Literature DB >> 20538340

Classification of personal exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) for epidemiological research: Evaluation of different exposure assessment methods.

Patrizia Frei1, Evelyn Mohler, Alfred Bürgi, Jürg Fröhlich, Georg Neubauer, Charlotte Braun-Fahrländer, Martin Röösli.   

Abstract

The use of personal exposure meters (exposimeters) has been recommended for measuring personal exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) from environmental far-field sources in everyday life. However, it is unclear to what extent exposimeter readings are affected by measurements taken when personal mobile and cordless phones are used. In addition, the use of exposimeters in large epidemiological studies is limited due to high costs and large effort for study participants. In the current analysis we aimed to investigate the impact of personal phone use on exposimeter readings and to evaluate different exposure assessment methods potentially useful in epidemiological studies. We collected personal exposimeter measurements during one week and diary data from 166 study participants. Moreover, we collected spot measurements in the participants' bedrooms and data on self-estimated exposure, assessed residential exposure to fixed site transmitters by calculating the geo-coded distance and mean RF-EMF from a geospatial propagation model, and developed an exposure prediction model based on the propagation model and exposure relevant behavior. The mean personal exposure was 0.13 mW/m(2), when measurements during personal phone calls were excluded and 0.15 mW/m(2), when such measurements were included. The Spearman correlation with personal exposure (without personal phone calls) was 0.42 (95%-CI: 0.29 to 0.55) for the spot measurements, -0.03 (95%-CI: -0.18 to 0.12) for the geo-coded distance, 0.28 (95%-CI: 0.14 to 0.42) for the geospatial propagation model, 0.50 (95%-CI: 0.37 to 0.61) for the full exposure prediction model and 0.06 (95%-CI: -0.10 to 0.21) for self-estimated exposure. In conclusion, personal exposure measured with exposimeters correlated best with the full exposure prediction model and spot measurements. Self-estimated exposure and geo-coded distance turned out to be poor surrogates for personal exposure. Copyright 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20538340     DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2010.05.005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Environ Int        ISSN: 0160-4120            Impact factor:   9.621


  19 in total

Review 1.  Wireless communication fields and non-specific symptoms of ill health: a literature review.

Authors:  Martin Röösli; Kerstin Hug
Journal:  Wien Med Wochenschr       Date:  2011-05

2.  What input data are needed to accurately model electromagnetic fields from mobile phone base stations?

Authors:  Johan Beekhuizen; Hans Kromhout; Alfred Bürgi; Anke Huss; Roel Vermeulen
Journal:  J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol       Date:  2014-01-29       Impact factor: 5.563

3.  Comparison of statistic methods for censored personal exposure to RF-EMF data.

Authors:  Alberto Najera; Raquel Ramirez-Vazquez; Enrique Arribas; Jesus Gonzalez-Rubio
Journal:  Environ Monit Assess       Date:  2020-01-02       Impact factor: 2.513

Review 4.  Idiopathic environmental intolerance attributed to electromagnetic fields (IEI-EMF): a systematic review of identifying criteria.

Authors:  Christos Baliatsas; Irene Van Kamp; Erik Lebret; G James Rubin
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2012-08-11       Impact factor: 3.295

5.  Non-specific physical symptoms in relation to actual and perceived proximity to mobile phone base stations and powerlines.

Authors:  Christos Baliatsas; Irene van Kamp; Gert Kelfkens; Maarten Schipper; John Bolte; Joris Yzermans; Erik Lebret
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2011-06-01       Impact factor: 3.295

6.  Exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields and sleep quality: a prospective cohort study.

Authors:  Evelyn Mohler; Patrizia Frei; Jürg Fröhlich; Charlotte Braun-Fahrländer; Martin Röösli
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-05-18       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  General practitioners' knowledge and concern about electromagnetic fields.

Authors:  Gabriele Berg-Beckhoff; Jürgen Breckenkamp; Pia Veldt Larsen; Bernd Kowall
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2014-12-12       Impact factor: 3.390

8.  Design of an ecological momentary assessment study of exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields and non-specific physical symptoms.

Authors:  Rik P Bogers; John F B Bolte; Jan H Houtveen; Erik Lebret; Rob T van Strien; C Maarten A Schipper; Mehdi Alkadhimi; Christos Baliatsas; Irene van Kamp
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2013-08-29       Impact factor: 2.692

9.  Association between exposure to electromagnetic fields from high voltage transmission lines and neurobehavioral function in children.

Authors:  Jiongli Huang; Tiantong Tang; Guocheng Hu; Jing Zheng; Yuyu Wang; Qiang Wang; Jing Su; Yunfeng Zou; Xiaowu Peng
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-07-03       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 10.  EMF monitoring-concepts, activities, gaps and options.

Authors:  Gregor Dürrenberger; Jürg Fröhlich; Martin Röösli; Mats-Olof Mattsson
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2014-09-11       Impact factor: 3.390

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.