As with all safety issues it is easy, forget that laser hazards do not stop at one place or at one use; after all we have a program in place to cover those hazards, right. Well maybe not, the traditional laser safety program generally focuses on three groups’ research, medical and industrial users of lasers. Why? Because they are the most likely to obtain and use class 3B and 4 lasers, as these lasers where expensive to purchase and often required special utilities to operate. Unfortunately, this is no longer the case, with the availability of cheap and very powerful lasers, the laser safety officer (LSO) needs to expand their horizon’s to include non-traditional groups in the laser safety program. The LSO should expand their reach into these areas, facilities use, embedded laser use, outdoor laser use, and of course the driver behind all of this the cheap laser.When one thinks of facilities laser use, what first comes to mind are laser levels and laser sighted infrared thermometers which are generally safe when purchased from reliable manufactures, but what about laser wielding or laser paint removal, have you consider the impact these tools will have on your laser safety program? On the other hand embedded laser have been only a concern when they are disposed of after all they are in a Class 1 box with interlocks so little concern, right? Well maybe not, interlocks can fail, be defeated or not be there at all. After all the embedded will be used by researchers or trades professionals who read the manual and understand about the hazards. Look at where all those embedded lasers are going, maker spaces, libraries, or general office spaces and ask are you reaching these folks? If those areas are not enough places to look consider the great outdoors, but you say the only folks who would use a laser outdoors are researchers or concert promoters and they know that there are very specific rules to follow because we put all of that into the laser safety manual, but ask who is reading it? Did you ask your pest management group what happened to all the Canadian geese on campus, or the folks wanting to collect plant samples in the top of trees, or the group of makers who thought making a laser canon would be fun for playing tag? So what is causing this expansion of laser use? The cheap laser, do you realize that you can now purchase a 100W laser for less than $5,000.00 correction $1,000.00! Most institutions and companies will require purchase at or over $5,000.00 to be reviewed prior to authorization, but if the cost is less, there may be little or no oversite. Therefore, even if you have purchasing flagging lasers in all likelihood you will never see this kind of powerful laser buy thus you must expand your horizons to close this hole in your program.As with all safety issues it is easy, forget that laser hazards do not stop at one place or at one use; after all we have a program in place to cover those hazards, right. Well maybe not, the traditional las
{"title":"So you think you laser safety program is going well, are you really sure?","authors":"S. Lappi","doi":"10.2351/1.5118661","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2351/1.5118661","url":null,"abstract":"As with all safety issues it is easy, forget that laser hazards do not stop at one place or at one use; after all we have a program in place to cover those hazards, right. Well maybe not, the traditional laser safety program generally focuses on three groups’ research, medical and industrial users of lasers. Why? Because they are the most likely to obtain and use class 3B and 4 lasers, as these lasers where expensive to purchase and often required special utilities to operate. Unfortunately, this is no longer the case, with the availability of cheap and very powerful lasers, the laser safety officer (LSO) needs to expand their horizon’s to include non-traditional groups in the laser safety program. The LSO should expand their reach into these areas, facilities use, embedded laser use, outdoor laser use, and of course the driver behind all of this the cheap laser.When one thinks of facilities laser use, what first comes to mind are laser levels and laser sighted infrared thermometers which are generally safe when purchased from reliable manufactures, but what about laser wielding or laser paint removal, have you consider the impact these tools will have on your laser safety program? On the other hand embedded laser have been only a concern when they are disposed of after all they are in a Class 1 box with interlocks so little concern, right? Well maybe not, interlocks can fail, be defeated or not be there at all. After all the embedded will be used by researchers or trades professionals who read the manual and understand about the hazards. Look at where all those embedded lasers are going, maker spaces, libraries, or general office spaces and ask are you reaching these folks? If those areas are not enough places to look consider the great outdoors, but you say the only folks who would use a laser outdoors are researchers or concert promoters and they know that there are very specific rules to follow because we put all of that into the laser safety manual, but ask who is reading it? Did you ask your pest management group what happened to all the Canadian geese on campus, or the folks wanting to collect plant samples in the top of trees, or the group of makers who thought making a laser canon would be fun for playing tag? So what is causing this expansion of laser use? The cheap laser, do you realize that you can now purchase a 100W laser for less than $5,000.00 correction $1,000.00! Most institutions and companies will require purchase at or over $5,000.00 to be reviewed prior to authorization, but if the cost is less, there may be little or no oversite. Therefore, even if you have purchasing flagging lasers in all likelihood you will never see this kind of powerful laser buy thus you must expand your horizons to close this hole in your program.As with all safety issues it is easy, forget that laser hazards do not stop at one place or at one use; after all we have a program in place to cover those hazards, right. Well maybe not, the traditional las","PeriodicalId":118257,"journal":{"name":"International Laser Safety Conference","volume":"4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131708428","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
While most lasers with open beams pose a potential hazard, this is hardly true of most lamps. In fact almost all lamps are safe. However, in recent years there have been concerns raised about light emitting diodes (LEDs) that are rich in blue light. The LED technology employed in modern computer screens also generates a larger fraction of blue light compared to most conventional light sources used for general illumination. The correlated color temperature (CCT) of many displays and inexpensive LED lamps can be relatively high - at least as high as the CCT of cool-white fluorescent lamps. While almost all of these LED “white-light” lamp sources are not considered hazardous by today’s lamp-safety standards, Some installations are of poor design - resulting in significant discomfort glare and employees and consumers may complain. Although the LSO normally is not called on to answer safety questions posed by these types of lamps, some may complain to the LSO and it is useful to understand these new issues. There are basically only two types of sources that are hazardous: (1) open arcs and arc lamps, and (2) short ultraviolet lamps (e.g., sunlamps and germicidal (UV-C) lamps.While most lasers with open beams pose a potential hazard, this is hardly true of most lamps. In fact almost all lamps are safe. However, in recent years there have been concerns raised about light emitting diodes (LEDs) that are rich in blue light. The LED technology employed in modern computer screens also generates a larger fraction of blue light compared to most conventional light sources used for general illumination. The correlated color temperature (CCT) of many displays and inexpensive LED lamps can be relatively high - at least as high as the CCT of cool-white fluorescent lamps. While almost all of these LED “white-light” lamp sources are not considered hazardous by today’s lamp-safety standards, Some installations are of poor design - resulting in significant discomfort glare and employees and consumers may complain. Although the LSO normally is not called on to answer safety questions posed by these types of lamps, some may complain to the LSO and it is useful to understand these new issues. Th...
{"title":"Incoherent light sources – why worry?","authors":"D. Sliney","doi":"10.2351/1.5118657","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2351/1.5118657","url":null,"abstract":"While most lasers with open beams pose a potential hazard, this is hardly true of most lamps. In fact almost all lamps are safe. However, in recent years there have been concerns raised about light emitting diodes (LEDs) that are rich in blue light. The LED technology employed in modern computer screens also generates a larger fraction of blue light compared to most conventional light sources used for general illumination. The correlated color temperature (CCT) of many displays and inexpensive LED lamps can be relatively high - at least as high as the CCT of cool-white fluorescent lamps. While almost all of these LED “white-light” lamp sources are not considered hazardous by today’s lamp-safety standards, Some installations are of poor design - resulting in significant discomfort glare and employees and consumers may complain. Although the LSO normally is not called on to answer safety questions posed by these types of lamps, some may complain to the LSO and it is useful to understand these new issues. There are basically only two types of sources that are hazardous: (1) open arcs and arc lamps, and (2) short ultraviolet lamps (e.g., sunlamps and germicidal (UV-C) lamps.While most lasers with open beams pose a potential hazard, this is hardly true of most lamps. In fact almost all lamps are safe. However, in recent years there have been concerns raised about light emitting diodes (LEDs) that are rich in blue light. The LED technology employed in modern computer screens also generates a larger fraction of blue light compared to most conventional light sources used for general illumination. The correlated color temperature (CCT) of many displays and inexpensive LED lamps can be relatively high - at least as high as the CCT of cool-white fluorescent lamps. While almost all of these LED “white-light” lamp sources are not considered hazardous by today’s lamp-safety standards, Some installations are of poor design - resulting in significant discomfort glare and employees and consumers may complain. Although the LSO normally is not called on to answer safety questions posed by these types of lamps, some may complain to the LSO and it is useful to understand these new issues. Th...","PeriodicalId":118257,"journal":{"name":"International Laser Safety Conference","volume":"35 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115702370","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Albert W. Bailey, E. Early, William R. Brockmeier, J. Rickman, S. Kumru, R. Thomas
Reflections of high energy lasers from surfaces can present hazards to persons and instruments at significant distances. Heating from these lasers causes changes in the reflection characteristics of surfaces they illuminate. As such, reflections from these surfaces cannot be properly modeled with static bidirectional reflectance distribution functions (BRDFs), but require time- dynamic BRDFs. Moreover, the time-evolution of the surface reflections is not deterministic, but can vary even when the materials and illumination conditions are nearly identical, such that only probabilistic characterization is realistic. Due to the swiftly changing nature of the reflections, traditional BRDF measurements with goniometric instruments are impossible, so BRDFs must be deduced from images of the reflected light incident on a screen intercepting a portion of the reflection solid angle. A new BRDF model describes these complex probabilistic dynamic BRDFs with only four intuitive parameters for a given laser wavelength, irradiance, and duration, where these parameters have central values and statistical variances over discrete regimes corresponding to surface conditions. An automated procedure determines appropriate parameter values and variances from captured screen images, requiring only a single angle of laser incidence. Parameters from sample tests illustrate the model.Reflections of high energy lasers from surfaces can present hazards to persons and instruments at significant distances. Heating from these lasers causes changes in the reflection characteristics of surfaces they illuminate. As such, reflections from these surfaces cannot be properly modeled with static bidirectional reflectance distribution functions (BRDFs), but require time- dynamic BRDFs. Moreover, the time-evolution of the surface reflections is not deterministic, but can vary even when the materials and illumination conditions are nearly identical, such that only probabilistic characterization is realistic. Due to the swiftly changing nature of the reflections, traditional BRDF measurements with goniometric instruments are impossible, so BRDFs must be deduced from images of the reflected light incident on a screen intercepting a portion of the reflection solid angle. A new BRDF model describes these complex probabilistic dynamic BRDFs with only four intuitive parameters for a given laser wavelength,...
{"title":"Construction and utilization of probabilistic dynamic bidirectional reflectance distribution functions","authors":"Albert W. Bailey, E. Early, William R. Brockmeier, J. Rickman, S. Kumru, R. Thomas","doi":"10.2351/1.5118529","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2351/1.5118529","url":null,"abstract":"Reflections of high energy lasers from surfaces can present hazards to persons and instruments at significant distances. Heating from these lasers causes changes in the reflection characteristics of surfaces they illuminate. As such, reflections from these surfaces cannot be properly modeled with static bidirectional reflectance distribution functions (BRDFs), but require time- dynamic BRDFs. Moreover, the time-evolution of the surface reflections is not deterministic, but can vary even when the materials and illumination conditions are nearly identical, such that only probabilistic characterization is realistic. Due to the swiftly changing nature of the reflections, traditional BRDF measurements with goniometric instruments are impossible, so BRDFs must be deduced from images of the reflected light incident on a screen intercepting a portion of the reflection solid angle. A new BRDF model describes these complex probabilistic dynamic BRDFs with only four intuitive parameters for a given laser wavelength, irradiance, and duration, where these parameters have central values and statistical variances over discrete regimes corresponding to surface conditions. An automated procedure determines appropriate parameter values and variances from captured screen images, requiring only a single angle of laser incidence. Parameters from sample tests illustrate the model.Reflections of high energy lasers from surfaces can present hazards to persons and instruments at significant distances. Heating from these lasers causes changes in the reflection characteristics of surfaces they illuminate. As such, reflections from these surfaces cannot be properly modeled with static bidirectional reflectance distribution functions (BRDFs), but require time- dynamic BRDFs. Moreover, the time-evolution of the surface reflections is not deterministic, but can vary even when the materials and illumination conditions are nearly identical, such that only probabilistic characterization is realistic. Due to the swiftly changing nature of the reflections, traditional BRDF measurements with goniometric instruments are impossible, so BRDFs must be deduced from images of the reflected light incident on a screen intercepting a portion of the reflection solid angle. A new BRDF model describes these complex probabilistic dynamic BRDFs with only four intuitive parameters for a given laser wavelength,...","PeriodicalId":118257,"journal":{"name":"International Laser Safety Conference","volume":"15 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121167692","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper provides a status update and an early preview of proposed additions to the laser safety product standards formalizing the area of ‘Moving Platform Laser Products’. Moving platforms such as vehicles, trains, robots and others, which incorporate free space laser emissions inherently provide and argument for adapted measurement conditions for classification. Updated requirements are critical to several laser applications including vision systems, LiDAR sensors, and more. Evaluation methods, classification measurement distances, engineering requirements and proposed specifications are discussed, as the technical committee IEC TC 76 considers formalizing this work project in 2019/2020 for the IEC 60825 family of standards.This paper provides a status update and an early preview of proposed additions to the laser safety product standards formalizing the area of ‘Moving Platform Laser Products’. Moving platforms such as vehicles, trains, robots and others, which incorporate free space laser emissions inherently provide and argument for adapted measurement conditions for classification. Updated requirements are critical to several laser applications including vision systems, LiDAR sensors, and more. Evaluation methods, classification measurement distances, engineering requirements and proposed specifications are discussed, as the technical committee IEC TC 76 considers formalizing this work project in 2019/2020 for the IEC 60825 family of standards.
{"title":"Moving platform laser products: Update on standard development for product classification","authors":"A. Frederiksen, C. Stack","doi":"10.2351/1.5118582","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2351/1.5118582","url":null,"abstract":"This paper provides a status update and an early preview of proposed additions to the laser safety product standards formalizing the area of ‘Moving Platform Laser Products’. Moving platforms such as vehicles, trains, robots and others, which incorporate free space laser emissions inherently provide and argument for adapted measurement conditions for classification. Updated requirements are critical to several laser applications including vision systems, LiDAR sensors, and more. Evaluation methods, classification measurement distances, engineering requirements and proposed specifications are discussed, as the technical committee IEC TC 76 considers formalizing this work project in 2019/2020 for the IEC 60825 family of standards.This paper provides a status update and an early preview of proposed additions to the laser safety product standards formalizing the area of ‘Moving Platform Laser Products’. Moving platforms such as vehicles, trains, robots and others, which incorporate free space laser emissions inherently provide and argument for adapted measurement conditions for classification. Updated requirements are critical to several laser applications including vision systems, LiDAR sensors, and more. Evaluation methods, classification measurement distances, engineering requirements and proposed specifications are discussed, as the technical committee IEC TC 76 considers formalizing this work project in 2019/2020 for the IEC 60825 family of standards.","PeriodicalId":118257,"journal":{"name":"International Laser Safety Conference","volume":"70 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127198893","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Femtosecond laser pulses of sufficiently high intensity are prone to undergo a number of nonlinear effects while propagating in media. The increasing use of high intensity, femtosecond laser systems underscores the need to understand the retinal hazards generated by nonlinear optical effects, like the generation of supercontinuum. Current laser safety standards such as ANSI Z136.1 for pulse wavelengths of 1200 nm - 1400 nm have been determined from experimental studies using pulse durations longer than 100 fs and linear pulse simulations. The combination of strong absorption, broad bandwidth, and dispersive effects makes standard nonlinear pulse simulation methods, based on the slowly varying envelope approximation, unsuitable for the study of near-infrared pulses in biological tissues. To model retinal hazards, we leverage an existing model for linear ultrafast pulse propagation that does not rely on an envelope approximation and simulate spectral broadening in water. Using one-dimensional simulations of the self-phase modulation, and incorporating the effect of self-focusing, we validate the model using previous experiments for white-light supercountinuum generation in water. We then simulate propagation of 10 fs - 1 ps, 1200 nm - 1400 nm pulses at the current ANSI MPE limit for pulses under 10 ps.Femtosecond laser pulses of sufficiently high intensity are prone to undergo a number of nonlinear effects while propagating in media. The increasing use of high intensity, femtosecond laser systems underscores the need to understand the retinal hazards generated by nonlinear optical effects, like the generation of supercontinuum. Current laser safety standards such as ANSI Z136.1 for pulse wavelengths of 1200 nm - 1400 nm have been determined from experimental studies using pulse durations longer than 100 fs and linear pulse simulations. The combination of strong absorption, broad bandwidth, and dispersive effects makes standard nonlinear pulse simulation methods, based on the slowly varying envelope approximation, unsuitable for the study of near-infrared pulses in biological tissues. To model retinal hazards, we leverage an existing model for linear ultrafast pulse propagation that does not rely on an envelope approximation and simulate spectral broadening in water. Using one-dimensional simulations of...
{"title":"Simulated supercontinuum generation in the human eye","authors":"C. Marble, V. Yakovlev, A. Wharmby","doi":"10.2351/1.5118572","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2351/1.5118572","url":null,"abstract":"Femtosecond laser pulses of sufficiently high intensity are prone to undergo a number of nonlinear effects while propagating in media. The increasing use of high intensity, femtosecond laser systems underscores the need to understand the retinal hazards generated by nonlinear optical effects, like the generation of supercontinuum. Current laser safety standards such as ANSI Z136.1 for pulse wavelengths of 1200 nm - 1400 nm have been determined from experimental studies using pulse durations longer than 100 fs and linear pulse simulations. The combination of strong absorption, broad bandwidth, and dispersive effects makes standard nonlinear pulse simulation methods, based on the slowly varying envelope approximation, unsuitable for the study of near-infrared pulses in biological tissues. To model retinal hazards, we leverage an existing model for linear ultrafast pulse propagation that does not rely on an envelope approximation and simulate spectral broadening in water. Using one-dimensional simulations of the self-phase modulation, and incorporating the effect of self-focusing, we validate the model using previous experiments for white-light supercountinuum generation in water. We then simulate propagation of 10 fs - 1 ps, 1200 nm - 1400 nm pulses at the current ANSI MPE limit for pulses under 10 ps.Femtosecond laser pulses of sufficiently high intensity are prone to undergo a number of nonlinear effects while propagating in media. The increasing use of high intensity, femtosecond laser systems underscores the need to understand the retinal hazards generated by nonlinear optical effects, like the generation of supercontinuum. Current laser safety standards such as ANSI Z136.1 for pulse wavelengths of 1200 nm - 1400 nm have been determined from experimental studies using pulse durations longer than 100 fs and linear pulse simulations. The combination of strong absorption, broad bandwidth, and dispersive effects makes standard nonlinear pulse simulation methods, based on the slowly varying envelope approximation, unsuitable for the study of near-infrared pulses in biological tissues. To model retinal hazards, we leverage an existing model for linear ultrafast pulse propagation that does not rely on an envelope approximation and simulate spectral broadening in water. Using one-dimensional simulations of...","PeriodicalId":118257,"journal":{"name":"International Laser Safety Conference","volume":"210 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133652351","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Michael P. DeLisi, N. Gamez, Elharith M. Ahmed, Chad A. Oian, B. Rockwell, R. Thomas
Computational models are capable of quantifying the expected thermal response of biological tissue to laser irradiation. A typical laser-tissue model accounts for optical energy deposition, heat transfer, and damage assessment, with the later often represented by calculation of the Arrhenius integral. Previous studies have successfully employed these methods to predict skin damage thresholds at laser wavelengths with high absorption in water, and usually for single continuous-wave exposures. However, there remains a need for a robust and accurate predictive model in low-absorption, high-scattering cases, such as for lasers in the near-infrared (NIR) region near 1 µm, where a large volume of tissue is heated simultaneously. This study presents a framework for modeling laser irradiation of skin tissue at 1070-nm for both continuous-wave and pulsed exposures with durations ranging from 10−2 to 101 seconds. We report the modeled skin thermal responses alongside thermal camera recordings of in-vivo porcine exposures as validation of simulation integrity. Comparisons of modeled damage thresholds calculated by the Arrhenius integral with past experimentally-determined minimum visible lesion ED50 data demonstrate a high degree of accuracy. The techniques outlined by this study provide a useful tool in assessing potentially hazardous near-infrared laser exposure scenarios while informing future investigations into modeling skin laser exposure at these wavelength regions.Computational models are capable of quantifying the expected thermal response of biological tissue to laser irradiation. A typical laser-tissue model accounts for optical energy deposition, heat transfer, and damage assessment, with the later often represented by calculation of the Arrhenius integral. Previous studies have successfully employed these methods to predict skin damage thresholds at laser wavelengths with high absorption in water, and usually for single continuous-wave exposures. However, there remains a need for a robust and accurate predictive model in low-absorption, high-scattering cases, such as for lasers in the near-infrared (NIR) region near 1 µm, where a large volume of tissue is heated simultaneously. This study presents a framework for modeling laser irradiation of skin tissue at 1070-nm for both continuous-wave and pulsed exposures with durations ranging from 10−2 to 101 seconds. We report the modeled skin thermal responses alongside thermal camera recordings of in-vivo porcine exp...
{"title":"Visible lesion threshold modeling of skin laser exposure at 1070-nm","authors":"Michael P. DeLisi, N. Gamez, Elharith M. Ahmed, Chad A. Oian, B. Rockwell, R. Thomas","doi":"10.2351/1.5118574","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2351/1.5118574","url":null,"abstract":"Computational models are capable of quantifying the expected thermal response of biological tissue to laser irradiation. A typical laser-tissue model accounts for optical energy deposition, heat transfer, and damage assessment, with the later often represented by calculation of the Arrhenius integral. Previous studies have successfully employed these methods to predict skin damage thresholds at laser wavelengths with high absorption in water, and usually for single continuous-wave exposures. However, there remains a need for a robust and accurate predictive model in low-absorption, high-scattering cases, such as for lasers in the near-infrared (NIR) region near 1 µm, where a large volume of tissue is heated simultaneously. This study presents a framework for modeling laser irradiation of skin tissue at 1070-nm for both continuous-wave and pulsed exposures with durations ranging from 10−2 to 101 seconds. We report the modeled skin thermal responses alongside thermal camera recordings of in-vivo porcine exposures as validation of simulation integrity. Comparisons of modeled damage thresholds calculated by the Arrhenius integral with past experimentally-determined minimum visible lesion ED50 data demonstrate a high degree of accuracy. The techniques outlined by this study provide a useful tool in assessing potentially hazardous near-infrared laser exposure scenarios while informing future investigations into modeling skin laser exposure at these wavelength regions.Computational models are capable of quantifying the expected thermal response of biological tissue to laser irradiation. A typical laser-tissue model accounts for optical energy deposition, heat transfer, and damage assessment, with the later often represented by calculation of the Arrhenius integral. Previous studies have successfully employed these methods to predict skin damage thresholds at laser wavelengths with high absorption in water, and usually for single continuous-wave exposures. However, there remains a need for a robust and accurate predictive model in low-absorption, high-scattering cases, such as for lasers in the near-infrared (NIR) region near 1 µm, where a large volume of tissue is heated simultaneously. This study presents a framework for modeling laser irradiation of skin tissue at 1070-nm for both continuous-wave and pulsed exposures with durations ranging from 10−2 to 101 seconds. We report the modeled skin thermal responses alongside thermal camera recordings of in-vivo porcine exp...","PeriodicalId":118257,"journal":{"name":"International Laser Safety Conference","volume":"85 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115417927","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In 2012 the first edition of Z136.8 Laser Safety in Research, Development and Testing was published. In 2019 the first revision is scheduled to be released. At the time of this abstract submittal as vote on the standard is close but not a reality. Z136.8 recognized that not every laser is a commercial laser or meets the requirements of one. The standard gives the LSO in a research setting strong and documented support for control measure decision that vary from Z136.1 Safe Use of Lasers. Even through the option to vary from Z136.1 has been present in Z136.1 for years, but mainly overlooked by LSO’s and regulatory auditor. This presentation will review the changes to the standard, as expected by the committee chairperson. A requirement long overdue, the testing of entry way interlocks is part of the standard, as well as several new appendixes. This includes for the first time a Frequently Asked Questions Appendix. Documentation of On the Job training has gone from a should to a shall. The presentation will review the updated Z136.8 as if it will be approved by the Z136 laser committee.In 2012 the first edition of Z136.8 Laser Safety in Research, Development and Testing was published. In 2019 the first revision is scheduled to be released. At the time of this abstract submittal as vote on the standard is close but not a reality. Z136.8 recognized that not every laser is a commercial laser or meets the requirements of one. The standard gives the LSO in a research setting strong and documented support for control measure decision that vary from Z136.1 Safe Use of Lasers. Even through the option to vary from Z136.1 has been present in Z136.1 for years, but mainly overlooked by LSO’s and regulatory auditor. This presentation will review the changes to the standard, as expected by the committee chairperson. A requirement long overdue, the testing of entry way interlocks is part of the standard, as well as several new appendixes. This includes for the first time a Frequently Asked Questions Appendix. Documentation of On the Job training has gone from a should to a shall. The presentation will...
{"title":"Update on Z136.8 laser safety in research, development & testing","authors":"Ken BaratCLSO","doi":"10.2351/1.5118575","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2351/1.5118575","url":null,"abstract":"In 2012 the first edition of Z136.8 Laser Safety in Research, Development and Testing was published. In 2019 the first revision is scheduled to be released. At the time of this abstract submittal as vote on the standard is close but not a reality. Z136.8 recognized that not every laser is a commercial laser or meets the requirements of one. The standard gives the LSO in a research setting strong and documented support for control measure decision that vary from Z136.1 Safe Use of Lasers. Even through the option to vary from Z136.1 has been present in Z136.1 for years, but mainly overlooked by LSO’s and regulatory auditor. This presentation will review the changes to the standard, as expected by the committee chairperson. A requirement long overdue, the testing of entry way interlocks is part of the standard, as well as several new appendixes. This includes for the first time a Frequently Asked Questions Appendix. Documentation of On the Job training has gone from a should to a shall. The presentation will review the updated Z136.8 as if it will be approved by the Z136 laser committee.In 2012 the first edition of Z136.8 Laser Safety in Research, Development and Testing was published. In 2019 the first revision is scheduled to be released. At the time of this abstract submittal as vote on the standard is close but not a reality. Z136.8 recognized that not every laser is a commercial laser or meets the requirements of one. The standard gives the LSO in a research setting strong and documented support for control measure decision that vary from Z136.1 Safe Use of Lasers. Even through the option to vary from Z136.1 has been present in Z136.1 for years, but mainly overlooked by LSO’s and regulatory auditor. This presentation will review the changes to the standard, as expected by the committee chairperson. A requirement long overdue, the testing of entry way interlocks is part of the standard, as well as several new appendixes. This includes for the first time a Frequently Asked Questions Appendix. Documentation of On the Job training has gone from a should to a shall. The presentation will...","PeriodicalId":118257,"journal":{"name":"International Laser Safety Conference","volume":"44 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121775439","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The international lamp safety standard IEC 62471 “Photobiological safety of lamps and lamp systems” defines criteria to classify lamps into one of four risk groups (exempt, RG1, RG2, RG3). RG3 is referred to as “high risk” and is usually not considered as appropriate as a consumer product unless made safe by the housing (the luminaire or the lamp system). While the exempt group and RG1 is usually accepted as “safe”, there are concerns – particularly for LEDs – if RG2 is appropriate for lighting of rooms or streets, or as consumer products without a warning label. To support a balanced view of the actual risk associated to the use of a product, this paper discusses the rules of how to determine the risk group. Strictly speaking IEC 62471:2006 requires risk group classification only for lamps and not for luminaires or lamp systems. Due to different reasons, the risk group might not reflect the actual risk: small assumed eye movements, wide ranges of permitted exposure durations per risk group as well as safety margins between limits and injury thresholds. For lighting and many other applications, for instance, RG2 when associated with visible light emission can probably be considered as sufficiently safe for consumer products even without warning labels. When UV emission is not an issue, it can be argued that for regular lamps and luminaires, risk group classification does not appear to be necessary. We also argue that it is not justified to consider LEDs differently than other, conventional light sources in a discussion about retinal hazards.The international lamp safety standard IEC 62471 “Photobiological safety of lamps and lamp systems” defines criteria to classify lamps into one of four risk groups (exempt, RG1, RG2, RG3). RG3 is referred to as “high risk” and is usually not considered as appropriate as a consumer product unless made safe by the housing (the luminaire or the lamp system). While the exempt group and RG1 is usually accepted as “safe”, there are concerns – particularly for LEDs – if RG2 is appropriate for lighting of rooms or streets, or as consumer products without a warning label. To support a balanced view of the actual risk associated to the use of a product, this paper discusses the rules of how to determine the risk group. Strictly speaking IEC 62471:2006 requires risk group classification only for lamps and not for luminaires or lamp systems. Due to different reasons, the risk group might not reflect the actual risk: small assumed eye movements, wide ranges of permitted exposure durations per risk group as well as saf...
{"title":"Lamp and LED safety – classification vs. realistic exposure analysis","authors":"K. Schulmeister, J. O'Hagan, D. Sliney","doi":"10.2351/1.5118592","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2351/1.5118592","url":null,"abstract":"The international lamp safety standard IEC 62471 “Photobiological safety of lamps and lamp systems” defines criteria to classify lamps into one of four risk groups (exempt, RG1, RG2, RG3). RG3 is referred to as “high risk” and is usually not considered as appropriate as a consumer product unless made safe by the housing (the luminaire or the lamp system). While the exempt group and RG1 is usually accepted as “safe”, there are concerns – particularly for LEDs – if RG2 is appropriate for lighting of rooms or streets, or as consumer products without a warning label. To support a balanced view of the actual risk associated to the use of a product, this paper discusses the rules of how to determine the risk group. Strictly speaking IEC 62471:2006 requires risk group classification only for lamps and not for luminaires or lamp systems. Due to different reasons, the risk group might not reflect the actual risk: small assumed eye movements, wide ranges of permitted exposure durations per risk group as well as safety margins between limits and injury thresholds. For lighting and many other applications, for instance, RG2 when associated with visible light emission can probably be considered as sufficiently safe for consumer products even without warning labels. When UV emission is not an issue, it can be argued that for regular lamps and luminaires, risk group classification does not appear to be necessary. We also argue that it is not justified to consider LEDs differently than other, conventional light sources in a discussion about retinal hazards.The international lamp safety standard IEC 62471 “Photobiological safety of lamps and lamp systems” defines criteria to classify lamps into one of four risk groups (exempt, RG1, RG2, RG3). RG3 is referred to as “high risk” and is usually not considered as appropriate as a consumer product unless made safe by the housing (the luminaire or the lamp system). While the exempt group and RG1 is usually accepted as “safe”, there are concerns – particularly for LEDs – if RG2 is appropriate for lighting of rooms or streets, or as consumer products without a warning label. To support a balanced view of the actual risk associated to the use of a product, this paper discusses the rules of how to determine the risk group. Strictly speaking IEC 62471:2006 requires risk group classification only for lamps and not for luminaires or lamp systems. Due to different reasons, the risk group might not reflect the actual risk: small assumed eye movements, wide ranges of permitted exposure durations per risk group as well as saf...","PeriodicalId":118257,"journal":{"name":"International Laser Safety Conference","volume":"11 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114916762","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Laser safety guidelines and procedures are constantly advancing. This makes it crucial to appoint a dedicated official who can understand and establish methods to adjust to these improvements. As a solution to network growth and procedural and technological advancements, we have developed a medical laser safety department. This department is currently made up of three Medical Laser Safety Officers tasked with numerous responsibilities such as: investigating new technologies, setting and enforcing regulations, educating colleagues, and overseeing designated acting laser safety officers. We have observed that having a dedicated medical laser department has been a valuable asset with the introduction of new laser technologies and hospitals within the Network. This department provides physician support in surgery as well as coordinating new potential services involving lasers. The acquisition of new hospitals presents additional challenges with standardization and misconceptions with medical laser protocol. Standardization is accomplished through the introduction of existing policies and procedures at new facilities. Acting laser safety officers are appointed to aid in the enforcement of the laser program. The medical laser safety department educates colleagues to eliminate medical laser fallacies. This paper will discuss how a designated medical laser safety department integrates a laser safety program at newly acquired facilities.Laser safety guidelines and procedures are constantly advancing. This makes it crucial to appoint a dedicated official who can understand and establish methods to adjust to these improvements. As a solution to network growth and procedural and technological advancements, we have developed a medical laser safety department. This department is currently made up of three Medical Laser Safety Officers tasked with numerous responsibilities such as: investigating new technologies, setting and enforcing regulations, educating colleagues, and overseeing designated acting laser safety officers. We have observed that having a dedicated medical laser department has been a valuable asset with the introduction of new laser technologies and hospitals within the Network. This department provides physician support in surgery as well as coordinating new potential services involving lasers. The acquisition of new hospitals presents additional challenges with standardization and misconceptions with medical laser protocol. S...
{"title":"Integration of a laser safety program in an expanding health network by a designated medical laser safety department","authors":"Brian Piekarski, D. Kline","doi":"10.2351/1.5118627","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2351/1.5118627","url":null,"abstract":"Laser safety guidelines and procedures are constantly advancing. This makes it crucial to appoint a dedicated official who can understand and establish methods to adjust to these improvements. As a solution to network growth and procedural and technological advancements, we have developed a medical laser safety department. This department is currently made up of three Medical Laser Safety Officers tasked with numerous responsibilities such as: investigating new technologies, setting and enforcing regulations, educating colleagues, and overseeing designated acting laser safety officers. We have observed that having a dedicated medical laser department has been a valuable asset with the introduction of new laser technologies and hospitals within the Network. This department provides physician support in surgery as well as coordinating new potential services involving lasers. The acquisition of new hospitals presents additional challenges with standardization and misconceptions with medical laser protocol. Standardization is accomplished through the introduction of existing policies and procedures at new facilities. Acting laser safety officers are appointed to aid in the enforcement of the laser program. The medical laser safety department educates colleagues to eliminate medical laser fallacies. This paper will discuss how a designated medical laser safety department integrates a laser safety program at newly acquired facilities.Laser safety guidelines and procedures are constantly advancing. This makes it crucial to appoint a dedicated official who can understand and establish methods to adjust to these improvements. As a solution to network growth and procedural and technological advancements, we have developed a medical laser safety department. This department is currently made up of three Medical Laser Safety Officers tasked with numerous responsibilities such as: investigating new technologies, setting and enforcing regulations, educating colleagues, and overseeing designated acting laser safety officers. We have observed that having a dedicated medical laser department has been a valuable asset with the introduction of new laser technologies and hospitals within the Network. This department provides physician support in surgery as well as coordinating new potential services involving lasers. The acquisition of new hospitals presents additional challenges with standardization and misconceptions with medical laser protocol. S...","PeriodicalId":118257,"journal":{"name":"International Laser Safety Conference","volume":"36 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132121085","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The rules and regulations restricting hand-held lasers at a national level may be revisited in light of the anticipated health risks posed to the population. It seems that some current regulations may be overly restrictive, e.g. when laser pointers belonging to Class 3R (or Class IIIA) are forbidden or not made available to consumers. The risks posed by this product category are neither serious nor high, and should thus not be subject to stringent regulations apart from market surveillance activities including information efforts. Generally speaking, occupational health regulations satisfactorily address risks posed by lasers in occupational settings and can be trusted when it comes to harnessing the use of powerful hand-held lasers as well. But it is proposed that legitimate use of powerful hand-held lasers needs to subject to some additional restrictions in order to limit illicit use. It is also suggested that the rules and regulations should be based on risk evaluations rather than on the present laser classes.The rules and regulations restricting hand-held lasers at a national level may be revisited in light of the anticipated health risks posed to the population. It seems that some current regulations may be overly restrictive, e.g. when laser pointers belonging to Class 3R (or Class IIIA) are forbidden or not made available to consumers. The risks posed by this product category are neither serious nor high, and should thus not be subject to stringent regulations apart from market surveillance activities including information efforts. Generally speaking, occupational health regulations satisfactorily address risks posed by lasers in occupational settings and can be trusted when it comes to harnessing the use of powerful hand-held lasers as well. But it is proposed that legitimate use of powerful hand-held lasers needs to subject to some additional restrictions in order to limit illicit use. It is also suggested that the rules and regulations should be based on risk evaluations rather than on the present laser...
{"title":"Risk-based regulation of hand-held lasers","authors":"M. Lindgren","doi":"10.2351/1.5118640","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2351/1.5118640","url":null,"abstract":"The rules and regulations restricting hand-held lasers at a national level may be revisited in light of the anticipated health risks posed to the population. It seems that some current regulations may be overly restrictive, e.g. when laser pointers belonging to Class 3R (or Class IIIA) are forbidden or not made available to consumers. The risks posed by this product category are neither serious nor high, and should thus not be subject to stringent regulations apart from market surveillance activities including information efforts. Generally speaking, occupational health regulations satisfactorily address risks posed by lasers in occupational settings and can be trusted when it comes to harnessing the use of powerful hand-held lasers as well. But it is proposed that legitimate use of powerful hand-held lasers needs to subject to some additional restrictions in order to limit illicit use. It is also suggested that the rules and regulations should be based on risk evaluations rather than on the present laser classes.The rules and regulations restricting hand-held lasers at a national level may be revisited in light of the anticipated health risks posed to the population. It seems that some current regulations may be overly restrictive, e.g. when laser pointers belonging to Class 3R (or Class IIIA) are forbidden or not made available to consumers. The risks posed by this product category are neither serious nor high, and should thus not be subject to stringent regulations apart from market surveillance activities including information efforts. Generally speaking, occupational health regulations satisfactorily address risks posed by lasers in occupational settings and can be trusted when it comes to harnessing the use of powerful hand-held lasers as well. But it is proposed that legitimate use of powerful hand-held lasers needs to subject to some additional restrictions in order to limit illicit use. It is also suggested that the rules and regulations should be based on risk evaluations rather than on the present laser...","PeriodicalId":118257,"journal":{"name":"International Laser Safety Conference","volume":"40 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126088287","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：