## 3 Results
### Spectral Illuminance Measurements, Automation Scenario, and Luminance Distribution
In the case of the _packaging_ workplace, they differ between 23% and 114%, meaning that a substantial amount of light does not reach the field of view. The latter is desirable in the low melanopic settings, as it reduces the melanopic stimulus, but not in the high setting, for the same reason. The differences in the FOV obstruction can be explained by the positioning of the luminaires compared to a worker's position. The _packaging_ workplace is at the border of the relevant area (see Figure 1). Besides the lights above the workplace, no dynamic light is visible to a worker (unless the area next to it is outfitted with the new lighting in the future). The _quality control_ workplaces, on the other hand, are surrounded by _Drosa_ luminaires, and the ones above the workplace are at an ideal height within the field of view. All spectral measurements are available in 1 nm resolution in File S1. Through a central display, workers can change the illuminance level up to \(\pm\)20% of the current setting, but only until the end of their shift, when normal levels fade back in. This is meant to increase user acceptance of the solution by giving the user the possibility to intervene with the automated system. At the same time, the extent of this possibility is small enough so as not to equalize the circadian curve. Figure 7 shows the luminance distribution of the high and low melanopic settings beside the stock lighting system as false-color scales alongside the 180\({}^{\circ}\) fisheye photographs. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Melanopic Setting** & **Quality Control** & **Packaging** \\ \hline \multicolumn{3}{c}{Vertical MEDI (lx) 1 without/with FOV 4} \\ high & 412/398 & 324/151 \\ neutral & 278/268 & 158/110 \\ low & 73/70 & 97/79 \\ low+ & 100/96 & 122/81 \\ background & 9/NA & 75/NA \\ \multicolumn{3}{c}{Horizontal illuminance (lx) 2} \\ high & 1250 & 1350 \\ neutral & 900 & 650 \\ low & 900 & 300 \\ low+ & 1000 & 600 \\ \multicolumn{3}{c}{CCT at eye level (K)} \\ high & 6547 & 4444 \\ neutral & 5218 & 4491 \\ low & 3097 & 4042 \\ low+ & 3085 & 4077 \\ \multicolumn{3}{c}{CCT of area component (K)} \\ \multicolumn{3}{c}{ofdirect/area component 3} \\ high & 7000 & 80\%/80\% \\ neutral & 5500 & 75\%/60\% \\ low & 3000 & 70\%/25\% \\ low+ & 3000 & 80\%/35\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} 1  
\end{table} 
Table 2: Lighting measurements and automation setting with the new lighting design. The stock lighting system is quite similar in luminance distribution to the high melanopic setting, although both the melanopic stimulus and the illuminance at task level are more than one-third higher compared to the stock lighting (Table 2 compared to Table 1). The low melanopic setting, on the other hand, provides about the same task illuminance as the stock system but far less on vertical surfaces. This contributes to the three-fold difference in melanopic stimulus intensity between the stock lighting and low melanopic setting in the new lighting. In the high and low melanopic settings, the stock luminaires can be seen to reflect some of the light of the direct component. The measurements were taken during commissioning, after which, the stock lighting system was removed. Figure 7: Luminance distribution between the old (**top panels**) and the new lighting systems for high (**middle panels**) and low (**bottom panels**) melanopic settings. The right panels show false-color luminance pictures according to the scale with a 180\({}^{\circ}\) fisheye camera. The left panels show the corresponding photographs.