Children and adults exposed to electromagnetic fields at the ICNIRP reference levels: theoretical assessment of the induced peak temperature increase.

Physics in medicine and biology · 2011 · Mixed · Low evidence

← Research stream
MixedLow evidencePaper 4449

Using finite-difference time-domain modeling of six children and two adults exposed to orthogonal plane-wave configurations at ICNIRP reference levels, the authors report that considering uncertainties in model parameters, worst-case scenarios could yield a l…

Study snapshot

PublicationPhysics in medicine and biology · 2011
Study typeengineering
Reported directionMixed
Evidence ratingLow

Abstract

To avoid potentially adverse health effects of electromagnetic fields (EMF), the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) has defined EMF reference levels. Restrictions on induced whole-body-averaged specific absorption rate (SAR(wb)) are provided to keep the whole-body temperature increase (T(body, incr)) under 1 °C during 30 min. Additional restrictions on the peak 10 g spatial-averaged SAR (SAR(10g)) are provided to prevent excessive localized tissue heating. The objective of this study is to assess the localized peak temperature increase (T(incr, max)) in children upon exposure at the reference levels. Finite-difference time-domain modeling was used to calculate T(incr, max) in six children and two adults exposed to orthogonal plane-wave configurations. We performed a sensitivity study and Monte Carlo analysis to assess the uncertainty of the results. Considering the uncertainties in the model parameters, we found that a peak temperature increase as high as 1 °C can occur for worst-case scenarios at the ICNIRP reference levels. Since the guidelines are deduced from temperature increase, we used T(incr, max) as being a better metric to prevent excessive localized tissue heating instead of localized peak SAR. However, we note that the exposure time should also be considered in future guidelines. Hence, we advise defining limits on T(incr, max) for specified durations of exposure.

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 typeengineering
Effect directionmixed
PopulationSix children and two adults (computational models)
Sample size8
Exposure30 min (ICNIRP whole-body temperature increase criterion referenced); exposure time discussed as relevant
Evidence strengthLowConfidence: 74% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

Using finite-difference time-domain modeling of six children and two adults exposed to orthogonal plane-wave configurations at ICNIRP reference levels, the authors report that considering uncertainties in model parameters, worst-case scenarios could yield a localized peak temperature increase up to 1 °C. The paper argues that T(incr, max) may be a better metric than localized peak SAR for preventing excessive localized tissue heating and suggests exposure duration should be incorporated into future limits.

Outcomes measured

  • Localized peak temperature increase (T(incr, max))
  • Whole-body temperature increase (T(body, incr))
  • Specific absorption rate metrics (SAR(wb), SAR(10g))
  • Uncertainty/sensitivity of modeled temperature increase at ICNIRP reference levels

Limitations

  • Theoretical/computational assessment (finite-difference time-domain modeling), not direct measurements in humans
  • Results depend on model parameters and uncertainty assumptions (sensitivity study/Monte Carlo noted, but specific parameter ranges not provided in abstract)
  • Exposure scenario limited to orthogonal plane-wave configurations
View raw extracted JSON
{
  "study_type": "engineering",
  "exposure": {
    "band": null,
    "source": null,
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": "30 min (ICNIRP whole-body temperature increase criterion referenced); exposure time discussed as relevant"
  },
  "population": "Six children and two adults (computational models)",
  "sample_size": 8,
  "outcomes": [
    "Localized peak temperature increase (T(incr, max))",
    "Whole-body temperature increase (T(body, incr))",
    "Specific absorption rate metrics (SAR(wb), SAR(10g))",
    "Uncertainty/sensitivity of modeled temperature increase at ICNIRP reference levels"
  ],
  "main_findings": "Using finite-difference time-domain modeling of six children and two adults exposed to orthogonal plane-wave configurations at ICNIRP reference levels, the authors report that considering uncertainties in model parameters, worst-case scenarios could yield a localized peak temperature increase up to 1 °C. The paper argues that T(incr, max) may be a better metric than localized peak SAR for preventing excessive localized tissue heating and suggests exposure duration should be incorporated into future limits.",
  "effect_direction": "mixed",
  "limitations": [
    "Theoretical/computational assessment (finite-difference time-domain modeling), not direct measurements in humans",
    "Results depend on model parameters and uncertainty assumptions (sensitivity study/Monte Carlo noted, but specific parameter ranges not provided in abstract)",
    "Exposure scenario limited to orthogonal plane-wave configurations"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "low",
  "confidence": 0.74,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "ICNIRP reference levels",
    "electromagnetic fields",
    "children",
    "adults",
    "finite-difference time-domain (FDTD)",
    "specific absorption rate",
    "SAR(wb)",
    "SAR(10g)",
    "localized tissue heating",
    "peak temperature increase",
    "Monte Carlo analysis",
    "sensitivity analysis"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "who-icnirp",
      "weight": 0.95,
      "reason": "Study explicitly evaluates exposures at ICNIRP reference levels and discusses guideline metrics/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: 10.1088/0031-9155/56/15/020
PubMed: 21772085

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library