A novel approach for assessments of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields exposure in buildings near telecommunication infrastructure

Science of the Total Environment · 2025 · Unclear · Low evidence

← Research stream

UnclearLow evidencePaper 2606

Study snapshot

PublicationScience of the Total Environment · 2025

Study typeexposure_assessment

Reported directionUnclear

Evidence ratingLow

Abstract

Category: Environmental Health, Electromagnetic Field Assessment Tags: RF-EMF exposure, base station antennas, indoor measurement, building exposure, ICNIRP limits, telecommunication infrastructure, health risk DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2025.179853 URL: pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov Overview This paper introduces a novel methodology to improve the evaluation of exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields (RF-EMF) in buildings located near telecommunication Base Station (BS) antennas. The key innovation lies in refining the selection of measurement points within affected buildings, ensuring the results more accurately reflect real exposure scenarios. Key Contributions - Determines the worst-case exposure in buildings directly exposed to RF-EMF. - Enables large-scale assessments by optimizing the selection of measurement locations. - Applies criteria based on the proximity and spatial configuration of BS and antenna setups. - Evaluates vertical (multi-storey) dwellings within an urban setting. - Presents unprecedented discussions on recommendations for RF-EMF exposure in modern buildings, addressing both guideline improvements and public health considerations. Findings The approach was implemented in four buildings in Natal, Brazil. The results show that electric field intensity peaks were up to 17.40 times higher, and averages were up to 14.13 times higher than values measured at ground level (such as those by ANATEL). Notably, the highest indoor exposure rates reached 82.27% (FM radio) and 59.43% (mobile telephony) of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) recommended limits. This work reveals that, although measured exposures are technically below ICNIRP safety limits, levels in specific building interiors are dramatically higher than at ground level and are inconsistent with current regulatory exposure evaluation methods. This shows a clear connection between proximity to telecommunications infrastructure and increased human exposure to RF-EMF, which could contribute to potential health risks, especially in urban settings with dense antenna deployment. Conclusion The newly proposed methodology provides a more precise and representative assessment of RF-EMF exposure indoors, emphasizing the importance of tailored regulatory guidelines that reflect real urban exposure scenarios. Enhanced assessment precision will support public health protection, particularly for residents living near telecommunication antennas. Suggestions for future work include scaling measurements to all 22 target buildings in Natal and collaborating with institutions in other regions to broaden the evidence base, address health risk reproducibility, and further inform RF-EMF public safety policies.

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 size4

ExposureRF

Evidence strengthLowConfidence: 74% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

A novel methodology for selecting indoor measurement points was implemented in four multi-storey buildings near base station antennas in Natal, Brazil. Indoor electric field intensity peaks were reported up to 17.40× higher and averages up to 14.13× higher than ground-level measurements; the highest indoor exposure reached 82.27% (FM radio) and 59.43% (mobile telephony) of ICNIRP recommended limits, remaining below those limits.

Outcomes measured

Indoor electric field intensity levels in buildings near base station antennas
Comparison of indoor exposure vs ground-level measurements
Percent of ICNIRP recommended limits reached (FM radio, mobile telephony)

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "exposure_assessment",
  "exposure": {
    "band": "RF",
    "source": "base station",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": null
  },
  "population": null,
  "sample_size": 4,
  "outcomes": [
    "Indoor electric field intensity levels in buildings near base station antennas",
    "Comparison of indoor exposure vs ground-level measurements",
    "Percent of ICNIRP recommended limits reached (FM radio, mobile telephony)"
  ],
  "main_findings": "A novel methodology for selecting indoor measurement points was implemented in four multi-storey buildings near base station antennas in Natal, Brazil. Indoor electric field intensity peaks were reported up to 17.40× higher and averages up to 14.13× higher than ground-level measurements; the highest indoor exposure reached 82.27% (FM radio) and 59.43% (mobile telephony) of ICNIRP recommended limits, remaining below those limits.",
  "effect_direction": "unclear",
  "limitations": [],
  "evidence_strength": "low",
  "confidence": 0.74,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "RF-EMF exposure",
    "base station antennas",
    "indoor measurement",
    "building exposure",
    "ICNIRP limits",
    "telecommunication infrastructure",
    "urban setting",
    "multi-storey dwellings",
    "electric field intensity",
    "Natal Brazil"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "who-icnirp",
      "weight": 0.78,
      "reason": "Study reports indoor RF-EMF levels as a percentage of ICNIRP recommended limits and discusses guideline/regulatory evaluation methods."
    }
  ]
}

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.scitotenv.2025.179853
PubMed: 40570395

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library