Assessment of the Electromagnetic Radiation Exposure at Electric Vehicle Charging Facilities

2022 · No effect · Low evidence

← Research stream

No effectLow evidencePaper 600

Study snapshot

Publicationmanual · 2022

Study typeexposure_assessment

Reported directionNo effect

Evidence ratingLow

Abstract

Assessment of the Electromagnetic Radiation Exposure at Electric Vehicle Charging Facilities Bae H, Park S. Assessment of the Electromagnetic Radiation Exposure at EV Charging Facilities. Sensors (Basel). 2022 Dec 23;23(1):162. doi: 10.3390/s23010162 Abstract As the number of electric vehicles (EV) increases, the number of EV chargers also increases. Charging infrastructure will be built into our close environment. Because of this, the assessment of the electromagnetic field exposure generated from the charger is an important issue. This paper valuates the electromagnetic field exposure of six EV chargers. To assess the level of exposure of EV chargers, the electromagnetic fields from six chargers were measured and analyzed. In addition, measured electromagnetic field exposure levels were evaluated against ICNIRP guidelines. Higher electromagnetic fields were measured with standard chargers than with fast chargers. For the fast charger in the charging state, the magnetic field increased with the charging current. Electromagnetic field exposures for all six chargers did not exceed standard limits. The results of the assessment of the electromagnetic field exposure of the six EV chargers will contribute to the establishment of standards for the evaluation of the electromagnetic field exposure of the EV chargers in the future. Conclusion In this study, electromagnetic field exposure assessment results of six EV chargers were presented. These results show the location where the electromagnetic field is the highest measured among electric vehicle chargers in the charging situation. They also show the correlation between changes in the electromagnetic field and changes in the SoC. The measured value of the electromagnetic field was analyzed by comparing it with domestic and global electromagnetic field intensity standard. The domestic electromagnetic field intensity standards were in agreement with the ICNIRP guidelines revised in 1998 and were analyzed based on them. Six EV chargers were selected for measurement. The level of exposure to electromagnetic fields was confirmed by precisely measuring six types of chargers in RMS mode under charging conditions. In addition, the electromagnetic field changed as the SoC changed. Because of RMS precision measurement, a relatively higher electromagnetic field was emitted from a standard charger than from a fast charger. The maximum electric field was measured at the standard stand-type B handle, and it was 430 V/m, corresponding to an EI of 10%. The maximum magnetic field was measured on a standard wall-mounted body and was 46 A/m, corresponding to an EI of 69%. None of the six chargers exceeded the electromagnetic field protection standard. Changes in electric and magnetic fields were confirmed by the changes in the SoC [state of charge] of six chargers. In the case of fast charging facilities, as the charging power and current gradually decreased, it was confirmed that the level of magnetic field strength decreased accordingly. In the case of standard charging facilities, the correlation between charging power, voltage, current, and electric and magnetic field strength could not be confirmed. In addition, changes in the electromagnetic field were observed with changes in the SoC. Generally, the maximum value of the electromagnetic field was measured in the measurement results by the change in the SoC. This result indicates the need to verify electromagnetic field measurements as the change in the SoC. Because of these results, the measurement procedure when preparing a method to evaluate the amount of exposure to electromagnetic fields in EV charging facilities is worth reviewing in the future. When charging an EV, the measurement location of maximum electromagnetic field exposure is necessary. Therefore, first, an understanding of the overall electromagnetic field strength of the charging facility is necessary. The maximum value after measurements according to the change from 0% to 100% of the SoC at the location of maximum exposure is worth recording. Open access paper: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Machine Enhanced Logic

AI evidence extraction

Structured fields below were generated from the paper’s abstract and metadata to make the evidence easier to inspect. Automated extraction may be incomplete or incorrect; verify important details against the original paper.

Study typeexposure_assessment

Effect directionno_effect

PopulationNot supplied

Sample size6

Exposuremeasured under charging conditions; included variation with state of charge (SoC) from 0% to 100%

Evidence strengthLowConfidence: 78% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

Electromagnetic fields from six EV chargers were measured and compared with domestic standards aligned with ICNIRP (1998). Higher fields were measured with standard chargers than fast chargers; for fast chargers, magnetic field increased with charging current and decreased as charging power/current decreased. Maximum reported electric field was 430 V/m (EI 10%) and maximum magnetic field was 46 A/m (EI 69%); none of the six chargers exceeded the protection standard limits.

Outcomes measured

Electric field strength (V/m)
Magnetic field strength (A/m)
Exposure index (EI) relative to standards
Compliance with ICNIRP (1998) / domestic EMF intensity standards
Variation of fields with charging current/power and state of charge (SoC)
Comparison of standard vs fast chargers

Limitations

Only six chargers were assessed
Frequency characteristics of the measured fields were not stated in the provided abstract
Population/health outcomes were not assessed (exposure/compliance study only)
Measurement details (e.g., distances, instrumentation specifics) not provided in the abstract

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "exposure_assessment",
  "exposure": {
    "band": null,
    "source": "electric vehicle (EV) chargers / charging facilities",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": "measured under charging conditions; included variation with state of charge (SoC) from 0% to 100%"
  },
  "population": null,
  "sample_size": 6,
  "outcomes": [
    "Electric field strength (V/m)",
    "Magnetic field strength (A/m)",
    "Exposure index (EI) relative to standards",
    "Compliance with ICNIRP (1998) / domestic EMF intensity standards",
    "Variation of fields with charging current/power and state of charge (SoC)",
    "Comparison of standard vs fast chargers"
  ],
  "main_findings": "Electromagnetic fields from six EV chargers were measured and compared with domestic standards aligned with ICNIRP (1998). Higher fields were measured with standard chargers than fast chargers; for fast chargers, magnetic field increased with charging current and decreased as charging power/current decreased. Maximum reported electric field was 430 V/m (EI 10%) and maximum magnetic field was 46 A/m (EI 69%); none of the six chargers exceeded the protection standard limits.",
  "effect_direction": "no_effect",
  "limitations": [
    "Only six chargers were assessed",
    "Frequency characteristics of the measured fields were not stated in the provided abstract",
    "Population/health outcomes were not assessed (exposure/compliance study only)",
    "Measurement details (e.g., distances, instrumentation specifics) not provided in the abstract"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "low",
  "confidence": 0.78,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "electric vehicle",
    "EV charger",
    "charging facilities",
    "electromagnetic field exposure",
    "electric field",
    "magnetic field",
    "RMS measurement",
    "ICNIRP guidelines",
    "state of charge (SoC)",
    "fast charger",
    "standard charger"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "occupational-exposure",
      "weight": 0.35,
      "reason": "Exposure assessment at charging facilities may be relevant to workers/users, though no specific occupational population is described."
    },
    {
      "slug": "who-icnirp",
      "weight": 0.6,
      "reason": "Exposure levels were evaluated against ICNIRP guidelines (1998)."
    }
  ]
}

AI can be wrong. Always verify against the paper.

AI-extracted fields are generated from the abstract and metadata and may be incomplete or incorrect. This material is for informational purposes and is not medical advice.

Identifiers and source

DOI: 10.3390/s23010162
PubMed: Not supplied

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library