Evaluation of Personal Radiation Exposure from Wireless Signals in Indoor and Outdoor Environments

IEEE Access · 2025 · Unclear · Insufficient evidence

← Research stream

UnclearInsufficient evidencePaper 2608

Study snapshot

PublicationIEEE Access · 2025

Study typeexposure_assessment

Reported directionUnclear

Evidence ratingInsufficient

Abstract

Category: Exposure Assessment, Wireless Radiation, EMF Safety Tags: electromagnetic fields, wireless signals, personal exposure, health risk, prediction modeling, machine learning, indoor and outdoor environments DOI: 10.1109/access.2025.3579085 URL: ieeexplore.ieee.org Overview With the rapid growth of wireless technology, concerns have risen regarding the health effects associated with increased public exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF). This study thoroughly evaluates personal EMF exposure from wireless signals within various indoor and outdoor micro-environments throughout Malaysia. Four different types of micro-environments, influenced by key factors such as population density and base station proximity, were selected for analysis. Findings - A specialized radiation exposure meter (ExpoM-RF 4) was used to measure electric field strength across these environments. - Machine learning models—including Fully Connected Neural Network (FCNN), eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XG Boost), and Linear Regression (LR)—were employed to model and predict electric field strength (RMS and maximum exposure levels). - LR performed well with simple data sets. - XG Boost and FCNN excelled with varied or complex data sets. - FCNN provided the most accurate predictions, especially in urban and suburban environments where extreme values occurred. - Measured and predicted data were compared against public exposure limits set by ICNIRP, MCMC, and FCC. Key Results - Personal radiation exposure usually remained lower than the exposure limit (61.4 V/m), consistent with previous studies. - In high-density regions with many base stations, maximum exposure could approach 56.7365 V/m—very close to the exposure threshold, highlighting a potential health risk from EMF in such areas. - The highest personal radiation exposure was found in outdoor urban environments, especially areas with: - High population density - Numerous, closely spaced base stations - Parks with dense vegetation showed markedly lower exposures—trees naturally attenuate EMF by absorbing and scattering the waves. - Indoor environments generally had reduced field strengths compared to outdoors, attributed to structural shielding and fewer high-power sources. Conclusion Linear Regression (LR) gives better predictions with simple data, while XG Boost and FCNN are superior for analyzing complex, multi-type data. FCNN is especially effective in urban situations with high/variable exposures. Although most personal exposures are below the international safety limits, areas with dense populations and heavy wireless infrastructure can produce exposures approaching regulatory thresholds—signaling a tangible link between increased EMF exposure and elevated health risk potential. Vegetation and structural barriers help reduce risk, but caution and monitoring remain warranted in high-density urban areas.

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 sizeNot supplied

ExposureNot supplied

Evidence strengthInsufficientConfidence: 74% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

Personal EMF exposure from wireless signals was measured across indoor and outdoor micro-environments in Malaysia using an ExpoM-RF 4 meter and modeled with LR, XG Boost, and FCNN. Most measured exposures were below the stated exposure limit of 61.4 V/m, though in high-density regions with many base stations maximum exposure could approach 56.7365 V/m; outdoor urban environments showed the highest exposures, while parks with dense vegetation and indoor environments generally had lower field strengths.

Outcomes measured

Electric field strength (V/m)
RMS exposure levels
Maximum exposure levels
Predicted electric field strength (machine learning models)
Comparison to public exposure limits (ICNIRP, MCMC, FCC)

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "exposure_assessment",
  "exposure": {
    "band": null,
    "source": "wireless signals (including base stations)",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": null
  },
  "population": null,
  "sample_size": null,
  "outcomes": [
    "Electric field strength (V/m)",
    "RMS exposure levels",
    "Maximum exposure levels",
    "Predicted electric field strength (machine learning models)",
    "Comparison to public exposure limits (ICNIRP, MCMC, FCC)"
  ],
  "main_findings": "Personal EMF exposure from wireless signals was measured across indoor and outdoor micro-environments in Malaysia using an ExpoM-RF 4 meter and modeled with LR, XG Boost, and FCNN. Most measured exposures were below the stated exposure limit of 61.4 V/m, though in high-density regions with many base stations maximum exposure could approach 56.7365 V/m; outdoor urban environments showed the highest exposures, while parks with dense vegetation and indoor environments generally had lower field strengths.",
  "effect_direction": "unclear",
  "limitations": [],
  "evidence_strength": "insufficient",
  "confidence": 0.74,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "electromagnetic fields",
    "wireless signals",
    "personal exposure",
    "electric field strength",
    "indoor environments",
    "outdoor environments",
    "base station proximity",
    "Malaysia",
    "ExpoM-RF 4",
    "machine learning",
    "FCNN",
    "XGBoost",
    "linear regression",
    "ICNIRP",
    "FCC",
    "MCMC"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "who-icnirp",
      "weight": 0.62,
      "reason": "Measured/predicted exposure levels were compared against ICNIRP public exposure 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: 10.1109/access.2025.3579085
PubMed: Not supplied

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library