Comparison of EMF Exposure Limits and Assessment for Electric Vehicle Wireless Power Transfer

2022 · Unclear · Insufficient evidence

← Research stream
UnclearInsufficient evidencePaper 738

A comparative analysis of EMF limits, measurement methods, and assessment methods across relevant exposure standards identified similarities and differences between domestic (Chinese) and foreign standards and the international mainstream view. The authors st…

Study snapshot

Publicationmanual · 2022
Study typepolicy
Reported directionUnclear
Evidence ratingInsufficient

Abstract

Comparison of EMF Exposure Limits and Assessment for Electric Vehicle Wireless Power Transfer N. Li, Y. Wang, J. Zhang, Z. Gan. Comparison of EMF Exposure Limits and Assessment for Electric Vehicle Wireless Power Transfer. 2022 IEEE 5th International Electrical and Energy Conference (CIEEC), 2022, pp. 3944-3948, doi: 10.1109/CIEEC54735.2022.9846400. Abstract The electric and magnetic fields (EMF) generated by electric vehicle wireless power transfer might have health effects on the human inside and around the electric vehicle, including persons with active implantable medical devices. The comparative analysis on the EMF limits, measurement methods and assessment methods in the relevant EMF exposure standards were conducted, and the similarities and differences between domestic and foreign EMF standards and the international mainstream view were obtained. These provide the reference for the measurement and environmental impact assessment of electric vehicle wireless power transfer, as well as for revising Chinese national standard. The simulation and test research will be required with respect to the issues in the future, including assessment method of basic restrictions. ieeexplore.ieee.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 typepolicy
Effect directionunclear
PopulationHumans inside and around electric vehicles, including persons with active implantable medical devices
Sample sizeNot supplied
ExposureNot supplied
Evidence strengthInsufficientConfidence: 74% · Peer reviewed: unknown

Main findings

A comparative analysis of EMF limits, measurement methods, and assessment methods across relevant exposure standards identified similarities and differences between domestic (Chinese) and foreign standards and the international mainstream view. The authors state these findings can inform measurement and environmental impact assessment for EV wireless power transfer and revisions to Chinese national standards; they note future simulation and testing are needed, including for assessing basic restrictions.

Outcomes measured

  • Comparison of EMF exposure limits in standards
  • Comparison of measurement methods in EMF exposure standards
  • Comparison of assessment methods in EMF exposure standards
  • Implications for measurement and environmental impact assessment of EV wireless power transfer
  • Implications for revising Chinese national standard

Limitations

  • No specific exposure parameters (e.g., frequency, field strength, SAR) reported in the abstract
  • No empirical health outcome data presented; focus is on standards comparison
  • Future simulation and test research is stated as needed, suggesting current assessment issues remain unresolved
View raw extracted JSON
{
  "study_type": "policy",
  "exposure": {
    "band": null,
    "source": "electric vehicle wireless power transfer",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": null
  },
  "population": "Humans inside and around electric vehicles, including persons with active implantable medical devices",
  "sample_size": null,
  "outcomes": [
    "Comparison of EMF exposure limits in standards",
    "Comparison of measurement methods in EMF exposure standards",
    "Comparison of assessment methods in EMF exposure standards",
    "Implications for measurement and environmental impact assessment of EV wireless power transfer",
    "Implications for revising Chinese national standard"
  ],
  "main_findings": "A comparative analysis of EMF limits, measurement methods, and assessment methods across relevant exposure standards identified similarities and differences between domestic (Chinese) and foreign standards and the international mainstream view. The authors state these findings can inform measurement and environmental impact assessment for EV wireless power transfer and revisions to Chinese national standards; they note future simulation and testing are needed, including for assessing basic restrictions.",
  "effect_direction": "unclear",
  "limitations": [
    "No specific exposure parameters (e.g., frequency, field strength, SAR) reported in the abstract",
    "No empirical health outcome data presented; focus is on standards comparison",
    "Future simulation and test research is stated as needed, suggesting current assessment issues remain unresolved"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "insufficient",
  "confidence": 0.74,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "unknown",
  "keywords": [
    "electric vehicle",
    "wireless power transfer",
    "EMF exposure limits",
    "exposure standards",
    "measurement methods",
    "assessment methods",
    "environmental impact assessment",
    "active implantable medical devices",
    "Chinese national standard"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "who-icnirp",
      "weight": 0.62,
      "reason": "Abstract discusses comparison of domestic and foreign EMF exposure standards and an 'international mainstream view', which likely relates to international guideline frameworks."
    },
    {
      "slug": "occupational-exposure",
      "weight": 0.22,
      "reason": "Exposure context includes people inside/around vehicles; could include workers, but occupational setting is not explicitly stated."
    }
  ]
}
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: 10.1109/cieec54735.2022.9846400
PubMed: Not supplied

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library