[Electromagnetic fields in the vicinity of DECT cordless telephones and mobile phones].

Medycyna pracy · 2015 · Unclear · Insufficient evidence

← Research stream
UnclearInsufficient evidencePaper 4721

Electric field strength near DECT handsets ranged from 0.26–2.30 V/m at 0.05 m and 0.18–0.26 V/m at 1 m; near DECT base units from 1.78–5.44 V/m at 0.05 m and 0.19–0.41 V/m at 1 m. Near mobile phones in GSM voice mode, electric field strength ranged from 2.34…

Study snapshot

PublicationMedycyna pracy · 2015
Study typeexposure_assessment
Reported directionUnclear
Evidence ratingInsufficient

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Mobile telephones belong to the most frequently used personal devices. In their surroundings they produce the electromagnetic field (EMF), in which exposure range there are not only users but also nearby bystanders. The aim of the investigations and EMF measurements in the vicinity of phones was to identify the electric field levels with regard to various working modes. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twelve sets of DECT (digital enhanced cordless telecommunications) cordless phones (12 base units and 15 handsets), 21 mobile telephones produced by different manufactures, and 16 smartphones in various applications, (including multimedia) in the conditions of daily use in living rooms were measured. Measurements were taken using the point method in predetermined distances of 0.05-1 m from the devices without the presence of users. RESULTS: In the vicinity of DECT cordless phone handsets, electric field strength ranged from 0.26 to 2.30 V/m in the distance of 0.05 m - 0.18-0.26 V/m (1 m). In surroundings of DECT cordless telephones base units the values of EMF were from 1.78-5.44 V/m (0.05 m) to 0.19- 0.41 V/m (1 m). In the vicinity of mobile phones working in GSM mode with voice transmission, the electric field strength ranged from 2.34-9.14 V/m (0.05 m) to 0.18-0.47 V/m (1 m) while in the vicinity of mobile phones working in WCDMA (Wideband Code Division Multiple Access) mode the electric field strength ranged from 0.22-1.83 V/m (0.05 m) to 0.18-0.20 V/m (1 m). CONCLUSIONS: The mean values of the electric field strength for each group of devices, mobile phones and DECT wireless phones sets do not exceed the reference value of 7 V/m, adopted as the limit for general public 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 typeexposure_assessment
Effect directionunclear
PopulationNot supplied
Sample size64
ExposureNot supplied
Evidence strengthInsufficientConfidence: 78% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

Electric field strength near DECT handsets ranged from 0.26–2.30 V/m at 0.05 m and 0.18–0.26 V/m at 1 m; near DECT base units from 1.78–5.44 V/m at 0.05 m and 0.19–0.41 V/m at 1 m. Near mobile phones in GSM voice mode, electric field strength ranged from 2.34–9.14 V/m at 0.05 m and 0.18–0.47 V/m at 1 m; in WCDMA mode from 0.22–1.83 V/m at 0.05 m and 0.18–0.20 V/m at 1 m. The authors report that mean electric field strengths for each device group did not exceed the 7 V/m reference value for general public exposure.

Outcomes measured

  • Electric field strength (V/m) at 0.05–1 m from devices
  • Comparison to general public reference level (7 V/m)

Limitations

  • Measurements were performed without the presence of users (may not reflect typical use conditions).
  • Measurements were conducted in living rooms under daily-use conditions; generalizability to other environments is not described.
  • Only electric field strength was reported; no SAR or health outcomes were assessed.
  • Frequencies and detailed measurement instrumentation/uncertainty are not provided in the abstract.
View raw extracted JSON
{
  "study_type": "exposure_assessment",
  "exposure": {
    "band": null,
    "source": "DECT cordless telephones and mobile phones (GSM, WCDMA)",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": null
  },
  "population": null,
  "sample_size": 64,
  "outcomes": [
    "Electric field strength (V/m) at 0.05–1 m from devices",
    "Comparison to general public reference level (7 V/m)"
  ],
  "main_findings": "Electric field strength near DECT handsets ranged from 0.26–2.30 V/m at 0.05 m and 0.18–0.26 V/m at 1 m; near DECT base units from 1.78–5.44 V/m at 0.05 m and 0.19–0.41 V/m at 1 m. Near mobile phones in GSM voice mode, electric field strength ranged from 2.34–9.14 V/m at 0.05 m and 0.18–0.47 V/m at 1 m; in WCDMA mode from 0.22–1.83 V/m at 0.05 m and 0.18–0.20 V/m at 1 m. The authors report that mean electric field strengths for each device group did not exceed the 7 V/m reference value for general public exposure.",
  "effect_direction": "unclear",
  "limitations": [
    "Measurements were performed without the presence of users (may not reflect typical use conditions).",
    "Measurements were conducted in living rooms under daily-use conditions; generalizability to other environments is not described.",
    "Only electric field strength was reported; no SAR or health outcomes were assessed.",
    "Frequencies and detailed measurement instrumentation/uncertainty are not provided in the abstract."
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "insufficient",
  "confidence": 0.78,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "DECT",
    "cordless phone",
    "mobile phone",
    "smartphone",
    "GSM",
    "WCDMA",
    "electric field strength",
    "V/m",
    "bystander exposure",
    "distance measurements",
    "general public limit 7 V/m"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "occupational-exposure",
      "weight": 0.25,
      "reason": "Published in an occupational medicine journal and discusses exposure levels relevant to bystanders/users, though measurements were in living rooms."
    }
  ]
}
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: 10.13075/mp.5893.00364
PubMed: 26674167

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library