproportionately high UV radiation
damage to the adhesive layers [170].
The drive to reduce cost in PV modules is one reason for the use of materials of relatively lower UV stability in PV modules. Backsheet
design would benefit from inherently more UV-stable outer layers, such as fluoropolymers. The addition of UV stabilisers in these longlived materials is problematic due to stabiliser loss by leaching and bleaching over the greater than 25-year lifetime [172]. However,many backsheets are now coextruded, which removes the need for adhesive layers between the three layers.
The backsheets installed in PV modules in commercial fields had non-uniform degradation at the edges of racks/rows due to theincreased UV albedo from the ground that is reflected on the backsheets that are less shaded than the interior of the modules [173-176].
The ground cover under the backsheets influences the amount of reflected UV radiation on the backsheet. For example, grass has alower albedo than white rock [173,175] and leads to less degradation by UV radiation on the backsheet. The mounting configurationand module design could be improved to reduce the effect of the UV albedo on PV module backsheets [173,175,177]. The rear-sidealbedo (visible irradiance) helps increase power production in bifacial PV modules and sites would be designed to maximise albedo.
This needs to be considered in bifacial modules with transparent polymeric backsheets [174].
The stability and insulation efficiency of the backsheet is related to the choice of encapsulant in the module. UV-induced degradation
coupled with hydrolysis of EVA can produce acetic acid that can affect the backsheet, as illustrated by the crack formation in polyamide
backsheets [170,178-180]. EVA copolymer is sometimes used as an inner layer in multi-layer backsheet construction. The EVA inner layeron exposure to UV radiation causes polyamide to crack [178,179]. In these complex systems, it is very important to study the interfaces
between layers because degradation in one component can initiate additional degradation in other components. This means that
accelerated testing needs to account for the synergistic impacts of the system and changes to materials in a PV module can impact the
lifetime of other materials. Currently ~12 GW of installed modules with polyamide backsheets have failed due to cracking, which has alarge impact on the installed PV power plants [180].
Backsheets with a PET outer layer readily undergo degradation under exposure to UV radiation as demonstrated in a study conductedin the NIST Simulated Photodegradation via High Energy Radiant Exposure (SPHERE) weathering chamber (170 W m-2 irradiation with awavelength range of 290–400 nm) for 1800 h [181]. However, this surface degradation has not been shown to impact electrical outputof the module. Upon UV degradation, (PET)/PET/EVA backsheets developed surface cracks (in the white TiO2 filled PET outer/air-side
layer) [182]. Cracking was absent in samples aged without UV irradiation. Moisture and UV irradiance appear to have synergistic roles
with UV radiation initiating the surface cracking, while moisture enhances the surface degradation, decreasing the fracture toughness[182].
Novel transparent backsheets designed to work specifically with bifacial PV cells and modules are being introduced. These modules
will collect the reflected albedo light on the back side of the module to increase power generation per unit area. Bifacial modules
have been designed with the back surface metalised. Three types of transparent backsheets (outer/core/inner) have been tested
including a PVF/PET/FEVE1 coating backsheet, PVDF/PET/FEVE2, and a FEVE3/PET/ EVA [183]. The backsheets and laminates (glass,encapsulant, transparent backsheet) were exposed to UV irradiance in the NIST SPHERE under ca 140 W m-2 (295 to 400 nm) at 75°C/50 % RH (transparent films) and 65 °C/50 % RH (laminates). For all three backsheets, the PET core layer demonstrated the greatest
material property changes after UV irradiation. This layer is the most susceptible to degradation by UV radiation. After exposure to theradiation, the outer layer of the fluoropolymer showed an increase in modulus and hardness, indicating this layer had become brittle
due to degradation. The FEVE3/PET/EVA showed the most deterioration in optical, chemical, mechanical, and thermal properties after
exposure, which eventually led to cracks within layers of the PET core, adhesive, and EVA inner layers, while the FEVE outer layer largely
remained intact.

335

Chapter 7

4.3

Cable sheathContributing to electrical power loss in PV systems and in electricity transport is the degradation of cable sheaths, which cause power
loss and safety concerns. These undergo oxidation under solar UV irradiation causing brittleness [184,185]. For instance, crosslinked
polyethylene (XLPE) material, widely used for manufacturing high-voltage cables as an electrical insulation material, was exposed to
36 W low-pressure vapour fluorescent lamps with radiation ranging from 350 to 400 nm for 200 h, resulting in a change in colour fromgrey to dark yellow following the exposure [186]. Photo-oxidation results in polymer chain breakage and the formation of unsaturated
groups, such as vinylidene and vinyl groups in the PE. After weathering exposure, the surface of the XLPE insulating material is roughand degraded. The surface becomes non-uniform, since the material is semicrystalline and photo-oxidation occurs preferentially in theamorphous region. These surface changes from laboratory-based exposure lead to fatigue in the XLPE surface resulting in breakage in
the insulating material [186].

Fig. 4 Components of a crystalline silicon photovoltaic (PV) module illustrating the placement of encapsulants and backsheet,both made of plastic materials prone to degradation by solar UV radiation (modified from [187]).

Fig. 5 An example of potential degradation pathways in a photovoltaic (PV) module showing that there are synergistic effects
from different stressors (blue) including ultraviolet (UV) radiation that lead to degradation mechanisms and mode (orange). Thisdegradation then causes overall performance loss (purple, red) such as power loss in PV modules (modified from [187]). PET,
poly(ethylene terephthalate); EVA, ethylene vinyl acetate.

336

Chapter 7

5 Micro- and nano-particle and composite fibres
Nanoparticles are used to coat or decorate the surface of textile fibres to impart specialised properties to the fibre and fabric such as
antibacterial action using silver particles [188,189], wound healing [190], and solar energy harvesting [191]. When the NPs are also
UV-absorbing or scattering, these fabrics display incidental UV-shielding to protect wearers from solar UV radiation. For instance, textile
fibres surface-coated with silver NPs for antibacterial performance also provide a high degree of UV-screening because of the opacityof the particles [192]. However, the decorating NPs can also be selected primarily for their UV-screening to develop effective fabric. The
approach is not entirely novel, but the use of well-defined nanoparticles provide impressive UV-shielding (Table 1). The UV protection
factor (UPF) quantifies the efficiency of the fabric, and would also depend on weave characteristics; a UPF of x would mean that only 1/xof the solar UV-A and UV-B radiation would be transmitted through the fabric.

5.1

UV-protection fabrics based on nano-oxides in textile fibres

UV-absorbing oxide particles used either as a nanofiller or surface application to decorate the fibres can decrease the UV transmittanceof fabrics incorporating them [193-196], as shown in Fig. 6. Their use is an effective and practical strategy in UV-protective fabrics. As the
UV-shielding capacity of the oxide particles is determined by their specific surface area, using nanoscale particles obtains very effective
UV-protection at low loadings. In general, it is the TiO2 [197-200] and ZnO [201-203] that are mostly used as nanoparticles applied
to increase the UV protective properties of fabrics and fibres, although MgO [201] and Ag nanoparticles [204] are also used for UV
blocking. Exceptional UV blocking film is achieved by using TiO2 nanoparticles [198]. Table 1 summarises the use of oxide nanoparticles
in textile fibres/fabrics and their UV-shielding effectiveness. The high UPF values of the fabric at low nanoparticle loadings (Table 1)
illustrates the efficacy of this approach.
Fig. 6 (a) Illustrated ultraviolet(UV) shielding mechanism of the
textile fabric treated with oxide
nanoparticles (right) by scattering,absorbing, or reflecting the UV
radiation when compared tothe untreated fabric (left). (b) UV
transmittance spectrum of cotton
fabric treated with 2 % ZnO NPs,
with a crystallite size of 20 nm
and an aggregated particle size of
80-85 nm; or 2 % MgO NPs witha crystallite size of 9 nm and an
aggregated particle size of 30-40
nm. Adapted from [201]. (c) and(d) SEM images of cotton fabricwithout (c) and with (d) decorated
ZnO nanoparticles. The precursor
solution (0.1 M zinc salt) was
sonicated with fibres for 1.5 h toobtain the particle density shownin (d). Scale bar is 20 μm. Adaptedfrom [202].

337

Chapter 7
Personal thermal-management textiles are considered as next-generation textiles [205,206] and usually consist of multi-layered fabricconstructs [207] that can block UV radiation while transmitting visible and reflecting near-infrared light [208]. One design approachis to incorporate nanofillers in some of the layers. For example, strong UV reflection was provided when TiO2 NPs were used to form acomposite woven textile based on poly(lactic acid) fibres in a multilayer metafabric consisting of two layers [209]. A hybrid film madewith cellulose nanofibre (CNF)/antimony tin oxide (ATO) also blocks 91.07 % UV radiation, reflecting 95.19 % near-infrared (NIR), andtransmitting 44.89 % visible (VIS) light [208]. Such films or fabrics not only can be used in textiles but also can be applied as window
thermal barrier films [208].

Table 1 Nanoparticles used as surface treatment on textile fibres to increase their UV-shielding.
Materials

Particles

UPF (max)

Comments

Reference

Type

Size

AmountCotton fabric

TiO2

17.9 nm2.61 % Atomic Ti 220

Maintained
appreciable UPF after
15–20 washing cycles[199]

Cotton fabric

TiO2Treated with 1 %wt./v TiO2 NPs
sol.

277

UPF reduced by[197]

PVDF film

TiO2

TiO2 pigment

10.55 % Atomic
Ti

Only 0.01% UVtransmittancein the entire
spectrumLess strength loss after
natural weathering for
30 days

TiO2

100 nm

3.81% Atomic Ti

2751.65

Transmittance values of [200]UV-A & UV-B reduced
to 0.0525 % and0.0207 %

ZnO

20 nm
(crystallite);
80–85 nm(agglomerated)

Treated with 2 % 58
ZnO NPs sol.

Significantly enhanced
self-cleaning/stain
removal properties

ZnO

38 nm

22.8 % Atomic
Zn

102.88

Little decrease in UPF[202]
after 20 washing cycles

ZnO

35–42 nm(crystallite),
2405 nm(aggregate)

Treated with
20 mM Zn2+
precursor sol.

>96 % blocking
in UV-A and UV-B
wavebands

Good efficiency inmethylene blue (MB)degradation, selfcleaning properties

[203]

Ag

35–80 nmTreated with
4 wt.% silver
carbamate sol.

2396

Improvedphotochemicaldegradation of MB
under UV radiation

[204]

MgO

9 nm
(crystallite);
3040 nmTreated with 2 % 71
MgO NPs sol.

Significantly enhanced
self-cleaning/stain
removal properties[201]

Poly(ethyleneoxide) (PEO)
nanofibre
Cotton fabric

Cotton fabric
Cotton fabric

Cotton fabric

Cotton fabric

5.2(crystallite)
90–150 nm

64.9 % after 15 wash
cycles
[198]

[201]

Solar UV radiation generates micro- and nanofibres and particles

Textile fibres in fabric exposed to solar UV radiation for extended periods of time can fragment and, because of the uniaxial orientationof polymer molecules, yield microfibres (MF) or nanofibres (NF) as reported for wool and synthetic fibres [210,211]. The ecotoxicologicaleffects of MFs are still largely unproven [212-214]. However, there is some concern for ecological effects given that microplastics byweight were estimated to exceed that of zooplankton in surface waters of the North Pacific sub-tropical circulating ocean current [215].
However, not all types of plastics readily photo-fragment into MFs or NFs. For instance, a laboratory exposure of different types ofplastic pellets for a duration equivalent to 44 days of natural weathering in simulated seawater showed that the pellets of HDPE andnylon 6 degraded into MFs, but high impact PS and PP pellets under the same conditions did not generate MFs [216]. However, thestudy employed a photoreactor with UV-C radiation not found in solar radiation, and whether MFs will be derived from virgin pellets

338

Chapter 7
undergoing photodegradation in nature is unclear. Macrofibre-yielding MFs under mechanical stress or photodegradation is to be
expected. Wool and synthetic textile fibres (~2 mm long) exposed to simulated solar (Xenon source) radiation in natural seawater(for a duration equivalent to 1.5 years of natural exposure) showed such fragmentation [211]. Scanning electron micrographs showed
evidence of fragmentation into microfibres of short fibres of PET and those of wool in less than two months of exposure to the simulated
solar radiation. The exposure to the simulated solar radiation also resulted in the release of additive chemicals such as stabilisers anddegradation products of PET, including glycol and terephthalic acid [211]. Generally, leached additives from plastics will also be prone
to UV degradation, but the rates of their photoreaction and toxicity of any intermediates are unknown. While the UV wavelengths
primarily responsible for this fragmentation are unknown, UV-B radiation is a good candidate, since it promotes oxidation of plastics.
MFs can also be generated without the involvement of UV radiation, due to mechanical stress, for instance during laundering [217-220].
It is worth noting that the widespread use of face masks and personal protective equipment during the spread of COVID-19 aggravatedthe plastic fibre pollution and biomedical waste worldwide [221-224].
A similar environmental issue is posed by nanocomposite materials including composite fibres, where the release of nanoscale particles
can occur during use (especially working) and with weathering [225]. For example, PP-CNT nanocomposites loaded with MWCNTs
released both carbon nanofiller, plastic fragments, and metal (used as a catalyst in nanotube manufacture) when exposed to simulated
solar radiation and subjected to mechanical stress [226].

5.3

Role of UV radiation in the fate of micro- and nanoplastics in the environment

It is well established that solar UV radiation facilitates the fragmentation of plastic litter in land and aquatic environments. With microand nanoscale plastics reported in food, water, human blood, and placenta in recent studies, this effect of UV radiation is receiving
close attention. Photodegradative chemical changes on the surface of plastics also influence the diversity and rate of foulant species
settling on them in aquatic environments. The composition of the foulant layer determines the rates of biodegradation and especiallybiomineralisation, and these processes are modified by UV radiation. The sorption of environmental pollutant species including
antibiotics, endocrine disruptor chemicals, and metals by plastic debris may also be modified by UV radiation.

6 Knowledge gaps
Even though the degradation of plastics on exposure to solar UV radiation has been widely studied, some fundamental questions
remain unanswered. Data on how the common additives used in plastic compounds affect the action spectra of deterioration of key
properties of materials and how they change the dose-response of those properties are not available. Another knowledge gap is thesynergistic effect of UV radiation and other weathering agents (e.g., moisture, heat, and air pollutants). Furthermore, reciprocity datathat would help better relate the results of accelerated weathering to weathering in outdoor service environments are scarce. In woodmaterials, the chemistry of UV-induced degradation is relatively better understood but the variability between the diverse commercial
wood species has not been adequately explored. An especially promising area of investigation might be the wood-derived antioxidant
and UV-stabiliser compounds that can serve as sustainable replacements for the current conventional, often toxic additives.
Use of nanoscale pigments in plastics, textiles, and coatings have been increasingly advocated to protect these materials from UVradiation and to improve other properties. However, disposal and release of nanomaterial during use and at the end of service life
remains a concern. The environmental effects of these nano materials are still not clear.

339

Chapter 7

7 Conclusions
The service lives of materials routinely used outdoors are limited by the rate of their solar UV radiation-induced degradation as well as
by ambient temperatures and are therefore closely linked to the amounts of exposure to UV radiation and climate change. Long service
lifetimes of outdoor materials are critical in photovoltaic energy technologies and in building construction. While efficient UV-stabiliser
technologies are available to address weathering degradation of materials such as wood and plastics, they invariably add to the lifetime
costs of the relevant products. The role played by the Montreal Protocol as well as any measures on climate change mitigation are
therefore directly pertinent to economic use of materials. Emerging UV-screening technologies for use in plastics and in wood coatings
assessed in this assessment offer promise, but often require further techno-economic validation before commercialisation.
Development of high-efficiency UV-protective fibres is also an important aspect of the effect of solar UV radiation on the use of materials.
There has been considerable progress on developing fibres with high-UPF values for textiles since our last Quadrennial Assessment([227]). Again, their commercialisation requires information on launderability, retention of UPF, and potential release of nanoparticle
additives into the environment. With the use of nanocomposites and coatings that incorporate nanoscale pigments, release ofnanoscale particles during use or disposal of the products is an emerging concern. When plastics undergo UV-facilitated weathering
they undergo fragmentation releasing microplastics and nanoplastics into the environment.

8 Montreal Protocol and the Sustainable Development Goals
Several of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs, adopted as part of the 2030 Agenda, [228]) are aligned with theMontreal Protocol and its Amendments aiming at protection of the stratospheric ozone layer and mitigation of climate change throughphase-out of ozone-depleting substances and their replacements, many of which have large global warming potential. Issues addressedin this assessment are connected to sustainability of energy production (SDG 7: Affordable and clean energy / Goal 7a) and safety ofthe built environment (SDG 9: Industry, innovation, and infrastructure / Goals 9.1 and 9.4). In addition, they contribute to evidenceinformed policies to be followed when formulating sustainable strategies for production of materials that are needed for our everyday
commodities and the infrastructure around us (SDG 17: Partnership for the goals / Goal 17.14).

Acknowledgements Generous contributions by UNEP/Ozone Secretariat for the convened author meeting and support for Krishna
Pandey are acknowledged.
Author contributions All authors contributed to the conception and assessment and carried out extensive revisions of content.
Conflict of interest The authors have no conflicts of interest.

340

Chapter 7

References
1.

Peng, Y., Wang, Y., Zhang, R., Wang, W., & Cao, J. (2021). Improvement of wood against UV weathering and decay by using
plant origin substances: Tannin acid and tung oil. Industrial Crops and Products, 168, 113606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
indcrop.2021.113606

2.

FAO. (2018). Global Forest Products Facts and Figures 2018. FAO Report. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations (FAO).

3.

BIR. (2020). Recycling Plastics: Facts Data Policy recommendations. A report by the Bureau of International Recycling. https://www.bir.org/publications/facts-figures/download/737/1000000832/36?method=view

4.

Gamboa, C. (2020). Towards zero-carbon building. https://www.climate2020.org.uk/towards-zero-carbon-building/.

5.

IEA. (2021). World Energy Outlook 2021, Paris, International Energy Agency, https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energyoutlook-2021

6.

Sahoo, K., Bergman, R., Alanya-Rosenbaum, S., Gu, H., & Liang, S. (2019). Life cycle assessment of forest-based products: A
review. Sustainability, 11(17), 4722. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11174722

7.

Khan, M., Hussain, M., Deviatkin, I., Havukainen, J., & Horttanainen, M. (2021). Environmental impacts of wooden, plastic, andwood-polymer composite pallet: A life cycle assessment approach. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 26(8),1607–1622. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-021-01953-7

8.

Deviatkin, I., & Horttanainen, M. (2020). Carbon footprint of an EUR-sized wooden and a plastic pallet. In 2019 7th International
Conference on Environment Pollution and Prevention (ICEPP 2019), (Vol. 158, pp. 03001, E3S Web of Conferences): EDP
Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202015803001

9.

Asdrubali, F., Roncone, M., & Grazieschi, G. (2021). Embodied energy and embodied GWP of windows: A critical review.
Energies, 14(13), 3788. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14133788

10.

Korody, N. (2022). World's tallest wood building constructed in Vancouver. Archinect. https://archinect.com/news/
article/149968916/world-s-tallest-wood-building-constructed-in-vancouver. Accessed Sep 20 2022.

11.

Ainali, N. M., Bikiaris, D. N., & Lambropoulou, D. A. (2021). Aging effects on low-and high-density polyethylene, polypropylene
and polystyrene under UV irradiation: An insight into decomposition mechanism by Py-GC/MS for microplastic analysis. Journal of
Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis, 158, 105207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaap.2021.105207

12.

Jamal, M., Lanotte, M., & Giustozzi, F. (2022). Exposure of crumb rubber modified bitumen to UV radiation: A waste-based
sunscreen for roads. Journal of Cleaner Production, 348, 131372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131372

13.

Turner, A., & Filella, M. (2021). Polyvinyl chloride in consumer and environmental plastics, with a particular focus on metal-based
additives. Environmental Science: Processes & Impacts, 23(9), 1376–1384. https://doi.org/10.1039/D1EM00213A

14.

Vohlídal, J. (2021). Polymer degradation: A short review. Chemistry Teacher International, 3(2), 213–220. https://doi.
org/10.1515/cti-2020-0015

15.

Brostow, W., Lu, X., Gencel, O., & Osmanson, A. T. (2020). Effects of UV stabilizers on polypropylene outdoors. Materials, 13(7),1626. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13071626

16.

El-Hiti, G. A., Ahmed, D. S., Yousif, E., Al-Khazrajy, O. S., Abdallh, M., & Alanazi, S. A. (2021). Modifications of polymers throughthe addition of ultraviolet absorbers to reduce the aging effect of accelerated and natural irradiation. Polymers, 14(1), 20. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym14010020

17.

Koriem, A., Ollick, A., & Elhadary, M. (2021). The effect of artificial weathering and hardening on mechanical properties of HDPE
with and without UV stabilizers. Alexandria Engineering Journal, 60(4), 4167–4175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2021.03.024

18.

Kim, S., Lee, Y., Kim, C., & Choi, S. (2022). Analysis of mechanical property degradation of outdoor weather-exposed polymers.
Polymers, 14(2), 357. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym14020357

19.

Chamas, A., Moon, H., Zheng, J., Qiu, Y., Tabassum, T., Jang, J. H., Abu-Omar, M., Scott, S. L., & Suh, S. (2020). Degradation
rates of plastics in the environment. ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering, 8(9), 3494–3511. https://doi.org/10.1021/
acssuschemeng.9b06635

20.

Li, C., Busquets, R., & Campos, L. C. (2020). Assessment of microplastics in freshwater systems: A review. Science of the Total
Environment, 707, 135578. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135578

21.

Min, K., Cuiffi, J. D., & Mathers, R. T. (2020). Ranking environmental degradation trends of plastic marine debris based on physicalproperties and molecular structure. Nature communications, 11(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-14538-z

341

Chapter 7
22.

Ahmed, D. S., El-Hiti, G. A., Ibraheem, H., Alotaibi, M. H., Abdallh, M., Ahmed, A. A., Ismael, M., & Yousif, E. (2020).
Enhancement of photostabilization of poly (vinyl chloride) doped with sulfadiazine tin complexes. Journal of Vinyl and Additive
Technology, 26(3), 370–379. https://doi.org/10.1002/vnl.21752

23.

Mahmood, Z. N., Yousif, E., Alias, M., El-Hiti, G. A., & Ahmed, D. S. (2020). Synthesis, characterization, properties, and use of
new fusidate organotin complexes as additives to inhibit poly (vinyl chloride) photodegradation. Journal of Polymer Research,
27(9), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10965-020-02245-8

24.

Majeed, A., Yousif, E., El-Hiti, G. A., Ahmed, D. S., & Ahmed, A. A. (2020). Stabilization of poly (vinyl chloride) containing
captopril tin complexes against degradation upon exposure to ultraviolet light. Journal of Vinyl and Additive Technology, 26(4),601–612. https://doi.org/10.1002/vnl.21774

25.

Salam, B., El-Hiti, G. A., Bufaroosha, M., Ahmed, D. S., Ahmed, A., Alotaibi, M. H., & Yousif, E. (2020). Tin complexes
containing an atenolol moiety as photostabilizers for poly (vinyl chloride). Polymers, 12(12), 2923. https://doi.org/10.3390/
polym12122923

26.

Ahmed, A., El-Hiti, G. A., Hadi, A. G., Ahmed, D. S., Baashen, M. A., Hashim, H., & Yousif, E. (2021). Photostabilization of poly
(vinyl chloride) films blended with organotin complexes of mefenamic acid for outdoor applications. Applied Sciences, 11(6),2853. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11062853

27.

Jasem, H., Hadi, A. G., El-Hiti, G. A., Baashen, M. A., Hashim, H., Ahmed, A. A., Ahmed, D. S., & Yousif, E. (2021). Tinnaphthalene sulfonic acid complexes as photostabilizers for poly (vinyl chloride). Molecules, 26(12), 3629. https://doi.
org/10.3390/molecules26123629

28.

Hadi, A. G., Baqir, S. J., Ahmed, D. S., El-Hiti, G. A., Hashim, H., Ahmed, A., Kariuki, B. M., & Yousif, E. (2021). Substitutedorganotin complexes of 4-methoxybenzoic acid for reduction of poly(vinyl chloride) photodegradation. Polymers, 13(22), 3946.
https://doi.org/10.3390/polym13223946

29.

Mousa, O. G., El-Hiti, G. A., Baashen, M. A., Bufaroosha, M., Ahmed, A., Ahmed, A. A., Ahmed, D. S., & Yousif, E. (2021).
Synthesis of carvedilol-organotin complexes and their effects on reducing photodegradation of poly(vinyl chloride). Polymers,
13(4), 500. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym13040500

30.

Buchner, J., Irle, M., Belloncle, C., Michaud, F., & Macchioni, N. (2019). Fungal and bacterial colonies growing on weathered
wood surfaces. Wood Material Science & Engineering, 14(1), 33–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/17480272.2018.1443975

31.

Zhu, T., Sheng, J., Chen, J., Ren, K., Wu, Z., Wu, H., Li, J., & Lin, J. (2021). Staining of wood veneers with anti-UV property using thenatural dye extracted from Dalbergia cohinchinensis. Journal of Cleaner Production, 284, 124770. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2020.124770

32.

Bernhard, G. H., Bais, A. F., Aucamp, P. J., Klekociuk, A. R., Liley, J. B., & McKenzie, R. L. (2022). Stratospheric ozone, UV
radiation, and climate interactions. Chapter 1

33.

USGBC. (2020). LEED Zero Program Guide. The US Green Building Council, Atlanta (GA). https://www.usgbc.org/sites/default/
files/2020-04/LEED_Zero_Program%20Guide_April%202020.pdf

34.

BRE Group (2022). BREEAM - BRE Group. https://bregroup.com/products/breeam/. Accessed Oct 10 2022.

35.

Guan, Q.-F., Han, Z.-M., Yang, H.-B., Ling, Z.-C., & Yu, S.-H. (2021). Regenerated isotropic wood. National Science Review, 8(7),nwaa230. https://doi.org/10.1093/nsr/nwaa230

36.

XHI. (2021). Research and Feasibility Study on 3D Printed Homes in Rural Alaska July 2021. Xtreme Habitats Institute (XHI),
Anchorage, Alaska. https://www.ahfc.us/application/files/9016/2913/7446/3D_Printed_Home_Feasibility_Study_
FINAL_2021_AHFC_Branded.pdf

37.

GVR (2022). Grand View Research, 3D Printing Construction Market Size, Share & Trends Analysis Report by Construction Method(Extrusion, Powder Bonding), by Material Type, by End User (Building, Infrastructure), by Region, and Segment Forecasts, 2021 2028. Report ID: GVR-4-68039-084-2 Grand View Research, San Francisco, CA.

38.

Awoyera, P., & Adesina, A. (2020). Plastic wastes to construction products: Status, limitations and future perspective. Case
Studies in Construction Materials, 12, e00330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2020.e00330

39.

Haque, M. S., & Islam, S. (2021). Effectiveness of waste plastic bottles as construction material in Rohingya displacement camps.
Cleaner Engineering and Technology, 3, 100110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clet.2021.100110

40.

Palmeira, E. M., Araújo, G. L. S., & Santos, E. C. G. (2021). Sustainable solutions with geosynthetics and alternative construction
materials—a review. Sustainability, 13(22), 12756. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132212756

41.

Gunaalan, K., Fabbri, E., & Capolupo, M. (2020). The hidden threat of plastic leachates: A critical review on their impacts onaquatic organisms. Water Research, 184, 116170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2020.116170

42.

Hassan, A. A., Abbas, A., Rasheed, T., Bilal, M., Iqbal, H. M., & Wang, S. (2019). Development, influencing parameters andinteractions of bioplasticizers: An environmentally friendlier alternative to petro industry-based sources. Science of the Total
Environment, 682, 394–404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.05.140

342

Chapter 7
43.

Najafi, V., & Abdollahi, H. (2020). Internally plasticized PVC by four different green plasticizer compounds. European Polymer
Journal, 128, 109620. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eurpolymj.2020.109620

44.

Tipton, D. A., & Lewis, J. W. (2008). Effects of a hindered amine light stabilizer and a UV light absorber used in maxillofacial
elastomers on human gingival epithelial cells and fibroblasts. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 100(3), 220–231. https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0022-3913(08)60182-1

45.

Barrick, A., Champeau, O., Chatel, A., Manier, N., Northcott, G., & Tremblay, L. A. (2021). Plastic additives: challenges in ecotox
hazard assessment. PeerJ, 9, e11300. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.11300

46.

Wang, W., Lee, I.-S., & Oh, J.-E. (2022). Specific-accumulation and trophic transfer of UV filters and stabilizers in marine food web.
Science of the Total Environment, 825, 154079. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.154079

47.

Flaws, J., Damdimopoulou, P., Patisaul, H. B., Gore, A., Raetzman, L., & Vandenberg, L. N. (2022). Plastics, EDCs & Health: A
Guide for Public Interest Organizations and Policy-Makers on Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals & Plastics. Endocrine Society& International Pollutants Elimination Network (IPEN). https://www.endocrine.org/-/media/endocrine/files/topics/edc_
guide_2020_v1_6bhqen.pdf

48.

Statista (2022). Market volume of plasticizer worldwide from 2015 to 2021, with a forecast for 2022 to 2029. https://www.
statista.com/statistics/1245193/plasticizer-market-volume-worldwide/. Accessed Oct 12 2022.

49.

Lee, Y.-M., Lee, J.-E., Choe, W., Kim, T., Lee, J.-Y., Kho, Y., Choi, K., & Zoh, K.-D. (2019). Distribution of phthalate esters in air,water, sediments, and fish in the Asan Lake of Korea. Environment International, 126, 635–643. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envint.2019.02.059

50.

Zhang, Q., Song, J., Li, X., Peng, Q., Yuan, H., Li, N., Duan, L., & Ma, J. (2019). Concentrations and distribution of phthalate esters
in the seamount area of the Tropical Western Pacific Ocean. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 140, 107–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpolbul.2019.01.015

51.

Engel, S. M., Patisaul, H. B., Brody, C., Hauser, R., Zota, A. R., Bennet, D. H., Swanson, M., & Whyatt, R. M. (2021). Neurotoxicity
of ortho-phthalates: recommendations for critical policy reforms to protect brain development in children. American Journal of
Public Health, 111(4), 687–695. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2020.306014

52.

Rouane, A., Zerrouki, D., Aillerie, M., & Henni, A. (2019). Spectroscopic and mechanical properties of PVC plasticized by bioplasticizer ESO. Journal of Polymer Research, 27(1), 12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10965-019-1984-1

53.

Chen, J., Nie, X., & Jiang, J. (2020). Synthesis of a novel bio-oil-based hyperbranched ester plasticizer and its effects on poly (vinyl
chloride) soft films. ACS Omega, 5(10), 5480–5486. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.0c00119

54.

Li, Y., Yu, E., Yang, X., & Wei, Z. (2020). Multiarm hyperbranched polyester-b-poly (ͼ caprolactone): Plasticization effect andmigration resistance for PVC. Journal of Vinyl and Additive Technology, 26(1), 35–42. https://doi.org/10.1002/vnl.21713

55.

Pereira, V. A., Fonseca, A. C., Costa, C. S., Ramalho, A., Coelho, J. F., & Serra, A. C. (2020). End-capped biobased
saturated polyesters as effective plasticizers for PVC. Polymer Testing, 85, 106406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
polymertesting.2020.106406

56.

Chen, J., Liu, Z., Wang, K., Huang, J., Li, K., Nie, X., & Jiang, J. (2019). Epoxidized castor oil-based diglycidyl-phthalate plasticizer:
Synthesis and thermal stabilizing effects on poly (vinyl chloride). Journal of Applied Polymer Science, 136(9), 47142. https://doi.
org/10.1002/app.47142

57.

Tan, J., Liu, B., Fu, Q., Wang, L., Xin, J., & Zhu, X. (2019). Role of the oxethyl unit in the structure of vegetable oil-based plasticizer
for PVC: an efficient strategy to enhance compatibility and plasticization. Polymers, 11(5), 779. https://doi.org/10.3390/
polym11050779

58.

Ji, S., Gao, C., Wang, H., Liu, Y., Zhang, D., Zhang, S., Lu, X., Wu, Y., & Hu, Z. (2019). Application of a bio-based polyester
plasticizer modified by hydrosilicon-hydrogenation reaction in soft PVC films. Polymers for Advanced Technologies, 30(4),1126–1134. https://doi.org/10.1002/pat.4546

59.

Nguyen, T., Kim, Y. J., Park, S.-K., Lee, K.-Y., Park, J.-w., Cho, J. K., & Shin, S. (2020). Furan-2,5- and Furan-2,3-dicarboxylate esters
derived from marine biomass as plasticizers for poly(vinyl chloride). ACS Omega, 5(1), 197–206.

60.

Greco, A., Ferrari, F., & Maffezzoli, A. (2017). UV and thermal stability of soft PVC plasticized with cardanol derivatives. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 164, 757–764. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.07.009

61.

Nzangya, J. M., Ndunda, E. N., Bosire, G. O., Martincigh, B. S., & Nyamori, V. O. (2021). Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers (PBDEs)
as Emerging Environmental Pollutants: Advances in Sample Preparation and Detection Techniques. In Emerging Contaminants,
1–22: IntechOpen London, UK. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.93858

62.

Wang, J., Yan, Z., Zheng, X., Wang, S., Fan, J., Sun, Q., Xu, J., & Men, S. (2021). Health risk assessment and development of
human health ambient water quality criteria for PBDEs in China. Science of the Total Environment, 799, 149353. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.149353

343

Chapter 7
63.

Zhang, T., Zhou, X., Xu, A., Tian, Y., Wang, Y., Zhang, Y., Gu, Q., Wang, S., & Wang, Z. (2020). Toxicity of polybrominateddiphenyl ethers (PBDEs) on rodent male reproductive system: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized control
studies. Science of the Total Environment, 720, 137419. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137419

64.

Abbasi, G., Li, L., & Breivik, K. (2019). Global historical stocks and emissions of PBDEs. Environmental Science & Technology,
53(11), 6330–6340. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b07032

65.

Kuo, L.-J., Cade, S. E., Cullinan, V., & Schultz, I. R. (2019). Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) in plasma from E-waste
recyclers, outdoor and indoor workers in the Puget Sound, WA region. Chemosphere, 219, 209–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
chemosphere.2018.12.006

66.

Hou, R., Lin, L., Li, H., Liu, S., Xu, X., Xu, Y., Jin, X., Yuan, Y., & Wang, Z. (2021). Occurrence, bioaccumulation, fate, and risk
assessment of novel brominated flame retardants (NBFRs) in aquatic environments—A critical review. Water Research, 198,
117168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2021.117168

67.

Luan, M., Liang, H., Yang, F., Yuan, W., Chen, A., Liu, X., Ji, H., Wen, S., & Miao, M. (2019). Prenatal polybrominateddiphenyl ethers exposure and anogenital distance in boys from a Shanghai birth cohort. International Journal of Hygiene andEnvironmental Health, 222(3), 513–523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheh.2019.01.008

68.

Mutic, A. D., Barr, D. B., Hertzberg, V. S., Brennan, P. A., Dunlop, A. L., & McCauley, L. A. (2021). Polybrominated diphenyl
ether serum concentrations and depressive symptomatology in pregnant African American women. International Journal ofEnvironmental Research and Public Health, 18(7), 3614. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18073614

69.

Siddiqi, M. A., Laessig, R. H., & Reed, K. D. (2003). Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs): New pollutants–old diseases.
Clinical Medicine & Research, 1(4), 281–290. https://doi.org/10.3121/cmr.1.4.281

70.

EPA (2021). Decabromodiphenyl Ether (DecaBDE); Regulation of Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic Chemicals Under TSCA
Section 6(h). A Rule by the Environmental Protection Agency on 01/06/2021. The Federal Register : Doc. 2020-28686. In E. P. A.
(EPA) (Ed.), (Vol. 86 FR 880, pp. 880–894).

71.

Sharkey, M., Harrad, S., Abou-Elwafa Abdallah, M., Drage, D. S., & Berresheim, H. (2020). Phasing-out of legacy brominatedflame retardants: The UNEP Stockholm Convention and other legislative action worldwide. Environment International, 144,
106041. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2020.106041

72.

Blum, A., Behl, M., Birnbaum, L. S., Diamond, M. L., Phillips, A., Singla, V., Sipes, N. S., Stapleton, H. M., & Venier, M. (2019).
Organophosphate ester flame retardants: are they a regrettable substitution for polybrominated diphenyl ethers? Environmental
science & technology letters, 6(11), 638-649. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jphotochem.2019.111948

73.

Yang, X., Liu, X., Yang, X., Zhang, Q., Zheng, Y., Ren, Y., & Cheng, B. (2022). A phosphorous/nitrogen-containing flame retardant
with UV-curing for polyester/cotton fabrics. Cellulose, 29(2), 1263–1281. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.9b00582

74.

Zhao, S., Tian, L., Zou, Z., Liu, X., Zhong, G., Mo, Y., Wang, Y., Tian, Y., Li, J., & Guo, H. (2021). Probing legacy and alternative
flame retardants in the air of Chinese cities. Environmental Science & Technology, 55(14), 9450-9459. https://doi.org/10.1021/
acs.est.0c07367

75.

Bajard, L., Melymuk, L., & Blaha, L. (2019). Prioritization of hazards of novel flame retardants using the mechanistic toxicology
information from ToxCast and Adverse Outcome Pathways. Environmental Sciences Europe, 31(1), 14. https://doi.org/10.1186/
s12302-019-0195-z

76.

Li, Y., Xue, B., Qi, P., Gu, X., Sun, J., Li, H., Lin, J., & Zhang, S. (2022). The synergistic effect between bis(2,2,6,6-tetramethyl-4piperidyl) sebacate and polysiloxane on the photo-aging resistance and flame retardancy of polypropylene. Composites Part B:
Engineering, 234, 109666. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2022.109666

77.

Forsthuber, B., & Grüll, G. (2018). Prediction of wood surface discoloration for applications in the field of architecture. Wood
Science and Technology, 52(4), 1093–1111. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00226-018-1015-0

78.

Liu, R., Zhu, H., Li, K., & Yang, Z. (2019). Comparison on the aging of woods exposed to natural sunlight and artificial xenon light.
Polymers, 11(4), 709. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym11040709

79.

Mattonai, M., Watanabe, A., Shiono, A., & Ribechini, E. (2019). Degradation of wood by UV light: A study by EGA-MS and PyGC/MS with on line irradiation system. Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis, 139, 224–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jaap.2019.02.009

80.

Davis, K., Leavengood, S., & Morrell, J. J. (2022). Effects of climate on exterior wood coating performance: A comparison of threeindustrial coatings in a warm-summer Mediterranean and a semi-arid climate in Oregon, USA. Coatings, 12(1), 85. https://doi.
org/10.3390/coatings12010085

81.

Nasir, V., Fathi, H., Fallah, A., Kazemirad, S., Sassani, F., & Antov, P. (2021). Prediction of mechanical properties of artificiallyweathered wood by color change and machine learning,. Materials, 14, 6314. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14216314

82.

Bansal, R., Nair, S., & Pandey, K. K. (2022). UV resistant wood coating based on zinc oxide and cerium oxide dispersed linseed oil
nano-emulsion. Materials Today Communications, 30, 103177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mtcomm.2022.103177

344

Chapter 783.

Kržišnik, D., Lesar, B., Thaler, N., & Humar, M. (2018). Influence of natural and artificial weathering on the colour change ofdifferent wood and wood-based materials. Forests, 9(8), 488. https://doi.org/10.3390/f9080488

84.

Cirule, D., Kuka, E., Kevers, M., Andersone, I., & Andersons, B. (2021). Photodegradation of unmodified and thermally modified
wood due to indoor lighting. Forests, 12(8), 1060. https://doi.org/10.3390/f12081060

85.

Varga, D., Tolvaj, L., Molnar, Z., & Pasztory, Z. (2020). Leaching effect of water on photodegraded hardwood species monitoredby IR spectroscopy. Wood Science and Technology, 54(6), 1407–1421. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00226-020-01204-2

86.

Kropat, M., Hubbe, M. A., & Laleicke, F. (2020). Natural, accelerated, and simulated weathering of wood: A review.
BioResources, 15(4), 9998–10062. https://doi.org/10.15376/biores.15.4.Kropat

87.

Bejo, L., Tolvaj, L., Kannar, A., & Preklet, E. (2019). Effect of water leaching on photodegraded spruce wood monitored by
IR spectroscopy. Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology A: Chemistry, 382, 111948. https://doi.org/https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jphotochem.2019.111948

88.

Petrillo, M., Sandak, J., Grossi, P., & Sandak, A. (2019). Chemical and appearance changes of wood due to artificial weathering–dose–response model. Journal of Near Infrared Spectroscopy, 27(1), 26–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/0967033518825364

89.

Arpaci, S. S., Tomak, E. D., Ermeydan, M. A., & Yildirim, I. (2021). Natural weathering of sixteen wood species: Changes on
surface properties. Polymer Degradation and Stability, 183, 109415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2020.109415

90.

Preklet, E., Tolvaj, L., Bejo, L., & Varga, D. (2018). Temperature dependence of wood photodegradation. Part 2: evaluation
by Arrhenius law. Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology A: Chemistry, 356, 329–333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jphotochem.2018.01.008

91.

Pánek, M., & Reinprecht, L. (2019). Critical view on the possibility of color changes prediction in the surfaces of painted wood
exposed outdoors using accelerated weathering in Xenotest. Journal of Coatings Technology and Research, 16(2), 339–352.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11998-018-0125-9

92.

de Almeida, T. H., de Almeida, D. H., Chahud, E., Branco, L. A. M. N., Pinheiro, R. V., Christoforo, A. L., & Lahr, F. A. R. (2019).
Mechanical performance of wood under artificial and natural weathering treatments. BioResources, 14(3), 6267–6277. https://doi.org/10.15376/biores.14.3.6267-6277

93.

Gašparík, M., Gaff, M., Kačík, F., & Sikora, A. (2019). Color and chemical changes in teak (Tectona grandis L. f.) andmeranti (Shorea spp.) wood after thermal treatment. BioResources, 14(2), 2667–2683. https://doi.org/10.15376/
biores.14.2.2667-2683

94.

Kučerová, V., Lagaňa, R., & Hýrošová, T. (2019). Changes in chemical and optical properties of silver fir (Abies alba L.) wood dueto thermal treatment. Journal of wood science, 65(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s10086-019-1800-x

95.

Zhang, N., Xu, M., & Cai, L. (2019). Improvement of mechanical, humidity resistance and thermal properties of heat-treatedrubber wood by impregnation of SiO2 precursor. Scientific Reports, 9(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-37363-3

96.

Li, N., & Wang, W. (2022). Prediction of mechanical properties of thermally modified wood based on TSSA-BP model. Forests,
13(2), 160. https://doi.org/10.3390/f13020160

97.

Jirouš-Rajković, V., & Miklečić, J. (2019). Heat-treated wood as a substrate for coatings, weathering of heat-treated wood, andcoating performance on heat-treated wood. Advances in Materials Science and Engineering, 2019, Article ID 8621486. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/8621486

98.

Shen, H., Zhang, S., Cao, J., Jiang, J., & Wang, W. (2018). Improving anti-weathering performance of thermally modified
wood by TiO2 sol or/and paraffin emulsion. Construction and Building Materials, 169, 372–378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2018.03.036

99.

Herrera, R., Sandak, J., Robles, E., Krystofiak, T., & Labidi, J. (2018). Weathering resistance of thermally modified woodfinished with coatings of diverse formulations. Progress in Organic Coatings, 119, 145–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
porgcoat.2018.02.015

100. Dzurenda, L., Dudiak, M., & Výbohová, E. (2022). Influence of UV radiation on the color change of the surface of steamed maple
wood with saturated water steam. Polymers, 14(1), 217. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym14010217
101. Chang, T.-C., & Chang, S.-T. (2017). Multiple photostabilization actions of heartwood extract from Acacia confusa. Wood Scienceand Technology, 51(5), 1133–1153. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00226-017-0930-9102. Chang, T.-C., & Chang, S.-T. (2019). Photostabilization mechanisms of the main wood photostabilizers from the heartwood extractin Acacia confusa: okanin and melanoxetin. Wood Science and Technology, 53(2), 335–348. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00226019-01084-1
103. Chang, T.-C., Yeh, T.-F., & Chang, S.-T. (2019). Investigation of photo-induced discoloration on wood treated with thepolyphenols from Acacia confusa heartwood. Journal of Wood Chemistry and Technology, 39(4), 270–281. https://doi.org/10.1
080/02773813.2019.1578376

345

Chapter 7
104. Grigsby, W., & Steward, D. (2018). Applying the protective role of condensed tannins to acrylic-based surface coatings exposedto accelerated weathering. Journal of Polymers and the Environment, 26(3), 895–905. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10924-0170999-0105. Grigsby, W. J. (2017). Simulating the protective role of bark proanthocyanidins in surface coatings: Unexpected beneficial
photo-stabilisation of exposed timber surfaces. Progress in Organic Coatings, 110, 55–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
porgcoat.2017.03.007
106. Kanbayashi, T., Matsunaga, M., & Kobayashi, M. (2021). Effects of natural weathering on the chemical composition of cell walls
in sapwood and heartwood of Japanese cedar. Wood Science and Technology, 55(4), 1013–1024. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s00226-021-01301-w
107. Hsiao, N.-C., Chang, T.-C., & Chang, S.-T. (2021). Influences of merbau heartwood extracts and their metal complexes on woodphotodegradation. European Journal of Wood and Wood Products, 79(1), 207–216. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00107-02001603-z
108. Peng, Y., Wang, Y., Chen, P., Wang, W., & Cao, J. (2020). Enhancing weathering resistance of wood by using bark extractives as
natural photostabilizers in polyurethane-acrylate coating. Progress in Organic Coatings, 145, 105665. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
porgcoat.2020.105665
109. Pan, F., Chen, L., He, L., Jiang, Y., Qi, J., Xiao, H., Chen, Y., Huang, X., Hu, H., & Tu, L. (2020). Characterization of ethyl acetate
and trichloromethane extracts from Phoebe zhennan wood residues and application on the preparation of UV shielding films.
Molecules, 25(5), 1145. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules25051145
110. Özgenç, Ö., Durmaz, S., Şahin, S., & Boyaci, I. H. (2020). Evaluation of the weathering resistance of waterborne acrylic-andalkyd-based coatings containing HALS, UV absorber, and bark extracts on wood surfaces. Journal of Coatings Technology andResearch, 17(2), 461–475. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11998-019-00293-4
111. Vedrtnam, A., Kumar, S., & Chaturvedi, S. (2019). Experimental study on mechanical behavior, biodegradability, and resistance tonatural weathering and ultraviolet radiation of wood-plastic composites. Composites Part B: Engineering, 176, 107282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2019.107282
112. Sadeghifar, H., & Ragauskas, A. (2020). Lignin as a UV light blocker—a review. Polymers, 12(5), 1134. https://doi.org/10.3390/
polym12051134
113. Zhang, Y., & Naebe, M. (2021). Lignin: A review on structure, properties, and applications as a light-colored UV absorber. ACS
Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering, 9(4), 1427–1442. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.0c06998
114. Zikeli, F., Vinciguerra, V., D’Annibale, A., Capitani, D., Romagnoli, M., & Scarascia Mugnozza, G. (2019). Preparation of lignin
nanoparticles from wood waste for wood surface treatment. Nanomaterials, 9(2), 281. https://doi.org/10.3390/nano9020281
115. Mi, R., Chen, C., Keplinger, T., Pei, Y., He, S., Liu, D., Li, J., Dai, J., Hitz, E., & Yang, B. (2020). Scalable aesthetic transparent woodfor energy efficient buildings. Nature communications, 11(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-17513-w
116. van Hai, L., Muthoka, R. M., Panicker, P. S., Agumba, D. O., Pham, H. D., & Kim, J. (2021). All-biobased transparent-wood:
A new approach and its environmental-friendly packaging application. Carbohydrate Polymers, 264, 118012. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2021.118012
117. Rao, A. N. S., Nagarajappa, G. B., Nair, S., Chathoth, A. M., & Pandey, K. K. (2019). Flexible transparent wood preparedfrom poplar veneer and polyvinyl alcohol. Composites Science and Technology, 182, 107719. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
compscitech.2019.107719
118. Aldalbahi, A., El-Naggar, M. E., Khattab, T. A., & Hossain, M. (2021). Preparation of flame-retardant, hydrophobic, ultraviolet
protective, and luminescent transparent wood. Luminescence, 36(8), 1922–1932. https://doi.org/10.1002/bio.4126
119. Höglund, M., Garemark, J., Nero, M., Willhammar, T., Popov, S., & Berglund, L. A. (2021). Facile processing of transparent woodnanocomposites with structural color from plasmonic nanoparticles. Chemistry of Materials, 33(10), 3736–3745. https://doi.
org/10.1021/acs.chemmater.1c00806
120. Montanari, C., Ogawa, Y., Olsén, P., & Berglund, L. A. (2021). High performance, fully bio-based, and optically transparent woodbiocomposites. Advanced Science, 2100559. https://doi.org/10.1002/advs.202100559
121. Xia, Q., Chen, C., Yao, Y., Li, J., He, S., Zhou, Y., Li, T., Pan, X., Yao, Y., & Hu, L. (2021). A strong, biodegradable and recyclable
lignocellulosic bioplastic. Nature Sustainability, 4(7), 627–635. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-021-00702-w
122. Bisht, P., Pandey, K. K., & Barshilia, H. C. (2021). Photostable transparent wood composite functionalized with an UV-absorber.
Polymer Degradation and Stability, 189, 109600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2021.109600
123. Wachter, I., Štefko, T., Rantuch, P., Martinka, J., & Pastierová, A. (2021). Effect of UV radiation on optical properties and hardnessof transparent wood. Polymers, 13(13), 2067. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym13132067
124. Final Advanced Materials (2022). Aramid Fibre. https://www.final-materials.com/gb/21-aramid-fibre. Accessed Oct 12 2022.

346

Chapter 7125. da Silva, A. O., de Castro Monsores, K. G., Oliveira, S. d. S. A., Weber, R. P., & Monteiro, S. N. (2018). Ballistic behavior of a
hybrid composite reinforced with curaua and aramid fabric subjected to ultraviolet radiation. Journal of Materials Research andTechnology, 7(4), 584–591. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmrt.2018.09.004
126. Mishra, N., Madhad, H., & Vasava, D. (2021). Progress in the chemistry of functional aramids properties. Journal of Heterocyclic
Chemistry, 58(10), 1887–1913. https://doi.org/10.1002/jhet.4336
127. Nascimento, R. F., da Silva, A. O., Weber, R. P., & Monteiro, S. N. (2020). Influence of UV radiation and moisten associated withnatural weathering on the ballistic performance of aramid fabric armor. Journal of Materials Research and Technology, 9(5),10334–10345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmrt.2020.07.046
128. Fan, Y., Li, Z., & Wei, J. (2021). Application of Aramid Nanofibers in Nanocomposites: A Brief Review. Polymers, 13(18), 3071.
https://doi.org/10.3390/polym13183071
129. Sun, H., Kong, H., Ding, H., Xu, Q., Zeng, J., Jiang, F., Yu, M., & Zhang, Y. (2020). Improving UV resistance of aramid fibers by
simultaneously synthesizing TiO2 on their surfaces and in the interfaces between fibrils/microfibrils using supercritical carbon
dioxide. Polymers, 12(1), 147. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym12010147
130. Ma, L., Zhang, J., & Teng, C. (2020). Covalent functionalization of aramid fibers with zinc oxide nano-interphase for improved UV
resistance and interfacial strength in composites. Composites Science and Technology, 188, 107996. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
compscitech.2020.107996
131. Zhang, J., & Teng, C. (2020). Nondestructive growing nano-ZnO on aramid fibers to improve UV resistance and enhanceinterfacial strength in composites. Materials & Design, 192, 108774. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2020.108774
132. Zhang, L., Kong, H., Qiao, M., Ding, X., & Yu, M. (2020). Supercritical CO2-induced nondestructive coordination between ZnO
nanoparticles and aramid fiber with highly improved interfacial-adhesion properties and UV resistance. Applied Surface Science,
521, 146430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsusc.2020.146430
133. Bahramian, A. (2021). Poly (ethylene terephthalate)-based nanocomposite films as greenhouse covering material: Environmental
sustainability, mechanical durability, and thermal stability. Journal of Applied Polymer Science, 138(10), 49991. https://doi.
org/10.1002/app.49991
134. Zhang, S., Zhang, D., Bai, H., & Ming, W. (2020). ZnO nanoparticles coated with amphiphilic polyurethane for transparent
polyurethane nanocomposites with enhanced mechanical and UV-shielding performance. ACS Applied Nano Materials, 3(1),59–67. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsanm.9b01540
135. Cao, Y., Xu, P., Lv, P., Lemstra, P. J., Cai, X., Yang, W., Dong, W., Chen, M., Liu, T., & Du, M. (2020). Excellent UV resistance ofpolylactide by interfacial stereocomplexation with double-shell-structured TiO2 nanohybrids. ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces,12(43), 49090–49100. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.0c14423
136. Murphy, J. (2001). Additives for plastics handbook: Elsevier.
137. Raidongia, K., Tan, A. T., & Huang, J. (2014). Graphene oxide: some new insights into an old material. In Carbon Nanotubes andGraphene, 341–374: Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-098232-8.00014-0
138. Shearer, C. J., Cherevan, A., & Eder, D. (2014). Application of functional hybrids incorporating carbon nanotubes or graphene. In
Carbon Nanotubes and Graphene, 387–433: Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-098232-8.00016-4
139. Chennareddy, R., Tuwair, H., Kandil, U. F., ElGawady, M., & Taha, M. R. (2019). UV-resistant GFRP composite using carbon
nanotubes. Construction and Building Materials, 220, 679–689. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.05.167
140. Awad, S. A., Fellows, C. M., & Mahini, S. S. (2019). Evaluation of bisphenol A-based epoxy resin containing multiwalledcarbon nanotubes to improve resistance to degradation. Journal of Composite Materials, 53(21), 2981–2991. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0021998318816784
141. Chavoshi, N., & Jahanmardi, R. (2019). Chemical functionalization of graphene oxide by a hindered amine stabilizer andevaluation of the product as a UV-stabilizer for polypropylene. Fullerenes, Nanotubes and Carbon Nanostructures, 27(1), 1–9.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1536383X.2018.1472084
142. Prosheva, M., Aboudzadeh, M. A., Leal, G. P., Gilev, J. B., & Tomovska, R. (2019). High-performance UV protective waterborne
polymer coatings based on hybrid graphene/carbon nanotube radicals scavenging filler. Particle & Particle Systems
Characterization, 36(7), 1800555. https://doi.org/10.1002/ppsc.201800555
143. Lawal, A. T. (2019). Graphene-based nano composites and their applications. A review. Biosensors and Bioelectronics, 141,111384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bios.2019.111384
144. Huang, H., Shi, H., Das, P., Qin, J., Li, Y., Wang, X., Su, F., Wen, P., Li, S., & Lu, P. (2020). The chemistry and promising
applications of graphene and porous graphene materials. Advanced Functional Materials, 30(41), 1909035. https://doi.
org/10.1002/adfm.201909035
145. Olabi, A. G., Abdelkareem, M. A., Wilberforce, T., & Sayed, E. T. (2021). Application of graphene in energy storage device–A
review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 135, 110026. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.110026

347

Chapter 7
146. Padmanabhan, N. T., Thomas, N., Louis, J., Mathew, D. T., Ganguly, P., John, H., & Pillai, S. C. (2021). Graphene coupled
TiO2 photocatalysts for environmental applications: A review. Chemosphere, 271, 129506. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
chemosphere.2020.129506
147. VDMA. (2022). International Technology Roadmap for Photovoltaic (ITRPV). Frankfurt am Main: VDMA e.V.
148. Ottersböck, B., Oreski, G., & Pinter, G. (2022). How to accelerate natural weathering of polymeric photovoltaic backsheets – A
comparison with standardized artificial aging. Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells, 244, 111819. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
solmat.2022.111819
149. Weiß, K.-A., Bruckman, L. S., French, R. H., Oreski, G., Tanahashi, T., Ascéncio-Vásquez, J., Castillion-Gandara, L. F., Eder, G.,
Hrelja, N., Iseghem, M. v., Kaaya, I., Lindig, S., Liu, J., Mitterhofer, S., Neumaier, L., Rath, K., Venkat, S. N., & Wieser, R. J. (2021).
Service Life Estimation for Photovoltaic Modules. Report IEA-PVPS T13-16:2021. Vol. T13-16:2021. IEA-PVPS.
150. Fairbrother, A., Phillips, N., & Gu, X. (2019). 7 - Degradation Processes and Mechanisms of Backsheets. In H. E. Yang, R. H.
French, & L. S. Bruckman (Eds.), Durability and Reliability of Polymers and Other Materials in Photovoltaic Modules, 153–174:
William Andrew Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-811545-9.00007-0
151. Noman, M., Tu, S., Ahmad, S., Zafar, F. U., Khan, H. A., Rehman, S. U., Waqas, M., Khan, A. D., & Rehman, O. u. (2022).
Assessing the reliability and degradation of 10–35 years field-aged PV modules. PLOS ONE, 17(1), e0261066. https://doi.
org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261066
152. Julien, S. E., Kempe, M. D., Eafanti, J. J., Morse, J., Wang, Y., Fairbrother, A. W., Napoli, S., Hauser, A. W., Ji, L., O’Brien, G. S., Gu,
X., French, R. H., Bruckman, L. S., Wan, K.-t., & Boyce, K. P. (2020). Characterizing photovoltaic backsheet adhesion degradation
using the wedge and single cantilever beam tests, Part II: Accelerated tests. Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells, 211, 110524.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solmat.2020.110524
153. Kim, J., Rabelo, M., Padi, S. P., Yousuf, H., Cho, E.-C., & Yi, J. (2021). A Review of the degradation of photovoltaic modules for life
expectancy. Energies, 14(14), 4278. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14144278
154. Tracy, J., Gambogi, W., Felder, T., Garreau-Iles, L., Hu, H., Trout, T. J., Khatri, R., Ji, X., Heta, Y., & Choudhury, K. R. Survey ofMaterial Degradation in Globally Fielded PV Modules. In 2019 IEEE 46th Photovoltaic Specialists Conference (PVSC), 2019-06
2019 (pp. 0874–0879). https://doi.org/10.1109/PVSC40753.2019.8981140
155. Kumar, S., Alhamadani, H., Hassan, S., Alheloo, A., Hanifi, H., John, J. J., Mathiak, G., & Alberts, V. Comparative investigation andanalysis of encapsulant degradation and glass abrasion in desert exposed photovoltaic modules. In 2021 IEEE 48th Photovoltaic
Specialists Conference (PVSC), 2021 (pp. 0793–0798): IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/PVSC43889.2021.9519122
156. Han, H., Yan, H., Wang, X., Zhang, K., Huang, J., Sun, Y., Liu, J., Verlinden, P. J., Altermatt, P., Liang, Z., & Shen, H. (2019). Analysisof the degradation of encapsulant materials used in photovoltaic modules exposed to different climates in China. Solar Energy,
194, 177–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2019.10.014
157. Hara, K. (2022). Raman spectroscopic analysis of encapsulants in aged photovoltaic modules. Journal of Photochemistry andPhotobiology A: Chemistry, 425, 113721. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jphotochem.2021.113721
158. Sharma, B. K., Desai, U., Singh, A., & Singh, A. (2020). Effect of vinyl acetate content on the photovoltaic-encapsulation
performance of ethylene vinyl acetate under accelerated ultra-violet aging. Journal of Applied Polymer Science, 137(2), 48268.
https://doi.org/10.1002/app.48268
159. Tracy, J., Bosco, N., Delgado, C., & Dauskardt, R. (2020). Durability of ionomer encapsulants in photovoltaic modules. Solar
Energy Materials and Solar Cells, 208, 110397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solmat.2020.110397
160. Adothu, B., Bhatt, P., Chattopadhyay, S., Zele, S., Oderkerk, J., Sagar, H. P., Costa, F. R., & Mallick, S. (2019). Newly developed
thermoplastic polyolefin encapsulant–A potential candidate for crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules encapsulation. Solar
Energy, 194, 581–588. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2019.11.018
161. Oreski, G., Omazic, A., Eder, G. C., Voronko, Y., Neumaier, L., Mühleisen, W., Hirschl, C., Ujvari, G., Ebner, R., & Edler, M.
(2020). Properties and degradation behaviour of polyolefin encapsulants for photovoltaic modules. Progress in Photovoltaics:
Research and Applications, 28(12), 1277–1288. https://doi.org/10.1002/pip.3323
162. Neale, R. E., Barnes, P. W., Robson, T. M., Neale, P. J., Williamson, C. E., Zepp, R. G., Wilson, S. R., Madronich, S., Andrady,
A. L., Heikkilä, A. M., Bernhard, G. H., Bais, A. F., Aucamp, P. J., Banaszak, A. T., Bornman, J. F., Bruckman, L. S., Byrne, S. N.,
Foereid, B., Häder, D.-P., Hollestein, L. M., et al. (2021). Environmental effects of stratospheric ozone depletion, UV radiation, andinteractions with climate change: UNEP Environmental Effects Assessment Panel, Update 2020. Photochemical & Photobiological
Sciences, 20(1), 1–67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43630-020-00001-x
163. Miller, D. C., Bokria, J. G., Burns, D. M., Fowler, S., Gu, X., Hacke, P. L., Honeker, C. C., Kempe, M. D., Köhl, M., Phillips, N. H.,
Scott, K. P., Singh, A., Suga, S., Watanabe, S., & Zielnik, A. F. (2019). Degradation in photovoltaic encapsulant transmittance:
Results of the first PVQAT TG5 artificial weathering study. Progress in Photovoltaics: Research and Applications, 27(5), 391–409.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pip.3103

348

Chapter 7
164. Correa-Puerta, J., Ferrada, P., Häberle, P., Díaz-Almeida, D., Sanz, A., Zubillaga, O., Marzo, A., Portillo, C., & del Campo, V.
(2021). Comparing the effects of ultraviolet radiation on four different encapsulants for photovoltaic applications in the Atacama
Desert. Solar Energy, 228, 625–635. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2021.10.003
165. Lelièvre, J.-F., Couderc, R., Pinochet, N., Sicot, L., Munoz, D., Kopecek, R., Ferrada, P., Marzo, A., Olivares, D., Valencia, F., &Urrejola, E. (2022). Desert label development for improved reliability and durability of photovoltaic modules in harsh desert
conditions. Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells, 236, 111508. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solmat.2021.111508
166. Oreski, G., Eder, G. C., Voronko, Y., Omazic, A., Neumaier, L., Mühleisen, W., Ujvari, G., Ebner, R., & Edler, M. (2021).
Performance of PV modules using co-extruded backsheets based on polypropylene. Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells, 223,
110976. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solmat.2021.110976
167. Beaucarne, G., Eder, G., Jadot, E., Voronko, Y., & Mühleisen, W. (2022). Repair and preventive maintenance of photovoltaic
modules with degrading backsheets using flowable silicone sealant. Progress in Photovoltaics: Research and Applications, 30(8),1045-1053. https://doi.org/10.1002/pip.3492
168. Voronko, Y., Eder, G. C., Breitwieser, C., Mühleisen, W., Neumaier, L., Feldbacher, S., Oreski, G., & Lenck, N. (2021). Repair
options for PV modules with cracked backsheets. Energy Science & Engineering, 9(9), 1583–1595. https://doi.org/10.1002/
ese3.936
169. Han, H., Xia, J., Hu, H., Liu, R., Liu, J., Choudhury, K. R., Gambogi, W. J., Felder, T., Rodriguez, M., Simon, E., Zhang, Z., & Shen,
H. (2021). Aging behavior and degradation of different backsheets used in the field under various climates in China. Solar Energy
Materials and Solar Cells, 225, 111023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solmat.2021.111023
170. Lyu, Y., Fairbrother, A., Gong, M., Kim, J. H., Gu, X., Kempe, M., Julien, S., Wan, K.-T., Napoli, S., Hauser, A., O'Brien, G., Wang,
Y., French, R., Bruckman, L., Ji, L., & Boyce, K. (2020). Impact of environmental variables on the degradation of photovoltaic
components and perspectives for the reliability assessment methodology. Solar Energy, 199, 425–436. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.solener.2020.02.020
171. Moffitt, S. L., Pan, P.-C., Perry, L., Tracy, J., Choudhury, K. R., Kempe, M. D., & Gu, X. (2022). Microstructure changes during failureof PVDF-based photovoltaic backsheets. Progress in Photovoltaics: Research and Applications, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1002/
pip.3605
172. Kempe, M. D., Lyu, Y., Kim, J. H., Felder, T., & Gu, X. (2021). Fragmentation of photovoltaic backsheets after accelerated
weathering exposure. Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells, 226, 111044. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solmat.2021.111044
173. Fairbrother, A., Boyd, M., Lyu, Y., Avenet, J., Illich, P., Wang, Y., Kempe, M., Dougherty, B., Bruckman, L., & Gu, X. (2018).
Differential degradation patterns of photovoltaic backsheets at the array level. Solar Energy, 163, 62–69. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.solener.2018.01.072
174. Kobayashi, Y., Morita, H., Mori, K., & Masuda, A. (2019). Investigation of UV and hygrothermal stress on back side of rackmounted photovoltaic modules. Renewable Energy Focus, 29, 107–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ref.2019.03.008
175. Wang, Y., Huang, W.-H., Fairbrother, A., Fridman, L. S., Curran, A. J., Wheeler, N. R., Napoli, S., Hauser, A. W., Julien, S., Gu, X.,O‘Brien, G. S., Wan, K.-T., Ji, L., Kempe, M. D., Boyce, K. P., French, R. H., & Bruckman, L. S. (2019). Generalized spatio-temporalmodel of backsheet degradation from field surveys of photovoltaic modules. IEEE Journal of Photovoltaics, 9(5), 1374–1381.
https://doi.org/10.1109/JPHOTOV.2019.2928700
176. Wieser, R. J., Rath, K., Moffitt, S. L., Zabalza, R., Boucher, E., Ayala, S., Brown, M., Gu, X., Ji, L., O’Brien, C., Hauser, A. W.,
O’Brien, G. S., French, R. H., Kempe, M. D., Tracy, J., Choudhury, K. R., Gambogi, W. J., Bruckman, L. S., & Boyce, K. P. SpatioTemporal Modeling of Field Surveyed Backsheet Degradation. In 2021 IEEE 48th Photovoltaic Specialists Conference (PVSC),
2021-06 2021 (pp. 1383–1388). https://doi.org/10.1109/PVSC43889.2021.9519128
177. Lv, Y., Fan, D., & Kong, M. (2021). Reliability assessment on PV backsheets with and without considering spectral UV albedo
effects: A theoretical comparison. Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells, 230, 111230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
solmat.2021.111230
178. Eder, G. C., Voronko, Y., Oreski, G., Mühleisen, W., Knausz, M., Omazic, A., Rainer, A., Hirschl, C., & Sonnleitner, H. (2019). Error
analysis of aged modules with cracked polyamide backsheets. Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells, 203, 110194. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.solmat.2019.110194
179. Lyu, Y., Fairbrother, A., Gong, M., Kim, J. H., Hauser, A., O'Brien, G., & Gu, X. (2020). Drivers for the cracking of multilayer
polyamide-based backsheets in field photovoltaic modules: In-depth degradation mapping analysis. Progress in Photovoltaics:
Research and Applications, 28(7), 704–716. https://doi.org/10.1002/pip.3260
180. Owen-Bellini, M., Moffitt, S. L., Sinha, A., Maes, A. M., Meert, J. J., Karin, T., Takacs, C., Jenket, D. R., Hartley, J. Y., Miller, D.
C., Hacke, P., & Schelhas, L. T. (2021). Towards validation of combined-accelerated stress testing through failure analysis ofpolyamide-based photovoltaic backsheets. Scientific Reports, 11(1), 2019. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-81381-7
181. Julien, S. E., Kim, J. H., Lyu, Y., Miller, D. C., Gu, X., & Wan, K.-t. (2021). Cohesive and adhesive degradation in PET-based
photovoltaic backsheets subjected to ultraviolet accelerated weathering. Solar Energy, 224, 637–649. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.solener.2021.04.065

349

Chapter 7
182. Lin, C.-C., Lyu, Y., Jacobs, D. S., Kim, J. H., Wan, K.-T., Hunston, D. L., & Gu, X. (2019). A novel test method for quantifying
cracking propensity of photovoltaic backsheets after ultraviolet exposure. Progress in Photovoltaics: Research and Applications,27(1), 44–54. https://doi.org/10.1002/pip.3038
183. Smith, S., Perry, L., Watson, S., Moffitt, S. L., Shen, S.-J., Mitterhofer, S., Sung, L.-P., Jacobs, D., & Gu, X. (2022). Transparent
backsheets for bifacial photovoltaic (PV) modules: Material characterization and accelerated laboratory testing. Progress in
Photovoltaics: Research and Applications, 30(8), 959-969.
184. Lokanath, S. V., Skarbek, B., & Schindelholz, E. J. (2019). 9 - Degradation Processes and Mechanisms of PV Wires and Connectors.
In H. E. Yang, R. H. French, & L. S. Bruckman (Eds.), Durability and Reliability of Polymers and Other Materials in Photovoltaic
Modules, 217–233: William Andrew Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-811545-9.00009-4
185. Santhakumari, M., & Sagar, N. (2019). A review of the environmental factors degrading the performance of silicon wafer-based
photovoltaic modules: Failure detection methods and essential mitigation techniques. Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews, 110, 83–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.04.024
186. Hedir, A., Moudoud, M., Lamrous, O., Rondot, S., Jbara, O., & Dony, P. (2020). Ultraviolet radiation aging impact on
physicochemical properties of crosslinked polyethylene cable insulation. Journal of Applied Polymer Science, 137(16), 48575.
https://doi.org/10.1002/app.48575
187. Gok, A., Gordon, D. A., Wang, M., French, R. H., & Bruckman, L. S. (2019). 3 - Degradation Science and Pathways in PV Systems.
In H. E. Yang, R. H. French, & L. S. Bruckman (Eds.), Durability and Reliability of Polymers and Other Materials in Photovoltaic
Modules, 47–93: William Andrew Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-811545-9.00003-3
188. Syafiuddin, A., Fulazzaky, M. A., Salmiati, S., Roestamy, M., Fulazzaky, M., Sumeru, K., & Yusop, Z. (2020). Sticky silver
nanoparticles and surface coatings of different textile fabrics stabilised by Muntingia calabura leaf extract. SN Applied Sciences,2(4), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-020-2534-5
189. Xu, Q., Zheng, W., Duan, P., Chen, J., Zhang, Y., Fu, F., Diao, H., & Liu, X. (2019). One-pot fabrication of durable antibacterial
cotton fabric coated with silver nanoparticles via carboxymethyl chitosan as a binder and stabilizer. Carbohydrate Polymers, 204,
42–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2018.09.089
190. Gedanken, A., Perkas, N., Perelshtein, I., & Lipovsky, A. (2018). Imparting pharmaceutical applications to the surface of fabrics forwound and skin care by ultrasonic waves. Current Medicinal Chemistry, 25(41), 5739–5754. https://doi.org/10.2174/0929867
325666171229141635
191. Harifi, T., Montazer, M., Dillert, R., & Bahnemann, D. W. (2018). TiO2/Fe3O4/Ag nanophotocatalysts in solar fuel production: New
approach to using a flexible lightweight sustainable textile fabric. Journal of Cleaner Production, 196, 688–697. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.031
192. Čuk, N., Šala, M., & Gorjanc, M. (2021). Development of antibacterial and UV protective cotton fabrics using plant food waste
and alien invasive plant extracts as reducing agents for the in-situ synthesis of silver nanoparticles. Cellulose, 28(5), 3215–3233.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-021-03715-y
193. Rabiei, H., Dehghan, S. F., Montazer, M., Khaloo, S. S., & Koozekonan, A. G. (2022). UV protection properties of workwear
fabrics coated with TiO2 nanoparticles. Frontiers in Public Health, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.929095
194. Rashid, M. M., Simončič, B., & Tomšič, B. (2021). Recent advances in TiO2-functionalized textile surfaces. Surfaces and Interfaces,
22, 100890. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surfin.2020.100890
195. Tang, Q., Zhang, H., Han, Y., Wang, D., & Wu, H. (2021). Photostability of TiO2-coated wool fibers exposed to ultraviolet B,
ultraviolet A, and visible light irradiation. AUTEX Research Journal, 21(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.2478/aut-2019-0055
196. Zhu, T., Li, S., Huang, J., Mihailiasa, M., & Lai, Y. (2017). Rational design of multi-layered superhydrophobic coating on cotton
fabrics for UV shielding, self-cleaning and oil-water separation. Materials & Design, 134, 342–351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
matdes.2017.08.071
197. Ahmed, N. A.-M. H., Kishk, D. M., & Nada, A. A. (2021). Green and durable treatment for multifunctional cellulose-containing
woven fabrics via TiO2-NP and HMTAP processed in semi-pilot machine. Fibers and Polymers, 22(10), 2815–2825. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s12221-021-0755-x
198. Dasaradhan, B., Das, B. R., Goswami, T. H., & Prasad, N. E. (2022). Exploration of polyvinylidene difluoride (PVDF) for
improvement of weathering resistance of textile substrates. The Journal of the Textile Institute, 113(9), 1845–1853. https://doi.or
g/10.1080/00405000.2021.1952806
199. Safdar, F., Javid, A., & Ashraf, M. (2021). Single step synthesis and functionalization of nano titania for development ofmultifunctional cotton fabrics. Materials, 15(1), 38. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15010038
200. Zheng, G., Peng, H., Jiang, J., Kang, G., Liu, J., Zheng, J., & Liu, Y. (2021). Surface functionalization of PEO nanofibers using a
TiO2 suspension as sheath fluid in a modified coaxial electrospinning process. Chemical Research in Chinese Universities, 37(3),571–577. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40242-021-1118-2

350

Chapter 7
201. Faisal, S., Naqvi, S., Ali, M., & Lin, L. (2021). Comparative study of multifunctional properties of synthesised ZnO and MgO NPs for
textiles applications. Pigment & Resin Technology, 51(3), 301–308. https://doi.org/10.1108/PRT-02-2021-0017
202. Javed, A., Azeem, M., Wiener, J., Thukkaram, M., Saskova, J., & Mansoor, T. (2021). Ultrasonically assisted in situ deposition of
ZnO nano particles on cotton fabrics for multifunctional textiles. Fibers and Polymers, 22(1), 77–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s12221-021-0051-9
203. Tănase, M. A., Soare, A. C., Oancea, P., Răducan, A., Mihăescu, C. I., Alexandrescu, E., Petcu, C., Diţu, L. M., Ferbinteanu, M.,
Cojocaru, B., & Cinteza, L. O. (2021). facile in situ synthesis of ZnO flower-like hierarchical nanostructures by the microwave
irradiation method for multifunctional textile coatings. Nanomaterials, 11(10), 2574. https://doi.org/10.3390/nano11102574
204. El-Naggar, M. E., Khattab, T. A., Abdelrahman, M. S., Aldalbahi, A., & Hatshan, M. R. (2021). Development of antimicrobial, UV
blocked and photocatalytic self-cleanable cotton fibers decorated with silver nanoparticles using silver carbamate and plasma
activation. Cellulose, 28(2), 1105–1121. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-020-03537-4
205. Farooq, A. S., & Zhang, P. (2021). Fundamentals, materials and strategies for personal thermal management by nextgeneration textiles. Composites Part A: Applied Science and Manufacturing, 142, 106249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
compositesa.2020.106249
206. Peng, Y., & Cui, Y. (2020). Advanced textiles for personal thermal management and energy. Joule, 4(4), 724–742. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.joule.2020.02.011
207. Yue, X., Zhang, T., Yang, D., Qiu, F., Wei, G., & Zhou, H. (2019). Multifunctional Janus fibrous hybrid membranes withsandwich structure for on-demand personal thermal management. Nano Energy, 63, 103808. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
nanoen.2019.06.004
208. Fang, D., Yu, H., Dirican, M., Tian, Y., Xie, J., Jia, D., Yan, C., Liu, Y., Li, C., & Liu, H. (2021). Disintegrable, transparent
and mechanically robust high-performance antimony tin oxide/nanocellulose/polyvinyl alcohol thermal insulation films.
Carbohydrate Polymers, 266, 118175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2021.118175
209. Zeng, S., Pian, S., Su, M., Wang, Z., Wu, M., Liu, X., Chen, M., Xiang, Y., Wu, J., Zhang, M., & others (2021). Hierarchicalmorphology metafabric for scalable passive daytime radiative cooling. Science, 373(6555), 692–696. https://doi.org/10.1126/
science.abi5484
210. Sait, S. T., Sørensen, L., Kubowicz, S., Vike-Jonas, K., Gonzalez, S. V., Asimakopoulos, A. G., & Booth, A. M. (2021). Microplastic
fibres from synthetic textiles: Environmental degradation and additive chemical content. Environmental Pollution, 268, 115745.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2020.115745
211. Sørensen, L., Groven, A. S., Hovsbakken, I. A., Del Puerto, O., Krause, D. F., Sarno, A., & Booth, A. M. (2021). UV degradationof natural and synthetic microfibers causes fragmentation and release of polymer degradation products and chemical additives.
Science of the Total Environment, 755, 143170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.143170
212. Jansen, M. A. K., Barnes, P. W., Bornman, J. F., Rose, K. C., Madronich, S., White, C. C., Zepp, R. G., & Andrady, A. L. (2022). The
Montreal Protocol and the fate of environmental plastic debris. Chapter 8213. Kim, D., Kim, H., & An, Y.-J. (2021). Effects of synthetic and natural microfibers on Daphnia magna–Are they dependent on
microfiber type? Aquatic Toxicology, 240, 105968. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquatox.2021.105968
214. Kwak, J. I., Liu, H., Wang, D., Lee, Y. H., Lee, J.-S., & An, Y.-J. (2022). Critical review of environmental impacts of microfibers in
different environmental matrices. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part C: Toxicology & Pharmacology, 251, 109196.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbpc.2021.109196
215. Moore, C. J. (2019). Invasion of the biosphere by synthetic polymers: What our current knowledge may mean for our future. Acta
Oceanologica Sinica, 38(5), 161–164. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13131-019-1424-4
216. Naik, R. A., Rowles III, L. S., Hossain, A. I., Yen, M., Aldossary, R. M., Apul, O. G., Conkle, J., & Saleh, N. B. (2020). Microplastic
particle versus fiber generation during photo-transformation in simulated seawater. Science of the Total Environment, 736,
139690. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.139690
217. Cai, Y., Yang, T., Mitrano, D. M., Heuberger, M., Hufenus, R., & Nowack, B. (2020). Systematic study of microplastic fiber releasefrom 12 different polyester textiles during washing. Environmental Science & Technology, 54(8), 4847–4855. https://doi.
org/10.1021/acs.est.9b07395
218. Cesa, F. S., Turra, A., Checon, H. H., Leonardi, B., & Baruque-Ramos, J. (2020). Laundering and textile parameters influence fibers
release in household washings. Environmental Pollution, 257, 113553. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2019.113553
219. De Falco, F., Cocca, M., Avella, M., & Thompson, R. C. (2020). Microfiber release to water, via laundering, and to air, via everyday
use: a comparison between polyester clothing with differing textile parameters. Environmental Science & Technology, 54(6),3288–3296. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b06892
220. Kärkkäinen, N., & Sillanpää, M. (2021). Quantification of different microplastic fibres discharged from textiles in machine wash
and tumble drying. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(13), 16253–16263. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-02011988-2

351

Chapter 7
221. Abedin, M., Khandaker, M. U., Uddin, M., Karim, M., Ahamad, M., Islam, M., Arif, A. M., Sulieman, A., Idris, A. M., & others(2022). PPE pollution in the terrestrial and aquatic environment of the Chittagong city area associated with the COVID-19
pandemic and concomitant health implications. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(18), 27521–27533. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-17859-8
222. Ardusso, M., Forero-López, A., Buzzi, N., Spetter, C., & Fernández-Severini, M. (2021). COVID-19 pandemic repercussions
on plastic and antiviral polymeric textile causing pollution on beaches and coasts of South America. Science of the Total
Environment, 763, 144365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.144365
223. Mejjad, N., Cherif, E. K., Rodero, A., Krawczyk, D. A., El Kharraz, J., Moumen, A., Laqbaqbi, M., & Fekri, A. (2021). Disposal
behavior of used masks during the COVID-19 pandemic in the moroccan community: potential environmental impact.
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(8), 4382. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18084382
224. Shammi, M., Behal, A., & Tareq, S. M. (2021). The escalating biomedical waste management to control the environmental
transmission of COVID-19 pandemic: A perspective from two south Asian countries. Environmental Science & Technology, 55(7),4087–4093. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c05117
225. Sánchez, M. B., Fito-López, C., & Cajaraville, M. (2021). A life cycle perspective of the exposure to airborne nanoparticles
released from nanotechnology enabled products and applications. In Health and Environmental Safety of Nanomaterials,
173–194: Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-820505-1.00004-3
226. Han, C., Sahle-Demessie, E., Varughese, E., & Shi, H. (2019). Polypropylene–MWCNT composite degradation, and release,detection and toxicity of MWCNTs during accelerated environmental aging. Environmental Science: Nano, 6(6), 1876–1894.
https://doi.org/10.1039/C9EN00153K
227. Andrady, A., Pandey, K., & Heikkilä, A. (2019). Interactive effects of solar UV radiation and climate change on material damage.
Photochemical & Photobiological Sciences, 18(3), 804-825.
228. UN/DESA. (2015). Trasforming our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development A/RES/70/1. United Nations /Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN/DESA).

352

Chapter 8

8THE MONTREAL PROTOCOL AND THE FATE
OF ENVIRONMENTAL PLASTIC DEBRIS

M. A. K. Jansen121, P. W. Barnes122, J. F. Bornman123, K.C. Rose124,
S. Madronich125, C. C. White126, R. G. Zepp127, and A. L. Andrady128

121

School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, Environmental Research Institute, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland

122

Biological Sciences and Environmental Program, Loyola University New Orleans, New Orleans, LA, USA

123

Food Futures Institute, Murdoch University, Perth, Australia

124

Biological Sciences, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, USA

125

Atmospheric Chemistry Observations and Modeling Laboratory, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO, USA

126

Exponent, Inc, Bowie, MD 20715, USA

127

ORD/CEMM, US Environmental Protection Agency, Athens, GA, USA

128

Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA353

Chapter 8

Table of contents
Summary											3551

Introduction											355

2

Photo-oxidation and plastic persistence								3563

Different plastics and photo-oxidation								357

4

The Montreal Protocol and photo-oxidation								357

5

Plastic degradation and UV radiation in a changing climate						

357

6Exposure of environmental plastic debris to UV radiation						

358

7Biological consequences of photo-oxidation and fragmentation						

358

8Knowledge gaps											359

9

Conclusions											359

10

Relevance to the Sustainable Development Goals							360References											361

354

Chapter 8

Summary
Microplastics (MPs) are an emerging class of pollutants in air, soil and especially in all aquatic environments. Secondary MPs are
generated in the environment during fragmentation of photo-oxidised plastic litter. Photo-oxidation is mediated primarily by solar UV
radiation. The implementation of the Montreal Protocol and its Amendments, which have resulted in controlling the tropospheric
UV-B (280-315 nm) radiation load, is therefore pertinent to the fate of environmental plastic debris. Due to the Montreal Protocol highamounts of solar UV-B radiation at the Earth’s surface have been avoided, retarding the oxidative fragmentation of plastic debris, leading
to a slower generation and accumulation of MPs in the environment. Quantifying the impact of the Montreal Protocol in reducing theabundance of MPs in the environment, however, is complicated as the role of potential mechanical fragmentation of plastics underenvironmental mechanical stress fields is poorly understood.

1 Introduction
Plastic debris in the environment is an increasing pollution problem, and a multitude of studies has convincingly demonstrated theubiquity of plastic debris, including microplastic (MP) particles, across planet Earth. An estimated 8300 million metric tons of plastics
have been produced since the 1950s, of which ca 80% has ended in landfills and the natural environment [1]. As of 2016, ca. 19-23
million metric tons per year, or 11% of all plastic waste generated, was estimated to have entered aquatic ecosystems [2]. Polyethylene(PE), polypropylene (PP), polystyrene (PS), and poly(ethylene terephthalate) (PET) account for ca. 70% of all MPs in freshwater
ecosystems [3]. An estimated 11.6-21.1 million tons of MPs made of PE, PP and PS occur in the top 200 m of the Atlantic Ocean [4].
Concerns about potential risks posed by MPs to the environment and human health have prompted much research. There are also calls
for a global treaty on plastics towards a more sustainable future [5].
Breakdown of plastics occurs due to abiotic and biotic factors [6]. Micro- and nanoplastics (typically defined as plastic particles < 5mm, and < 0.1 µm in size, respectively (but see [7]) are generated in the natural environment as a result of solar ultraviolet (UV)-driven
weathering of plastic debris in combination with fragmentation due to exposure to mechanical forces [6]. These micro- and nanoplastics
are widely distributed in aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems and also pose a potential risk to humans through inhalation [8], ingestion[9] and dermal contact [10]. MPs have been found, for example, in bottled drinking water [11], table salt [12], and seafood [13]. A recent
estimate [9] places the annual human intake of MPs from all sources to be 105 particles. Small MPs (1-5µm) may enter systemic circulationand translocate into cellular compartments [14, 15].
Recently, MPs in human placenta have been detected in studies carried out in clinical settings. In one of these, PP particles, 5-10 µm
in size, were found in placenta samples from vaginal deliveries [16]. A second study detected even larger MPs > 50 µm of PE, PS, andPP in human placenta and meconium from caesarean delivery [17], where the chance of contamination via the birth canal is excluded.
Although some of the MPs crossed the placental barrier into the foetal side, no foetal translocation was noted, unlike in studies on
inhaled MPs in rats where foetal translocation was observed [18]. Despite these concerning findings, negative human physiologicalimpacts of micro- and nanoplastics have not been conclusively established [19].
Assuming current trends in global production of plastics, and no improvements in waste management infrastructure worldwide,
releases into the environment may grow to 90 million metric tons per year by 2030 [2]. Given the recalcitrance of plastics toenvironmental degradation as well as potential negative biological and health impacts [20], there is particular concern about the risks
posed by micro- and nanoplastic particles and similarly sized plastic fibres in terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems globally.
This current assessment focuses on the interactive effects of solar radiation, its UV component, and climate change on the fate ofenvironmental plastic debris, with regard to degradation and fragmentation and their potential consequences.

355

Chapter 8

2 Photo-oxidation and plastic persistence
A major barrier towards a realistic assessment of the global impacts of plastics is the incomplete knowledge of the fate, and particularly
the degradation and fragmentation of plastics in the environment [21]. Exposure to solar UV radiation is the primary weathering
mechanism of plastics debris (Fig. 1), making plastics prone to subsequent fragmentation into smaller particles [20, 22 – 26]. Photooxidation of plastic debris under extended outdoor exposure makes the material weak, brittle and prone to subsequent fragmentation[26, 27]. Fragmentation occurs when plastics are subjected to, for example, wave action or encounters with animals, resulting in thegeneration of secondary micro- or nano-particles129 (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1 Solar UV radiation can drive the photo-oxidation of plastics, making plastics prone to fragmentation, a process that may
result in the formation of microplastic particles. Plastic mineralisation has been reported, but the relevance of this process in thenatural environment remains to be established. The climate impacts on photo-oxidation through a variety of different routes,
including (1) direct effects on solar UV radiation; (2) plastic dispersal; (3) altered penetration of UV radiation through the watercolumn; and (4) increased local temperatures. Climate may also impact the fragmentation of weathered plastics by (5) affecting
mechanical stress fields.

MPs sampled from beach and surface water environments show spectroscopic signatures of photo-oxidation, primarily the presenceof surface carbonyl groups [28, 29], as well as increased fractional crystallinity [30]. While UV irradiation drives photooxidation, andtherefore contributes to the fragmentation of plastic debris into progressively smaller sizes, it may also help remove plastic particles
from the environment through photo-mineralisation [21, 27, 31]. There is evidence from laboratory-accelerated approaches that MPs
can undergo UV-induced mineralisation into carbon dioxide (CO2) and water [21, 31] (Fig. 1). However, the phenomenon has not beenconclusively shown to occur in natural environments, and if it does occur in nature, only a small fraction of the already highly-fragmented
plastics with a large specific surface area, is likely to be involved.

129

356

Microplastics is a misnomer as it is generally taken to mean all plastic fragments < 5 mm in dimension. Nanoplastics has been used, depending on the publication, to mean
fragments that are < 1000 nm or 100 nm.

Chapter 8

3 Different plastics and photo-oxidation
In addition to base polymers, plastics generally contain catalyst residues and unreacted monomers, as well as intentionally added
chemicals including plasticisers, dyes, antioxidants, flame retardants and/or UV stabilisers [32, 33]. Said mixture has a considerable
impact on the rate of photo-oxidation and subsequent fragmentation of plastics. For example, high-density PE and nylon-6 plastics
generate MPs when exposed to the equivalent of 44 days of solar irradiation, whereas high-impact PS and PP did not [34]. It
remains to be determined whether differences in photo-oxidation relate to the base polymer, or rather specific additives. There is a
substantial knowledge gap concerning action spectra of photo-oxidation, and dose-response curves, in the context of the composite
characteristics of commercial plastics. Further, laboratory studies have shown that UV-associated degradation rates in simulated aquaticconditions are also mediated by other environmental factors, including temperature, oxygen availability and salinity [35].

4 The Montreal Protocol and photo-oxidation
The anticipated significant increase (“the World avoided”) in terrestrial solar UV radiation, avoided by the implementation of theMontreal Protocol and its Amendments, would have increased the rates of photodegradation, and consequently fragmentationof plastic debris. It is currently not known whether a critical threshold of photo-oxidation for a given plastic is required to facilitate
fragmentation. This presents a significant gap in knowledge. Also, little is known about the quantitative mechanical forces required
to cause fragmentation, and how this force requirement is affected by the photo-oxidation state. Even non-oxidised plastics can be
fragmented if mechanical forces are large enough [36]. However, how these forces compare with naturally-occurring stress-fields has
not been well studied. There is evidence that virgin plastics can be fragmented in the gut of ingesting crustaceans [37, 38]; similarly,
MPs can be generated as a consequence of the mechanical forces imposed on objects as diverse as car tyres [39] or artificial sports turf[40]. Thus, at this stage the relative importance of solar radiation, and weathering of plastics in facilitating fragmentation is not clear.

5 Plastic degradation and UV radiation in a changing climate
Both stratospheric ozone depletion and climate change can alter the irradiance of solar UV radiation reaching the Earth’s surface [41],thus affecting photo-oxidation of plastics. Locally, strong increases in temperature under future climate scenarios may further accelerate
the rate of photo-oxidation leading to fragmentation (Fig. 1). At present, there are very significant gaps in knowledge pertaining to theimpact of global changes on plastic persistence. Increased temperature consequent to climate change is not the only factor that may
affect the rate of plastic degradation. For example, increased stress-fields in aquatic environments cause fragmentation, changes inrelative humidity alter photodegradation rates, sedimentation rates affect biodegradation, and increased rainfall patterns that control
runoff have an effect on plastic dispersal, vertical mixing and transparency of aquatic ecosystems [42] (Chapter 5, Fig. 1). Conversely,
plastics also affect climate change by being a significant sink of global carbon [43]. Other, more subtle impacts of MPs will affect carbon
storage. For example, ingestion of MPs by a zooplankton species, Salpa fusiformis (also known as the common salp), increases thebuoyancy of faecal pellets thereby decreasing downward transport and burial of marine carbon in a process called the “biologicalpump” [44]. Projected future increases in marine MP concentrations may thus reduce carbon sinking rates in the oceans, and therefore
alter ocean carbon cycling [44]. Thus, there is a myriad of poorly detailed interactions between UV radiation, global change andplastics, affecting, amongst others, the fate of plastics in the natural environment.

357

Chapter 8

6 Exposure of environmental plastic debris to UV radiation
In order to quantify the environmental rate of UV-driven photodegradation, it is necessary to evaluate the dispersal and distribution, i.e.
exposure to UV radiation, of plastic debris [31, 45]. Especially significant from a UV-exposure perspective are air-borne, floating andbeach debris. Airborne particles are dominated by fibres, including microplastic fibres [46]. Smaller plastic particles, including abrasive
tyre wear130 [47], may remain airborne for weeks [48, 49], and this is associated with strong UV irradiance. In the terrestrial environment
there has been a rapid growth in the use of plastics in agricultural systems, for example, the use of plastic mulch to reduce weed growthand maintain optimal soil moisture and temperature. Such applications are associated with exposure to UV radiation, and fragments
may enter the atmosphere and reach remote ecosystems [47, 50]. Conversely, other uses of plastics such as soil improvement using
polyurethane foam [22] will not typically result in exposure to UV radiation of the plastics.
In the aquatic environment, exposure to UV radiation depends strongly on buoyancy, although advective water flow and turbulence
results in sedimentation of larger numbers of MPs than would be expected from gravitational sedimentation alone in both the freshwater[51] and marine environments [52]. In the oceans, the global mass of floating plastic debris represents only a small percentage of theestimated annual influx of plastics into the aquatic environment, based on production volumes [43, 45, 53, 54], and only these floating
plastics will experience UV irradiation. In contrast, sedimentation of plastics will minimise exposure to UV radiation. Sedimentation
is linked to geometric and other physical properties of marine MPs, as well as biofouling [55], i.e. the development of a surface
layer of microorganisms, algae, and small shelled species on the plastics. This increases the density of plastic debris [4, 56] driving
sedimentation. Nevertheless, sedimentation is far from a one-way process. In a well-mixed ocean, biofouled MPs can oscillate verticallyin the water column, with the depth of the oscillation depending on, for example, algal growth and light penetration [57]. Still, the nett,
long-term sedimentation removes plastics from the photic zone, thus slowing down photo-oxidation.

7 Biological consequences of photo-oxidation and fragmentation
UV radiation-driven photo-oxidation of plastic debris, and subsequent fragmentation following exposure to mechanical forces, willalter the size distribution of plastics in the natural environment. However, the quantification of the UV-mediated changes in this plastic
size distribution is lacking. In fact, a major deficiency in the study of the biological impacts of all plastics in the environment is the lack ofreliable, quantitative knowledge of environmentally relevant concentrations of micro- and nanoplastics in different environments. This,in turn, relates to a lack of adequate, and standardised, monitoring technology, particularly in complex matrices such as, for example,
soil [58]. Concentrations of larger MPs are best known. For example, Sembiring et al. [59] estimated MP (>125 µm) concentrations in
an Indonesian river and the downstream seawater to be 0.06 and 3000 particles/m3, respectively. The average MP concentration inriver sediment was 16.7 particles/100 g and in marine sediment 3.3 particles/100 g. However, such numbers may vary considerably
depending on the sampling and monitoring approach, as well as the actual location [60].
At present there is a lack of quantitative information on the presence of nano- and smaller microplastics in diverse environments. Given
that it has been speculated that nano- and smaller microplastics will have a greater impact on organisms than larger plastics as a result of
their transport properties, bioavailability, relative surface area and scope for additive leaching, ingestion and/or uptake in cells [61], thisdoes hamper the assessments of risks associated with plastic pollution.
Both hazards and risks associated with MPs have been analysed and reported, although at present much uncertainty remains
concerning biological impacts under realistic environmental concentrations of plastics. Large research gaps exist in the quantitative
analysis of the relationship between various exposure routes of MPs, and the actual measured MP or NP toxicity [60]. For example, as
the distribution of MPs in the environment is heterogeneous, different organisms will be exposed to different plastics. For example,
PE and PP will (initially) float, while plastics such as poly(vinyl chloride) (PVC) sink more readily and as a consequence, organisms withdifferent feeding habits will be differently exposed. Publication bias is also of some concern, with results showing a lack of biologicalimpacts less likely to be published [62]. Nevertheless, and despite above mentioned reservations, research shows that plastics canpotentially exert significant negative impacts on selected species of a very broad range of marine, freshwater and terrestrial species[63]. However, other studies fail to observe significant negative impact [62, 64]. This apparent lack of consistency across large numbersof studies suggests that experimental conditions, including MP concentration, size, shape and composition as well as the chosen test
organism all play a role in the different outcomes of toxicity [64].

130

358

A wide range of micro-sized particles in the environment are either non-plastic, or part-plastic anthropogenic particles, including tyre wear, paint particles and fibres.
For example, tyres are made of elastomeric polymers (or rubber) and are not thermoplastic but thermosets. However, they have been generally included in the category‘microplastics’ along with other thermosets such as polyurethane foam and epoxy.

Chapter 8
Historically, toxicological studies have predominantly focused on marine taxa with relatively small sized organisms [3], with less data on
the impacts of MPs on large animals, at high trophic levels or terrestrial biota [10]. Effects of MPs on plants and ecosystem productivity
remain uncertain [20, 65 - 67]. Marine studies have indicated that zooplankton are more affected by plastics than many other taxa, withobvious consequences for the entire food web. The transfer of plastics up the food chain from primary producers to consumers is also ofsome concern [68, 69], although evidence of accumulation at higher trophic levels remains limited at present. Finally, understanding of
the exposure to and uptake and effects of various types (synthetic, semi-synthetic or natural) of anthropogenic fibres is still in its infancy,
notwithstanding the ubiquitous presence of these fibres in the natural environment [70].
A particular difficulty in exposure studies is the fact that plastics are a complex material comprised of different polymers, stabilisers,
dyes and other additives. Many of these additives can leach out and exert toxic effects in their own right [32]. Thus, the same plastic
base material may exert different toxic effects depending on the additives used in them. UV radiation may drive photo-oxidation, andultimately photofragmentation, leading to increasing numbers of MPs with increased fragment surface area. This, in turn, can stimulate
the leaching of plastic additives, such as endocrine disrupting chemicals that adversely affect organisms [71]. Plastic leachates activate
oxidative stress responses in cell-based bioassays [72]. However, low environmental concentrations of leached chemicals indicatethat effects in the natural environment may be limited [3]. UV radiation-driven photo-oxidation of plastic surface area can also decreasebinding capacity for some organic substances [73], although increased absorptive capacity of plastics towards substances such as theantibiotic ciprofloxacin and the endocrine disruptor bisphenol-A has been reported [74]. Similarly, prior exposure to UV radiation can
increase the binding capacity of plastics for heavy metals [75, 76].
Overall, a substantial knowledge gap remains concerning the effects of UV-mediated photo-oxidation and fragmentation, withexpected impacts on size distribution of environmental plastics, as well as additive leaching and contaminant binding, all of which are
likely to depend on plastic type, duration of exposure, and contaminant chemistry [25, 26, 77].

8 Knowledge gaps
The links between UV irradiation, the stratospheric ozone layer, and MP pollution, although highly relevant, are still poorly understoodand scarcely addressed by the scientific community working on MPs. Major knowledge gaps relate to environmental distributionof plastics, and consequent exposure to UV radiation. While it is recognised that some plastics will be buried in sediments where
penetration of UV radiation will be virtually nil, others will be airborne and potentially exposed to considerable amounts of UV radiation.
Furthermore, where plastics are exposed to UV radiation, uncertainties about the UV dose-response of photo-oxidative reactions
impede assessments of weathering and subsequent fragmentation. Thus, while UV-driven photo-oxidation of plastics, and subsequentfragmentation are well known, the quantitative impact of these processes on plastic longevity and MP generation remains unknown.

9 Conclusions
UV-driven weathering, followed by subsequent fragmentation can lead to a decrease in plastic macro-debris in the environment, yet
increase the concentration of MPs. By integrating existing surface UV irradiation data with better knowledge of the distribution ofplastics across various environmental niches, there is an opportunity to generate quantitative predictions of plastic persistence at a
global scale. In turn, such insights can inform the design of more environmentally friendly plastics. However, this approach will require
better knowledge of action spectra and dose-response relationships of UV driven oxidation of common compounded plastics, which
include intentionally added chemicals such as plasticisers, dyes, antioxidants, flame retardants and/or UV stabilisers [32, 33]. It is also
recognised that quantitative predictions of plastic persistence will be subject to effects of climate change, which may affect processes
as diverse as the penetration of UV radiation into the water column, sedimentation rates and/or air movements. Furthermore, UV
irradiation can also affect the chemical or toxicological properties of MPs and may play a key role in determining hazards and risks
associated with MPs. Therefore, there is an urgent need to better understand the interactions between plastics in the environment,
climate change, and UV radiation.

359

Chapter 8

10 Relevance to the Sustainable Development Goals
The Montreal Protocol and its Amendments contribute to several of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) throughprotection of the stratospheric ozone layer and the mitigation of climate change. SDG targets addressed in this section are detailed
below.
SDG 6: Clear Water and Sanitation
There is ample evidence that MPs are ubiquitous in freshwater and marine environments. Consequently, essential products such as
drinking water can be contaminated by MPs. The implementation of the Montreal Protocol has resulted in the avoidance of high UV
irradiation, which is a key driver of plastic weathering, and ultimately, generation of MPs.
SDG 14: Life below water
Macro-, micro,- and nanoplastic pollutants are ubiquitous in freshwater and marine environments. Consequently, aquatic organisms andecosystems are exposed to these man-made pollutants. The hazardous character of MPs to aquatic organisms has been shown in somestudies, although ecological risks remain to be established. The implementation of the Montreal Protocol has resulted in the avoidanceof high UV irradiation, and this is likely to have resulted in decreased weathering, and ultimately, decreased generation of MPs.
Conversely, implementation of the Montreal Protocol is likely to have resulted in increased persistence of macroplastic debris, which has
been widely shown to have negative impacts on animals due to entanglement or accumulation in, for example, the stomach.
SDG 15: Life on Land
Climate change is impacting agricultural practices and has, amongst others, been associated with the increased use of plastics infarming. In turn, this may result in the accumulation of an appreciable plastic burden in agricultural soils with consequences for soil
biochemistry, including soil microbiology and nitrogen cycling. The implementation of the Montreal Protocol has led to the avoidanceof high UV irradiation but this, in turn, can extend plastic longevity and lead to land degradation and soil biodiversity loss.

Acknowledgements Generous contributions by UNEP/Ozone Secretariat were provided for the convened author meeting. MAK
was supported by the Science Foundation Ireland (16-IA-4418). Support by the U.S. Global Change Research Program is gratefully
acknowledged for: ALA, PWB (also supported by the J.H. Endowment for Environmental Biology), SM, KCR and CCW. RGZ [The views
expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views or policies of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency].
Author contributions All authors contributed to the conception and assessment and carried out extensive revisions of content.
Conflict of interest The authors have no conflicts of interest.

360

Chapter 8

References1.

Geyer, R., Jambeck, J. R., & Law, K. L. (2017). Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever made. Science Advances, 3(7),e1700782. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.1700782

2.

Borrelle, S. B., Ringma, J., Law, K. L., Monnahan, C. C., Lebreton, L., McGivern, A., Murphy, E., Jambeck, J., Leonard, G. H.,
Hilleary, M. A., & Eriksen, M. (2020). Predicted growth in plastic waste exceeds efforts to mitigate plastic pollution. Science369(6510), 1515-1518. https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.aba3656

3.

Li, C., Busquets, R., & Campos, L. C. (2020). Assessment of microplastics in freshwater systems: A review. Science of the Total
Environment, 707, 135578. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135578

4.

Pabortsava, K., & Lampitt, R. S. (2020). High concentrations of plastic hidden beneath the surface of the Atlantic Ocean. Naturecommunications, 11(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-17932-9

5.

Geneva Environment Network. (2022). Update Plastics and the Environment. https://www.genevaenvironmentnetwork.org/
resources/updates/plastics-and-the-environment/ (accessed 21 June 2022)

6.

Andrady, A. L., Barnes, P. W., Bornman, J. F., Gouin, T., Madronich, S., White, C. C., Zepp, R. G., & Jansen, M. A. K. (2022).
Oxidation and fragmentation of plastics in a changing environment; from UV-radiation to biological degradation. Science of the
Total Environment, 158022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.158022

7.

Frias, J. P., & Nash, R. (2019). Microplastics: Finding a consensus on the definition. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 138, 145-147.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.11.022

8.

Amato-Lourenço, L. F., Carvalho-Oliveira, R., Júnior, G. R., dos Santos Galvão, L., Ando, R. A., & Mauad, T. (2021). Presenceof airborne microplastics in human lung tissue. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 416, 126124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jhazmat.2021.126124

9.

Cox, K. D., Covernton, G. A., Davies, H. L., Dower, J. F., Juanes, F., & Dudas, S. E. (2019). Human consumption of microplastics.
Environmental Science & Technology. 53 (12), 7068-7074. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b01517

10.

Zhang, S., Wang, J., Liu, X., Qu, F., Wang, X., Wang, X., Li, Y., & Sun, Y. (2019). Microplastics in the environment: A review
of analytical methods, distribution, and biological effects. TrAC Trends in Analytical Chemistry, 111, 62-72. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.trac.2018.12.002

11.

Mason, S. A., Welch, V. G., & Neratko, J. (2018). Synthetic polymer contamination in bottled water. Frontiers in Chemistry 6, 407.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fchem.2018.00407

12.

Smith, M., Love, D. C., Rochman, C. M., & Neff, R. A. (2018). Microplastics in seafood and the implications for human health.
Current Environmental Health Reports, 5(3), 375–386. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40572-018-0206-z

13.

Nicole, W. (2021) Microplastics in seafood: How much are people eating? Environmental Health Perspectives, 129(3), 034001.
https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP8936

14.

Lehner, R., Weder, C., Petri-Fink, A., & Rothen-Rutishauser, B. (2019). Emergence of nanoplastic in the environment and possible
impact on human health. Environmental Science & Technology, 53(4), 1748-1765. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b05512

15.

Stock, V., Laurisch, C., Franke, J., Dönmez, M. H., Voss, L., Böhmert, L., Braeuning, A., & Sieg, H. (2021). Uptake and cellulareffects of PE, PP, PET and PVC microplastic particles. Toxicology in Vitro, 70, 105021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tiv.2020.105021

16.

Ragusa, A., Svelato, A., Santacroce, C., Catalano, P., Notarstefano, V., Carnevali, O., Papa, F., Rongioletti, M. C. A., Baiocco, F.,
Draghi, S., & D'Amore, E. (2021). Plasticenta: First evidence of microplastics in human placenta. Environment International, 146,
106274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2020.106274

17.

Braun, T., Ehrlich, L., Henrich, W., Koeppel, S., Lomako, I., Schwabl, P. and Liebmann, B. (2021). Detection of
microplastic in human placenta and meconium in a clinical setting. Pharmaceutics, 13(7), 921. https://doi.org/10.3390/
pharmaceutics13070921

18.

Fournier, S. B., D’Errico, J. N., Adler, D. S., Kollontzi, S., Goedken, M. J., Fabris, L., Yurkow, E. J., & Stapleton, P. A. (2020).
Nanopolystyrene translocation and fetal deposition after acute lung exposure during late-stage pregnancy. Particle and Fibre
Toxicology, 17(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12989-020-00385-9

19.

Rahman, A., Sarkar, A., Yadav, O. P., Achari, G., Slobodnik, J. (2021). Potential human health risks due to environmental exposure
to nano-and microplastics and knowledge gaps: a scoping review. Science of the Total Environment, 757, 143872. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.143872

20.

World Health Organization. (2019). Microplastics in drinking-water. Retrieved from: https://www.who.int/publications/i/
item/9789241516198 (ISBN 978-92-4-151619-8)

361

Chapter 8
21.

Ward, C. P., & Reddy, C. M. (2020). Opinion: we need better data about the environmental persistence of plastic goods.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(26), 14618-14621. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2008009117

22.

Wong, J. K. H., Lee, K. K., Tang, K. H. D., & Yap, P.-S. (2020). Microplastics in the freshwater and terrestrial environments:
Prevalence, fates, impacts and sustainable solutions. Science of the Total Environment, 719. 137512 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2020.137512

23.

Qi, R., Jones, D. L., Li, Z., Liu, Q., & Yan, C. (2020). Behavior of microplastics and plastic film residues in the soil environment: A
critical review. Science of the Total Environment, 703, 134722. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134722

24.

Masry, M., Rossignol, S., Gardette, J.L., Therias, S., Bussière, P.O., & Wong-Wah-Chung, P. (2021). Characteristics, fate, andimpact of marine plastic debris exposed to sunlight: A review. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 171, 112701. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpolbul.2021.112701

25.

Liu, P., Zhan, X., Wu, X., Li, J., Wang, H., & Gao, S. (2020). Effect of weathering on environmental behavior of microplastics:
Properties, sorption and potential risks. Chemosphere, 242, 125193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.125193

26.

Alimi, O., Claveau-Mallet, D., Kurusu, R., Lapointe, M., Bayen, S., & Tufenkji, N. (2021). Weathering pathways and protocols forenvironmentally relevant microplastics and nanoplastics: What are we missing? Journal of Hazardous Materials, 423, 126955.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.126955

27.

Garvey, J. G., Imeror-Clerc, M., Rouzière, S., Gouadec, G., Boyron, O., Rowenczyk, L., Mingotaud, A.F., & Ter Halle, A. (2020).
et al. (2020). Molecular-scale understanding of the embrittlement in polyethylene ocean debris. Environmental Science &Technology, 54, 11173−11181. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c02095

28.

Andrady, A. L., Law, K. L., Donohue, J., & Koongolla, B. (2022). Accelerated degradation of low-density polyethylene in air and insea water. Science of the Total Environment, 811, 151368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.151368

29.

Sorasan, C., Ortega-Ojeda, F.E., Rodríguez, A., & Rosal, R. (2022). Modelling the photodegradation of marine microplastics
by means of infrared spectrometry and chemometric techniques. Microplastics 1(1), 198-210. https://doi.org/10.3390/
microplastics1010013

30.

Menzel, T., Meides, N., Mauel, A., Mansfeld, U., Kretschmer, W., Kuhn, M., Herzig, E. M., Altstädt, V., Strohriegl, P., Senker, J., &Ruckdäschel, H. (2022). Degradation of low-density polyethylene to nanoplastic particles by accelerated weathering, Science of
the Total Environment, 826,154035. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.154035

31.

Zhu, L., Zhao, S., Bittar, T. B., Stubbins, A., & Li, D. (2020). Photochemical dissolution of buoyant microplastics to dissolved
organic carbon: Rates and microbial impacts. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 383, 121065. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jhazmat.2019.121065

32.

Sendra, M., Pereiro, P., Figueras, A. & Novoa, B. (2021). An integrative toxicogenomic analysis of plastic additives. Journal ofHazardous Materials, 409, 124975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.124975

33.

Gouin, T. (2021). Addressing the importance of microplastic particles as vectors for long-range transport of chemical
contaminants: perspective in relation to prioritizing research and regulatory actions. Microplastics and Nanoplastics, 1(1), 1-19.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s43591-021-00016-w

34.

Naik, R. A., Rowles III, L. S., Hossain, A. I., Yen, M., Aldossary, R. M., Apul, O. G., Conkle, J., & Saleh, N. B. (2020). Microplastic
particle versus fiber generation during photo-transformation in simulated seawater. Science of the Total Environment, 736,
139690. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.139690

35.

Ranjan Ved, P., & Goel, S. (2019). Degradation of low-density polyethylene film exposed to UV radiation in four environments.
Journal of Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste, 23(4), 04019015. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HZ.21535515.0000453

36.

Chubarenko, I., Efimova, I., Bagaeva, M., Bagaev, A., & Isachenko, I. (2020). On mechanical fragmentation of single-use plastics
in the sea swash zone with different types of bottom sediments: Insights from laboratory experiments. Marine Pollution Bulletin,
150, 110726. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.110726

37.

Dawson, A. L., Kawaguchi, S., King, C. K., Townsend, K. A., King, R., Huston, W. M., & Bengtson Nash, S. M. (2018). Turning
microplastics into nanoplastics through digestive fragmentation by Antarctic krill. Nature Communications, 9(1), 1-8. https://doi.
org/10.1038/s41467-018-03465-938.

Mateos-Cárdenas, A., O’Halloran, J., van Pelt, F. N., & Jansen, M. A. K. (2020). Rapid fragmentation of microplastics by the
freshwater amphipod Gammarus duebeni (Lillj.). Scientific Reports, 10(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-69635-2

39.

Luo, Z., Zhou, X., Su, Y., Wang, H., Yu, R., Zhou, S., Xu, E. G., & Xing, B. (2021). Environmental occurrence, fate, impact, andpotential solution of tire microplastics: Similarities and differences with tire wear particles. Science of the Total Environment, 795,
148902. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.148902

40.

Clausen, L. P. W., Hansen, O. F. H., Oturai, N. B., Syberg, K., & Hansen, S. F. (2020). Stakeholder analysis with regard to a recent
European restriction proposal on microplastics. PloS One, 15(6), p.e0235062. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235062

362

Chapter 8
41.

Barnes, P. W., Robson, T. M., Neale, P. J., Williamson, C. E., Zepp, R. G., Madronich, S., Wilson, S. R., Andrady, A. L., Heikkilä, A.
M., Bernhard, G. H., & Bais, A. F. (2022). Environmental effects of stratospheric ozone depletion, UV radiation, and interactions
with climate change: UNEP Environmental Effects Assessment Panel, Update 2021. Photochemical & Photobiological Sciences,21(3), 275-301. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43630-022-00176-5

42.

Neale, P. J., Williamson, C. E., Banaszak, A. T., Häder, D. P., Hylander, S., Ossola, R., Rose, K. A., Wängberg, S.-Å., & Zepp, R. G.
(2022). The response of aquatic ecosystems to the interactive effects of stratospheric ozone depletion, UV radiation, and climatechange. Chapter 5

43.

Dees, J. P., Ateia, M., & Sanchez, D.L. (2020). Microplastics and their degradation products in surface waters: A missing piece ofthe global carbon cycle puzzle. ACS ES&T Water, 1(2), 214-216. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsestwater.0c00205

44.

Wieczorek, A. M., Croot, P. L., Lombard, F., Sheahan, J. N., & Doyle, T. K. (2019). Microplastic ingestion by gelatinous
zooplankton may lower efficiency of the biological pump. Environmental Science & Technology, 53(9), 5387-5395. https://doi.
org/10.1021/acs.est.8b07174

45.

Stubbins, A., Law, K. L., Muñoz, S. E., Bianchi, T. S., & Zhu, L. (2021). Plastics in the Earth system. Science, 373(6550), 51-55.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abb0354

46.

Welsh, B., Aherne, J., Paterson, A. M., Yao, H., & McConnell, C. (2022). Atmospheric deposition of anthropogenic particles andmicroplastics in south-central Ontario, Canada. Science of the Total Environment, 835, 155426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2022.155426

47.

Brahney, J., Mahowald, N., Prank, M., Cornwell, G., Klimont, Z., Matsui, H., & Prather, K.A. (2021). Constraining the atmosphericlimb of the plastic cycle. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(16), e2020719118. https://doi.org/10.1073/
pnas.2020719118

48.

Allen, S., Allen, D., Phoenix, V. R., Le Roux, G., Durántez Jiménez, P., Simonneau, A., Binet, S., & Galop, D. (2019). Atmospherictransport and deposition of microplastics in a remote mountain catchment. Nature Geoscience, 12(5), 339-344. https://doi.
org/10.1038/s41561-019-0335-5

49.

Evangeliou, N., Grythe, H., Klimont, Z., Heyes, C., Eckhardt, S., Lopez-Aparicio, S., & Stohl, A. (2020). Atmospheric transport isa major pathway of microplastics to remote regions. Nature Communications, 11(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-02017201-950.

Brahney, J., Hallerud, M., Heim, E., Hahnenberger, M., & Sukumaran, S. (2020). Plastic rain in protected areas of the UnitedStates. Science, 368(6496), 1257-1260. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaz5819

51.

Drummond, J. D., Schneidewind, U., Li, A., Hoellein, T. J., Krause, S., & Packman, A. I. (2022). Microplastic accumulation inriverbed sediment via hyporheic exchange from headwaters to mainstems. Science Advances, 8(2), eabi9305. https://www.
science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abi9305

52.

Li, Y., Zhang, H., & Tang, C. (2020). A review of possible pathways of marine microplastics transport in the ocean. Anthropocene
Coasts, 3(1), 6-13. https://doi.org/10.1139/anc-2018-0030

53.

Barrett, J., Chase, Z., Zhang, J., Holl, M. M. B., Willis, K., Williams, A., Hardesty, B. D., & Wilcox, C. (2020). Microplastic
pollution in deep-sea sediments from the Great Australian Bight. Frontiers in Marine Science, 7, 808. https://doi.org/10.3389/
fmars.2020.576170

54.

Zhang, Y., Kang, S., Allen, S., Allen, D., Gao, T., & Sillanpää, M. (2020). Atmospheric microplastics: A review on current status andperspectives. Earth-Science Reviews, 203, 103118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2020.103118

55.

Chubarenko, I., Bagaev, A., Zobkov, M., & Esiukova, E. (2016). On some physical and dynamical properties of microplastic
particles in marine environment. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 108(1-2), 105-112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.04.048

56.

Póvoa, A. A., Skinner, L. F., & de Araújo, F. V. (2021). Fouling organisms in marine litter (rafting on abiogenic substrates): A global
review of literature. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 166, 112189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2021.112189

57.

Kreczak, H., Willmott, A. J., & Baggaley, A. W. (2021). Subsurface dynamics of buoyant microplastics subject to algal biofouling.
Limnology and Oceanography, 66(9), 3287-3299. https://doi.org/10.1002/lno.11879

58.

Yang, L., Zhang, Y., Kang, S., Wang, Z., & Wu, C. (2021). Microplastics in soil: A review on methods, occurrence, sources, andpotential risk. Science of the Total Environment, 780, 146546. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.146546

59.

Sembiring, E., Fareza, A. A., Suendo, V., & Reza, M. (2020). The Presence of microplastics in water, sediment, and milkfish(Chanos chanos) at the downstream area of Citarum River, Indonesia. Water, Air, & Soil Pollution, 231(7), 1-14. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11270-020-04710-y

60.

Wang, C., Zhao, J., & Xing, B. (2021). Environmental source, fate, and toxicity of microplastics. Journal of Hazardous Materials,
407, 124357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.124357

363

Chapter 861.

Gigault, J., El Hadri, H., Nguyen, B., Grassl, B., Rowenczyk, L., Tufenkji, N., Feng, S., & Wiesner, M. (2021). Nanoplastics areneither microplastics nor engineered nanoparticles. Nature Nanotechnology, 16(5), 501-507. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41565021-00886-4

62.

Foley, C. J., Feiner, Z. S., Malinich, T. D., & Höök, T. O. (2018). A meta-analysis of the effects of exposure to microplastics on fish
and aquatic invertebrates. Science of the Total Environment, 631, 550-559. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.03.046

63.

Vivekanand, A. C., Mohapatra, S., & Tyagi, V. K. (2021). Microplastics in aquatic environment: Challenges and perspectives.
Chemosphere, 282, 131151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.131151

64.

Bucci, K., Tulio, M., & Rochman, C. M. (2020). What is known and unknown about the effects of plastic pollution: A meta-analysis
and systematic review. Ecological Applications, 30(2), e02044. https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.2044

65.

Mateos-Cárdenas, A., van Pelt, F. N., O’Halloran, J., & Jansen, M. A. K. (2021). Adsorption, uptake and toxicity of microand nanoplastics: Effects on terrestrial plants and aquatic macrophytes. Environmental Pollution, 284, 117183. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.envpol.2021.117183

66.

Maity, S., & Pramanick, K. (2020). Perspectives and challenges of micro/nanoplastics-induced toxicity with special reference tophytotoxicity. Global Change Biology, 26(6), 3241-3250. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15074

67.

Rillig, M. C., & Lehmann, A. (2020). Microplastic in terrestrial ecosystems. Science, 368(6498), 1430. https://www.science.org/
doi/10.1126/science.abb5979

68.

Sarker, S., Huda, A. S., Niloy, M. N. H., & Chowdhury, G. W. (2022). Trophic transfer of microplastics in the aquatic ecosystem
of Sundarbans mangrove forest, Bangladesh. Science of the Total Environment, 155896. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2022.155896

69.

Hasegawa, T., & Nakaoka, M. (2021). Trophic transfer of microplastics from mysids to fish greatly exceeds direct ingestion fromthe water column. Environmental Pollution, 273, 116468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2021.116468

70.

Athey, S. N., & Erdle, L. M. (2022). Are we underestimating anthropogenic microfiber pollution? A critical review of occurrence,
methods, and reporting. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 41(4), 822-837. https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.5173

71.

Chen, Q., Allgeier, A., Yin, D., & Hollert, H. (2019). Leaching of endocrine disrupting chemicals from marine microplastics
and mesoplastics under common life stress conditions. Environment International, 130, 104938. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envint.2019.104938

72.

Rummel, C. D., Escher, B. I., Sandblom, O., Plassmann, M. M., Arp, H. P. H., MacLeod, M., & Jahnke, A. (2019). Effects ofleachates from UV-weathered microplastic in cell-based bioassays. Environmental Science & Technology, 53(15), 9214-9223.
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b02400

73.

Hüffer, T., Weniger, A.-K., & Hofmann, T. (2018). Sorption of organic compounds by aged polystyrene microplastic particles.
Environmental Pollution, 236, 218-225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2018.01.022

74.

Xiong, Y., Zhao, J., Li, L., Wang, Y., Dai, X., Yu, F., & Ma, J. (2020). Interfacial interaction between micro/nanoplastics and typical
PPCPs and nanoplastics removal via electrosorption from an aqueous solution. Water Research, 184, 116100. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.watres.2020.116100

75.

Mao, R., Lang, M., Yu, X., Wu, R., Yang, X., & Guo, X. (2020). Aging mechanism of microplastics with UV irradiation and its effects
on the adsorption of heavy metals. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.122515

76.

Yu, F., Yang, C., Huang, G., Zhou, T., Zhao, Y., & Ma, J. (2020). Interfacial interaction between diverse microplastics andtetracycline by adsorption in an aqueous solution. Science of the Total Environment, 721, 137729. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2020.137729

77.

Zhang, P., Huang, P., Sun, H., Ma, J., & Li, B. (2020). The structure of agricultural microplastics (PT, PU and UF) and their sorption
capacities for PAHs and PHE derivates under various salinity and oxidation treatments. Environmental Pollution, 257, 113525.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2019.113525

364

Members of the panel

Members of the Environmental
Effects Assessment Panel and Coauthors (2018-2022)
Dr Anthony L. Andrady

Dr Anu M. Heikkilä

Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering

Finnish Meteorological Institute R&D

North Carolina State University

Climate Research

Raleigh, NC 27695-7901

00101 Helsinki

United States

Finland

Dr Pieter J. Aucamp

Assoc. Prof. Samuel Hylander

Ptersa Environmental Consultants

Centre for Ecology and Evolution in Microbial Model Systems

Faerie Glen 0043

Linnaeus University

South Africa

KalmarSwedenProf. Alkiviadis F. Bais
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki

Dr Janice Longstreth

Department of Physics

The Institute for Global Risk Research54124 Thessaloniki

9119 Kirkdale Rd, Ste 200

GreeceBethesda, MD 20817
United States

Prof. Paul W. Barnes (Co-chair)
Department of Biological Sciences

Dr Sasha Madronich

Loyola University

National Center for Atmospheric Research6363 St. Charles Ave.

Boulder, Colorado, 80307

New Orleans, LA 70118

United States

United States
Dr Patrick J. Neale
Dr Germar H. Bernhard

Smithsonian Environmental Research Center

Biospherical Instruments Inc.

Edgewater, Maryland 21037

5340 Riley Street

United States

San Diego, CA 92110-2621
United States

Prof. Rachel Neale
QIMR Berghofer Medical Research InstituteProf. Janet F. Bornman (Co-chair)

Locked Bag 2000

Food Futures InstituteRoyal Brisbane Hospital

Murdoch University

Brisbane, QLD, 4029

South St, Murdoch WA 6150

Australia

Australia
Dr Krishna K. Pandey (Co-chair)Prof. D.-P. Häder

Institute of Wood Science and Technology

Department of Biology

18th Cross Malleswaram

Friedrich-Alexander University

Bengaluru – 560003

Erlangen-Nürnberg, Möhrendorf

India

Germany365

Members of the panel
Prof. Lesley E. Rhodes

Hon. Prof. Stephen R. Wilson

School of Biological Sciences
Faculty of Biology Medicine and HealthCentre for Atmospheric Chemistry, School of Earth, Atmosphere,
and Life Sciences

The University of Manchester

University of Wollongong, Northfields Ave.

Manchester M6 8HD

Wollongong, NSW, 2522

United Kingdom

Australia

Prof. Sharon A. Robinson

Prof. Sten-Åke Wängberg

Centre for Sustainable Ecosystem Solutions, School of Earth,Atmosphere and Life Sciences & Global Challenges Program

Department of Marine Sciences

University of Wollongong, Northfields Avenue

SE-405 30 Göteborg

Wollongong, NSW 2522

SwedenUniversity of Gothenburg

Australia
Dr Seyhan Yazar
Assoc. Prof. Matthew Robson

Single Cell and Computational Genomics

Viikki Plant Science Centre

Cancer Division

Faculty of Biological and Environmental Sciences

Garvan Institute of Medical Research

University of Helsinki

384 Victoria Street Darlinghurst, NSW 2010

Helsinki 00014

Australia

Finland
Prof. Antony R. Young
Dr Kevin C. Rose

King’s College London

Department of Biological Sciences

St John’s Institute of Dermatology

Rensselaer Polytechnic InstituteLondon SE1 9RT

Troy, NY, 12180

United Kingdom

United States
Dr Barbara Sulzberger
Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology (Eawag)Überlandstrasse 133
CH-8600 Dübendorf
Switzerland
Prof. Craig E. Williamson
Department of Biology, 158 Pearson Hall
Miami University
Oxford, Ohio 45056
United States
Dr Christopher C. White
Exponent, Inc.
17000 Science Dr, Bowie, MD 20715
United States
Dr Richard G. Zepp
United States Environmental Protection Agency
960 College Station Road
Athens, Georgia 30605-2700
United States366

Co-authors

Co-authors
Assoc. Prof. Mads P. Sulbæk Andersen
Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry
California State University
18111 Nordhoff St
Northridge, CA 91330-8262
United States
Dr Anastazia T. Banaszak
Unidad Académica de Sistemas Arrecifales
Instituto de Ciencias del Mar y Limnología Universidad Nacional
Autónoma de México Prolongación Avenida Niños Héroes S/N
Dom. Con. Puerto Morelos, Delegación Benito Juárez 77580
Quintana Roo

Dr Loes Hollestein
Erasmus MC
University Medical Center Rotterdam
Dr Molewaterplein 40, 3015 GD Rotterdam
The Netherlands
Assoc. Prof. Wen-Che Hou
Department of Environmental Engineering
National Cheng Kung University
No.1 University Road, Tainan City
Taiwan 70101, Republic of China
Prof. Marcel A.K. Jansen

MexicoSchool of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences,

Professor Marianne Berwick

University College Cork, Cork

CRF 032325 Camino de Salud,Albuquerque, New Mexico, 87131

Environmental Research Institute
Ireland
Dr Andrew R. Klekociuk

United States

Australian Antarctic Division

Prof. Scott N. Byrne

Kingston, Tasmania 7050

The University of Sydney
School of Medical Sciences
Faculty of Medicine and Health; Westmead Institute for Medical
Research Centre for Immunology & Allergy ResearchWestmead, NSW 2145
Australia
Dr Laura S. Bruckman
School of Engineering
Department of Materials Science and Engineering
Case Western Reserve University
Cleveland, Ohio
United States
Dr Bente Føreid
Norwegian Institute of Bioeconomy Research (NIBIO), Fredrik A.
Dahls vei
1430 Ås
Norway203 Channel Highway
Australia
Dr Hong Li
Institute of Atmospheric Environment
Chinese Research Academy of Environmental Sciences, Chaoyang
District, Beijing
China
J. Ben Liley
National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research
Private Bag 50061, Omakau, Central Otago
New ZealandProf. Javier Martínez-Abaigar
University of La Rioja
Faculty of Science and Technology
CCT, Madre de Dios 51
26006 Logroño (La Rioja)
Spain

367

Co-authors
Dr Richard L. McKenzie

Dr Qing-Wei Wang

National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA),

Institute of Applied Ecology

LauderChinese Academy of Sciences (CAS)Private Bag 50061 Omakau

72 Wenhua, Shenhe, Shenyang 110016

Central Otago 9352

China

New ZealandProf. Meifang Zhu
Assoc. Prof. Catherine Olsen

College of Materials Science & Engineering

Department of Population Health2999 North Renmin Road, Songjiang District

Queensland Institute of Medical Research

Donghua University

Berghofer Medical Research InstituteShanghai 201620

300 Herston Road, Herston 4029

China

Queensland
Australia

Dr Liping Zhu
Center for Advanced Low-dimension Materials

Dr Rachele Ossola

2999 North Renmin Rd, Songjiang District

Department of Chemistry

Donghua University

1301 Center Avenue

Shanghai 201620

Colorado State University

China

Fort Collins, CO 80523-1872
United States

Contributing author
Dr Roy Mackenzie

Prof. Nigel D. Paul

Cape Horn International Center (CHIC), Puerto Williams

Lancaster Environment Centre

Millennium Institute Biodiversity of Antarctic and Subantarctic

Lancaster University

Ecosystems

Lancaster, LA1 4YQ

Chile

United Kingdom
Dr Tamara Schikowski
Leibniz Research Institute for Environmental Medicine (IUF)
Auf'm Hennekamp 50
DE-40225 Düsseldorf
Germany
Prof. (Emeritus) Keith R. Solomon
Centre for Toxicology, School of Environmental Sciences
University of Guelph
Guelph, ON N1G 2W1
CanadaAssoc. Prof. Justina Ukpebor
Chemistry Department
Faculty of Physical Sciences
University of Benin
Benin City
Nigeria

368

Reviewers

Reviewers of the 2022 Assessmentof the UNEP Environmental Effects
Assessment Panel
Pedro Aphalo

Prue Hart

University of Helsinki

University of Western Australia

Helsinki, Finland

Perth, Australia

Jianhui Bai

Hugh Henry

Institute of Atmospheric Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences

University of Western Ontario

Beijing, China

London, Canada

Lars Olof Björn

Margaret Karagas

Lund University

Dartmouth College, Geisel School of Medicine

Lund, Sweden

Hanover, United States

Rosa Busquets SantacanaFrancisco Badenes-Perez

Kingston University

CSIC

Kingston upon Thames, United Kingdom

Madrid, Spain

Gabriel Chiodo

Esteban Balseiro

Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (IAC-ETH)

CONICET

Zürich, Switzerland

Bariloche, Argentina

Natalia Chubarova

Jennifer Brentrup

Moscow State University

Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies

Moscow, Russia

Millbrook, United States

Martin Dameris

Martyn Chipperfield

Institute of Atmospheric Physics

University of Leeds

Wessling, Germany

Leeds, United Kingdom

Henri Diémoz

William Cooper

Environmental Protection Agency of the Aosta Valley

University of California, IrvineSaint-Christophe, Italy

Irvine, United States

Éva Hideg

Thomas Day

University of Pécs

Arizona State University

Pécs, Hungary

Tempe, United States

Auroop Ganguly

Nils Ekelund

Northeastern University

Malmö University

Boston, United States

Malmö, Sweden

Antonella Gori

Beatriz Fernandez-Marin

University of Florence

University of La Laguna

Florence, Italy

SC de La Laguna, Spain

369

Reviewers
Reza Ghiasvand

Neha Rai

Oslo University Hospital

University of Geneva

Oslo, Norway

Geneva, Switzerland

Julian Gröbner

Brenda Riquelme del Río

Physikalisch-Meteorologisches Observatorium Davos, World
Radiation Center (PMOD/WRC)

Universidad de Magallanes
Puerto Williams, Chile

Davos Dorf, Switzerland
Joan Roberts
Michaela Hegglin

Fordham University

Forschungszentrum JülichNew York, United States

Jülich, Germany
Michelle Santee
Rainer Hofmann

California Institute of Technology

Lincoln University

Pasadena, United States

Lincoln, New ZealandAnna Maria Siani
Konstantinos Kourtidis

Sapienza

Demokritus University of Thrace

Rome, Italy

Xanthi, Greece
Rajeshwar Sinha
Janusz Krzyścin

Banaras Hindu University

Institute of Geophysics Polish Academy of Sciences

Varanasi, India

Warsaw, Poland
Aron Stubbins
Shaoshan Li

Northeastern University

Shouth China Normal University

Boston, United States

Guangzhou, China
Kaisa Lakkala
Paul Lips

Finnish Meteorological Institute

Amsterdam University Medical Centre

Helsinki, Finland

Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Pelle Lindqvist
Javier López-Solano

Karolinska Institutet

Izaña Atmospheric Research Center

Stockholm, Sweden

Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Spain
Laura Llorens
Kalman Migler

Faculty of Sciences, University of Girona

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Girona, Spain

Gathersburg, United States
Roy Mackenzie-Calderon
Norman Nelson

Universidad de Magallanes

University of California, Santa Barbara

Puerto Williams, Chile

Santa Barbara, United States
Beatriz ModenuttiPeter Philipsen

CONICET

Copenhagen University Hospital - Bispebjerg

Bariloche, Argentina

Copenhagen, Denmark370

Reviewers
Julie Newton-Bishop

Richard Weller

University of Leeds

University of Edinburgh

Leeds, United Kingdom

Edinburgh, United Kingdom

Rubén Piacentini

Jana Barbro Winkler

Institute of Physics Rosario (CONICET - National Univerisity of
Rosario)Helmholtz Association of German Research Centres
Munich, Germany

Rosario, Argentina
Otmar Urban
Halim Redhwi

Global Change Research InstituteKing Fahad University of Petroleum & Minerals

Brno, Czechoslovakia

Dhahran, Saudi Arabia
Arjan van Dijk
Miguel Rivas Avila

RIVM

Universidad de Tarapaca

Bilthoven, The Netherlands

Arica, Chile
Ann Webb
Eva Rosenqvist

University of Manchester

University of Copenhagen

Manchester, United Kingdom

Taastrup, Denmark
David Whiteman
Jonathan Shanklin

QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute

British Antarctic Survey

Brisbane, Australia

Cambridge, United Kingdom
Hans Christian Wulf
Craig Sinclair

Bispebjerg Hospital

Cancer Council Victoria

Copenhagen, Denmark

Melbourne, Australia
Rubén Piacentini
Knut Asbjørn Solhaug
Norwegian University of Life Sciences

Institute of Physics Rosario (CONICET - National Univerisity of
Rosario)Ås, Norway

Rosario, Argentina

Helen Tope

Halim Redhwi

Technology and Economic Assessment Panel

King Fahad University of Petroleum & Minerals

Melbourne, Australia

Dhahran, Saudi Arabia

Matthew Tully

Miguel Rivas Avila

Bureau of Meteorology

Universidad de Tarapaca

Melbourne, Australia

Arica, Chile

Emilie van Deventer

Eva Rosenqvist

World Health Organization

University of Copenhagen

Geneva, Switzerland

Taastrup, Denmark

Jason Wargent

Jonathan Shanklin

Massey University

British Antarctic Survey

Palmerston North, New ZealandCambridge, United Kingdom

371

Reviewers
Craig Sinclair

Hans Christian Wulf

Cancer Council Victoria

Bispebjerg Hospital

Melbourne, Australia

Copenhagen, Denmark

Knut Asbjørn Solhaug
Norwegian University of Life Sciences
Ås, Norway
Helen Tope
Technology and Economic Assessment Panel
Melbourne, Australia
Matthew Tully
Bureau of Meteorology
Melbourne, Australia
Emilie van Deventer
World Health Organization
Geneva, Switzerland
Jason Wargent
Massey University
Palmerston North, New ZealandRichard Weller
University of Edinburgh
Edinburgh, United Kingdom
Jana Barbro Winkler
Helmholtz Association of German Research Centres
Munich, Germany
Otmar Urban
Global Change Research InstituteBrno, Czechoslovakia
Arjan van Dijk
RIVM
Bilthoven, The Netherlands
Ann Webb
University of Manchester
Manchester, United Kingdom
David Whiteman
QIMR Berghofer Medical Research InstituteBrisbane, Australia372

373