Electromagnetic exposure from mobile phones in a city like environment: The case study of Leuven, Belgium

2019 · Unclear · Low evidence

← Research stream

UnclearLow evidencePaper 1777

Study snapshot

Publicationmanual · 2019

Study typeexposure_assessment

Reported directionUnclear

Evidence ratingLow

Abstract

Electromagnetic exposure from mobile phones in a city like environment: The case study of Leuven, Belgium Iyare RN, Volskiy V, Vandenbosch GAE. Study of the electromagnetic exposure from mobile phones in a city like environment: The case study of Leuven, Belgium. Environmental Research. Available online 26 May 2019. doi.org Highlights • Mobile phone (MP) exposure values are far above the exposures due to base stations. • MP exposure is considerably higher for indoor environments compared to outdoor. • Exposure is lower for locations close to base stations than locations further away. • All exposures are in compliance with the SAR limit recommended by ICNIRP. Abstract A measuring campaign for the assessment of electromagnetic exposure levels from mobile phones in the city center of Leuven, Belgium, has been carried out. The main objective of the assessment is to study the dependency of the exposure of the user by his own mobile phone in terms of location in the city (very close to base stations and at randomly selected locations). The measurements were performed in both public and private areas in 60 outdoor and 60 indoor locations in Leuven. The campaign was focused on GSM 900 mobile communications. The results show that the exposure is considerably higher for indoor environments compared to outdoor environments, and at the randomly chosen locations compared to locations very close to base stations. However, the most important observation is that the average outdoor exposure in Leuven of the user of a mobile phone is about 8 times higher than the average outdoor exposure by base stations. Indoors, this factor rises to about 30. Excerpts All results obtained in this measurement campaign are for a mobile phone with an active connection (a voice call). Field values were obtained through an app installed on a mobile phone. The app called Quanta pro [48] (shown in Figure 1) gets active (records the emissions from the mobile phone) immediately when a call is made with the mobile phone. This means that RF exposures were obtained during typical phone usage. During the exposure measurement, the mobile phone user makes a phone call of six minutes duration at a specific point in the measurement environment while the app concurrently keeps track of the power values transmitted by the antenna of the mobile phone. Conclusions: The electromagnetic radiation exposure from mobile phones operating under GSM 900 in a typical city center, Leuven, Belgium, was assessed using a calibrated app installed on a representative mobile (smart) phone. The calibration was performed with a highly accurate spectrum analyzer based set-up. The levels averaged over the city center are: outdoors about 5.54 and 6.18 V/m for locations near base stations and arbitrarily chosen locations, respectively, and indoors about 10.36 and 30.87 V/m, also for locations near base stations and arbitrarily chosen locations, respectively. To the average, near base stations the indoor exposure is about a factor of two higher than the outdoor exposure. This smaller factor is due to the fact that the indoor exposure was measured at higher floors of buildings. At arbitrary locations the indoor exposure is about a factor of five higher than the outdoor exposure. These measurements were always done at floor level. All measured values are far above the values typically measured for the exposure due to base stations, even far above the maximum exposure level defined in the norm in Flanders, which is 3 V/m per antenna at 900 MHz. It can easily be concluded that the deployment of infrastructure, typically in the form of microcells, hotspots or distributed relays, should aim at minimizing mobile phone exposure and not necessarily the exposure by the base station itself. This may require a paradigm shift in the public opinion. 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

PopulationNot supplied

Sample size120

ExposureRF · 900 MHz · 6-minute voice call at each measurement point

Evidence strengthLowConfidence: 78% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

In a measurement campaign in Leuven (Belgium) focused on GSM 900, mobile phone exposure during active voice calls was higher indoors than outdoors and higher at randomly chosen locations than at locations very close to base stations. The average outdoor exposure from the user’s own mobile phone was reported as about 8× higher than average outdoor exposure by base stations; indoors this factor was about 30×. Reported average field levels were outdoors 5.54 V/m (near base stations) and 6.18 V/m (arbitrary locations), and indoors 10.36 V/m (near base stations) and 30.87 V/m (arbitrary locations).

Outcomes measured

RF exposure levels (V/m) from mobile phones during active voice calls
Comparison of mobile phone exposure vs base station exposure (relative factor)
Indoor vs outdoor exposure differences
Exposure differences near base stations vs randomly selected locations
Compliance with ICNIRP SAR limit (stated)

Limitations

Exposure measurements were obtained via a calibrated smartphone app (Quanta pro) rather than direct dosimetry described in the abstract
Campaign focused on GSM 900 only
Measurements reflect a specific usage scenario (active voice call) and a fixed call duration (6 minutes)
Study limited to one city center (Leuven, Belgium) and selected indoor/outdoor locations

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "exposure_assessment",
  "exposure": {
    "band": "RF",
    "source": "mobile phone",
    "frequency_mhz": 900,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": "6-minute voice call at each measurement point"
  },
  "population": null,
  "sample_size": 120,
  "outcomes": [
    "RF exposure levels (V/m) from mobile phones during active voice calls",
    "Comparison of mobile phone exposure vs base station exposure (relative factor)",
    "Indoor vs outdoor exposure differences",
    "Exposure differences near base stations vs randomly selected locations",
    "Compliance with ICNIRP SAR limit (stated)"
  ],
  "main_findings": "In a measurement campaign in Leuven (Belgium) focused on GSM 900, mobile phone exposure during active voice calls was higher indoors than outdoors and higher at randomly chosen locations than at locations very close to base stations. The average outdoor exposure from the user’s own mobile phone was reported as about 8× higher than average outdoor exposure by base stations; indoors this factor was about 30×. Reported average field levels were outdoors 5.54 V/m (near base stations) and 6.18 V/m (arbitrary locations), and indoors 10.36 V/m (near base stations) and 30.87 V/m (arbitrary locations).",
  "effect_direction": "unclear",
  "limitations": [
    "Exposure measurements were obtained via a calibrated smartphone app (Quanta pro) rather than direct dosimetry described in the abstract",
    "Campaign focused on GSM 900 only",
    "Measurements reflect a specific usage scenario (active voice call) and a fixed call duration (6 minutes)",
    "Study limited to one city center (Leuven, Belgium) and selected indoor/outdoor locations"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "low",
  "confidence": 0.78,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "mobile phone",
    "GSM 900",
    "RF exposure",
    "measurement campaign",
    "indoor",
    "outdoor",
    "base stations",
    "Leuven",
    "Belgium",
    "V/m",
    "ICNIRP",
    "SAR limit"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "who-icnirp",
      "weight": 0.62,
      "reason": "Mentions compliance with SAR limit recommended by ICNIRP."
    }
  ]
}

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.2019.05.029
PubMed: Not supplied

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library