4.7 Article

Minimal Erythema Dose Determination in Holstein Friesian Cattle

期刊

FRONTIERS IN VETERINARY SCIENCE
卷 8, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fvets.2021.757452

关键词

cow; ultraviolet rays; sunburn; phototesting; hair coat

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cattle on pasture are exposed to solar UV radiation, and this study aimed to determine the minimal erythema dose (MED) required for sunburn on intact-hair-covered and shaved areas of Holstein Friesian cattle. Results showed a strong correlation between hair length and MED, with each millimeter of hair increasing the MED by 316 J/m(2).
Cattle on pasture are continuously exposed to solar UV radiation, which has been associated with biological effects such as sunburn, photosensitization, squamous cell carcinoma, and cutaneous vitamin D-3 production. The minimal erythema dose (MED) required to produce first-degree sunburn (erythema) is poorly researched in cattle. Since cattle are naturally covered with dense hair coats, the MED is influenced by the UV protection offered by the hair. The objective of this study was to determine the MED on intact-hair-covered (MED-H) and shaved white skin (MED-S) of Holstein Friesian cattle. Twenty-one Holstein Friesian cows and heifers were MED tested using a narrowband UV-B LED light (peak irradiance at 292 nm) on eight hair-covered and eight shaved areas over white skin previously unexposed to direct sunlight. Erythema was visually assessed after 24 h. The mean MED-H and MED-S were 5,595 and 329 J/m(2), respectively. Heifers had a higher MED-H compared to cows, 7,600 and 4,969 J/m(2), respectively. The mean UV transmittance of white cattle hair was 6.7%. MED-H was correlated with hair length (Spearman's rho = 0.76). A linear regression model showed that each millimeter of hair coat length increased the MED-H by 316 J/m(2). In conclusion, this study provides a MED testing protocol for cattle and reports standardized values of MED for cattle on intact-hair-covered and shaved areas.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据