Characterisation of spatial and temporal variability of RF-EMF exposure levels in urban environments in Flanders, Belgium.

Environmental research · 2019 · Unclear · Moderate evidence

← Research stream

UnclearModerate evidencePaper 5584

Study snapshot

PublicationEnvironmental research · 2019

Study typeexposure_assessment

Reported directionUnclear

Evidence ratingModerate

Abstract

Personal exposure to Radio-Frequency Electromagnetic Fields (RF-EMFs) was studied using personal measurements in five different microenvironments in each of five cities (Brussels, Antwerp, Ghent, Bruges and Hasselt) in Flanders, Belgium. These measurements were carried out by two researchers using on-body calibrated personal exposimeters. In three out of the five studied cities (Brussels, Ghent and Bruges), temporal aspects of personal exposure to RF-EMFs were studied as well. Measurements during and outside of rush hours (7:00-9:15 and 16:30-19:00) were compared. Likewise, measurements were executed during night time and compared to the ones measured during working hours. Representativeness and repeatability of the measurement method was studied as well. The highest mean total exposure was found in Brussels (2.63 mW/m), the most densely populated city in this study. However, we measured higher downlink exposure in Antwerp than in Brussels, which might be an effect of the stronger legislation on base stations in Brussels. The measurements and used protocol were found to be both repeatable over time (r = 0.95 for median total exposure) and representative for the studied microenvironments in terms of path selection (r = 0.88 for median total exposure). Finally, in 10 out of the 13 on-body calibrated frequency bands we found that the measurement devices underestimate the intensity of the incident RF-EMFs with median underestimations up to 68%.

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

PopulationTwo researchers performing personal RF-EMF measurements in five microenvironments in each of five cities in Flanders, Belgium

Sample sizeNot supplied

ExposureRF

Evidence strengthModerateConfidence: 78% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

Highest mean total exposure was observed in Brussels (2.63 mW/m). Downlink exposure was higher in Antwerp than in Brussels, which the authors suggest may relate to stronger base-station legislation in Brussels. The protocol was reported repeatable (r=0.95 for median total exposure) and representative for path selection (r=0.88), and the exposimeters underestimated incident RF-EMF intensity in 10/13 calibrated frequency bands with median underestimations up to 68%.

Outcomes measured

Personal RF-EMF exposure levels (mean total exposure; downlink exposure)
Spatial variability across cities and microenvironments
Temporal variability (rush hours vs outside rush hours; night vs working hours)
Repeatability and representativeness of measurement protocol (correlations for median total exposure)
Exposimeter measurement bias/underestimation across calibrated frequency bands

Limitations

Sample size and participant characteristics not reported (measurements conducted by two researchers).
Specific frequency bands and detailed microenvironment definitions not provided in the abstract.
Potential measurement error noted: exposimeters underestimated incident RF-EMF intensity in most calibrated bands (up to 68% median underestimation).

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "exposure_assessment",
  "exposure": {
    "band": "RF",
    "source": "urban environment (multiple sources; includes downlink/base stations)",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": null
  },
  "population": "Two researchers performing personal RF-EMF measurements in five microenvironments in each of five cities in Flanders, Belgium",
  "sample_size": null,
  "outcomes": [
    "Personal RF-EMF exposure levels (mean total exposure; downlink exposure)",
    "Spatial variability across cities and microenvironments",
    "Temporal variability (rush hours vs outside rush hours; night vs working hours)",
    "Repeatability and representativeness of measurement protocol (correlations for median total exposure)",
    "Exposimeter measurement bias/underestimation across calibrated frequency bands"
  ],
  "main_findings": "Highest mean total exposure was observed in Brussels (2.63 mW/m). Downlink exposure was higher in Antwerp than in Brussels, which the authors suggest may relate to stronger base-station legislation in Brussels. The protocol was reported repeatable (r=0.95 for median total exposure) and representative for path selection (r=0.88), and the exposimeters underestimated incident RF-EMF intensity in 10/13 calibrated frequency bands with median underestimations up to 68%.",
  "effect_direction": "unclear",
  "limitations": [
    "Sample size and participant characteristics not reported (measurements conducted by two researchers).",
    "Specific frequency bands and detailed microenvironment definitions not provided in the abstract.",
    "Potential measurement error noted: exposimeters underestimated incident RF-EMF intensity in most calibrated bands (up to 68% median underestimation)."
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "moderate",
  "confidence": 0.78,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "RF-EMF",
    "personal exposure",
    "exposimeter",
    "on-body calibration",
    "urban environment",
    "spatial variability",
    "temporal variability",
    "rush hour",
    "night time",
    "downlink",
    "base stations",
    "Belgium",
    "Flanders",
    "Brussels",
    "Antwerp",
    "Ghent",
    "Bruges",
    "Hasselt"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "occupational-exposure",
      "weight": 0.25,
      "reason": "Personal measurements were performed by researchers as part of a measurement protocol (occupational/fieldwork context), though not an occupational cohort study."
    }
  ]
}

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.envres.2019.05.027
PubMed: 31150934

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library