Individual Exposure to Environmental Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields in Hospitalized Preterm Neonates

Bioelectromagnetics · 2021 · No effect · Low evidence

← Research stream

No effectLow evidencePaper 1148

Study snapshot

PublicationBioelectromagnetics · 2021

Study typeexposure_assessment

Reported directionNo effect

Evidence ratingLow

Abstract

Individual Exposure to Environmental Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields in Hospitalized Preterm Neonates Dimitri Besset, Brahim Selmaoui, Stéphane Delanaud, René de Seze, André Leke, Erwan Stéphan-Blanchard. Individual Exposure to Environmental Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields in Hospitalized Preterm Neonates. Bioelectromagnetics. 2021 May 16. doi: 10.1002/bem.22349. No abstract. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov Excerpts RF-EMF levels in the different frequency bands over the 3-week recording period for all infants are shown in Figure 1. For the median level, the total exposure (0.03 ± 0.01 V/m) was mainly due to the FM/TV (0.01 ± 0.01 V/m), mobile phone (UL) (0.01 ± 0.00 V/m), and DECT (0.01 ± 0.01 V/m). With regard to the P99 level, the frequency bands’ relative contribution to total exposure (0.24 ± 0.11 V/m) differed; the mobile phone UL signal (0.23 ± 0.11 V/m) was higher than the DECT signal (0.044 ± 0.020 V/m). For both the median and P99 levels, all other bands were below the exposimeter's limit of detection.... The present study is the first to (i) show that preterm neonates are chronically exposed to low environmental RF-EMF levels while in the NICU; (ii) describe the exposure's characteristics; and (iii) provide objective, quantitative exposure data. On average, the RF-EMF levels to which preterm neonates were exposed were much lower than the currently recommended 50 V/m threshold [International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection ICNIRP, 2020] but higher than those found in the general environment of the unit [Besset et al., 2020]. DECT, mobile phone (UL), and FM/TV were the main contributors to this chronic exposure. Even though RF-EMF levels were recorded every 2 min (meaning that many peak and minimal values were probably missed), 94.1% of the infants were nevertheless transiently exposed to levels above 1 V/m (0.045 ± 0.074% of all RF-EMF values, for around 41 s per day). These peak exposures were mainly due to mobile phone UL signals. Exposure to DECT and mobile phone frequency bands suggests that neonate exposure is mainly due to human activities around them (e.g., parent attentiveness, medical care) and explains why individual exposure levels were higher than those of the NICU general environment. These exposure profiles do not place preterm neonates at risk. However, some attention to the RF-EMF induced by human activities around the infants is needed because of their high sensitivity to the environment, physiological limitations, and increased body absorption of RF-EMF energy [Peyman, 2011] during a critical maturation period. Due to the small sample size and the specificity of the hospital environment in this study, further exposure investigations are required to confirm the present data.

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

PopulationHospitalized preterm neonates in a NICU

Sample sizeNot supplied

ExposureRF · 3-week recording period; measurements every 2 min

Evidence strengthLowConfidence: 66% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

Over a 3-week recording period, median total RF-EMF exposure was 0.03 ± 0.01 V/m, mainly from FM/TV, mobile phone uplink, and DECT (each ~0.01 V/m). The P99 total exposure was 0.24 ± 0.11 V/m, with mobile phone uplink contributing most (0.23 ± 0.11 V/m). 94.1% of infants were transiently exposed to levels >1 V/m (0.045 ± 0.074% of all values; ~41 s/day), mainly due to mobile phone uplink signals; average levels were reported as much lower than the 50 V/m ICNIRP (2020) threshold.

Outcomes measured

Personal RF-EMF exposure levels (V/m) across frequency bands
Median total exposure level
P99 (99th percentile) exposure level
Proportion of values >1 V/m and estimated time per day above 1 V/m
Relative contribution of frequency bands to total exposure

Limitations

No abstract available; information derived from provided excerpts only
Small sample size (not quantified in excerpt)
Specificity of the hospital/NICU environment may limit generalizability
Measurements recorded every 2 min, so some peak and minimal values were probably missed
Frequency bands other than main contributors were below the exposimeter's limit of detection

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "exposure_assessment",
  "exposure": {
    "band": "RF",
    "source": "NICU environmental sources (FM/TV, mobile phone uplink, DECT)",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": "3-week recording period; measurements every 2 min"
  },
  "population": "Hospitalized preterm neonates in a NICU",
  "sample_size": null,
  "outcomes": [
    "Personal RF-EMF exposure levels (V/m) across frequency bands",
    "Median total exposure level",
    "P99 (99th percentile) exposure level",
    "Proportion of values >1 V/m and estimated time per day above 1 V/m",
    "Relative contribution of frequency bands to total exposure"
  ],
  "main_findings": "Over a 3-week recording period, median total RF-EMF exposure was 0.03 ± 0.01 V/m, mainly from FM/TV, mobile phone uplink, and DECT (each ~0.01 V/m). The P99 total exposure was 0.24 ± 0.11 V/m, with mobile phone uplink contributing most (0.23 ± 0.11 V/m). 94.1% of infants were transiently exposed to levels >1 V/m (0.045 ± 0.074% of all values; ~41 s/day), mainly due to mobile phone uplink signals; average levels were reported as much lower than the 50 V/m ICNIRP (2020) threshold.",
  "effect_direction": "no_effect",
  "limitations": [
    "No abstract available; information derived from provided excerpts only",
    "Small sample size (not quantified in excerpt)",
    "Specificity of the hospital/NICU environment may limit generalizability",
    "Measurements recorded every 2 min, so some peak and minimal values were probably missed",
    "Frequency bands other than main contributors were below the exposimeter's limit of detection"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "low",
  "confidence": 0.66,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "preterm neonates",
    "NICU",
    "personal exposimeter",
    "RF-EMF",
    "environmental exposure",
    "DECT",
    "mobile phone uplink",
    "FM/TV",
    "ICNIRP 2020",
    "V/m"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "occupational-exposure",
      "weight": 0.35,
      "reason": "Exposure sources attributed to human activities (parents/medical care) in a hospital environment."
    },
    {
      "slug": "who-icnirp",
      "weight": 0.3,
      "reason": "Compares measured levels to ICNIRP (2020) recommended threshold."
    }
  ]
}

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: 10.1002/bem.22349
PubMed: 33998013

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library