| Literature DB >> 36231220 |
Takumi Kitajima1, Joachim Schüz2, Akemi Morita1, Wakaha Ikeda3, Hirokazu Tanaka4, Kayo Togawa2,4, Esteban C Gabazza5, Masao Taki6,7, Kuniaki Toriyabe8, Tomoaki Ikeda8, Shigeru Sokejima1,3.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Exposure assessment of intermediate frequency (IF) electromagnetic fields (EMFs) is difficult and epidemiological studies are limited. In the present study, we aimed to estimate the exposure of pregnant women to IF-EMFs generated by induction cookers in the household using a questionnaire and discussed its applicability to epidemiological studies.Entities:
Keywords: estimation model; induction cooker; intermediate frequency; magnetic field; measurements; questionnaire
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36231220 PMCID: PMC9565691 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph191911912
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Figure 1Schematic diagram of magnetic field measurement points in Phase 1 household environment measurement, based on the measurement method of IEC 62233; the number of measurement points was set at 20 to provide a measurement point where a woman’s pelvis fits and to take into account various cooking postures. The enclosure plane is defined as the height reference (h = 0), and the edge of the enclosure (Edge) is defined as d = 0.
Figure 2Stature and superior iliac crest height relationship for female participants. The two values are proportional.
Figure 3Distance distribution between cooking device and body surface in the participants’ usual posture (cm): (a) distance of body surface from cooking table edge and (b) distance of body surface from hob. For the center at distance (a) the average was 11.2 cm and at distance (b) it was 35.0 cm.
Figure 4Distribution of fundamental frequencies (n = 45): 20 kHz to 30 kHz, which is suitable for heating iron and stainless steel. A high frequency plot was recorded for heating aluminum pots; none of them deviated from the intermediate frequency range.
Measurements of magnetic field around household induction cooker.
| Prove Position (cm) | Measured Magnetic Field (μT) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| Mean (SD) | GM (GSD) | 1st Qu. | Median | 3rd Qu. | ||
| 20 | 0 | 45 | 1.93 | (1.82) | 1.36 | (2.29) | 0.65 | 1.22 | 2.33 |
| 10 | 45 | 0.81 | (0.61) | 0.63 | (2.00) | 0.39 | 0.63 | 1.04 | |
| 20 | 45 | 0.36 | (0.23) | 0.31 | (1.77) | 0.21 | 0.33 | 0.412 | |
| 30 | 45 | 0.20 | (0.12) | 0.17 | (1.66) | 0.13 | 0.17 | 0.24 | |
| 10 | 0 | 45 | 2.88 | (2.18) | 2.22 | (2.10) | 1.41 | 2.03 | 3.83 |
| 10 | 45 | 0.81 | (0.45) | 0.71 | (1.71) | 0.55 | 0.69 | 0.99 | |
| 20 | 45 | 0.35 | (0.19) | 0.31 | (1.70) | 0.22 | 0.31 | 0.445 | |
| 30 | 45 | 0.20 | (0.10) | 0.17 | (1.64) | 0.12 | 0.19 | 0.25 | |
| 0 | 0 | 45 | 3.86 | (3.31) | 2.88 | (2.24) | 1.77 | 2.96 | 5.11 |
| 10 | 45 | 1.06 | (0.70) | 0.84 | (2.07) | 0.59 | 0.94 | 1.39 | |
| 20 | 45 | 0.43 | (0.25) | 0.36 | (1.96) | 0.25 | 0.41 | 0.60 | |
| 30 | 45 | 0.23 | (0.13) | 0.19 | (1.87) | 0.11 | 0.21 | 0.31 | |
| −10 | 0 | 45 | 2.154 | (2.010) | 1.39 | (2.84) | 0.74 | 1.64 | 2.55 |
| 10 | 45 | 0.917 | (0.746) | 0.68 | (2.25) | 0.36 | 0.80 | 1.15 | |
| 20 | 45 | 0.436 | (0.275) | 0.35 | (1.99) | 0.20 | 0.38 | 0.63 | |
| 30 | 45 | 0.226 | (0.144) | 0.19 | (1.87) | 0.11 | 0.21 | 0.32 | |
| −20 | 0 | 45 | 2.092 | (2.059) | 1.20 | (3.27) | 0.46 | 1.52 | 2.93 |
| 10 | 45 | 0.732 | (0.602) | 0.52 | (2.41) | 0.23 | 0.59 | 1.05 | |
| 20 | 45 | 0.358 | (0.270) | 0.276 | (2.09) | 0.15 | 0.29 | 0.53 | |
| 30 | 45 | 0.198 | (0.132) | 0.162 | (1.90) | 0.10 | 0.18 | 0.26 | |
SD: standard deviation; GM: geometric mean; GSD: geometric standard deviation; 1st Qu.: first quartile; 3rd Qu.: third quartile. We provided magnetic flux density values; measurement range of the prove: 100 μT range at 400 kHz span.
Coefficients of the calculated estimation equations.
| Parameter | Value | t-Value | AIC | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model 1 | 10,501.2 | 3.60 | <0.001 | 2726.3 | |
| −28.8 | −6.88 | <0.001 | |||
| 0.173 | 0.875 | 0.382 | |||
| Model 2 | 12,160.7 | 4.07 | <0.001 | 2770.5 | |
| −0.216 | −1.11 | 0.266 | |||
| Model 3 | −30.0 | −7.16 | <0.001 | 2737.2 | |
| 0.878 | 19.8 | <0.001 | |||
| Model 4 | 0.573 | 36.6 | <0.001 | 2785.1 |
AIC: Akaike’s information criterion.
Comparison between prediction value and measurement value (n = 30).
| Correlation Coefficient | (95% CI) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model 1 | 0.500 | (0.171) | (0.730) | <0.001 |
| Model 2 | 0.472 | (0.134) | (0.711) | <0.001 |
| Model 3 | 0.521 | (0.198) | (0.742) | <0.001 |
| Model 4 | 0.540 | (0.223) | (0.754) | <0.001 |
Figure 5Comparison of magnetic field estimated from questionnaire responses and actual measured magnetic field. The closer the plot is to the black shaded line in this figure, the more accurate the estimation.