Health effects of UV radiation on animals - UV research at the

G. Schauberger and A. Schmalwieser WG Environmental Health Department of Biomedical Sciences University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna European Conference on Solar UV Monitoring ECUVM 2018 “UV Monitoring in the European Countries - Past, Present and Future” 12. - 14. September 2018, Vienna, Austria

Content Difference between humans and animals

UV Exposure and health related effects

– Zoo – Farm animals – Pets – Wild animals

Conclusions & Perspectives

Earth surface - ambient UV radiation

Skin surface - skin dose of animals

Protection: hair coat, vegetation and water

Geometry of the skin surface

Behaviour: Exposure time

Skin type ?

Radiation path: Earth - Animal

Transmission of the hair coat

0102030405060708090

100

Tran

smiss

ion

[%]

0 50 100 150 200Hair density [cm-2]

5

2

10 Sun

prot

ectio

n fa

ctor

[ ]

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Rela

tive

heig

ht []

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0Relative irradiance []

TreeGrass

Vegetation: Gras and Trees

Spectral Transmission of Water

0102030405060708090

100

Spec

trale

Tra

nsm

issio

n [%

]

300 400 500 600 700Wavelength [nm]

O

C

Geometry

Animals / Heath related effects Zoo Farm animals Pets Wild animals

Skin Eye Vitamin D

Zoo Animals Goal: Mimic the natural habitat

Deficit of UV exposure

• Compensation by artificial sources • Estimation by the UV index (Ferguson et al. (2010)

Health ~ vitamin D deficit

• Rachitis (rickets) and Osteodystrophy • Breeding success (e.g. egg stability)

Vitamin D deficit

Townsend and Cole (1985)

UV Exposure of Zoo Animals

60% of European zoos are using artificial UV sources

of that

48% only for treating reptiles 52% also for mammals and avians

Erythema of pigs

Erythema on pigs

MED (J/m²)

Horse 450 Pig 120 - 350 Cattle 100

UVB erythema in pigs: time course

0123456789

1011121314

Eryt

hem

a in

dex ∆E

I

0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96 108 120 132 144Time after UVB exposure (h)

high doses D > 7 MEDmedium doses 1 MED < D < 7 MEDlow doses D < 1 MED

visibility of the erythema ∆EI > 2.5

UVB

Visibility

High dose

Medium dose

Low dose

Cancer eye

Cancer eye (ocular squamous cell carcinoma) around a sparsely pigmented skin area

Cattle Horse

Cancer Eye

Variable Range Odds Ratio Latitude 30 – 45°N 0.79

Altitude (m) 7 - 1800 1.12 UV exposure 300 – 442 1.17

Dugan et al., 1991

Horse

Variable Range Odds Ratio Sunshine duration (h/a) 1800 -3500 2.5

Altitude (m) 700 - 3100 4.6 Cloud cover 0.4 – 0.7 3.4

Anderson und Badzioch, 1991

Cattle

Positive UV effects ?

One-day outdoor exposure

Solarium with a recommended exposure time

Keck et al.(1987)

Photosensibilisation Feed:

Sheep, pig, sometimes cattle, goat, rarely horse Drugs:

Phenothiacin, Trypoflavin, Tetracycline, Mansonil and Sulphonamide and Olaquindox - Pigs, fish and farmer

Skin lesions Actinic keratosis (AK)

• Dogs Short-coated, white-haired, or piebald breeds; “collie nose” (nasal solar dermatitis)

• Cats Pinna, nose, and eyelids of white-faced cats

Almeida et al. (2008)).

Epidemiology

Cumulative incidence of SCC (∆) for beagle dogs

(Nikula et al., 1992)

Risik factors for pets

UV exposure Pigmentation Orientation Hair density

Aquatic Species

Species RAF Phytoplankton motility (Evglena gracilis) 1.5 - 1.9 Phytoplankton photosynthesis (Phaeodactylum sp.) 0.2 -0.3 Phytoplankton photosynthesis (Prorocentrvm micans) 0.3 - 0.4 Phytoplankton photosynthesis, in Antarctic community 0.8 Phytoplankton photosynthesis (Nodularia spumtgena cyanobacteria) 0.2 - 0.2

Bacterioplankton DNA damage (euphotic zone) 1.7 Bacterioplankton DNA damage (surface water) 2.1 – 2.2 Green alga Prasiola stipitata 0.7 Dinoflagellate Gyrodinium dorsum 0.4 Cyanobacterium Anabaena sp 1.0 Corals photosynthesis 0.21

Radiation amplification factor RAF

Huot et al., (2000); Madronich and Flocke, (1995); Rozema et al., (2002); Zepp, (2003)

Fish - Skin Lesions Species Author Chinook salmon Arctic char Brockebank and Armstrong (1994)

Hammerhead shark Lowe and Goodman-Lowe (1996)

Northern Anchovy Pacific Mackerel

Hunter et al. (1979)

Rainbow Trout Dunbar (1959) Bullock and Couts (1985)

Salmon McArdle and Bullock (1987), Kaweewat and Hofer (1997), Rodger (1991)

Koi carp Bullock et al. (1983)

Ecosystem Food chain: 30% of protein is coming from

the sea Carbon: 10% reduction in plankton equal to

the anthropogenic CO2-source Variety of species: Increase of UV exposure

might reduce the number of species

Conclusions Biological effects identical to humans

• Positive effects: Vitamin D synthesis • Skin • Eye • Epidemiology

Systemic effects

Ecosystems

Book chapter soon available

Weihs, Ph., Schmalwieser, A.W., Schauberger, G., 2019. UV Effects on Living Organisms in: Meyers, R.A. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Sustainability Science and Technology, in press