Open Access Article
This Open Access Article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported Licence
Correction: Are current guidelines for sun protection optimal for health? Exploring the evidence
Robyn M.
Lucas
*a,
Rachel E.
Neale
b,
Sasha
Madronich
c and
Richard L.
McKenzie
d
aNational Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, Research School of Population Health, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia. E-mail: robyn.lucas@anu.edu.au
bQIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Brisbane, Australia
cNational Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado, USA
dNational Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research, NIWA Lauder, Central Otago, New Zealand
First published on 17th July 2018
Abstract
Correction for ‘Are current guidelines for sun protection optimal for health? Exploring the evidence’ by Robyn M. Lucas et al., Photochem. Photobiol. Sci., 2018, DOI: 10.1039/c7pp00374a.
The authors would like to draw the reader's attention to an error in the caption to Fig. 2, where UVI > 10 should read UVI > 6, as per the text on the figure. The caption should read: “Frequency distribution of UVA (y-axis, normalised to unity in each case) for the case where UVI is less than 3 (red), and for the case where UVI is greater than 6 (blue). The data used are the same as shown in Fig. 1 (i.e., daytime scans only). In nearly 5–10% of cases, the UVA for UVI < 3 is greater than that for UVI > 6”. The in-text reference to Fig. 2 should also be UVI > 6, rather than >10.
The Royal Society of Chemistry apologises for these errors and any consequent inconvenience to authors and readers.
| This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry and Owner Societies 2018 |