Electromagnetic Fields Exposure Assessment in Europe Utilizing Publicly Available Data

2022 · Unclear · Insufficient evidence

← Research stream

UnclearInsufficient evidencePaper 644

Study snapshot

Publicationmanual · 2022

Study typeexposure_assessment

Reported directionUnclear

Evidence ratingInsufficient

Abstract

Electromagnetic Fields Exposure Assessment in Europe Utilizing Publicly Available Data Iakovidis S, Apostolidis C, Manassas A, Samaras T. Electromagnetic Fields Exposure Assessment in Europe Utilizing Publicly Available Data. Sensors (Basel). 2022 Nov 4;22(21):8481. doi: 10.3390/s22218481. Abstract The ever-increasing use of wireless communication systems during the last few decades has raised concerns about the potential health effects of electromagnetic fields (EMFs) on humans. Safety limits and exposure assessment methods were developed and are regularly updated to mitigate health risks. Continuous radiofrequency EMF monitoring networks and in situ measurement campaigns provide useful information about environmental EMF levels and their variations over time and in different microenvironments. In this study, published data from the five largest monitoring networks and from two extensive in situ measurement campaigns in different European countries were gathered and processed. Median electric field values for monitoring networks across different countries lay in the interval of 0.67-1.51 V/m. The median electric field value across different microenvironments, as evaluated from in situ measurements, varied from 0.10 V/m to 1.42 V/m. The differences between networks were identified and mainly attributed to variations in population density. No significant trends in the temporal evolution of EMF levels were observed. The influences of parameters such as population density, type of microenvironment, and height of measurement on EMF levels were investigated. Excerpt Table 4 and Table 5 show that there are cases where the lowest ICNIRP reference level (i.e., 27.7 V/m) [1] was exceeded. In these cases, a frequency-selective measurement and extrapolation to maximum traffic was performed [41]. In those cases where extrapolated E-field levels exceeded the lowest ICNIRP reference level, appropriate actions (shutdown or power reduction in relative transmitters) were taken [33,46,47], measurements were repeated, and finally, compliance was demonstrated. Conclusions The continuous monitoring of RF-EMF networks and in situ measurement campaigns are tools largely used for the demonstration of the compliance of environmental EMF with safety limits for the general public. In Europe, five large monitoring networks (Greece, Catalonia in Spain, Romania, Serbia, and France–Belgium) are currently operating, consisting of more than 1200 measuring sensors. Continuous data from monitoring networks are very useful for the analysis of the temporal evolution of exposure [9,12]. Two large in situ measurement campaigns (Catalonia in Spain and France) also provide useful information on exposure. In situ measurement campaigns provide useful data for the variation in exposure in different microenvironments where people spend most of their time [16]. The population density of an area is a factor correlated with E-field levels: The higher the population density, the higher the E-field measured. This can be concluded from the measurements of monitoring networks, where we observed higher E-field values in those countries where the sensors are located in places with higher population density. This conclusion was confirmed from in situ measurements within the same country (France), where the correlation was straightforward due to the large sample available. However, the population density was not the only factor affecting measurement results. As shown in the case of the monitoring network in France–Belgium, sensor positioning was also an important factor: The higher the sensor was placed, the higher the E-field levels measured. This conclusion was confirmed by the in situ measurement campaign results in Catalonia in Spain, where the level/floor of each measurement location is available. Differences exist in the design and deployment among different monitoring networks and in situ measurement campaigns. These differences can impose several problems and be misleading when trying to draw general conclusions. Such problems, among others, were faced in the current analysis of results in the cases of (i) the France–Belgium monitoring network (due to different sensor positioning compared with other networks) and (ii) the SMRF monitoring network (Catalonia, Spain) due to the gradual substitution of the probes with others operating in a broader frequency range. Indeed, proper reporting of relevant parameters can mitigate these problems. As an example, we can mention the reporting of (i) indoor/outdoor available information in France’s in situ measurement campaign that enabled the demonstration of E-field vs. population density correlation and (ii) the extent of the information available for measurement location (i.e. level) in the case of Catalonia’s in situ measurements that enabled the demonstration of E-field vs. level/height correlation. In this context, a common framework for the development and operation of monitoring networks and in situ measurement campaigns could homogenize measurement results among different countries and significantly facilitate the attainment of useful conclusions. Open access paper: mdpi.com

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 directionunclear

PopulationNot supplied

Sample sizeNot supplied

ExposureRF

Evidence strengthInsufficientConfidence: 78% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

Published data from five large RF-EMF monitoring networks and two extensive in situ measurement campaigns in Europe were gathered and processed. Median electric field values for monitoring networks across countries were 0.67–1.51 V/m, while median values across microenvironments from in situ measurements ranged from 0.10 to 1.42 V/m. Differences between networks were mainly attributed to variations in population density; no significant temporal trends were observed. The excerpt notes cases where the lowest ICNIRP reference level (27.7 V/m) was exceeded, followed by frequency-selective measurement/extrapolation and actions (e.g., shutdown/power reduction) with repeated measurements and eventual compliance demonstration.

Outcomes measured

Median electric field (V/m) in monitoring networks across European countries
Median electric field (V/m) across microenvironments from in situ measurements
Temporal trends in RF-EMF levels
Associations of E-field levels with population density, microenvironment type, and measurement height
Instances of exceeding the lowest ICNIRP reference level (27.7 V/m) and subsequent compliance actions

Limitations

Uses previously published data from multiple monitoring networks and campaigns with differing designs and deployment, which may hinder comparability
Differences in sensor positioning (e.g., height) and probe frequency range changes could be misleading when drawing general conclusions
Some relevant parameters (e.g., indoor/outdoor, measurement location level) are not uniformly reported across datasets

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "exposure_assessment",
  "exposure": {
    "band": "RF",
    "source": "environmental monitoring networks and in situ measurement campaigns",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": null
  },
  "population": null,
  "sample_size": null,
  "outcomes": [
    "Median electric field (V/m) in monitoring networks across European countries",
    "Median electric field (V/m) across microenvironments from in situ measurements",
    "Temporal trends in RF-EMF levels",
    "Associations of E-field levels with population density, microenvironment type, and measurement height",
    "Instances of exceeding the lowest ICNIRP reference level (27.7 V/m) and subsequent compliance actions"
  ],
  "main_findings": "Published data from five large RF-EMF monitoring networks and two extensive in situ measurement campaigns in Europe were gathered and processed. Median electric field values for monitoring networks across countries were 0.67–1.51 V/m, while median values across microenvironments from in situ measurements ranged from 0.10 to 1.42 V/m. Differences between networks were mainly attributed to variations in population density; no significant temporal trends were observed. The excerpt notes cases where the lowest ICNIRP reference level (27.7 V/m) was exceeded, followed by frequency-selective measurement/extrapolation and actions (e.g., shutdown/power reduction) with repeated measurements and eventual compliance demonstration.",
  "effect_direction": "unclear",
  "limitations": [
    "Uses previously published data from multiple monitoring networks and campaigns with differing designs and deployment, which may hinder comparability",
    "Differences in sensor positioning (e.g., height) and probe frequency range changes could be misleading when drawing general conclusions",
    "Some relevant parameters (e.g., indoor/outdoor, measurement location level) are not uniformly reported across datasets"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "insufficient",
  "confidence": 0.78,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "RF-EMF",
    "exposure assessment",
    "monitoring networks",
    "in situ measurements",
    "Europe",
    "electric field",
    "population density",
    "microenvironments",
    "temporal evolution",
    "ICNIRP reference level",
    "compliance"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "who-icnirp",
      "weight": 0.6,
      "reason": "Discusses ICNIRP reference levels and compliance actions when levels were exceeded."
    }
  ]
}

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/s22218481
PubMed: Not supplied

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library