Spatial and temporal variability of personal environmental exposure to RF EMF in children in Europe

2018 · Unclear · Moderate evidence

← Research stream

UnclearModerate evidencePaper 2094

Study snapshot

Publicationmanual · 2018

Study typeexposure_assessment

Reported directionUnclear

Evidence ratingModerate

Abstract

- Radiofrequency Radiation Spatial and temporal variability of personal environmental exposure to RF EMF in children in Europe Birks LE, Struchen B, Eeftens M, van Wel L, Huss A, Gajšek P, Kheifets L, Gallastegi M, Dalmau-Bueno A, Estarlich M, Fernandez MF, Meder IK, Ferrero A, Jiménez-Zabala A, Torrent M, Vrijkotte TGM, Cardis E, Olsen J, Valič B, Vermeulen R, Vrijheid M, Röösli M, Guxens M. Spatial and temporal variability of personal environmental exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields in children in Europe. Environ Int. 117:204-214. 2018 May 10. Highlights • We describe personal environmental RF-EMF exposure from mobile communication in European children. • 529 children carried personal exposure meters for up to 3 days during 2014-2016. • Median personal environmental RF-EMF exposure was 75.5 μW/m2. • Downlink was largest contributor to total environmental exposure (median 27.2 μW/m2). • Urban environment was most important determinant of total environmental exposure. Abstract BACKGROUND: Exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) has rapidly increased and little is known about exposure levels in children. This study describes personal RF-EMF environmental exposure levels from handheld devices and fixed site transmitters in European children, the determinants of this, and the day- to-day and year-to-year repeatability of these exposure levels. METHODS: Personal environmental RF-EMF exposure (μW/m2, power flux density) was measured in 529 children (ages 8-18 years) in Denmark, the Netherlands, Slovenia, Switzerland, and Spain using personal portable exposure meters for a period of up to three days between 2014 and 2016, and repeated in a subsample of 28 children one year later. The meters captured 16 frequency bands every 4 seconds and incorporated a GPS. Activity diaries and questionnaires were used to collect children's location, use of handheld devices, and presence of indoor RF-EMF sources. Six general frequency bands were defined: total, digital enhanced cordless telecommunications (DECT), television and radio antennas (broadcast), mobile phones (uplink), mobile phone base stations (downlink), and Wireless Fidelity (WiFi). We used adjusted mixed effects models with region random effects to estimate associations of handheld device use habits and indoor RF-EMF sources with personal RF-EMF exposure. Day-to-day and year-to-year repeatability of personal RF-EMF exposure were calculated through intraclass correlations (ICC). RESULTS: Median total personal RF-EMF exposure was 75.5 μW/m2. Downlink was the largest contributor to total exposure (median: 27.2 μW/m2) followed by broadcast (9.9 μW/m2). Exposure from uplink (4.7 μW/m2) was lower. WiFi and DECT contributed very little to exposure levels. Exposure was higher during day (94.2 μW/m2) than night (23.0 μW/m2), and slightly higher during weekends than weekdays, although varying across regions. Median exposures were highest while children were outside (157.0 μW/m2) or traveling (171.3 μW/m2), and much lower at home (33.0 μW/m2) or in school (35.1 μW/m2). Children living in urban environments had higher exposure than children in rural environments. Older children and users of mobile phones had higher uplink exposure but not total exposure, compared to younger children and those that did not use mobile phones. Day-to-day repeatability was moderate to high for most of the general frequency bands (ICCs between 0.43 and 0.85), as well as for total, broadcast, and downlink for the year-to-year repeatability (ICCs between 0.49 and 0.80) in a small subsample. CONCLUSION: The largest contributors to total personal environmental RF-EMF exposure were downlink and broadcast, and these exposures showed high repeatability. Urbanicity was the most important determinant of total exposure and mobile phone use was the most important determinant of uplink exposure. It is important to continue evaluating RF-EMF exposure in children as device use habits, exposure levels, and main contributing sources may change. 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

PopulationChildren aged 8–18 years in Denmark, the Netherlands, Slovenia, Switzerland, and Spain

Sample size529

ExposureRF · up to 3 days (2014–2016); repeated 1 year later in a subsample

Evidence strengthModerateConfidence: 78% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

Median total personal RF-EMF exposure was 75.5 μW/m²; downlink was the largest contributor (median 27.2 μW/m²) followed by broadcast (9.9 μW/m²), while WiFi and DECT contributed very little. Exposures were higher during the day than night and were highest when children were outside or traveling; urban residence was associated with higher total exposure. Day-to-day repeatability was moderate to high for most bands (ICCs 0.43–0.85), and year-to-year repeatability for total/broadcast/downlink in a small subsample was 0.49–0.80.

Outcomes measured

Personal environmental RF-EMF exposure (power flux density, μW/m²) across frequency bands (total, DECT, broadcast, uplink, downlink, WiFi)
Determinants of exposure (e.g., urbanicity, location/activity, mobile phone use, indoor sources)
Day-to-day and year-to-year repeatability (intraclass correlation coefficients)

Limitations

Year-to-year repeatability assessed in a small subsample (28 children)
Exposure monitoring period was up to three days

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "exposure_assessment",
  "exposure": {
    "band": "RF",
    "source": "personal environmental exposure from handheld devices and fixed site transmitters (uplink/downlink, broadcast, WiFi, DECT)",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": "up to 3 days (2014–2016); repeated 1 year later in a subsample"
  },
  "population": "Children aged 8–18 years in Denmark, the Netherlands, Slovenia, Switzerland, and Spain",
  "sample_size": 529,
  "outcomes": [
    "Personal environmental RF-EMF exposure (power flux density, μW/m²) across frequency bands (total, DECT, broadcast, uplink, downlink, WiFi)",
    "Determinants of exposure (e.g., urbanicity, location/activity, mobile phone use, indoor sources)",
    "Day-to-day and year-to-year repeatability (intraclass correlation coefficients)"
  ],
  "main_findings": "Median total personal RF-EMF exposure was 75.5 μW/m²; downlink was the largest contributor (median 27.2 μW/m²) followed by broadcast (9.9 μW/m²), while WiFi and DECT contributed very little. Exposures were higher during the day than night and were highest when children were outside or traveling; urban residence was associated with higher total exposure. Day-to-day repeatability was moderate to high for most bands (ICCs 0.43–0.85), and year-to-year repeatability for total/broadcast/downlink in a small subsample was 0.49–0.80.",
  "effect_direction": "unclear",
  "limitations": [
    "Year-to-year repeatability assessed in a small subsample (28 children)",
    "Exposure monitoring period was up to three days"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "moderate",
  "confidence": 0.78,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "radiofrequency electromagnetic fields",
    "RF-EMF",
    "children",
    "personal exposure meters",
    "power flux density",
    "uplink",
    "downlink",
    "broadcast",
    "WiFi",
    "DECT",
    "urbanicity",
    "repeatability",
    "Europe"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "school-wi-fi",
      "weight": 0.35,
      "reason": "Includes measurements at school and reports WiFi contribution to exposure."
    }
  ]
}

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: Not supplied
PubMed: Not supplied

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library