6,486 Studies Reviewed. 85.2% of Original Studies Found Biological Effects. The Evidence is Clear.
Shield Your Body
Whole Body / General118 citations

Classification of personal exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) for epidemiological research: Evaluation of different exposure assessment methods.

Bioeffects Seen

Frei P, Mohler E, Bürgi A, Fröhlich J, Neubauer G, Braun-Fahrländer C, Röösli M; The QUALIFEX Team. · 2010

View Original Abstract
Share:

Among several methods tested, a full exposure prediction model and spot measurements correlated best with personal RF-EMF exposimeter readings.

Plain English Summary

Summary written for general audiences

Researchers collected personal exposimeter measurements during one week and diary data from 166 study participants to evaluate different methods of assessing radio frequency electromagnetic field exposure. The mean personal exposure was 0.13 mW/m(2) when measurements during personal phone calls were excluded and 0.15 mW/m(2) when such measurements were included. Self-estimated exposure and geo-coded distance turned out to be poor surrogates for personal exposure.

Why This Matters

The study aimed to investigate the impact of personal phone use on exposimeter readings and to evaluate different exposure assessment methods potentially useful in epidemiological studies. The Spearman correlation with personal exposure was 0.50 for the full exposure prediction model and 0.42 for spot measurements. The geo-coded distance had a Spearman correlation of -0.03 and self-estimated exposure had a correlation of 0.06 with personal exposure.

Exposure Details

Power Density
0.000013, 0.000015 mW/cm²

Exposure Context

This study used 0.000013, 0.000015 mW/cm² for radio frequency:

Building Biology guidelines are practitioner-based limits from real-world assessments. BioInitiative Report recommendations are based on peer-reviewed science. Check Your Exposure to compare your own measurements.

Where This Falls on the Concern Scale

Study Exposure Level in ContextStudy Exposure Level in ContextThis study: 0.000013, 0.000015 mW/cm²Extreme Concern - 1,000 µW/m²FCC Limit - 10M µW/m²Effects observed in the Severe Concern range (Building Biology)FCC limit is 76,923 times higher than this level

Study Details

In the current analysis we aimed to investigate the impact of personal phone use on exposimeter readings and to evaluate different exposure assessment methods potentially useful in epidemiological studies.

We collected personal exposimeter measurements during one week and diary data from 166 study partici...

The mean personal exposure was 0.13 mW/m(2), when measurements during personal phone calls were excl...

In conclusion, personal exposure measured with exposimeters correlated best with the full exposure prediction model and spot measurements. Self-estimated exposure and geo-coded distance turned out to be poor surrogates for personal exposure.

Cite This Study
Frei P, Mohler E, Bürgi A, Fröhlich J, Neubauer G, Braun-Fahrländer C, Röösli M; The QUALIFEX Team. (2010). Classification of personal exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) for epidemiological research: Evaluation of different exposure assessment methods. Environ Int.36(7):714-20, 2010.
Show BibTeX
@article{p_2010_classification_of_personal_exposure_981,
  author = {Frei P and Mohler E and Bürgi A and Fröhlich J and Neubauer G and Braun-Fahrländer C and Röösli M; The QUALIFEX Team.},
  title = {Classification of personal exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) for epidemiological research: Evaluation of different exposure assessment methods.},
  year = {2010},
  
  url = {https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20538340/},
}
PubMed: 20538340

Cited By (118 papers)

View all 118 citing papers on Semantic Scholar

Quick Questions About This Study

The study collected data from 166 study participants over one week.
Personal exposure measured with exposimeters correlated best with the full exposure prediction model and spot measurements.
Self-estimated exposure turned out to be a poor surrogate for personal exposure, with a Spearman correlation of 0.06.
The mean personal exposure was 0.13 mW/m(2) when measurements during personal phone calls were excluded and 0.15 mW/m(2) when such measurements were included.
The Spearman correlation for the geospatial propagation model with personal exposure was 0.28.