Three Quarters of a Century of Research on RF Exposure Assessment and Dosimetry—What Have We Learned? (Review)

2022 · Unclear · Insufficient evidence

← Research stream

UnclearInsufficient evidencePaper 891

Study snapshot

Publicationmanual · 2022

Study typereview

Reported directionUnclear

Evidence ratingInsufficient

Abstract

Three Quarters of a Century of Research on RF Exposure Assessment and Dosimetry—What Have We Learned? (Review) Kenneth R. Foster, Marvin C. Ziskin, Quirino Balzano. 2022. Three Quarters of a Century of Research on RF Exposure Assessment and Dosimetry—What Have We Learned? International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 4: 2067. doi: 10.3390/ijerph19042067 (This article belongs to the Special Issue Occupational and General Public Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields). Abstract This commentary, by three authors with an aggregate experience of more than a century in technology and health and safety studies concerning radiofrequency (RF) energy, asks what has been learned over the past 75 years of research on radiofrequency and health, focusing on technologies for exposure assessment and dosimetry. Research programs on health and safety of RF exposure began in the 1950s, initially motivated by occupational health concerns for military personnel, and later to address public concerns about exposures to RF energy from environmental sources and near-field exposures from RF transmitting devices such as mobile phones that are used near the body. While this research largely focused on the biological effects of RF energy, it also led to important improvements in exposure assessment and dosimetry. This work in the aggregate has made RF energy one of the best studied potential technological hazards and represents a productive response by large numbers of scientists and engineers, working in many countries and supported by diverse funding agencies, to the ever rapidly evolving uses of the electromagnetic spectrum. This review comments on present needs of the field, which include raising the quality of dosimetry in many RF bioeffects studies and developing improved exposure/dosimetric techniques for the higher microwave frequencies to be used by forthcoming communications technologies. At present, however, the major uncertainties in dosimetric modeling/exposure assessment are likely to be related to the inherent variability in real-world exposures, rather than imprecision in measurement technologies. Conclusions In summary, seven decades of research on dosimetry/exposure assessment have led to the development of technologies that permit very detailed and accurate evaluation of RF exposure to the human body, both in the near field of devices such as mobile phones, and in the far field from environmental sources. However, accurate exposure assessment and dosimetry can require expensive equipment and specialized engineering support and is not always achieved in bioeffects studies. Progress on dosimetry/exposure assessment is continuing at the higher microwave frequencies that used by 5G NR systems and other mm-wave communications systems. Based on the previous success of this endeavor, we can expect that the tools to assess the exposure of biological systems to mm-wave radiation from 5G NR and other applications of this part of the RF spectrum will, in time, reach the level of sophistication and accuracy that is currently achieved for RF signals at lower frequencies. 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 typereview

Effect directionunclear

PopulationNot supplied

Sample sizeNot supplied

ExposureRF

Evidence strengthInsufficientConfidence: 74% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

The review/commentary summarizes 75 years of RF exposure assessment and dosimetry research, stating that technologies now permit very detailed and accurate evaluation of RF exposure to the human body in near-field (e.g., mobile phones) and far-field environmental exposures. It notes that accurate dosimetry can require expensive equipment and specialized engineering support and is not always achieved in bioeffects studies, and that major remaining uncertainties are likely related to variability in real-world exposures rather than measurement imprecision. It also states that dosimetry/exposure assessment tools for higher microwave/mm-wave frequencies used by 5G NR are progressing and are expected to improve over time.

Outcomes measured

RF exposure assessment
dosimetry methods/quality
uncertainties in dosimetric modeling and exposure assessment
needs for improved dosimetry in RF bioeffects studies
dosimetry techniques for higher microwave/mm-wave frequencies (5G NR mentioned)

Limitations

Narrative review/commentary; no specific methods, inclusion criteria, or quantitative synthesis described in the abstract
No specific exposure metrics (e.g., frequency, SAR) or health endpoints/results are provided in the abstract

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "review",
  "exposure": {
    "band": "RF",
    "source": "occupational and general public sources; near-field devices such as mobile phones; environmental far-field sources; higher microwave frequencies/mm-wave (5G NR mentioned)",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": null
  },
  "population": null,
  "sample_size": null,
  "outcomes": [
    "RF exposure assessment",
    "dosimetry methods/quality",
    "uncertainties in dosimetric modeling and exposure assessment",
    "needs for improved dosimetry in RF bioeffects studies",
    "dosimetry techniques for higher microwave/mm-wave frequencies (5G NR mentioned)"
  ],
  "main_findings": "The review/commentary summarizes 75 years of RF exposure assessment and dosimetry research, stating that technologies now permit very detailed and accurate evaluation of RF exposure to the human body in near-field (e.g., mobile phones) and far-field environmental exposures. It notes that accurate dosimetry can require expensive equipment and specialized engineering support and is not always achieved in bioeffects studies, and that major remaining uncertainties are likely related to variability in real-world exposures rather than measurement imprecision. It also states that dosimetry/exposure assessment tools for higher microwave/mm-wave frequencies used by 5G NR are progressing and are expected to improve over time.",
  "effect_direction": "unclear",
  "limitations": [
    "Narrative review/commentary; no specific methods, inclusion criteria, or quantitative synthesis described in the abstract",
    "No specific exposure metrics (e.g., frequency, SAR) or health endpoints/results are provided in the abstract"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "insufficient",
  "confidence": 0.74,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "radiofrequency",
    "RF energy",
    "exposure assessment",
    "dosimetry",
    "near-field",
    "far-field",
    "mobile phones",
    "occupational exposure",
    "environmental sources",
    "microwave",
    "mm-wave",
    "5G NR"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "occupational-exposure",
      "weight": 0.62,
      "reason": "Mentions occupational health concerns (military personnel) and is part of a special issue on occupational and general public exposure."
    },
    {
      "slug": "5g-policy",
      "weight": 0.45,
      "reason": "Discusses needs and progress in dosimetry/exposure assessment for higher microwave/mm-wave frequencies used by 5G NR systems."
    }
  ]
}

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/ijerph19042067
PubMed: Not supplied

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library