A longitudinal study of morning, evening, and night light intensities and nocturnal sleep quality in a working population.

We aimed to investigate whether higher light intensity in the morning is associated with better nocturnal sleep quality and whether higher light intensities in the evening or night have the opposite effect. Light intensity was recorded for 7 consecutive days across the year among 317 indoor and outdoor daytime workers in Denmark (55-56° N) equipped with a personal light recorder. Participants reported sleep quality after each nocturnal sleep. Sleep quality was measured using three parameters; disturbed sleep index, awakening index, and sleep onset latency. Associations between increasing light intensities and sleep quality were analyzed using mixed effects models with participant identity as a random effect. Overall, neither white nor blue light intensities during morning, evening, or night were associated with sleep quality, awakening, or sleep onset latency of the subsequent nocturnal sleep. However, secondary analyses suggested that artificial light during the morning and day contrary to solar light may increase vulnerability to evening light exposure. Altogether, we were not able to confirm that higher morning light intensity significantly improves self-reported sleep quality or that higher evening or night light intensities impair self-reported sleep quality at exposure levels encountered during daily life in a working population in Denmark. This suggests that light intensities alone are not important for sleep quality to a degree that it is distinguishable from other important parameters in daily life settings.

A Quantitative General Population Job Exposure Matrix for Occupational Daytime Light Exposure.

High daytime light levels may reduce the risk of affective disorders. Outdoor workers are during daytime exposed to much higher light intensities than indoor workers. A way to study daytime light exposure and disease on a large scale is by use of a general population job exposure matrix (JEM) combined with national employment and health data. The objective of this study was to develop a JEM applicable for epidemiological studies of exposure response between daytime light exposure, affective disorders, and other health effects by combining expert scores and light measurements. We measured light intensity during daytime work hours 06:00-17:59 for 1-7 days with Philips Actiwatch Spectrum® light recorders (Actiwatch) among 695 workers representing 71 different jobs. Jobs were coded into DISCO-88, the Danish version of the International Standard Classification of Occupations 1988. Daytime light measurements were collected all year round in Denmark (55-56°N). Arithmetic mean white light intensity (lux) was calculated for each hour of observation (n = 15,272), natural log-transformed, and used as the dependent variable in mixed effects linear regression models. Three experts rated probability and duration of outdoor work for all 372 jobs within DISCO-88. Their ratings were used to construct an expert score that was included together with month of the year and hour of the day as fixed effects in the model. Job, industry nested within job, and worker were included as random effects. The model estimated daytime light intensity levels specific for hour of the day and month of the year for all jobs with a DISCO-88 code in Denmark. The fixed effects explained 37% of the total variance: 83% of the between-jobs variance, 57% of the between industries nested in jobs variance, 43% of the between-workers variance, and 15% of the within-worker variance. Modeled daytime light intensity showed a monotonic increase with increasing expert score and a 30-fold ratio between the highest and lowest exposed jobs. Building construction laborers were based on the JEM estimates among the highest and medical equipment operators among the lowest exposed. This is the first quantitative JEM of daytime light exposure and will be used in epidemiological studies of affective disorders and other health effects potentially associated with light exposure.

Light Exposure during Days with Night, Outdoor, and Indoor Work.

OBJECTIVE: To assess light exposure during days with indoor, outdoor, and night work and days off work. METHODS: Light intensity was continuously recorded for 7 days across the year among indoor (n = 170), outdoor (n = 151), and night workers (n = 188) in Denmark (55-56°N) equipped with a personal light recorder. White light intensity, duration above 80, 1000, and 2500 lux, and proportion of red, green, and blue light was depicted by time of the day and season for work days and days off work. RESULTS: Indoor workers' average light exposure only intermittently exceeded 1000 lux during daytime working hours in summer and never in winter. During daytime working hours, most outdoor workers exceeded 2500 lux in summer and 1000 lux in winter. Night workers spent on average 10-50 min >80 lux when working night shifts. During days off work, indoor and night workers were exposed to higher light intensities than during work days and few differences were seen between indoor, outdoor, and night workers. The spectral composition of light was similar for indoor, outdoor, and night workers during days at and off work. CONCLUSION: The night workers of this study were during night hours on average exposed for a limited time to light intensities expected to suppress melatonin. The indoor workers were exposed to light levels during daylight hours that may reduce general well-being and mood, especially in winter. Outdoor workers were during summer daylight hours exposed to light levels comparable to those used for the treatment of depression.

Night work, light exposure and melatonin on work days and days off.

We aimed to examine the effects of night work on salivary melatonin concentration during and subsequent to night work and the mediating role of light. We included 254 day workers and 87 night workers who were followed during 322 work days and 301 days off work. Each day was defined as the 24 hour period starting from the beginning of a night shift or from waking in the mornings with day work and days off. Light levels were recorded and synchronized with diary information (start and end of sleep and work). On average, participants provided four saliva samples per day, and these were analyzed for melatonin concentration by liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). Differences between day and night workers on work days and days off were assessed with multilevel regression models with melatonin concentration as the primary outcome. All models were stratified or adjusted by time of day. For light exposure, we estimated the total, direct and indirect effects of night work on melatonin concentrations obtaining 95% confidence intervals through bootstrapping. On work days, night workers showed 15% lower salivary melatonin concentrations compared with day workers (-15.0%; 95% CI: -31.4%; 5.2%). During the night, light exposure mediated a melatonin suppression of approximately 6% (-5.9%, 95% CI: -10.2%; -1.5%). No mediating effect of light was seen during the day time. On days off, we observed no difference in melatonin concentrations between day and night workers. These findings are in accordance with a transient and partly light-mediated effect of night work on melatonin production.

Shift work and quality of sleep: effect of working in designed dynamic light.

PURPOSE: To examine the effect of designed dynamic light on staff's quality of sleep with regard to sleep efficiency, level of melatonin in saliva, and subjective perceptions of quality of sleep. METHODS: An intervention group working in designed dynamic light was compared with a control group working in ordinary institutional light at two comparable intensive care units (ICUs). The study included examining (1) melatonin profiles obtained from saliva samples, (2) quality of sleep in terms of sleep efficiency, number of awakenings and subjective assessment of sleep through the use of sleep monitors and sleep diaries, and (3) subjective perceptions of well-being, health, and sleep quality using a questionnaire. Light conditions were measured at both locations. RESULTS: A total of 113 nurses (88 %) participated. There were no significant differences between the two groups regarding personal characteristics, and no significant differences in total sleep efficiency or melatonin level were found. The intervention group felt more rested (OR 2.03, p = 0.003) and assessed their condition on awakening as better than the control group (OR 2.35, p = 0.001). Intervention-ICU nurses received far more light both during day and evening shifts compared to the control-ICU. CONCLUSIONS: The study found no significant differences in monitored sleep efficiency and melatonin level. Nurses from the intervention-ICU subjectively assessed their sleep as more effective than participants from the control-ICU.

Can sleep quality and wellbeing be improved by changing the indoor lighting in the homes of healthy, elderly citizens?

The study investigated the effect of bright blue-enriched versus blue-suppressed indoor light on sleep and wellbeing of healthy participants over 65 years. Twenty-nine participants in 20 private houses in a uniform settlement in Copenhagen were exposed to two light epochs of 3 weeks with blue-enriched (280 lux) and 3 weeks blue-suppressed (240 lux) indoor light or vice versa from 8 to 13 pm in a randomized cross-over design. The first light epoch was in October, the second in November and the two light epochs were separated by one week. Participants were examined at baseline and at the end of each light epoch. The experimental indoor light was well tolerated by the majority of the participants. Sleep duration was 7.44 (95% CI 7.14-7.74) hours during blue-enriched conditions and 7.31 (95% CI 7.01-7.62) hours during blue-suppressed conditions (p = 0.289). Neither rest hours, chromatic pupillometry, nor saliva melatonin profile showed significant changes between blue-enriched and blue-suppressed epochs. Baseline Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) was significantly worse in females; 7.62 (95% CI 5.13-10.0) versus 4.06 (95% CI 2.64-5.49) in males, p = 0.009. For females, PSQI improved significantly during blue-enriched light exposure (p = 0.007); no significant changes were found for males. The subjective grading of indoor light quality doubled from participants habitual indoor light to the bright experimental light, while it was stable between light epochs, although there were clear differences between blue-enriched and blue-suppressed electrical light conditions imposed. Even though the study was carried out in the late autumn at northern latitude, the only significant difference in Actiwatch-measured total blue light exposure was from 8 to 9 am, because contributions from blue-enriched, bright indoor light were superseded by contributions from daylight.