Radiation measurements in office environment with Wi-Fi, 3G and 4G users

2019 · Unclear · Insufficient evidence

← Research stream

UnclearInsufficient evidencePaper 1700

Study snapshot

Publicationmanual · 2019

Study typeexposure_assessment

Reported directionUnclear

Evidence ratingInsufficient

Abstract

Radiation measurements in office environment with Wi-Fi, 3G and 4G users Koutsi E, Deligiannis S, Sarantopoulos I, Zarbouti D, Athanasiadou G, Tsoulos G. Radiation measurements in office environment with Wi-Fi, 3G and 4G users. 2019 8th International Conference on Modern Circuits and Systems Technologies (MOCAST). 13-15 May 2019. DOI: 10.1109/MOCAST.2019.8741720 Abstract The unprecedented explosion of wireless communications with billions of devices across several wireless and cellular systems, has increased concerns about the human exposure to electromagnetic waves. In this context, this work focuses in office operational environments and the most widely used wireless systems therein, i.e. Wi- Fi and 3G/4G networks, in order to evaluate the radiation levels with 4-5 people working in the room. The results show that even with one Wi-Fi user the radiation level can be higher than the reference level for the whole band, while the corresponding scenario for 3G/4G would be with three users. Also, with three or more users, the 4G levels are ∼10% higher than the second higher Wi-Fi. Conclusions In this work a measurement campaign was carried out with the frequency selective NARDA SRM-3000 inside a medium sized office room. The goal of the campaign was to investigate the impact of Wi-Fi, 3G and 4G users on the E-field footprint when they maximize their activity, i.e. downloading/uploading data files from/to the web. As a reference scenario, wideband measurements were performed outside office hours when no users were present. The results show that even one Wi-Fi downloading user drives the E-field value above the reference scenario (of no WiFi router users or cell phone users), while three 3G or 4G users are needed to overtake it. After two users, the 4G contribution dominates the E-field footprint inside the office. Specifically, compared to 3G, 4G almost doubles the E-field values which are ~10% higher compared to Wi-Fi. It must be mentioned though that in all cases the measured E-field values were much lower (~66 times) than the existing non-ionizing radiation for public exposure safety values [8]. ieeexplore.ieee.org

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 sizeNot supplied

ExposureNot supplied

Evidence strengthInsufficientConfidence: 74% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

In an office measurement campaign, one active Wi‑Fi downloading user increased the measured E-field above the reference scenario (no users), while three 3G or 4G users were needed to exceed that reference scenario. After two users, 4G dominated the E-field footprint; compared to 3G, 4G almost doubled E-field values and was reported to be ~10% higher than Wi‑Fi. The authors state that in all cases measured E-field values were much lower (~66 times) than existing public exposure safety values.

Outcomes measured

Measured electric-field (E-field) levels / footprint in an office room under different numbers of Wi‑Fi and 3G/4G users
Comparison to reference scenario (no users) and to public exposure safety/reference levels

Limitations

Frequency band(s) and specific frequencies measured are not reported in the abstract
No quantitative E-field values (e.g., V/m) are provided in the abstract
Sample size/number of rooms and measurement duration are not specified beyond a single medium-sized office room and 4–5 people
Study evaluates field levels, not health outcomes

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "exposure_assessment",
  "exposure": {
    "band": null,
    "source": "office environment with Wi‑Fi router users and 3G/4G mobile phone users",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": null
  },
  "population": null,
  "sample_size": null,
  "outcomes": [
    "Measured electric-field (E-field) levels / footprint in an office room under different numbers of Wi‑Fi and 3G/4G users",
    "Comparison to reference scenario (no users) and to public exposure safety/reference levels"
  ],
  "main_findings": "In an office measurement campaign, one active Wi‑Fi downloading user increased the measured E-field above the reference scenario (no users), while three 3G or 4G users were needed to exceed that reference scenario. After two users, 4G dominated the E-field footprint; compared to 3G, 4G almost doubled E-field values and was reported to be ~10% higher than Wi‑Fi. The authors state that in all cases measured E-field values were much lower (~66 times) than existing public exposure safety values.",
  "effect_direction": "unclear",
  "limitations": [
    "Frequency band(s) and specific frequencies measured are not reported in the abstract",
    "No quantitative E-field values (e.g., V/m) are provided in the abstract",
    "Sample size/number of rooms and measurement duration are not specified beyond a single medium-sized office room and 4–5 people",
    "Study evaluates field levels, not health outcomes"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "insufficient",
  "confidence": 0.74,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "office environment",
    "Wi‑Fi",
    "3G",
    "4G",
    "radiation measurements",
    "electric field",
    "NARDA SRM-3000",
    "exposure assessment",
    "measurement campaign"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "school-wi-fi",
      "weight": 0.2,
      "reason": "Includes Wi‑Fi exposure measurements in an indoor operational environment (office, not school)."
    },
    {
      "slug": "occupational-exposure",
      "weight": 0.55,
      "reason": "Measurements conducted in an office work environment with multiple users."
    }
  ]
}

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: 10.1109/mocast.2019.8741720
PubMed: Not supplied

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library