Personal exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields in various occupations in Spain and France.

Environment international · 2023 · Unclear · Moderate evidence

← Research stream

UnclearModerate evidencePaper 5774

Study snapshot

PublicationEnvironment international · 2023

Study typeexposure_assessment

Reported directionUnclear

Evidence ratingModerate

Abstract

BACKGROUND: A preliminary job-exposure matrix (JEM) for radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) was created based on self-reported occupational information from a multi-country population-based study of approximately 10,000 participants combined with available measurement data compiled in a source-exposure matrix (spot measurements). In order to address the limited personal occupational RF-EMF measurement data available in the literature, we performed a measurement campaign among workers in various occupations in Spain and France. METHODS: Personal full-shift measurements were conducted using RadMan 2XT™ (Narda) devices. A worker diary was used to capture information on occupational and background sources of RF exposure during the shift. Inclusion of occupations to be measured was initially based on exposure prevalence and level information in the preliminary JEM and expert judgment. RESULTS: Personal full-shift measurements were conducted among 333 workers representing 46 ISCO88 occupations. Exposure to electric (E) and magnetic (H) fields was infrequent with >99% of measurements below the detection limit of the device (≥1% of the 1998 ICNIRP standards). A total of 50.2% and 77.2% of workers were ever exposed to E and H fields respectively (having at least one recorded 1-second measurement above the detection limit). Workers in elementary occupations, technicians and associate professionals, plant and machine operators and assemblers had somewhat greater numbers of measurements above the detection limit, higher maximum values and longer exposure durations. A small proportion of measurements were ≥100% of the standards, though these exceedances were brief (generally a few seconds in duration). Female workers and workers reporting use of any RF-EMF emitting source were more likely to have a measured exposure to E and H fields. CONCLUSION: We conducted personal RF-EMF measurements among workers in various occupations in Spain and France. Overall, RF-EMF exposure ≥1 % ICNIRP was infrequent, despite some intermittent exposures ≥100% observed among workers in some occupations.

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

PopulationWorkers in various occupations in Spain and France

Sample size333

ExposureRF · personal full-shift measurements (1-second resolution); brief exceedances generally a few seconds

Evidence strengthModerateConfidence: 78% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

Among 333 workers (46 ISCO88 occupations), >99% of E- and H-field measurements were below the device detection limit (defined as ≥1% of the 1998 ICNIRP standards). Ever-exposure (at least one 1-second measurement above the detection limit) occurred in 50.2% (E) and 77.2% (H) of workers; a small proportion of measurements reached ≥100% of the standards but were generally brief (a few seconds). Some occupation groups (elementary occupations, technicians/associate professionals, plant and machine operators/assemblers) showed more measurements above the detection limit and higher maxima; female workers and those reporting use of RF-EMF sources were more likely to have measured exposure.

Outcomes measured

Personal RF-EMF exposure levels during full work shifts (electric (E) and magnetic (H) fields)
Proportion of measurements above device detection limit (≥1% of 1998 ICNIRP standards)
Proportion of workers ever exposed (≥1 recorded 1-second measurement above detection limit)
Occurrence and duration of measurements ≥100% of standards
Differences in exposure by occupation group, sex, and reported use of RF-EMF emitting sources

Limitations

Detection limit threshold corresponds to ≥1% of the 1998 ICNIRP standards; >99% of measurements were below this limit, limiting characterization of lower-level exposures
Occupations selected based on preliminary JEM information and expert judgment (potential selection bias)
Frequency range and specific RF sources are not detailed in the abstract

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "exposure_assessment",
  "exposure": {
    "band": "RF",
    "source": "occupational",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": "personal full-shift measurements (1-second resolution); brief exceedances generally a few seconds"
  },
  "population": "Workers in various occupations in Spain and France",
  "sample_size": 333,
  "outcomes": [
    "Personal RF-EMF exposure levels during full work shifts (electric (E) and magnetic (H) fields)",
    "Proportion of measurements above device detection limit (≥1% of 1998 ICNIRP standards)",
    "Proportion of workers ever exposed (≥1 recorded 1-second measurement above detection limit)",
    "Occurrence and duration of measurements ≥100% of standards",
    "Differences in exposure by occupation group, sex, and reported use of RF-EMF emitting sources"
  ],
  "main_findings": "Among 333 workers (46 ISCO88 occupations), >99% of E- and H-field measurements were below the device detection limit (defined as ≥1% of the 1998 ICNIRP standards). Ever-exposure (at least one 1-second measurement above the detection limit) occurred in 50.2% (E) and 77.2% (H) of workers; a small proportion of measurements reached ≥100% of the standards but were generally brief (a few seconds). Some occupation groups (elementary occupations, technicians/associate professionals, plant and machine operators/assemblers) showed more measurements above the detection limit and higher maxima; female workers and those reporting use of RF-EMF sources were more likely to have measured exposure.",
  "effect_direction": "unclear",
  "limitations": [
    "Detection limit threshold corresponds to ≥1% of the 1998 ICNIRP standards; >99% of measurements were below this limit, limiting characterization of lower-level exposures",
    "Occupations selected based on preliminary JEM information and expert judgment (potential selection bias)",
    "Frequency range and specific RF sources are not detailed in the abstract"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "moderate",
  "confidence": 0.78,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "radiofrequency electromagnetic fields",
    "RF-EMF",
    "occupational exposure",
    "personal monitoring",
    "full-shift measurements",
    "RadMan 2XT",
    "Spain",
    "France",
    "job-exposure matrix",
    "ICNIRP 1998",
    "electric field",
    "magnetic field"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "occupational-exposure",
      "weight": 0.95,
      "reason": "Personal full-shift RF-EMF measurements across multiple occupations in Spain and France."
    },
    {
      "slug": "who-icnirp",
      "weight": 0.55,
      "reason": "Exposure metrics and exceedances are expressed relative to ICNIRP (1998) standards."
    }
  ]
}

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.envint.2023.108156
PubMed: 37722304

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library