Assessment of combined exposure to intermediate-frequency electromagnetic fields and pulsed electromagnetic fields among library workers in Japan

2022 · No effect · Low evidence

← Research stream

No effectLow evidencePaper 734

Study snapshot

Publicationmanual · 2022

Study typeexposure_assessment

Reported directionNo effect

Evidence ratingLow

Abstract

Assessment of combined exposure to intermediate-frequency electromagnetic fields and pulsed electromagnetic fields among library workers in Japan Yamaguchi-Sekino S, Taki M, Ikuyo M, Esaki K, Aimoto A, Wake K, Kojimahara N. Assessment of combined exposure to intermediate-frequency electromagnetic fields and pulsed electromagnetic fields among library workers in Japan. Front Public Health. 2022 Jul 28;10:870784. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.870784. Abstract Objective: To assess exposure levels to electromagnetic fields (EMFs) among library workers in Japan, focusing on co-exposure to intermediate-frequency EMF (IF-EMF) and pulsed EMF, to propose a new epidemiological research methodology. Methods: The evaluated exposure sources were an electromagnetic type-electronic article surveillance gate (EM-EAS, IF-EMF (operating frequency 220 Hz-14 kHz)) and an activator/deactivator of anti-theft tags termed as "book check unit" (BCU, pulsed EMF). Short-term exposures were: (E1) whole-body exposure from the EAS gate when sitting within 3 m; (E2) local exposure to transient IF-EMF while passing through or beside the EAS gate; and (E3) local exposure to a pulsed magnetic field on BCU use. E1-E3 were evaluated based on exposure levels relative to magnetic flux density at the occupational reference level (RL; E1) or as per occupational basic restrictions (BR; E2 and E3) delineated by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) 2010 guidelines. Exposure indices based on mid-term exposure (D1-D3), assuming exposure according to employment on a weekly basis, were used to assess exposure in actual working conditions. D1 represents continuous exposure from an EAS gate when sitting within 3 m of the gate. D2 and D3 represent repeated transient exposures occurring during gate pass or on the operation of a BCU. A link to a web-based questionnaire was distributed to librarians working at all libraries where the authors had mailed institutional questionnaires (4,073 libraries). Four exposure patterns were defined according to various exposure scenarios. Results: We obtained information on exposure parameters and working conditions from the 548 completed questionnaires. The ICNIRP guideline levels were not exceeded in any of the E1-E3 scenarios. Median of the D1 (% ICNIRP RL × hour/week) was 1, and >85% respondents had values <10. However, the maximum value was 513. Altogether, these results indicate that continuous exposure was low in most cases. The same tendency was observed regarding repeated transient exposure from EM-EAS gates (i.e., the median value for D2 (% ICNIRP BR × gate pass) was 5). However, there were several cases in which D1 and D2 values were >10 times the median. The median of D3 (% ICNIRP BR × BCU operation) was 10, and most respondents' D3 values were greater than their D2 values, although the derived results depended on the assumptions made for the estimation. Conclusion: We conducted an assessment of combined exposures to IF-EMF and pulsed EMF among library workers in Japan by evaluating both short-term exposures (E1-E3) and exposure indices based on mid-term exposures (D1-D3) assuming actual working conditions per questionnaire results. These results provide useful information for future epidemiological studies. Open access paper: frontiersin.org

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

PopulationLibrary workers (librarians) in Japan

Sample size548

ExposureIF · Short-term scenarios (E1-E3) and mid-term/weekly indices (D1-D3) based on questionnaire-assumed working conditions

Evidence strengthLowConfidence: 78% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

Across evaluated short-term scenarios (E1–E3), ICNIRP 2010 occupational guideline levels were not exceeded. For mid-term indices, median D1 was 1 (% ICNIRP RL × hour/week) with >85% of respondents <10, though the maximum D1 was 513; median D2 was 5 (% ICNIRP BR × gate pass) with some cases >10× the median. Median D3 was 10 (% ICNIRP BR × BCU operation), and most respondents’ D3 values were greater than their D2 values, with results depending on estimation assumptions.

Outcomes measured

Exposure levels to intermediate-frequency EMF (IF-EMF) from electromagnetic type electronic article surveillance (EM-EAS) gates (220 Hz–14 kHz)
Exposure levels to pulsed EMF from activator/deactivator (“book check unit”, BCU)
Exposure indices relative to ICNIRP 2010 occupational reference levels (RL) and basic restrictions (BR) for scenarios E1–E3 and indices D1–D3

Limitations

Exposure indices (D1–D3) were estimated using assumptions about weekly work patterns and exposure frequency/duration based on questionnaire results
Derived results for D3 were noted to depend on the assumptions made for estimation
Working-condition data were obtained from completed questionnaires (548 responses) from a larger distribution (4,073 libraries), implying potential response/selection limitations (not further detailed in abstract)

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "exposure_assessment",
  "exposure": {
    "band": "IF",
    "source": "occupational",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": "Short-term scenarios (E1-E3) and mid-term/weekly indices (D1-D3) based on questionnaire-assumed working conditions"
  },
  "population": "Library workers (librarians) in Japan",
  "sample_size": 548,
  "outcomes": [
    "Exposure levels to intermediate-frequency EMF (IF-EMF) from electromagnetic type electronic article surveillance (EM-EAS) gates (220 Hz–14 kHz)",
    "Exposure levels to pulsed EMF from activator/deactivator (“book check unit”, BCU)",
    "Exposure indices relative to ICNIRP 2010 occupational reference levels (RL) and basic restrictions (BR) for scenarios E1–E3 and indices D1–D3"
  ],
  "main_findings": "Across evaluated short-term scenarios (E1–E3), ICNIRP 2010 occupational guideline levels were not exceeded. For mid-term indices, median D1 was 1 (% ICNIRP RL × hour/week) with >85% of respondents <10, though the maximum D1 was 513; median D2 was 5 (% ICNIRP BR × gate pass) with some cases >10× the median. Median D3 was 10 (% ICNIRP BR × BCU operation), and most respondents’ D3 values were greater than their D2 values, with results depending on estimation assumptions.",
  "effect_direction": "no_effect",
  "limitations": [
    "Exposure indices (D1–D3) were estimated using assumptions about weekly work patterns and exposure frequency/duration based on questionnaire results",
    "Derived results for D3 were noted to depend on the assumptions made for estimation",
    "Working-condition data were obtained from completed questionnaires (548 responses) from a larger distribution (4,073 libraries), implying potential response/selection limitations (not further detailed in abstract)"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "low",
  "confidence": 0.78,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "intermediate-frequency EMF",
    "pulsed EMF",
    "occupational exposure",
    "library workers",
    "electronic article surveillance",
    "anti-theft gate",
    "book check unit",
    "ICNIRP 2010",
    "magnetic flux density",
    "questionnaire"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "occupational-exposure",
      "weight": 0.95,
      "reason": "Assesses EMF exposure among library workers in workplace settings."
    },
    {
      "slug": "who-icnirp",
      "weight": 0.7,
      "reason": "Exposure evaluation explicitly referenced ICNIRP 2010 occupational reference levels and basic restrictions."
    }
  ]
}

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: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.870784
PubMed: Not supplied

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library