Prevention of UV radiation hazard
State of the art and perspectives
Fabio Bisegna
Department of Astronautic, Electric and Energy Engineering
(DIAEE)
Sapienza University
Rome, Italy
fabio.bisegna@uniroma1.it
Francesco Leccese
Department of Energy Engineering, Systems, Territory and
Constructions (DESTeC)
School of Engineering, University of Pisa
Pisa, Italy
f.leccese@ing.unipi.it
Abstract—The aim of this paper is to present the main issues
concerning the protection of outdoor workers from UV natural
radiation, in order to prevent the UV adverse effects, and to
discuss the current measurement tools available for workers,
evidencing their deficits. A wearable smart sensor for monitoring
the effective exposure of the individual worker is proposed as
innovative solution
Keywords— UV radiation;outdoor workers; measurements;
smart sensor.
I. INTRODUCTION
The UV radiation is about the 5% of the whole Solar
Radiation (SR) reaching the ground, but it represents the most
hazardous band of the solar spectrum for human health; for this
reason the International Agency for Research on Cancer
(IARC) classified the UV, as well as the whole SR, in the
Group I of the carcinogenic evidence to humans [1].
Also artificial lamps can be sources of UV radiation:
common general lighting lamps, in particular halogen and
fluorescent, emit in the UV band but they are provided with an
envelope that filters this radiation; other lamps for specific uses
emit quantities of UV that must be taken into consideration.
Germicidal lamps used for disinfection, metal halide and
mercury lamps adopted in health care applications, xenon
lamps used as endoscopic illuminators, UV LED and lasers
utilized in several industry and research fields are some
examples of unfiltered UV emitters that could be hazardous for
workers and common people. An investigation carried out by
Fantozzi et al. [2] on several laps used in hospitals evidenced
that most of them have emissions not exempt from risk.
This work is part of the BRIC project and it has been realized with the
INAIL financial support.
978-1-5386-5186-5/18/$31.00 ©2018 IEEE
Massimo Borra
Department of Occupational and Environmental Medicine,
Epidemiology and Hygiene
INAIL
Monte Porzio Catone, Italy
m.borra@inail.it
Francesco Asdrubali
Department of Engineering
RomaTRE University
Roma, Italy
francesco.asdrubali@uniroma3.it
It has been demonstrated that UV radiation causes several
adverse effect to eye and skin, such as erythema, photokeratitis,
photoconjunctivitis, cataract and skin cancer.
The UV-induced tissue damage is, in terms of frequency
and/or severity, dose-dependent: it is related to the total energy
absorbed by the tissue per unit of area and over the total
exposure time defined as radiant exposure. Threshold values
producing the different types of damage may not be exactly
defined, depending on several factors including the phenotype,
but the prolonged exposure to high irradiation levels increases
the risk of tissues damage. In order to prevent the occurrence of
damage, a limit value of 30 J/m2 over a period of 8 hours has
been stated [3].
Occupational exposure of outdoor workers to UV is higher
with respect to other categories of workers and this imports an
increased risk of SR adverse health effect. Several studies
evidenced that the exposure levels of outdoor workers exceed
the exposure limit value established for artificial optical
radiation; these results are confirmed by the average daily
UVR (J/m2) provided by the Global Hearth Observatory Data
of World Health Organization (Figure 1) [4].
The individual risk assessment is one of the most difficult
steps: it is consequence of the single worker exposure to SR,
which may be highly variable, depending on several factors
such as latitude, daytime, meteorological conditions, altitude,
albedo, posture, movements, personal protection, etc. The
definition of the actual worker's exposure often requires
specific measurements of UV radiation by means of
radiometers or dosimeters; this may involve a lot of concerns
for an employer, or for the individual worker, since the
available scientific instruments are expensive and need
qualified personnel for their management, as well as for the
correct measurement procedure and data analysis.

Fig. 1. Average daily ambient ultraviolet radiation (UVR) level, 2002.
Source: http://www.who.int/gho/phe/ultraviolet_radiation/exposure/en/
The assessment of worker's exposure to UV radiation is
important under the aspects of prevention, protection and
diagnosis. For preventing the adverse health effects, the
exposure to SR, similar that provided for artificial sources,
should be kept below the risk value of 30 J/m2 over a period of
8 hours, a limit under which the exposure to SR is considered
safe. It is important to underline that in order to evaluate the
work exposure it should not be added to that received during
free time.
Only knowing the actual exposure is possible to adopt the
adequate protective actions: on the basis of the in time
exposure level is possible to choose clothing and accessories or
to decide to move under the shadow or in indoor. The daily
exposure assessment is also useful for medical finality, in case
of Sun related pathology onset; with this aim, the possibility of
measuring the exposure of each body district is of great
importance for calculating the most exposed body area. Also
the assessment of each worker's personal cumulative dose
could advantage epidemiological studies to correlate the onset
of the pathology with the outdoor workers activity.
The aim of this paper is to highlight the difficulties
concerning the exposure assessment to solar UV radiation and
to discuss alternative approaches, including both those
available on the market and those under investigation.
II. FACTORS INFLUENCING HUMAN EXPOSURE
The amount of UV radiation to which the outdoor worker is
exposed depends on:
• the radiation effectively arriving at the ground,
which is affected by environmental factors;
• the part of the previous radiation received by
tissues, which is reduced by protective elements;
• the exposure of the single body district, which is
influenced by work task.
Within the concept of environmental factors are included
all that conditions influencing the irradiation level in a specific
site: the radiation arriving at the ground primary depends on
latitude, since at high latitudes the irradiation level is
considerably lower than that is measurable at middle latitude,
which in turn is lower than the level at the Equator; also the
altitude is a geographical datum to take into consideration,
since the ozone layer that filters the UV rays is reduced in
mountain.
Moreover the environmental factors include the temporal
variables affecting the irradiation in the specific day, in
particular the season and the weather conditions. Due to the
different orbital position of the Earth during the year, the
distance from the Sun differs so that the irradiation level in
summer can be several times higher than in winter. In addition,
the sky conditions affected the daily/hourly portion of direct
and diffuse radiation, since clouds shade from direct sun rays
reducing the amount of SR arriving on Earth.
Generally, only a portion of the whole UV radiation at the
ground is really received by the body, for the protective action
of shading elements. During working hours people dress
uniforms or personal clothing that absorb and reflect a
percentage of the incoming radiation, depending on the fabric
material, weight and color. For accounting the shading level of
clothing, the UVR protection factors of fabric (UPF) has been
defined as the ratio of the erythemal UV radiation and the
related amount transmitted by the fabric [5]: an investigation
carried out on a large number of fabric demonstrated that most
of the summer clothing have a UPF>20 [6].
Additionally, sunscreens can be used for protecting body
districts not covered by cloths and sunglasses for filtering the
radiation directs to the eyes. Sunscreens are made with organic
or mineral elements that absorb or reflect UV radiation and
their effectiveness in reducing the erythema is accounted by the
skin protection factors (SPF): it is a dimensionless number that
increases with the protection level. The use of sunscreens with
high SPF is largely encouraged, but also their correct
application is recommended: the prescribed layer of product
must be applied for obtaining the declared SPF and the
application has to be repeated in case of long expositions, since
the durability is reduced by sweating and abrasion.
Sunglasses are very useful for filtering UV radiation and
the level of attenuation depends on their transmittance. The
UNI EN 1836 [7] indicates the UV, B, VIS and IR spectral
weighting functions for calculating the transmittance in the
corresponding bands and classifies sunglasses for general use
in five categories from 0 to 4: to higher numbers correspond
higher protection levels. For a better protection, glasses with a
wrap-around design are recommended, since they act also on
rays incoming from lateral directions.
The human body anatomy imports different exposure to SR
of the single body districts, so that certain body elements are
more subject to sunburn and erythema than other: shoulders,
forearms and face generally receive the highest levels of SR,
due to their position. The eye is relatively protect from SR,
thanks to the face anatomy that shield it from direct sun rays:
the field of view is generally direct in front or on the ground
and for this reason the eyes principally receive indirect
radiation reflected from object or scattered by the atmosphere;
moreover, in case of excessive incoming light, protection
mechanisms like pupillary constriction and squinting intervene.
The real value of SR received in a defined body district
depends on its inclination respect to the vertex: an ICNIRP
publication [8] defines the relative solar exposure of several IV. INSTRUMENTS OF MEASURE
head districts. Moreover, the real exposure of each body The calculation of UV exposure requires the use of
element is related to the actual position respect to the Sun and scientific instruments able to record the spectral irradiance
the body rotation or inclination can increase or reduce the incident on the skin or eye surface. This measure is generally
exposure. The work task determines the body posture and in performed by means of a radiometer or a spectroradiometer
outdoor workers it influences the district most exposed to SR: with an operative range of 200-400 nm; both instruments are
the exposure ratio of several anatomic parts for the posture of breakable, relatively large in size, not easy to use and the data
standing, sitting, bending and kneeling are defined in Airey et they acquire need to be post processed. Alternatively,
al. [9]. dosimeters can be used for measuring the value of ES: in fact,
they directly give the spectrally weighted irradiance value.
III. REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS They are smaller instruments than the previous ones, but are
For preventing the adverse effects due to overexposure, the breakable and a post processing phase is needed for obtaining
European Directive 2006/25/CE [3] established the limit value the daily exposure. In Figure 2 are shown examples of
of daily exposure to the whole UV radiation in 30 J/m2 over a commercial instruments for the measure of the SR radiation.
period of 8 hours; basing on this statement, the standard CEI
EN 62471 [10] indicates the guidelines for calculating this
value, defined as effective radiant exposure (Eeff) and valid for
both eye and skin.
The calculation of Eeff is based on the measurement of the
spectral irradiance Eλ on the area exposed to UV radiation; the
general procedure is defined by International Commission of
Non Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) [11] and a
simplified method is proposed by Schulmeister et al. [12]. For
obtaining the effective integrated spectral irradiance (ES), the a) b)
measured Eλ values have to be weighted with the ultraviolet
hazard weighting function SUV; it accounts for the biological
effectiveness of UV radiation as a function of wavelength and
is defined by the International Commission on Illumination
(CIE) for the UV hazard, being valid for both the eye and the
skin.
The effective radiant exposure can be calculated
multiplying ES by the exposure time: the maximum time taken
into account is 8 hours (30000 seconds) of continuous exposure
in a day, since longer daily time periods are not stated by the c) d)
regulation. For irregular exposures, when different irradiance
levels are detected in the time window, the mean irradiance
value on the whole exposure time has to be considered [12].
When the value of effective radiant exposure is known, the
maximum time of exposure to UV radiation complying with
the exposure limit can be calculates as Tmax= 30/ES, where
30J/m2 is the daily exposure limit.
The World Health Organization (WHO) in collaboration
with other international organisms elaborated the Global Solar
UV Index (UVI) with the intent of providing an easy
instrument for people protection and hazard prevention [13].
This index has the double finality of quantifying the amount of
e)
UV SR at the ground level and providing a value that indicate
the level of potential skin damage. Fig. 2. Instruments for the measure of the solar radiation: a) radiometer
Minolta mod. CS-2000; b) spectroradiometer Aantes mod. Avaspec
The UVI is a dimensionless number that can be calculated UV/VIS/NIR; c) spectrometer Ocean Optics mod. USB4000-UV-VIS; d)
integrating the Eλ with the CIE erithemal action spectrum Ser spectroradiometer Jeti mod. Specbos 1211; e) dosimeters GigaHertz mod.
[14] and multiplying the result for a constant ker = 40 m2/W. It X2000.
ranges from 0 to 11+ and to higher numbers corresponds higher
potential of damage: for UVI values of 1 or 2 the exposure to Wearable devices currently available have been designed to
SR is safe without any protection; for values ranging from 3 to allow a simple measure of UV radiation exposure by the
7 the exposure is unsafe and protections from sun are general public: they are small sensors in connection with a
recommended; for levels exceeding 8 the exposition should be smartphone application (App) that provides the UV Index
avoided or requires elevate protections. (UVI) value. These devices are very easy to wear and to
manage; moreover, they provide additional simple and useful
information, as for instance the maximum exposure time.
Nevertheless, a previous study evidenced their limits [15].
Several devices provide very different exposure values with
respect to those measured with dosimeters and radiometers.
Exposure values are referred to a horizontal surface at the
ground and may be largely different from those of the real
exposed body surface. Measures are generally based on the
clear sky model and for this reason they do not take into
account the weather variability providing a overestimation of
effective radiant exposure.
V. INDIRECT MODELS FOR HAZARD EVALUATION
For overcome the difficulties and limitations inherent to the
measurement of the UV radiation and the consequent
calculation of the effective exposure, the literature proposed
indirect methods for assessing the worker's personal exposure.
The Skin Exposure Factor (SEF) and the Ocular Exposure
Factor (OEF) [8] are two dimensionless indices assessing the
level of exposure of sensible tissues. They are defined on the
basis of six factors that mainly influence the actual exposure of
the worker: (f1) geographical latitude, (f2) cloud cover, (f3)
duration of exposure, (f4) ground reflectance, (f5) clothing or
eyewear, (f6) shade. Different values corresponding to specific
standardized conditions are associated to each factor, so that
the most appropriate value to the worker condition can be
select. The product of these six factors is the index SEF or OEF
that indicates the appropriate protection required, ranging from
shirt and brimmed hat to sunscreen SPF15+ or shading.
These indices are easy instruments for the human being
protection against the hazardous effects of SR, but they do not
allow to estimate the effective radiant exposure of the single
worker. Other models are proposed for assessing the actual
exposure of the whole body and also the cumulative dose of
UV radiation.
The indirect method of Modenese et al. [16] has been
developed with the aim of assessing the cumulative exposure
of outdoor workers during their working lifetime. It is based
both on subjective data obtained by the worker itself with a
questionnaire, on objective data collected in GIS database [17]
and a model of the body exposure [18].
The questionnaire provides information about the job done
by the worker, the tasks, the workplace, the number of days per
week and the outdoor working hours, the dresses worn and
eventual use of Sun protections; on the basis of these data it is
possible to estimate the working environment features, the
exposure time and the exposed body districts. From the
Tropospheric Emission Monitoring Internet Service (TEMIS),
a database provided by the European Space Agency (ESA), is
possible to obtain the SR at the ground in a specific selected
place, the corresponding erythemal UVI and the daily UV
dose. All the previous data are integrated into a mathematical
model that estimates the cumulative SR of the workers: a
specific coefficient allows to assess the exposure on defined
body districts.
A different indirect method for assessing the annual UVR
exposure, based on direct reference measures of SR instead of
satellite data, has been proposed by Wittlich at al. [19]. The
developed mathematical model considers time, geographical
and personal factors for weighting the measured exposure on
the single worker.
The time factors estimate the annual exposure time of the
worker, taking into account the number of working days in
each month and the daily working hours in outdoor; the
geographical factors indicate the features of the real workplace,
considering the latitude, the altitude and relevant reflections of
the environment; the personal factors are useful for converting
the measured radiation in body exposure: the body area is an
index related to the district considered and the protective factor
refers to filtering elements like clothes and sunglasses.
VI. PROTECTION AND PREVENTION
In order to reduce tissue damage due to SR exposure and to
prevent the occurrence of related diseases, preventive actions
are recommended. These actions are part of the employee's
more general duty of ensuring the workers’ safety and health in
the workplace, but a condition for their full implementation is
the “acceptance” by the worker: this implies an effective
cooperation between the employer and the employees.
The process of risk assessment, which includes the
definition of exposure to solar UV radiation for a given outdoor
activity or job, should be preliminary to the implementation of
any preventive and protective measure; however, at present the
countermeasures are adopted without any assessment
procedure, for the difficulties concerning the direct and indirect
evaluation methods.
Generally adopted preventive and protective measures are
the application of recommended careful behaviors from
workers themselves, such as to avoid Sun exposure during the
central hours of the day (11 am - 15 pm) especially during the
summer season, to use appropriate protective clothing, to wear
accessories like sunglasses and hats with a protective design, to
prefer shaded places and to use broad spectrum sunscreens
with high SPF.
Other useful protective methods are all the countermeasures
that reduce the workers' exposure time under direct Sun
radiation: in this category fall, for instance, modifications in the
work organization, such as reduction of the outdoor working
hours, schedule rotation or to spend the break times, in
particular lunch time, in indoor; particularly effective is the
arrangement of apposite shadings, like trees or covers, under
which the workers can carry out their activity. All these
methods have the limitation that they can require the active
intervention or the positive consensus of the employer.
Information and training are general preventive actions
having the purpose of teaching to workers the health hazards
consequent to excessive UV exposure and to explain the
countermeasure to adopt for preventing and protecting
themselves; they should induce to modify the behavior in all
outdoor activities, included those carried out during leisure
time; in this view, they are crucial preventive instruments not
only for workers but for general public too. Health surveillance
can help in identifying people with health risk propensity, both
for eye and skin, and to prescribe adequate protective actions.
VII. WEARABLE SMART SENSOR
The recent development of Information and
Communication Technology (ICT) allowed the realization of a
wide range of compact sensors for the protection of human
health in several fields [20]. For instance, sensors recording
physiological functions can be used in medicine for remote
patient health care [21], or sensors monitoring human motions
can support the correct execution of exercises in physical
rehabilitation [22]; hearth rate, respiration, galvanic skin
conductance are often implemented in unobtrusive sensors
used in several sport activities [23]; accelerometers,
gyroscopes, magnetometers and GPS are commonly
implemented in device able to detect posture recognition and
fall detection for security application [24]-[26].
In working field, the research was focused on developing
wearable sensors for detecting construction workers' position
and body posture, with the intent of preventing musculoskeletal
disorders or worker's access to dangerous area. Valero et al.
[27] developed a measurement unit to assess the posture
assumed by the worker during the bricklaying activity: it is a
network composed of 8 sensors placed in the most solicited
parts of the body, which monitors in detail the movements of
back, shoulders and knees. The trunk flexion and inclination in
workplace were assessed with good approximation by Van
Driel et al. [28] using a single inclinometer placed over the
sternum and a model correct with anthropometric parameters.
A new smart sensor is under construction to overcome the
limitations concerning the personal UV hazard assessment. It
consists in a wearable object of small dimensions, light weight
and ergonomic design, provided of several sensors connected
together. It will be able to detect the geographical coordinates
of the working place, if the worker is outdoors, the body
posture assumed during the whole working time and the sun
position in the same period. These data will be correlated with
in time and in situ irradiation measurements at the ground level
obtained from satellite and provided from an on-line database,
whose reliability has been discussed in a previous work [15].
A simplified model of the human body is under elaboration
that can represent with good approximation the exposure of the
body districts. Considering the activities carried out in outdoor
works, the human body has been discretized in simple
geometries: the head as a cylinder, the trunk as a
parallelepiped, the arms as two bended parallelepipeds and the
legs as two standing parallelepipeds. Moreover only the trunk
flexion and rotation are admitted, with the arms and the legs
considered fixed elements connected to the trunk. The
integrated data of body posture and solar irradiation will be
elaborated applying the elaborated body model and the
estimated exposure of the most exposed body surfaces will be
determined through mathematical ratios.
The wearable sensor could be connected with an App on
the personal Smartphone for the sensor management, the data
download and the calculation of the estimated exposure: in
case of continuous connection, an acoustic signal could advise
the worker when the maximal daily SR dose has been reached.
VIII. CONCLUSION
Overexposure to UV solar radiation is a health public issue
and the protection of workers, as well as general people, from
its adverse consequence is a policy promoted from
Governments and International Agencies. Nevertheless the
personal measurement of the actual exposure and the
calculation of the effective dose are still of difficult execution
for the single worker, as well as for employers: actually the
protective and preventive measures are applied without
assurance of their effectiveness, since the real hazard of the
exposure is generally unknown.
In the last years the scientific research worked for
bypassing the difficulties inherent the direct and exact
definition of the effective exposure, proposing indirect methods
for assessing the personal estimated exposure and cumulative
dose: the most promising solution seems to be the realization of
a wearable smart sensor. These models have an inevitable
percentage of error respect to the direct measures, but they are
still under investigation and in the future they affordability
should increase.
REFERENCES
[1] International Agency for Research on Cancer, "A review of human
carcinogens, volume 100 D – radiation", IARC monographs on the
evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans. Lyon, 2012.
[2] F. Fantozzi, F. Leccese, M. Rocca, G. Salvadori, "Risk assessment
arising from exposure to artificial optical radiation. Results of an
extensive evaluation campaign in the hospitals of Tuscany (Italy)", 2017
IEEE International Conference on Environment and Electrical
Engineering and 2017 IEEE Industrial and Commercial Power Systems
Europe (EEEIC / I&CPS Europe) 6th-9th June 2017, Milan, Italy.
[3] Directive 2006/25/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
"on the minimum health safety requirements regarding the exposure of
workers to risks arising from physical agents (artificial optical
radiation)" 5 April 2006.
[4] http://www.who.int/gho/phe/ultraviolet_radiation/exposure/en/
[5] EN13758-1, "Textiles. Solar UV protective properties. Method of test
for apparel fabrics", 2002.
[6] J.L. Agnew, K.J.L. Grainger, I.E.S. Clark, C.M.K. Driscoll, "Protection
from UVR by clothing", Radiol Prot Bull, 1998, 200.
[7] UNI EN 1836, "Personal eye protection. Sunglasses and sunglare filters
for general use", 1997.
[8] P. Vecchia, M. Hietanen, B. E. Stuck, E. van Deventer, S. Niu,
"Protecting Workers from Ultraviolet Radiation", ICNIRP 14/2007.
[9] D. K. Airey, J. C. F. Wong, R. A. Flemming, "A comparison of human -
and headform - based measurements of ultravioled B dose",
Photodermatol. Photoimmunol. Photomed. 1995, 11, pp. 155-158.
[10] CEI EN 62471 "Photobiological safety of lamps and lamps systems"
2009.
[11] International Commission on Non Ionizing Radiation Protection –
ICNIRP Statement, “Protection of workers against ultraviolet
radiation”. Health Phys. 2010; 99 (1): 66-8.
[12] K. Schulmeister, A. Buberl, M. Weber, E. Kitz, "Simplified method to
assess the UV and blue lght hazard of lamps", Proceedings of the
International Laser Safety Conference, March 18-21 2013, Orlando
Florida, pag. 357.
[13] World Health Organization, World Meteorological Organization, United
Nations Environment Programme, International Commission of Non-
Ionizing Radiation Protection, "Global Solar UV Index: A Practical
Guide", Geneva, Switzerland, 2002.
[14] Commission Internationaile de l'Eclairage, "Erythemal reference action
spectrum and standard erythemal dose", CIE Standard S007-1998.
[15] A. Militello; M. Borra; F. Bisegna; C. Burattini; C. Grandi, "Smart
Technologies: Useful Tools to Assess the Exposure to Solar Ultraviolet
Radiation for General Population and Outdoor Workers", 18th Italian
National Conference on Photonic Technologies (Fotonica 2016), 6-8
June 2016, Rome, Italy, pag. 85.
[16] A. Modenese, F. Bisegna, M. Borra, C. Grandi, F. Gugliermetti, A.
Militello, F. Gobba, " Assessing the Cumulative Solar Radiation
Exposure among Outdoor Workers: Presentation of a Method for
Epidemiological Studies", 5th International Conference on
Electromagnetic Fields , Health and Environment, Oporto, Portugal,
24th-26th May, 2014.
[17] D. Groppi, L. de Santoli, F. Cumo, D. Astiaso Garcia, "A GIS-based
model to assess buildings energy consumption and usable solar energy
potential in urban areas", Sustainable Cities and Society, in press.
[18] A. Modenese, F. Bisegna, M. Borra, C. Grandi, F. Gugliermetti,
A.Militello, F. Gobba, "Outdoor work and solar radiation exposure:
evaluation method for epidemiological studies", Medycyna Pracy, 2016,
67, pp. 577-587.
[19] M. Wittlich, S. Westerhausen, P. Kleinespel, G. Rifer, W. Stöppelmann,
"An approximation of occupational lifetime UVR exposure: algorithm
for retrospective assessment and current measurements", JEADV, 2016,
30, pp. 27-33.
[20] I. Awolusi, E. Marks, M. Hallowell, "Wearable technology for
personalized construction safety monitoring and trending", Automation
in Construction 2018, 85, pp. 96-106.
[21] S. Yao, P. Swetha, Y. Zhu, "Nanomaterial-Enabled Wearable Sensors
for Healthcare", Advanced Healthcare Matherials, 2018, 7, p. 1700889.
[22] L. Gonzàlez-Villanueva, S. Cagnoni, L. Ascari, "Design of Werable
Sensing System for Human Motion Monitoring in Physical
Rehabilitation", Sensors 2013, 13, pp.7735-7755.
[23] M. Schmidt, S. Wille, C. Rheinländer, N. When, T. Jaitner, "A wearable
flexible sensor network platform for the analysis of different sport
movements", Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, 2018,
608, pp. 3-14.
[24] H. Gjoreski, M, Lustrek, M. Gams, "Accelerometer Placement for
Posture Recognition and Fall Detection", 2011 Sventh International
Conference on Intelligent Environments, 25th-28th July 2011,
Nottingham, United Kingdom, pp. 47-54.
[25] H. Harms, O. AMft, R. Winkler, J. Schumm, M. Kusserow, G. Troester,
"ETHOS: Miniature Orientation Sensor for Werable Human Motion
Analysis", 9th IEEE Sensors 2010 Conference, 1st- 4th November 2010,
Waikoloa, USA, pp. 1037- 1042.
[26] D. Rodriguez-Martin, A. Samà, C. Perez-Lopez, A. Català, J. Cabestany,
A. Rodriguez-Molinero, "SVM-based posture identification with a
single waist-located triaxial accelerometer, Expert System with
Applications, 2013, 40, pp. 7203-7211.
[27] E. Valero, A. Sivanathan, F. Bosché, M. Abdel-Wahab, "Analysis of
construction trade worker body motions using a wearable and wireless
motion sensor network", Autonomation in Construction, 2017, 83,
pp.48-55.
[28] R. Van Driel, C. Trask, P. W. Johnson, J. P. Callaghan, M. Koehoorn, K.
Teschke, "Anthropometry-Corrected Exposure Modeling as a Mathod to
Improve Trunk Posture Assessment with a Single Inclinometer", Journal
of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 2013, 10, pp. 143-154.