Survey of electromagnetic field exposure in bedrooms of residences in lower Austria.

Bioelectromagnetics · 2010 · Unclear · Insufficient evidence

← Research stream

UnclearInsufficient evidencePaper 4414

Study snapshot

PublicationBioelectromagnetics · 2010

Study typeexposure_assessment

Reported directionUnclear

Evidence ratingInsufficient

Abstract

Previous investigations of exposure to electric, magnetic, or electromagnetic fields (EMF) in households were either about electricity supply EMFs or radio frequency EMFs (RF-EMFs). We report results from spot measurements at the bedside that comprise electrostatic fields, extremely low-frequency electric fields (ELF-EFs), extremely low-frequency magnetic fields (ELF-MFs), and RF-EMFs. Measurements were taken in 226 households throughout Lower Austria. In addition, effects of simple reduction measures (e.g., removal of clock radios or increasing their distance from the bed, turning off Digital Enhanced Cordless Telecommunication (DECT) telephone base stations) were assessed. All measurements were well below International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) guideline levels. Average night-time ELF-MFs (long-term measurement from 10 pm to 6 am, geometric mean over households) above 100 nT were obtained in 2.3%, and RF-EMFs above 1000 microW/m(2) in 7.1% of households. Highest ELF-EFs were primarily due to lamps beside the bed (max = 166 V/m), and highest ELF-MFs because of transformers of devices (max = 1030 nT) or high current of power lines (max = 380 nT). The highest values of RF-EMFs were caused by DECT telephone base stations (max = 28979 microW/m(2)) and mobile phone base stations (max = 4872 microW/m(2)). Simple reduction measures resulted in an average decrease of 23 nT for ELF-MFs, 23 V/m for ELF-EFs, and 246 microW/m(2) for RF-EMFs. A small but statistically significant correlation between ELF-MF exposure and overall RF-EMF levels of R = 0.16 (P = 0.008) was computed that was independent of type (flat, single family) and location (urban, rural) of houses.

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

PopulationHouseholds in Lower Austria (residential bedrooms)

Sample size226

ExposureELF and RF · spot measurements at bedside; night-time ELF-MF long-term measurement 10 pm–6 am

Evidence strengthInsufficientConfidence: 78% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

Bedside measurements in 226 households found all measured fields were well below ICNIRP guideline levels. Night-time ELF-MFs (10 pm–6 am geometric mean over households) exceeded 100 nT in 2.3% of households and RF-EMFs exceeded 1000 µW/m² in 7.1%. Highest ELF-EFs were mainly due to bedside lamps (max 166 V/m); highest ELF-MFs were attributed to device transformers (max 1030 nT) or high current power lines (max 380 nT); highest RF-EMFs were attributed to DECT base stations (max 28979 µW/m²) and mobile phone base stations (max 4872 µW/m²). Simple reduction measures decreased exposures on average by 23 nT (ELF-MF), 23 V/m (ELF-EF), and 246 µW/m² (RF-EMF). A small statistically significant correlation between ELF-MF exposure and overall RF-EMF levels was reported (R=0.16, P=0.008), independent of house type and location.

Outcomes measured

Electrostatic fields
ELF electric fields (V/m)
ELF magnetic fields (nT)
RF-EMF power density (µW/m²)
Change in exposure after simple reduction measures
Correlation between ELF-MF exposure and overall RF-EMF levels

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "exposure_assessment",
  "exposure": {
    "band": "ELF and RF",
    "source": "residential bedroom (bedside); lamps, transformers/devices, power lines, DECT base stations, mobile phone base stations",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": "spot measurements at bedside; night-time ELF-MF long-term measurement 10 pm–6 am"
  },
  "population": "Households in Lower Austria (residential bedrooms)",
  "sample_size": 226,
  "outcomes": [
    "Electrostatic fields",
    "ELF electric fields (V/m)",
    "ELF magnetic fields (nT)",
    "RF-EMF power density (µW/m²)",
    "Change in exposure after simple reduction measures",
    "Correlation between ELF-MF exposure and overall RF-EMF levels"
  ],
  "main_findings": "Bedside measurements in 226 households found all measured fields were well below ICNIRP guideline levels. Night-time ELF-MFs (10 pm–6 am geometric mean over households) exceeded 100 nT in 2.3% of households and RF-EMFs exceeded 1000 µW/m² in 7.1%. Highest ELF-EFs were mainly due to bedside lamps (max 166 V/m); highest ELF-MFs were attributed to device transformers (max 1030 nT) or high current power lines (max 380 nT); highest RF-EMFs were attributed to DECT base stations (max 28979 µW/m²) and mobile phone base stations (max 4872 µW/m²). Simple reduction measures decreased exposures on average by 23 nT (ELF-MF), 23 V/m (ELF-EF), and 246 µW/m² (RF-EMF). A small statistically significant correlation between ELF-MF exposure and overall RF-EMF levels was reported (R=0.16, P=0.008), independent of house type and location.",
  "effect_direction": "unclear",
  "limitations": [],
  "evidence_strength": "insufficient",
  "confidence": 0.78,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "bedroom",
    "residential exposure",
    "spot measurements",
    "electrostatic fields",
    "ELF electric fields",
    "ELF magnetic fields",
    "RF-EMF",
    "DECT",
    "mobile phone base stations",
    "ICNIRP",
    "exposure reduction measures",
    "Austria"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "who-icnirp",
      "weight": 0.6,
      "reason": "Study explicitly compares measured exposures to ICNIRP guideline levels."
    }
  ]
}

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: 10.1002/bem.20548
PubMed: 19780092

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library