Emissions From Smart Meters and Other Residential Radiofrequency Sources

2019 · No effect · Moderate evidence

← Research stream

No effectModerate evidencePaper 1779

Study snapshot

Publicationmanual · 2019

Study typeexposure_assessment

Reported directionNo effect

Evidence ratingModerate

Abstract

Emissions From Smart Meters and Other Residential Radiofrequency Sources Aerts S, Verloock L, Van den Bossche M, Martens L, Vergara X, Joseph W. Emissions From Smart Meters and Other Residential Radiofrequency Sources. Health Phys. 2019 Jun;116(6):776-788. doi: 10.1097/HP.0000000000001032. Abstract The advent of the Internet of things comes with a huge increase in wirelessly communicating devices in our environment. For example, smart energy-consumption meters are being widely deployed in residences from which they communicate their state using radiofrequency networks. Accurate characterization of the radiofrequency emissions from emerging residential wireless solutions is important to inform the public about the potential impact on their exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. A new measurement procedure to determine the exposure from residential radiofrequency devices is proposed by assessing the peak emitted fields at various distances and the proportion of time they transmit (duty cycle). Radiofrequency emissions from 55 residential devices were measured in 10 residences (Belgium and France) and compared to environmental levels, emissions from 41 mobile phones, and international standards. Overall, residential levels of radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure are low. In addition to the continuous environmental exposure, wireless access points (due to frequent use) and especially mobile phones and other personal communication devices (due to their use close to the body) continue to represent the bulk of the radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure in the smart home. However, some residential devices can significantly increase the exposure if their duty cycles are high enough (>10%), especially when held or used close to the body. Individual smart meters, on the other hand, will contribute only little in general, despite emissions of up to 20 V m at 50 cm, due to their low duty cycles (maximum 1%) and locations. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov Conclusions In this study, a novel measurement method was designed to characterize in situ residential RF emissions from emerging wireless solutions (e.g., IoT sources and smart meters) by determining the RF transmission frequency, the peak emitted fields at various distances, and the proportion of transmission time (i.e., duty cycle), for which the spectrogram mode of a spectrum analyzer was used. This method was applied to a convenience sample of 10 residences in Belgium and France containing, in total, 55 IoT devices, smart meters, and other RF-emitting devices. The measured emissions were also compared to present levels of telecommunications and broadcasting signals, emissions by a mobile phone using three current telecommunications technologies (GSM, UMTS, and LTE), as well as to the ICNIRP guidelines for general public RF-EMF exposure. Overall, low to very low emissions were measured for nearly all of the devices, and it is concluded that, in addition to the continuous exposure due to environmental sources, when used, wireless access points and especially mobile phones and other personal communication devices (e.g., DECT cordless phones, walkie-talkies) will continue to represent the bulk of our exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields in the smart home, due to their typically high emissions and use close to the body. However, RF-emitting devices with high duty cycles (e.g., in this sample, motion sensor, baby monitor, and an IoT toothbrush) may significantly increase the potential for exposure, especially when used or located close to the body. The potential impact on the exposure due to individual smart meters, on the other hand, and in particular due to the communications modules wirelessly linked to a utility company's central network, is small, regardless of their emissions of up to 20 V m−1 at 0.2 m, given their rare transmissions and usual deployment away from the residents.

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 directionno_effect

PopulationNot supplied

Sample size10

ExposureRF

Evidence strengthModerateConfidence: 78% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

RF emissions from 55 residential devices were measured in 10 residences in Belgium and France using a method incorporating peak fields and duty cycle. Overall, residential RF-EMF exposure levels were low; wireless access points (when used) and especially mobile phones/personal communication devices represented the bulk of exposure due to higher emissions and close-to-body use. Individual smart meters were concluded to contribute little in general because of low duty cycles (maximum 1%) and typical placement, despite peak emissions reported up to 20 V/m at short distances.

Outcomes measured

Measured peak electric field strength at various distances
Duty cycle (proportion of time transmitting)
Comparison of measured emissions to environmental RF levels
Comparison of measured emissions to mobile phone emissions (GSM, UMTS, LTE)
Comparison to ICNIRP general public exposure guidelines

Limitations

Convenience sample of 10 residences
Study focused on in situ emission/exposure characterization rather than health outcomes
Frequencies and device-specific technical parameters not fully specified in the provided abstract

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "exposure_assessment",
  "exposure": {
    "band": "RF",
    "source": "smart meter, IoT devices, residential RF sources (including wireless access points and mobile phones)",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": null
  },
  "population": null,
  "sample_size": 10,
  "outcomes": [
    "Measured peak electric field strength at various distances",
    "Duty cycle (proportion of time transmitting)",
    "Comparison of measured emissions to environmental RF levels",
    "Comparison of measured emissions to mobile phone emissions (GSM, UMTS, LTE)",
    "Comparison to ICNIRP general public exposure guidelines"
  ],
  "main_findings": "RF emissions from 55 residential devices were measured in 10 residences in Belgium and France using a method incorporating peak fields and duty cycle. Overall, residential RF-EMF exposure levels were low; wireless access points (when used) and especially mobile phones/personal communication devices represented the bulk of exposure due to higher emissions and close-to-body use. Individual smart meters were concluded to contribute little in general because of low duty cycles (maximum 1%) and typical placement, despite peak emissions reported up to 20 V/m at short distances.",
  "effect_direction": "no_effect",
  "limitations": [
    "Convenience sample of 10 residences",
    "Study focused on in situ emission/exposure characterization rather than health outcomes",
    "Frequencies and device-specific technical parameters not fully specified in the provided abstract"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "moderate",
  "confidence": 0.78,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "smart meters",
    "Internet of Things",
    "IoT",
    "residential exposure",
    "radiofrequency",
    "RF-EMF",
    "duty cycle",
    "electric field strength",
    "wireless access points",
    "mobile phones",
    "GSM",
    "UMTS",
    "LTE",
    "ICNIRP",
    "Belgium",
    "France"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "smart-meters",
      "weight": 0.95,
      "reason": "Directly measures and evaluates emissions/exposure contribution from residential smart meters."
    },
    {
      "slug": "who-icnirp",
      "weight": 0.6,
      "reason": "Emissions compared to ICNIRP general public RF-EMF exposure guidelines."
    }
  ]
}

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.0000000000001032
PubMed: Not supplied

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library