Personal exposure from RF EMF in Australia and Belgium using on-body calibrated exposimeters

2016 · Unclear · Low evidence

← Research stream

UnclearLow evidencePaper 1436

Study snapshot

Publicationmanual · 2016

Study typeexposure_assessment

Reported directionUnclear

Evidence ratingLow

Abstract

Personal exposure from RF EMF in Australia and Belgium using on-body calibrated exposimeters Bhatt CR, Thielens A, Billah B, Redmayne M, Abramson MJ, Sim MR, Vermeulen R, Martens L, Joseph W, Benke G.Assessment of personal exposure from radiofrequency-electromagnetic fields in Australia and Belgium using on-body calibrated exposimeters.Environ Res. 2016 Nov;151:547-563. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2016.08.022. Abstract The purposes of this study were: i) to demonstrate the assessment of personal exposure from various RF-EMF sources across different microenvironments in Australia and Belgium, with two on-body calibrated exposimeters, in contrast to earlier studies which employed single, non-on-body calibrated exposimeters; ii) to systematically evaluate the performance of the exposimeters using (on-body) calibration and cross-talk measurements; and iii) to compare the exposure levels measured for one site in each of several selected microenvironments in the two countries. A human subject took part in an on-body calibration of the exposimeter in an anechoic chamber. The same subject collected data on personal exposures across 38 microenvironments (19 in each country) situated in urban, suburban and rural regions. Median personal RF-EMF exposures were estimated: i) of all microenvironments, and ii) across each microenvironment, in two countries. The exposures were then compared across similar microenvironments in two countries (17 in each country). The three highest median total exposure levels were: city center (4.33V/m), residential outdoor (urban) (0.75V/m), and a park (0.75V/m) [Australia]; and a tram station (1.95V/m), city center (0.95V/m), and a park (0.90V/m) [Belgium]. The exposures across nine microenvironments in Melbourne, Australia were lower than the exposures across corresponding microenvironments in Ghent, Belgium (p<0.05). The personal exposures across urban microenvironments were higher than those for rural or suburban microenvironments. Similarly, the exposure levels across outdoor microenvironments were higher than those for indoor microenvironments. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

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 directionunclear

PopulationOne human subject (data collection across microenvironments in Australia and Belgium)

Sample size1

ExposureRF

Evidence strengthLowConfidence: 78% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

Using two on-body calibrated exposimeters, median personal RF-EMF exposures were estimated across 38 microenvironments (19 per country). Highest median total exposure levels were reported for city center (4.33 V/m) in Australia and tram station (1.95 V/m) in Belgium; exposures in nine Melbourne microenvironments were lower than corresponding Ghent microenvironments (p<0.05). Urban and outdoor microenvironments showed higher exposure levels than rural/suburban and indoor microenvironments, respectively.

Outcomes measured

Personal RF-EMF exposure levels (V/m) across microenvironments
Comparison of exposure levels between Australia and Belgium microenvironments
Exposimeter performance evaluation (on-body calibration and cross-talk measurements)

Limitations

Single human subject used for calibration and data collection
Frequency-specific exposure details not reported in the abstract
Only one site per selected microenvironment was measured for cross-country comparisons (as described in abstract)

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "exposure_assessment",
  "exposure": {
    "band": "RF",
    "source": "various RF-EMF sources across microenvironments (personal exposure measured with on-body calibrated exposimeters)",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": null
  },
  "population": "One human subject (data collection across microenvironments in Australia and Belgium)",
  "sample_size": 1,
  "outcomes": [
    "Personal RF-EMF exposure levels (V/m) across microenvironments",
    "Comparison of exposure levels between Australia and Belgium microenvironments",
    "Exposimeter performance evaluation (on-body calibration and cross-talk measurements)"
  ],
  "main_findings": "Using two on-body calibrated exposimeters, median personal RF-EMF exposures were estimated across 38 microenvironments (19 per country). Highest median total exposure levels were reported for city center (4.33 V/m) in Australia and tram station (1.95 V/m) in Belgium; exposures in nine Melbourne microenvironments were lower than corresponding Ghent microenvironments (p<0.05). Urban and outdoor microenvironments showed higher exposure levels than rural/suburban and indoor microenvironments, respectively.",
  "effect_direction": "unclear",
  "limitations": [
    "Single human subject used for calibration and data collection",
    "Frequency-specific exposure details not reported in the abstract",
    "Only one site per selected microenvironment was measured for cross-country comparisons (as described in abstract)"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "low",
  "confidence": 0.78,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "RF-EMF",
    "personal exposure",
    "exposimeter",
    "on-body calibration",
    "microenvironments",
    "Australia",
    "Belgium",
    "urban",
    "indoor",
    "outdoor"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "exposure-assessment",
      "weight": 0.9,
      "reason": "Study focuses on measuring personal RF-EMF exposure across microenvironments using calibrated exposimeters."
    }
  ]
}

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.envres.2016.08.022
PubMed: Not supplied

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library