RF Safe

Personal exposure to environmental RF EMF in Albacete (Spain) and risk perception

2019 · Mixed · Low evidence

← Research stream
MixedLow evidencePaper 1886

Using a Satimo EME SPY 140 exposimeter (10 s sampling for 24 h), mean total exposure across 14 bands was 37.7 μW/m², with wide temporal and spatial variability. DECT contributed 50.2% of mean total exposure, followed by mobile phones (18.4%), mobile stations …

Study snapshot

Publicationmanual · 2019
Study typeexposure_assessment
Reported directionMixed
Evidence ratingLow

Abstract

Personal exposure to environmental RF EMF in Albacete (Spain) and risk perception Ramirez-Vazquez R, Gonzalez-Rubio J, Arribas E, Najera A. Characterisation of personal exposure to environmental radiofrequency electromagnetic fields in Albacete (Spain) and assessment of risk perception. Environ Res. 2019 Feb 12;172:109-116. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2019.02.015. Abstract In the last decades, exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) has substantially increased as new wireless technologies have been introduced. Society has become more concerned about the possible effects of RF-EMF on human health in parallel to the increase in their exposure. The appearance of personal exposimeters opens up wide-ranging research possibilities. Despite studies having characterised personal exposure to RF-EMF, part of the population is still worried, to the extent that psychogenic diseases ("nocebo" effect) appear, and patients suffer. It could be interesting to share personal exposure results with the population to better understand and promote public health. The main objective was to characterise personal exposure to environmental RF-EMF in Albacete (166,000 inhabitants, SE Spain), and assess the effect of sharing the results of the study on participants' risk perception. Measurements were taken by a personal Satimo EME SPY 140 exposimeter, which was programmed every 10 s for 24 h. To measure personal exposure to RF-EMF, we worked with 75 volunteers. Their personal exposure, 14 microenvironments in the city, e.g., home, outdoors, work, etc., and possible time differences were analysed. After participating in the study, 35 participants completed a questionnaire about their RF-EMF risk perception, which was also answered by a control sample to compare the results (N = 36). The total average exposure of 14 bands was 37.7 μW/m2, and individual ranges fell between 0.2 μW/m2, recorded in TV4&5, and a maximum of 264.7 μW/m2 in DECT. For Friday, we recorded a mean of 53.9 μW/m2 as opposed to 23.4 μW/m2 obtained on Saturday. The recorded night-time value was 27.5 μW/m2 versus 43.8 μW/m2 recorded in the daytime. The mean personal exposure value also showed differences between weekdays and weekend days, with 39.7 μW/m2 and 26.9 μW/m2, respectively. The main source that contributed to the mean total personal exposure was enhanced cordless telecommunications (DECT) with 50.2%, followed by mobile phones with 18.4% and mobile stations with 11.0% (GSM, DCS and UMTS), while WiFi signals gave 12.5%. In the analysed microenvironments, the mean exposure of homes and workplaces was 34.3 μW/m2 and 55.2 μW/m2, respectively. Outdoors, the mean value was 34.2 μW/m2 and the main sources were DECT, WiFi and mobile phone stations, depending on the place. The risk perception analysis found that 54% of the participants perceived that RF-EMF were less dangerous than before participating in the study, while 43% reported no change in their perceptions. Only 9% of the volunteers who received information about their measurements after the study assessed the possible RF-EMF risk with a value over or equal to 4 (on a scale from 1 to 5) versus 39% of the non-participant controls. We conclude that personal exposure to RF-EMF fell well below the limits recommended by ICNIRP and showed wide temporal and spatial variability. The main exposure sources were DECT, followed by mobile phones and WiFi. Sharing exposure results with participants lowered their risk perception. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov My Note: The case-control studies of wireless phone use and brain tumor risk typically failed to account for DECT phone radiation exposure to the head. The above study found that DECT phones contributed 50% to the overall personal RF radiation exposure as compared to only 18% for mobile phones. Thus, except for Hardell's research, case-control studies likely underestimate the effect of wireless phone use on brain tumor risk.

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 directionmixed
PopulationVolunteers in Albacete, Spain
Sample size75
ExposureRF · 24 h personal measurements; sampling every 10 s
Evidence strengthLowConfidence: 78% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

Using a Satimo EME SPY 140 exposimeter (10 s sampling for 24 h), mean total exposure across 14 bands was 37.7 μW/m², with wide temporal and spatial variability. DECT contributed 50.2% of mean total exposure, followed by mobile phones (18.4%), mobile stations (11.0%; GSM/DCS/UMTS), and WiFi (12.5%). After participation and receiving information about measurements, 54% perceived RF-EMF as less dangerous and 9% rated risk ≥4/5 versus 39% in non-participant controls; authors conclude exposures were well below ICNIRP limits and sharing results lowered risk perception.

Outcomes measured

  • Personal RF-EMF exposure levels (μW/m²) across 14 bands
  • Exposure by microenvironment (home, workplace, outdoors, etc.)
  • Temporal variability (day vs night; weekday vs weekend; Friday vs Saturday)
  • RF-EMF risk perception change after sharing measurement results (questionnaire vs control)

Limitations

  • Only 75 volunteers measured; risk perception questionnaire completed by 35 participants
  • Control sample size was 36
  • Study conducted in a single city (Albacete, Spain)
  • Exposure metrics reported in μW/m²; no SAR values provided
  • Abstract does not describe participant selection method or representativeness
  • Risk perception outcome based on self-reported questionnaire
View raw extracted JSON
{
  "study_type": "exposure_assessment",
  "exposure": {
    "band": "RF",
    "source": "environmental (personal exposimeter; DECT, mobile phones, mobile base stations, WiFi, TV bands)",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": "24 h personal measurements; sampling every 10 s"
  },
  "population": "Volunteers in Albacete, Spain",
  "sample_size": 75,
  "outcomes": [
    "Personal RF-EMF exposure levels (μW/m²) across 14 bands",
    "Exposure by microenvironment (home, workplace, outdoors, etc.)",
    "Temporal variability (day vs night; weekday vs weekend; Friday vs Saturday)",
    "RF-EMF risk perception change after sharing measurement results (questionnaire vs control)"
  ],
  "main_findings": "Using a Satimo EME SPY 140 exposimeter (10 s sampling for 24 h), mean total exposure across 14 bands was 37.7 μW/m², with wide temporal and spatial variability. DECT contributed 50.2% of mean total exposure, followed by mobile phones (18.4%), mobile stations (11.0%; GSM/DCS/UMTS), and WiFi (12.5%). After participation and receiving information about measurements, 54% perceived RF-EMF as less dangerous and 9% rated risk ≥4/5 versus 39% in non-participant controls; authors conclude exposures were well below ICNIRP limits and sharing results lowered risk perception.",
  "effect_direction": "mixed",
  "limitations": [
    "Only 75 volunteers measured; risk perception questionnaire completed by 35 participants",
    "Control sample size was 36",
    "Study conducted in a single city (Albacete, Spain)",
    "Exposure metrics reported in μW/m²; no SAR values provided",
    "Abstract does not describe participant selection method or representativeness",
    "Risk perception outcome based on self-reported questionnaire"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "low",
  "confidence": 0.78,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "RF-EMF",
    "personal exposimeter",
    "EME SPY 140",
    "DECT",
    "WiFi",
    "mobile phones",
    "base stations",
    "microenvironments",
    "temporal variability",
    "risk perception",
    "ICNIRP"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "smart-meters",
      "weight": 0,
      "reason": null
    },
    {
      "slug": "school-wi-fi",
      "weight": 0.25,
      "reason": "WiFi exposure contribution reported, though not school-specific."
    },
    {
      "slug": "who-icnirp",
      "weight": 0.7,
      "reason": "Concludes exposures were below ICNIRP recommended limits."
    }
  ]
}
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.2019.02.015
PubMed: Not supplied

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library