Exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields: Comparison of exposimeters with a novel body-worn distributed meter

2021 · Mixed · Moderate evidence

← Research stream

MixedModerate evidencePaper 1118

Under real-life conditions and within the currently applied frequency bands, using one single exposimeter resulted in slightly lower measured exposures than the body-worn distributed meter (BWDM), most likely due to body shielding. Despite lower absolute valu…

Study snapshot

Publicationmanual · 2021

Study typeexposure_assessment

Reported directionMixed

Evidence ratingModerate

Abstract

Exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields: Comparison of exposimeters with a novel body-worn distributed meter Anke Huss, Stefan Dongus, Reza Aminzadeh, ArnoThielens, Matthias van den Bossche, Patrick Van Torre, René de Seze, Elisabeth Cardis, Marloes Eeftens, Wout Joseph, Roel Vermeulen, MartinRöösli. Exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields: Comparison of exposimeters with a novel body-worn distributed meter. Environment International. 156, November 2021, 106711. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2021.106711 Highlights • Personal exposimeters are often used for RF-EMF measurements, but have shortcomings. • We developed a novel on-body calibrated device with distributed sensors (BWDM). • BWDM is designed to minimize body shielding and to use frequency specific antennas. • We measured RF-EMF exposures in parallel with three types of devices. • Exposimeters provide slightly lower exposures but rank averaged exposures accurately. Abstract Background Exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) is often measured with personal exposimeters, but the accuracy of measurements can be hampered as carrying the devices on-body may result in body shielding. Further, the compact design may compromise the frequency selectivity of the sensor. The aim of this study was to compare measurements obtained using a multi-band body-worn distributed-exposimeter (BWDM) with two commercially available personal exposimeters (ExpoM-RF and EmeSpy 200) under real-life conditions. Conclusion Our device comparisons are informative for the interpretation of existing epidemiological research results and may help future studies regarding how to design improved exposure assessment strategies and how to interpret RF-EMF exposure values reported in the scientific literature. Overall, within the currently applied frequency bands, our study indicates that using one single exposimeter results in slightly lower exposures than measured by a BWDM, most likely due to body shielding, but rank exposure levels reliably. Body shielding could probably at least be in part mitigated by using two exposimeters, on opposite sides of the body (Bhatt et al., 2016). Given their easier handling and relatively compact size, exposimeters thus represent valuable tools to assess population exposure to RF-EMF. Open access paper: sciencedirect.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 directionmixed

PopulationNot supplied

Sample sizeNot supplied

ExposureRF

Evidence strengthModerateConfidence: 74% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

Outcomes measured

Comparison of RF-EMF exposure measurements between a body-worn distributed meter (BWDM) and two commercial exposimeters (ExpoM-RF, EmeSpy 200)
Impact of on-body body shielding on measured RF-EMF exposure levels
Ability of exposimeters to rank exposure levels reliably

Limitations

Specific frequency bands used are not detailed in the provided abstract text
No sample size or participant/population description provided in the abstract text
Quantitative results (e.g., magnitude of differences, agreement metrics) are not provided in the abstract text

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "exposure_assessment",
  "exposure": {
    "band": "RF",
    "source": "personal measurement devices (exposimeters) under real-life conditions",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": null
  },
  "population": null,
  "sample_size": null,
  "outcomes": [
    "Comparison of RF-EMF exposure measurements between a body-worn distributed meter (BWDM) and two commercial exposimeters (ExpoM-RF, EmeSpy 200)",
    "Impact of on-body body shielding on measured RF-EMF exposure levels",
    "Ability of exposimeters to rank exposure levels reliably"
  ],
  "main_findings": "Under real-life conditions and within the currently applied frequency bands, using one single exposimeter resulted in slightly lower measured exposures than the body-worn distributed meter (BWDM), most likely due to body shielding. Despite lower absolute values, exposimeters ranked averaged exposure levels reliably.",
  "effect_direction": "mixed",
  "limitations": [
    "Specific frequency bands used are not detailed in the provided abstract text",
    "No sample size or participant/population description provided in the abstract text",
    "Quantitative results (e.g., magnitude of differences, agreement metrics) are not provided in the abstract text"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "moderate",
  "confidence": 0.74,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "RF-EMF",
    "radiofrequency electromagnetic fields",
    "exposure assessment",
    "personal exposimeter",
    "body shielding",
    "body-worn distributed meter",
    "BWDM",
    "ExpoM-RF",
    "EmeSpy 200"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "occupational-exposure",
      "weight": 0.2,
      "reason": "Study concerns on-body personal measurement of RF-EMF exposure under real-life conditions, relevant to personal/field exposure assessment contexts."
    }
  ]
}

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: 10.1016/j.envint.2021.106711
PubMed: Not supplied

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library