Monitoring electromagnetic radiation emissions in buildings and developing strategies for improved indoor environmental quality.

2019 · Harm · Low evidence

← Research stream

HarmLow evidencePaper 1740

Study snapshot

Publicationmanual · 2019

Study typeexposure_assessment

Reported directionHarm

Evidence ratingLow

Abstract

Monitoring electromagnetic radiation emissions in buildings and developing strategies for improved indoor environmental quality. Weldu YW, Mannan M, Al-Ghamdi SG. Monitoring electromagnetic radiation emissions in buildings and developing strategies for improved indoor environmental quality. Health Phys. 2019 Jul 5. doi: 10.1097/HP.0000000000001112. Abstract Electronic devices have become ubiquitous in daily life, but they emit electromagnetic radiation, which may have negative health impacts at excessive levels. Little is known regarding the impact of radiation emissions on building occupants or strategies for reducing its intensity. This study applied a novel approach using system analysis to quantify radiation exposure in building spaces, examine building material responses to radiation propagation, and investigate risks to human health in the country of Qatar. Radiation intensity levels varied based on the location and type of building space. Different types of construction materials showed varied responses to electromagnetic field wave propagation. Drywall exhibited the best blocking effect, whereas glass and lumber walls exhibited poor blocking effects. The field strengths quantified in this study are less than the corresponding reference values specified by some jurisdictions, but they are still significantly higher than the safety levels defined in many other countries, which could result in significant health risks. The key strategies for improving indoor environmental quality include the use of shielding materials, spatial design, reduction of exposure time, increased exposure distance, and complete avoidance of exposure in sensitive areas. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov Conclusions Emission intensity levels varied significantly based on locations and types of building spaces. Office building spaces exhibited relatively low electromagnetic emission intensity, and hospital building spaces exhibited relatively high power density values. The high electromagnetic emission intensities measured in surveyed green residential buildings highlight the importance of novel strategies for reducing radiation propagation. EMF intensity is greater at locations near radiation sources. Different types of building construction respond variably to EMF wave propagation. Certain materials, such as drywall, ceramic-faced lumber, tile-faced drywall, and plain or masonry-faced concrete, effectively shield EMF propagation, whereas glass and plain lumber have poor shielding effects. Drywall exhibited the best shielding effect among all compared building materials. Additionally, the magnitudes of the transmission coefficients for magnetic fields were higher than the corresponding power densities for all building wall materials. Infants, children, senior citizens, and patients all have relatively weak immune systems that are susceptible to radiation exposure. Therefore, it is important to design sensitive spaces using drywall and ceramic- or masonry-faced concrete walls. ... The exposure intensities measured in this study exceeded the safety limits defined by Switzerland, raising Table 4. significant concerns regarding adverse health effects.

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 directionharm

PopulationBuilding occupants in surveyed buildings/spaces in Qatar (including offices, hospitals, and green residential buildings)

Sample sizeNot supplied

ExposureNot supplied

Evidence strengthLowConfidence: 66% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

Radiation/EMF intensity levels varied by location and type of building space; office spaces were relatively low and hospital spaces relatively high, with high intensities also reported in surveyed green residential buildings. Building materials differed in shielding effectiveness: drywall showed the best blocking/shielding effect, while glass and plain lumber performed poorly; several concrete and faced-wall assemblies were described as effective. Measured field strengths were below reference values in some jurisdictions but exceeded safety limits defined by Switzerland and were higher than safety levels in many other countries, which the authors state could imply significant health risks.

Outcomes measured

Electromagnetic radiation/EMF intensity levels in building spaces
Power density values by building space type
Field strength compared with jurisdictional reference/safety values
Building material shielding/blocking effects (transmission/propagation)
Qualitative assessment of potential health risk and mitigation strategies

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "exposure_assessment",
  "exposure": {
    "band": null,
    "source": "indoor electronic devices/building spaces",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": null
  },
  "population": "Building occupants in surveyed buildings/spaces in Qatar (including offices, hospitals, and green residential buildings)",
  "sample_size": null,
  "outcomes": [
    "Electromagnetic radiation/EMF intensity levels in building spaces",
    "Power density values by building space type",
    "Field strength compared with jurisdictional reference/safety values",
    "Building material shielding/blocking effects (transmission/propagation)",
    "Qualitative assessment of potential health risk and mitigation strategies"
  ],
  "main_findings": "Radiation/EMF intensity levels varied by location and type of building space; office spaces were relatively low and hospital spaces relatively high, with high intensities also reported in surveyed green residential buildings. Building materials differed in shielding effectiveness: drywall showed the best blocking/shielding effect, while glass and plain lumber performed poorly; several concrete and faced-wall assemblies were described as effective. Measured field strengths were below reference values in some jurisdictions but exceeded safety limits defined by Switzerland and were higher than safety levels in many other countries, which the authors state could imply significant health risks.",
  "effect_direction": "harm",
  "limitations": [],
  "evidence_strength": "low",
  "confidence": 0.66,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "indoor EMF",
    "building spaces",
    "Qatar",
    "power density",
    "field strength",
    "shielding",
    "building materials",
    "drywall",
    "glass",
    "lumber",
    "hospital",
    "office",
    "green residential buildings",
    "indoor environmental quality",
    "exposure reduction strategies"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "occupational-exposure",
      "weight": 0.32,
      "reason": "Includes measurements in office and hospital building spaces (workplace environments)."
    }
  ]
}

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: 10.1097/hp.0000000000001112
PubMed: Not supplied

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library