A real-world quality assessment study in six ExpoM-RF measurement devices

2020 · Unclear · Moderate evidence

← Research stream

UnclearModerate evidencePaper 1573

Study snapshot

Publicationmanual · 2020

Study typeexposure_assessment

Reported directionUnclear

Evidence ratingModerate

Abstract

A real-world quality assessment study in six ExpoM-RF measurement devices Eeftens M,Dongus S, Bürgler A, Röösl M, ACCEDERA team. A real-world quality assessment study in six ExpoM-RF measurement devices. Environmental Research. Vol.182, March 2020, 109049. doi.org Highlights • We compared 6 ExpoM-RF personal measurement devices for radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF). • The vast majority (84%) of variability in RF-EMF exposure levels was explained by the environment. • Systematic differences between devices and calibrations were detectable, but relatively small. • This supports the validity of studies which characterize personal and environmental RF-EMF using exposimeters. • If systematic differences are corrected, we recommend adjusting for device ID and calibration session. Abstract Exposimeters measuring radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) are commonly used to assess personal exposure to RF-EMF in real-life environments. They are usually calibrated in an anechoic chamber using single, well-defined signals such as the center frequency of each band, and standardized orientations, but it is not clear how different devices compare in the real environment where complex mixtures of signals from all directions are present. We thus tested the comparability of six ExpoM-RF exposimeters before and after calibration in an anechoic chamber by varying their position and orientation while repeatedly measuring 15 microenvironments (9 walking routes, 4 tram routes and 2 bus routes) on 6 different days. We modelled the geometric mean levels of RF-EMF as a function of orientation, position, device ID, whether the device was recently calibrated, correcting for the microenvironment in which each measurement took place. We found that systematic differences introduced by device ID, calibration, day of the week, orientation and position are relatively small compared to exposure differences between microenvironments. Any corrections (if desired) should include both device ID and calibration session, but would have a small impact considering the negligible differences between devices. This supports the validity of previous exposure measurement studies relying on ExpoM-RF devices, which did not correct for device ID. We further found that summarizing the exposure per microenvironment as geometric means results in better models than arithmetic means and medians, and recommend that further exposure assessment studies report observed levels as geometric means. 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 directionunclear

PopulationNot supplied

Sample size6

ExposureRF · repeated measurements across 15 microenvironments on 6 different days

Evidence strengthModerateConfidence: 78% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

Six ExpoM-RF exposimeters were compared in real environments before and after anechoic-chamber calibration across 15 microenvironments on 6 days. Systematic differences attributable to device ID, calibration, day of week, orientation, and position were detectable but relatively small compared with differences between microenvironments; 84% of variability in RF-EMF exposure levels was explained by the environment. The authors recommend summarizing exposure per microenvironment using geometric means and, if correcting systematic differences, adjusting for device ID and calibration session.

Outcomes measured

Comparability/variability of RF-EMF measurements across devices
Impact of calibration, device ID, orientation, position, day of week on measured RF-EMF levels
Model performance using geometric mean vs arithmetic mean/median summaries

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "exposure_assessment",
  "exposure": {
    "band": "RF",
    "source": "personal exposimeters (ExpoM-RF) measuring environmental RF-EMF in microenvironments",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": "repeated measurements across 15 microenvironments on 6 different days"
  },
  "population": null,
  "sample_size": 6,
  "outcomes": [
    "Comparability/variability of RF-EMF measurements across devices",
    "Impact of calibration, device ID, orientation, position, day of week on measured RF-EMF levels",
    "Model performance using geometric mean vs arithmetic mean/median summaries"
  ],
  "main_findings": "Six ExpoM-RF exposimeters were compared in real environments before and after anechoic-chamber calibration across 15 microenvironments on 6 days. Systematic differences attributable to device ID, calibration, day of week, orientation, and position were detectable but relatively small compared with differences between microenvironments; 84% of variability in RF-EMF exposure levels was explained by the environment. The authors recommend summarizing exposure per microenvironment using geometric means and, if correcting systematic differences, adjusting for device ID and calibration session.",
  "effect_direction": "unclear",
  "limitations": [],
  "evidence_strength": "moderate",
  "confidence": 0.78,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "RF-EMF",
    "radiofrequency electromagnetic fields",
    "exposimeter",
    "ExpoM-RF",
    "personal exposure assessment",
    "calibration",
    "anechoic chamber",
    "microenvironments",
    "measurement variability",
    "geometric mean"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "exposure-assessment",
      "weight": 0.9,
      "reason": "Real-world quality/comparability assessment of personal RF-EMF exposimeters across microenvironments and calibration conditions."
    }
  ]
}

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.2019.109049
PubMed: Not supplied

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library