Upload
others
View
0
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Research ArticleAn In Situ and In Silico Evaluation of BiophysicalEffects of 27MHz Electromagnetic Whole Body HumansExposure Expressed by the Limb Current
Jolanta Karpowicz,1 Patryk ZradziNski,1 JarosBaw Kieliszek,2
Krzysztof Gryz,1 Jaromir Sobiech,2 andWiesBaw Leszko1
1Central Institute for Labour Protection-National Research Institute, Laboratory of Electromagnetic Hazards, Warszawa, Poland2Military Institute of Hygiene and Epidemiology, Laboratory of Electromagnetic Radiation Metrology, Warszawa, Poland
Correspondence should be addressed to Jolanta Karpowicz; [email protected]
Received 16 March 2017; Accepted 16 May 2017; Published 5 July 2017
Academic Editor: Davor Zeljezic
Copyright ยฉ 2017 Jolanta Karpowicz et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons AttributionLicense, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properlycited.
Objectives. The aim was to evaluate correlations between biophysical effects of 27MHz electromagnetic field exposure in humans(limb induced current (LIC)) and (1) parameters of affecting heterogeneous electric field and (2) body anthropometric properties,in order to improve the evaluation of electromagnetic environmental hazards.Methods. Biophysical effects of exposure were studiedin situ by measurements of LIC in 24 volunteers (at the ankle) standing near radio communication rod antenna and in silico in 4numerical body phantoms exposed near a model of antenna. Results. Strong, positive, statistically significant correlations werefound in all exposure scenarios between LIC and body volume index (body height multiplied by mass) (๐ > 0.7; ๐ < 0.001). Themost informative exposure parameters, with respect to the evaluation of electromagnetic hazards by measurements (i.e., the onesstrongest correlated with LIC), were found to be the value of electric field (unperturbed field, in the absence of body) in frontof the chest (50 cm from body axis) or the maximum value in space occupied by human. Such parameters were not analysed inprevious studies. Conclusions. Exposed personโs body volume and electric field strength in front of the chest determine LIC instudied exposure scenarios, but their wider applicability needs further studies.
1. Introduction
At present, wireless communication belongs to the basic toolsused by various rescue and uniformed services, includingmilitary units [1โ4]. Such devices include a portable radiocommunication units (known as a radiophones) equippedwith rod antenna and operating at a frequency of approxi-mately 27MHz of emitted electromagnetic radiation (EMR),used by both military and civilian services. Devices of thistype provide good quality connections at longer distancesthan public mobile phone systems and even in an environ-ment not covered by public wireless communication systems,because they may be equipped with terminals of significantlyhigher output power than public mobile phone systems.
Human exposure to EMR was identified as an environ-mental factor that may create health and safety hazards,
including a potentially carcinogenic outcome of exposure [5โ8].The environmental impact of EMR is characterized by thestrength of electric and magnetic fields (๐ธ-field and ๐ป-field,resp.), representing its indivisible components [9]. EuropeanDirective 2013/35/EU sets out the minimum requirementsregarding the protection of workers against health and safetyhazards caused by electromagnetic fields (EMF) in the work-place [10]. According to it, as well as according to interna-tional guidelines provided by International Commission onNonionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) and standardfrom Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE),in the radiofrequency band used in radio communication(including 27MHz), the exposure limitations are provided toprotect against the thermal effects caused by EMF biophysicalinfluence [5, 11]. Such Exposure Limit Values (ELVs) arespecified with regard to the values of the specific energy
HindawiBioMed Research InternationalVolume 2017, Article ID 5785482, 9 pageshttps://doi.org/10.1155/2017/5785482
2 BioMed Research International
absorption rate (SAR). SAR is defined as the ratio betweenabsorbed energy and unit weight of tissue (in W/kg) and isonly assessable by numerical calculations (recognized as insilicomeasurements), requiring complex research procedures[5, 9โ14]. SAR limits are provided for the effects of exposureaveraged over a whole body or localized values as well.For this reason, various numerical phantoms of humanbody were developed, with different numerical parameters,internal organ details, and anthropometric properties, suchas height and body mass [15, 16]. Results of evaluation ofeffects of EMF exposure in the human body, carried out byin silico measurements, are dependent on both the exposureconditions and structure of the phantoms [9, 17].
Directive 2013/35/EU, ICNIRP, and IEEE also accept asimplified assessment of the biophysical exposure effects andcompliance with SAR limits, which can be done using in situor in silico measurements of ๐ธ-field strength (๐ธ in V/m),๐ป-field strength (๐ป in A/m), and limb induced current (๐ผL inmA), which all need to be lower than their relevant limits[5, 10, 11]. Limits set with respect to limb induced current(LIC) values play a practical role of measurable substitutefor the localized SAR evaluation in limbs (achievable only bynumericalmeasurements). Consequently, LICmeasurementsmay be applicable in the evaluation of electromagnetichazards in the real work environment, as well as validatingnumerical modelling in the research. Measurements of LICdo not characterize biophysical effects of electromagneticexposure in other body parts.
The aim of the study was to evaluate correlations betweenthe biophysical effects of EMR exposure in the human body,represented by LIC, and (1) the parameters of heteroge-neous E-field affecting humans and (2) the anthropometricproperties of the human body, with respect to improvementof the protocol of environmental electromagnetic hazardsevaluation.
2. Material and Methods
The investigations involved the following:
(i) Experimental studies (in situmeasurements) into theLIC (at ankle) in volunteers staying close to EMRsource and mapping the ๐ธ-field spatial distributionnear the source to create and validate the numericalmodel of this EMR source and the EMR exposurescenario to be used in in silicomeasurements
(ii) A series of numerical calculations (in silico measure-ments) representing a whole body exposure to anEMR of 27MHz, a scenario that mimics the one ofin situ measurements (with respect to ๐ธ-field spatialdistribution), and also the biophysical influence ofEMR on various human body numerical phantoms(with respect to LIC)
(iii) Determining the correlation between the values ofLIC (measured in situ or in silico) and (1) var-ious parameters of spatially heterogeneous ๐ธ-fieldcharacterizing exposure with respect to the EMRcoupling with a body of individual properties and
60Ground
500
82
1
5
L1
50 50
Rod antenna
Antenna basis
Woodenframe
L2
Variant 1 Variant 2
L3
(a)
60
40
40
L350
Metal plateRod antenna
110
L2L1
(b)
Figure 1: The scheme of exposure set-up used or modelled duringin situ and in silico measurements: (a) side view and (b) top view;L1โL3: locations of measurement lines; dimensions in cm.
(2) the anthropometric properties of the human body(volunteers and numerical phantoms)
(iv) Analysis of LIC in humans exposed to heteroge-neous EMR from radiophone rod antenna of ๐ธ-fieldstrength equal to limits of exposure established bylabour law in EuropeanUnion (Directive 2013/35/EU,further mentioned as D2013/35/EU [10]).
2.1. Field Source: Rod Antenna of a Radiophone. The EMRsource used in the experimental investigations was a radiocommunication unit (radiophone) equipped with an uprightrod antenna 500 cm long, placed outdoor in the open spaceat the top of the wooden frame, at a height of 82 cm fromthe ground (Figure 1), working at a frequency of 27MHz.Such devices are used for wireless communication and maybe mounted on vehicles.
2.2. Volunteers. Volunteers, 24 males, with the anthropo-metric properties presented in Table 1, were involved in theexperimental part of the study. They were asked to reportanonymously the following properties: height, body mass,chest, and waist circumferences. Additionally, the body mass
BioMed Research International 3
Table 1: Statistical parameters of anthropometric properties reported by volunteers.
Statistical parameterAnthropometric properties (๐ = 24)
Height Body mass BV BMI WC CC(cm) (kg) (mโkg) (kg/m2) (cm) (cm)
Mean ยฑ SD 178.2 ยฑ 7.1 88.2 ยฑ 14.7 157 ยฑ 29 27.8 ยฑ 4.3 101.1 ยฑ 11.3 106.8 ยฑ 9.7Median 179.5 86.0 152 27.5 99 105IQR 172.8โ182.3 77.8โ94.8 136โ168 24.9โ29.3 95.8โ105.8 101.8โ108.5MinโMax 160โ190 60โ120 106โ222 21.0โ36.3 82โ129 93โ135SD: standard deviation; IQR: interquartile range (range between 25. and 75. percentile values); body mass index: BMI = body mass/(height)2; body volumeindex: BV = height โ body mass. WC = waist circumference; CC = chest circumference.
index (BMI) and the body volume index (BV) values werecalculated (Table 1).
2.3. In Situ Measurements. During the LIC measurements,the volunteers were in a upright posture with lowered upperlimbs. They were standing on an aluminium plate. The platewith dimensions of 40 ร 40 ร 1 cm laid on the ground and itscentre was 60 cm (variant 1) or 110 cm (variant 2) apart fromthe antenna axis (Figure 1). The main axis of the volunteersparticipating in the research was also fitted in the centre ofthe plate. The grounding conditions of the volunteers wereunifiedwith the use of the plate. In both exposure variants, thefollowing subvariants were investigated: the volunteers usedunified shoes (the same, 1a and 2a); they used their own shoes(regular shoes of each volunteer, different, 1b and 2b); andthey were barefooted (1c and 2c).
The research protocol concerning the volunteers wasapproved by the local ethics committee. The clamp-on probewas placed over the clothing (not in direct contact with thebody) and the volunteer did not touch any elements of theEMR source, nor any metal object nearby the EMR source.Exposure to EMR was also controlled and did not exceed theworkerโs exposure limit, being at the typical level of exposureof personnel present near a radiophone in regular use. Thevolunteers were informed about the aim of the experimentand the principles of the measurement method. They couldwithdraw at any phase of the research.
In the process of numerical model validation, the ๐ธ-fieldstrength spatial distribution was evaluated. Safety guidelinesprovide limits to evaluate both ๐ธ- and ๐ป-field exposureof workers, but it is known from other studies that whenevaluating LIC in the lower legs of a worker who stayssome distance away from the EMR source, the ๐ธ-fieldcomponent plays a dominant role [18, 19]. In accordancewith D2013/35/EU methodology, spatial distributions of rms(root-mean-square) values in an unperturbed ๐ธ-field (in theabsence of workers) strength were evaluated by the in situmeasurements. ๐ธ-field was measured along three verticalmeasurement lines: L1, at a distance of 10 cm from theantenna; L2, at a distance of 60 cm (covering the location ofthe main axis of the body of the volunteers participating inLIC measurements in variant 1, above the centre of the metalplate); and L3, at a distance of 110 cm (covering the locationof the main axis of the body of the volunteers participating inLIC measurements in variant 2, above the centre of the metalplate) (Figure 1). The ๐ธ-field strength values were measured
Figure 2: The induction clamp-on meter of limb current (HI-3702probe and HI-4416 monitor).
along lines L1โL3, at the height above the ground rangingfrom30 cmup to 200 cm,with 10 cm steps between successivemeasurement points.
The lower limb current measurements at the ankle ofvolunteers (staying close to the rod antenna) were carried outwith the use of an induction (clamp-on) meter HI-3702&HI-4416, manufactured by Holladay, USA (Figure 2) (http://www.ets-lindgren.com), which measures the rms value ofcurrent in the range: (0.01โ1000)mA; 9 kHzโ110MHz; stan-dard uncertainty of up to ยฑ15%. The research used also aEMR-300 meter manufactured by Wandel & Goltermann,Germany, equipped with an isotropic ๐ธ-field probe of mea-surement range of rms values: (0.4โ800)V/m; 100 kHzโ3GHz, standard uncertainty of up to ยฑ15%.
2.4. In Silico Measurements. International guidelines andstandards require that numerical calculations aimed at eval-uating EMR exposure have to reflect the exposure scenarioconsidered at the workplace but do not specify in detailthe procedures for such an evaluation [5, 10, 13, 14]. Thenumerical modelling (in silico measurements) reported inthis paper covered the following:
(i) The source of spatially heterogeneous EMR, whichmimics rod antenna emitting EMR at a frequency of27MHz, is modelled.
(ii) Four free standing (nongrounded) numerical phan-toms in standing upright posture with lowered upperlimbs are used: two models of the female body,
4 BioMed Research International
Donna and Laura, and two models of the male body,Gustav and Hugo. The dielectric and anthropometricproperties of these phantoms were already presentedand analysed in the context of correlationwith param-eters representing the population of adults in variouscountries [11, 15, 16].
(iii) The results of the in silico measurements were val-idated by the relevant in situ measurement results:spatial distribution of ๐ธ-field along lines L1, L2, andL3 and LIC in volunteers.
Numerical calculations were performed with specializedsoftware for EMR analysis, CST Studio [20], based on thefinite integration technique (FIT), using Microwave modulesTransient (time domain solver), boundary conditions open(add space), and 15โ18 million voxels per numerical model,with smallest voxel in a model of the body 1-2mm insize. The estimated standard uncertainty of the numericalsimulation results of ๐ธ-field distribution near its source isevaluated to be ยฑ(15โ18)%. In further analysis, it has beenassumed that the uncertainty of numerical simulation of ๐ธ-field distribution isยฑ18%.Thestandard uncertainty of in silicomeasurements on LIC (๐ผL) during exposure to an EMR of27MHz matches ยฑ(16โ21)%, as estimated based on data in[21, 22]. In further analysis, it has been assumed that theuncertainty of numerical simulation of LIC is ยฑ21%.
2.5. Validation of Models. For the purpose of validating theresults of numerical calculations, the unperturbed ๐ธ-fieldstrength in the vicinity of rod antenna (affecting the volunteerinvolved later in the LIC measurements) was analysed withrespect to the values of the measured limbs electric current(LIC at ankle) of the volunteers staying there. The in silicoresults were validated by the in situ results, using analyticalformula to test the identity of the results of two independentstudies [23], derived from the assumption that two resultsobtained with a particular uncertainties are equal (๐M =๐C):
ID = ๐M โ ๐Cโ๐2M + ๐2C
, (1)
where ๐M is ๐ธ-field strength (๐ธM) or LIC (๐ผLM) valuesobtained from measurements, ๐C is relevant ๐ธC or ๐ผLCvalues obtained from numerical calculations, ๐M is standarduncertainty of measurements (ยฑ0,15๐M, in the case of ๐ธor ๐ผL values), and ๐C is standard uncertainty of numericalcalculations (ยฑ0,18๐C, in the case of ๐ธ values; ยฑ0,21๐C, incase of ๐ผL values).
The in silico and in situ results were taken to be identicalwhen the absolute value of the ID parameter did not exceedunity:
|ID| โค 1. (2)
2.6. Statistical Analysis. In the analysis of the correlationbetween the LIC and (1) the ๐ธ-field strength and (2) theanthropometric properties of the human body, the STATIS-TICA software version 9.0 PL (StatSoft, USA) was applied.
L1-measurementsL2-measurementsL3-measurements
L1-calculationsL2-calculationsL3-calculations
40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 20020Distance from ground (cm)
0
1
10
Nor
mal
ized
elec
tric
fiel
d str
engt
h
Figure 3: Unperturbed electric field strength in the vicinity ofrod antenna of the radiophone: comparison of measured andnumerically calculated values along lines L1โL3 (see Figure 1) withstandard uncertainty of their evaluation (reference value, maximumvalue along the line L2).
The analysed anthropometric properties of numerical phan-toms and volunteers were height, body mass, body massindex (BMI), body volume index (BV), and chest and waistcircumferences. Correlation analysis between particular sub-sets of results was made based on the ๐-Pearson correlationcoefficient (when normal distributions of analysed data setshave been proven by a Shapiro-Wilk test (๐ < 0.001)) [23, 24].The power of correlation was assessed applying the four-stepcriterion for the ๐-values [25].
3. Results and Discussion
The modelled source of heterogeneous EMR (the rodantenna, emitting EMR of 27MHz frequency) may be treatedas the part of scenarios of the exposure representative fordiverse situations appearing under real-life conditions, bothusing military equipment (e.g., the exposure of soldiersstaying outside a vehicle equipped with the radiophone)andusing civil radio devices (e.g., the exposure of people stayingoutside the vehicle equipped with citizens band (CB) radio).
Figure 3 shows the values of the ๐ธ-field strength, theresults of both measurements, and numerical calculations,along with standard uncertainties of their determination,normalized with regard to the maximum value along line L2(i.e., the axis of exposed body in variant 1).
The distribution of ๐ธ-field level along lines L1โL3 isvarying significantly, over 10 times. Therefore, it is not jus-tified to assume that the quasi-homogenous ๐ธ-field exposurewas investigated, which was considered in previous studiesfocused on LIC at lower limbs [19, 25].
An analysis of the spatial distributions of๐ธ-field strength,obtained from the measurement and numerical calculations,in the vicinity of real rod antenna and its corresponding
BioMed Research International 5
Table 2: The correlation between anthropometric properties of volunteers (๐ = 24).Height Body mass BV BMI WC CC๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐
Height 1.0 โ 0.40 0.06 0.58 0.003 โ0.11 0.62 0.06 0.80 0.11 0.62Body mass 0.40 0.06 1.0 โ 0.98 <0.001 0.87 <0.001 0.89 <0.001 0.88 <0.001BV 0.58 0.003 0.98 <0.001 1.0 โ 0.74 <0.001 0.77 <0.001 0.81 <0.001BMI โ0.11 0.62 0.87 <0.001 0.74 <0.001 1.0 โ 0.90 <0.001 0.89 <0.001WC 0.06 0.80 0.89 <0.001 0.77 <0.001 0.90 <0.001 1.0 โ 0.85 <0.001CC 0.11 0.62 0.88 <0.001 0.81 <0.001 0.89 <0.001 0.85 <0.001 1.0 โStrong, statistically significant correlations (|๐| > 0.7, ๐ < 0.001) are in bold; body mass index: BMI = body mass/(height)2; body volume index: BV = heightโ body mass; WC = waist circumference; CC = chest circumference; ๐-Pearson correlation coefficient and significance level ๐.
Table 3: The correlation between the limb induced current measured at volunteers (๐ = 24) exposed to the electromagnetic field (27MHz)near the rod antenna and the volunteersโ anthropometric properties.
Anthropometric propertiesExposure variants
1a 1b 1c 2a 2b 2c๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐
Height 0.74 <0.001 0.65 0.001 0.49 0.014 0.70 <0.001 0.63 0.001 0.64 0.001Body mass 0.67 <0.001 0.74 <0.001 0.82 <0.001 0.63 <0.001 0.74 <0.001 0.75 <0.001BV 0.76 <0.001 0.80 <0.001 0.84 <0.001 0.71 <0.001 0.80 <0.001 0.81 <0.001BMI 0.31 0.147 0.46 0.025 0.60 0.002 0.29 0.165 0.46 0.022 0.46 0.022WC 0.32 0.128 0.47 0.020 0.59 0.002 0.27 0.197 0.44 0.033 0.50 0.012CC 0.39 0.059 0.50 0.014 0.65 0.001 0.37 0.076 0.49 0.016 0.54 0.007Body mass index: BMI = body mass/(height)2; body volume index: BV = height โ body mass; WC = waist circumference; CC = chest circumference; variant 1of exposure: the axe of volunteerโs body 60 cm away from the antenna; variant 2 of exposure: the axe of volunteerโs body 110 cm away from the antenna; a: thevolunteers used unified shoes; b: the volunteers used their own (regular) shoes; c: the volunteers were barefooted; strong, statistically significant correlations(|๐| > 0.7, ๐ < 0.001) are in bold; ๐-Pearson correlation coefficients and significance level ๐.
L1L2L3
0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91.0
ID p
aram
eter
40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 20020
Distance from ground (cm)
Figure 4: The level of identity (ID parameter, formula (1)) of theresults of in situ and in silico measurements of the unperturbedelectric field strength distribution in the vicinity of real rod antennaand its corresponding virtual model; L1โL3 lines (see Figure 1).
numerical model, carried out with the use of ID parameter(formula (1)), showed their identity at each of the 90 evalu-ation points (|ID| โค 1) (Figure 4), at the level of mentionedstandard uncertainty of their evaluation.
Statistical analysis of the distribution in the analysedresults of (1) LIC measurements at the volunteers exposedto the EMF near the radio communication rod antenna and(2) the anthropometric properties of the volunteers, carriedout using the Shapiro-Wilk test (๐ < 0.001), showed thenormal distribution of all data sets. A correlation analysisshowed strong, statistically significant correlations (Pearson|๐| > 0.7, ๐ < 0.001) between anthropometric propertiesof the volunteers: body mass, BV, BMI, and waist and chestcircumferences (Table 2).
In both investigated variants of exposure scenario (i.e.,two distances from the EMF source), positive, statisticallysignificant correlation was found between LIC measured atthe volunteers (๐ = 24) and the volunteersโ height or BVindex (Table 3). The lowest LIC at barefooted volunteers invariant 1 (๐ผL = 29.8mA) have been found at subject of 172 cmheight, 62 kg mass, and 106.6 BV index, when the highest(๐ผL = 45.1mA) have been found at subject of 182 cm height,120 kg mass, and 218 BV index. The lowest LIC at barefootedvolunteers in variant 2 (๐ผL = 13.4mA) have been found atsubject of 172 cm height, 62 kg mass, and 106.6 BV index,when the highest (๐ผL = 27.8mA) have been found at subject of185 cm height, 120 kg mass, and 222 BV index. LIC measuredat barefooted volunteers (subvariants 1c and 2c) were 20โ40%higher than at volunteers using their own shoes (subvariants1b and 2b) and 40โ50% higher than at volunteers using
6 BioMed Research International
Measurements, 1aCalculations, 1aMeasurements, 2a
125 150 175 200 225100BV (mkg)
10
20
30
40
Lim
b in
duce
d cu
rren
t (m
A)
y = 0.16xR2 = โ0.85
y = 0.10x
R2 = โ0.69
Figure 5: Limb induced current values measured at the volunteersand numerically calculated in the virtual human body phantoms,exposed to EMR emitted by the radio communication antenna(whiskers, standard uncertainty of limb induced current evaluation)in the function of the BV index; variant 1a: volunteers present 60 cmfrom the antenna; variant 2a: volunteers present 110 cm from theantenna; unified shoes.
unified shoes (subvariants 1a and 2a). It suggests that in theexposure scenario near a rod antenna in upright position theregular shoes protect only up to 2 times against LIC; for betterprotection the soles should be made out of more insulatingmaterials.
Distributions of the values of LIC measured at the volun-teers and numerically calculated in the numerical phantomsof the human body exposed to EMF in the vicinity of theradio communication rod antenna (including the standarduncertainty of their evaluation) were shown in Figure 5 in thefunction of BV index, the anthropometric property found asthe strongest correlated with the LIC values.
The LIC measured at the lower limbs (at ankle) of thevolunteers were also analysed in order to validate relevantresults of numerical calculations. Identity analysis of LICvalues measured in the volunteers (๐ = 24) and numericallycalculated in phantoms (๐ = 4) was carried out withregard to the subjects of the most approximated values ofanthropometric properties. The parameter ID (formula (1))showed their identity at each investigated case of height andBV index (|ID| โค 1), at the level of mentioned standarduncertainties of their evaluation (Figure 6).
The results of LIC measurements at the volunteers werecorrelated with the following parameters derived from thecalculated distribution of absolute value (module) of unper-turbed ๐ธ-field (without human body presence), to represent
HeightBV
120 140 160 180 200 220 240100Anthropometric data: height (cm), BV (mโkg)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
ID p
aram
eter
Figure 6: The identity level of limb induced current measuredat volunteers and numerically calculated in virtual human bodyphantoms with the most approximated values of anthropometricproperties, exposed to electromagnetic field from radiophone rodantenna: ID parameter (formula (1)).
interperson variability of exposure level in the heterogeneousEMR near the rod antenna:
(a) The ๐ธ-field at the top of the volunteerโs body (at thedistance from the ground equal to the volunteerโsheight), along the measurement line L2 or L3, respec-tively, for exposure variant 1 or 2 (as shown in Figure 1,the line covering themain axis of the volunteerโs torso;as shown in Table 1, at the height from the ground inthe range 160โ190 cm), ๐ธ(BA-TV-L2/L3)
(b) The arithmetic averaged value of the ๐ธ-field alongthe main axis of the volunteerโs body, respectively,for exposure variant 1 or 2 (line L2 or L3), rangingbetween 30 cm from the ground and volunteerโsheight, ๐ธ(BA-AV-L2/L3)
(c) The ๐ธ-field, located in front of the volunteerโs chest(Variant 1 or 2), that is, in line L1 or L2, at adistance from the ground of approximately 70% of thevolunteerโs height (50 cm from the body axis and, asshown in Table 1, at a distance from the ground in therange 112โ133 cm), ๐ธ(FB-0.7VH-L1/L2)
(d) The maximum in space value of ๐ธ-field affecting theworkersโ body in exposure variant 1 or 2, according toDirective 2013/35/UE, ๐ธ(D2013/35/EU).
In all investigated exposure variants and their subvariants,the strongest, proportional (physically correct), statisticallysignificant correlations (|๐| > 0.7, ๐ < 0.001) werefound between the results of the LIC measurements and thefollowing parameters of EMR exposure (Table 4):
(i) The maximum in space value of ๐ธ-field affecting theworkersโ body, ๐ธ(D2013/35/EU)
(ii) The ๐ธ-field in front of the volunteerโs chest, ๐ธ(FB-0.7VH-L1/L2).
BioMed Research International 7
Table 4: The correlation between the electric field parameters andthe limb induced current measured at volunteers (๐ = 24) exposedto the electromagnetic field (27MHz) near the rod antenna (allmeasurements: 1a, 1b, 1c, 2a, 2b, 2c;๐ = 144 cases).
๐ธ-field parameterLimb induced current measured during
exposure near the rod antenna๐ ๐
๐ธ(BA-TV-L2/L3) 0.724 <0.001๐ธ(BA-AV-L2/L3) 0.746 <0.001๐ธ(FB-0.7HV-L1/L2) 0.747 <0.001๐ธ(D2013/35/EU) 0.770 <0.001Strong, statistically significant correlations (|๐| > 0.7, ๐ < 0.001) are in bold;the parameters of the calculated unperturbed ๐ธ-field related to the absolute(ABS) value of the ๐ธ-field root-mean-square (RMS) value: ๐ธ(BA-TV-L2/L3):the๐ธ-field calculated at the top of the volunteer body, along themeasurementline L2 or L3, respectively, for exposure variant 1 or 2 (as shown at Figure 1,the line covering the main axis of the volunteerโs torso); ๐ธ(BA-AV-L2/L3):the arithmetic average value of the ๐ธ-field calculated along the main axis ofthe volunteerโs body, line L2 or L3, respectively, for exposure variant 1 or 2,ranging between 30 cm from the ground and volunteerโs body height; ๐ธ(FB-0.7VH-L1/L2): the ๐ธ-field calculated in line L1 or L2, located in front of thevolunteerโs chest (variant 1 or 2); ๐ธ(D2013/35/EU): the maximum in spaceof ๐ธ-field value of field affecting the workersโ body in exposure variant 1 or2, according to Directive 2103/35/EU; ๐-Pearson correlation coefficients andsignificance level ๐.
Both parameters (exposure measures) are more stronglycorrelated with the LIC values than parameters discussed inthe literature [17, 23]: the ๐ธ-field at the top of the volunteerโsbody ๐ธ(BA-TV-L2/L3) and the arithmetic averaged value ofthe ๐ธ-field along the main axis of the volunteerโs body ๐ธ(BA-AV-L2/L3).
The obtained results indicate that, at the investigatedtype of workplace EMR exposure, the ๐ผL values can beevaluated on the basis of mentioned ๐ธ-field parametersshown to be strongly correlatedwith LIC (Table 4).The lowestuncertainty of such evaluation is provided by the use of ๐ธ-field parameter which creates the values of ๐ = ๐ผL/๐ธ ratiowhich is the lowest dependent on exposure conditions, ๐ธ-field spatial distribution, and anthropometric properties ofexposed workers. In the 6 analysed exposure variants themost stable values of ๐-ratio were found for ๐ธ(D2013/35/EU)and ๐ธ(FB-0.7HV-L1/L2) exposure parameters (Figure 7).
Between the ๐ธ-field exposure measures, which have beenshown to be correlated with the LIC, the most practical inthe workplace exposure evaluation seems to be ๐ธ(FB-0.7VH-L1/L2), because it needs only a single spot measurement inthe location which is easy to be found at the workplace. Themain limitation in the use of this measure is exposure at veryshort distance of worker from the EMR source (shorter than50 cm). But it needs to be pointed out that, following theICNIRPโs guidelines (referenced by D2013/35/EU), in such asituation direct evaluation of thermal effects is advised, usingSARnumerical calculations. In longer distance the evaluationof ๐ธ(FB-0.7VH-L1/L2) may be advised.
The second conclusion may be drawn where in the legalimplementation of D2013/35/EU it is necessary to definedimensions of the โreference EMR probeโ applicable inthe exposure evaluation at the workplace. The Directive
Variant 1cVariant 2c
00.5
11.5
22.5
33.5
4
k pa
ram
eter
E (B
A-TV
-L2/
L3)
E (B
A-AV
-L2/
L3)
E (F
B-0.
7HV-
L1/L
2)
E (D
2013
/35/
EU)
E-field parameter
Figure 7: The ratio, ๐ = ๐ผL/๐ธ, between limb induced currentsmeasured at volunteers (๐ = 24) and parameters characterizingthe level of ๐ธ-field exposure; arithmetic mean and minโmax range(whiskers) in the worst case scenario of exposure (volunteersbarefooted); ๐ธ-field parameters are defined in Table 4.
statement to use โcalculated or measured maximum fieldโaffecting workerโs body is significantly unprecise, which maycreate significant uncertainty in practice. In the vicinityof EMF source some discrepancy between calculated andmeasuredmaximumvalue exists and it depends on the spatialdistribution of the exposure level. It is because, during themeasurement, EMR is averaged over the volume of the probe.Assuming the 3-dimensional volume of the ๐ธ-field probe tobe 10 ร 10 ร 10 cm (as may be found in the equipment),discrepancy between calculated and measured maximum ๐ธ-field value may be evaluated by the parameter defined by theformula:
๐พCM (๐) =๐ธC (๐) โ ๐ธM (๐)๐ธM (๐)
โ 100%, (3)
where ๐ธC is calculated maximum value of ๐ธ-field affectingworker (at workerโs body position), ๐ธM is measured maxi-mum value of ๐ธ-field affecting worker, estimated based onthe calculated value of๐ธ-field averaged over the volume of theprobe (assumed to be of 10 ร 10 ร 10 cm dimensions), and ๐ islocation under consideration (where max ๐ธ-field was found).
In the vicinity of rod antenna the following discrepancy(๐พCM) was found: 190% at the distance of 2 cm from theantenna, 80% at 5 cm, 40% at 10 cm, 9% at 60 cm, and 7% at110 cm. It is shown that the discrepancy between measuredand calculated maximum value of ๐ธ-field, which is affectingworker, may significantly contribute to the uncertainty ofexposure evaluation (and evaluation of the compliance withexposure limits). In small distance from the EMR source,mentioned influence is stronger than from the measurementor calculations uncertainty itself. In the distance from therod antenna exceeding 60 cm, the analysed discrepancy is lessthan 10% (being within the range of standard uncertainty of๐ธ-field measurements itself).
8 BioMed Research International
The other technical limitation in evaluating EMR expo-sure near the source comes from the properties of EMRmeasurement devices, which may be directly coupled withthe EMF source and indicates not calibrated values. Inconsequences, the measure of EMR exposure, which is thestrongest correlated with hazards related to the LIC in theradiofrequency EMR, may be not achievable by measure-ments in the work environment.
In volunteers of the height 160โ190 cm exposed to EMRfrom radiophone rod antenna at the level of ๐ธ-field strengthequal to 61 V/m (established by D2013/35/EU as the maxi-mum value of ๐ธ-field strength in the workersโ body position,in the absence of worker), the LIC (at ankle) ranged from45% up to 85% in variant 1 of exposure scenario and from76% up to 144% in variant 2 of its limit values, provided byD2013/35/EU (100mA). Limb induced current in the worstcase of exposure, barefooted workers on grounded basis(variants 1c and 2c), evaluated based on the ๐ = ๐ผL/๐ธ ratioexceeds 50% of mentioned limit (๐ผL > 50mA) at the level ofexposure to ๐ธ-field expressed as ๐ธ(D2013/35/EU) > 20V/mor ๐ธ(FB-0.7HV-L1/L2) > 35V/m. Both exposure levels arebelow the directive limits of E-field strength in the workplace.Because of the negative correlation between LIC and exposedperson height values, in analysed exposure conditions, thehighest volunteer does not represent the worst case of LICvalue at the particular workplace.
Results presented in this paper showed that in thedistance from the antenna exceeding 100 cm (variant 2 ofexposure scenario) the compliance with ๐ธ-field exposurelimits does not ensure automatic compliance with LIC limits.Taking into consideration limited availability of LIC mea-surement devices, in the workplace under the questionableexposure condition, the application of sufficient protectionmeasures should be advised. In that context it needs attentionthat, in the investigated exposure cases near the uprightrod antenna, it was found that regular shoes insufficientlyprotect workers; they are reducing the LIC values only up to2 times. In the case of the need of better protection againstEMR exposure effects it is necessary to use shoes equippedwith the soles made from materials which are insulators forradiofrequency currents.
4. Conclusions
In situ and in silicomeasurements of limb induced current atankle of volunteers of height in the range 160โ190 cm exposedto electromagnetic field of 27MHz frequency, emitted fromnearby radiophone upright rod antenna 500 cm long (e.g.,such as that used in military vehicles), showed in all expo-sure scenarios the strong, statistically significant correlationbetween limb induced current and the body volume index ofexposed persons (body mass multiplied by body height, inkgโm) (๐ > 0.7; ๐ < 0.001).
The relations between the limb induced current andselected parameters of unperturbed electric field affecting theworkersโ body are allowing for estimating the range of valuesof lower limbs currents experienced by exposed persons.The most informative exposure parameters, with respect tothe evaluation of electromagnetic hazards by measurements
(the strongest correlated with limb induced current), werefound to be the value of electric field in front of chest (50 cmfrom body axis) or the maximum value in space occupied byhuman (unperturbed field exists in the investigated space inthe absent of human body).
Exposed personโs body volume and electric field strengthin front of the chest determine limb induced current instudied exposure scenarios but mentioned parameters havenot been analysed yet in other studies and they need furtherstudies regarding their usefulness in other exposure scenariosin the workplace.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interestregarding the publication of this paper.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the headquarter and the personnelof Military Centre for Preventive Medicine in Bydgoszcz,Poland, for supporting investigation. This paper has beenbased on the results of a research carried out within thescope of the statutory activity of the Central Institute forLabour Protection-National Research Institute (CIOP-PIB)supported by the Ministry of Science and Higher Educa-tion (task II-29, project manager: P. Zradzinski) and theNational Programme, Improvement of Safety and WorkingConditions, partly supported, within the scope of stateservices by the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy inPoland (task 2.Z.30, project manager: J. Karpowicz; themain coordinator of the programme: CIOP-PIB), as wellas the results of research carried out in Laboratory ofElectromagnetic Radiation Metrology of Military Instituteof Hygiene and Epidemiology within the task, Evaluationof Exposure of Military Personnel to Electromagnetic FieldEmitted by Military Technique Devices (project manager:J. Kieliszek), supported by the Ministry of Defence. Theselected results from the work discussed in the article wereshown during the poster session at the BIOEMโ2017, theJoint AnnualMeeting of the Bioelectromagnetics Society andthe European BioElectromagnetics Association Conference,Ghent, Belgium, 5โ10 June 2017.
References
[1] J. Sobiech, J. Kieliszek, R. Puta, D. Bartczak, andW. Stankiewicz,โOccupational exposure to electromagnetic fields in the PolishArmed Forces,โ International Journal of Occupational Medicineand Environmental Health, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 565โ577, 2017.
[2] J. Sobiech, J. Kieliszek, and W. Stankiewicz, โModel of workenvironment in numerical evaluation of exposure of manpackradio operators to electromagnetic fields,โ Przeglad Elektrotech-niczny, vol. 87, no. 12b, pp. 152โ154, 2011 (Polish).
[3] J. Kieliszek, J. Sobiech, W. Stankiewicz, and W. Rongies,โMeasurements of induced currents as the part of assessmentof professional exposition on electromagnetic field,โ PrzegladElektrotechniczny, vol. 86, no. 12, pp. 65โ67, 2010 (Polish).
BioMed Research International 9
[4] J. Kieliszek and J. Sobiech, โInduced current measurements inthe body of manpack radio operators,โ Przeglad Elektrotech-niczny, vol. 12, pp. 73โ75, 2009.
[5] International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Pro-tection (ICNIRP), โGuidelines for limiting exposure to time-varying electric, magnetic and electromagnetic fields (up to300GHz),โ Health Physics, vol. 74, no. 4, pp. 494โ522, 1998.
[6] International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), โNon-ionizing radiation. part 2: radiofrequency electromagneticfields,โ in IARC Monographs: Volume 102, WHO/IARC, Lyon,France, 2013.
[7] Scientific Committee on Emerging andNewly IdentifiedHealthRisks (SCENIHR), Potential Health Effects of Exposure to Elec-tromagnetic Fields (EMF), European Commission, 2015.
[8] A. Bortkiewicz, E. Gadzicka, W. Szymczak, and M. Zmyalony,โHeart rate variability (HRV) analysis in radio and TV broad-casting stations workers,โ International Journal of OccupationalMedicine and Environmental Health, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 446โ455,2012.
[9] K. H. Mild, T. Alanko, M. Hietanen et al., โExposure ofworkers to electromagnetic fields. A review of open questionson exposure assessment techniques,โ International Journal ofOccupational Safety and Ergonomics, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 3โ33,2009.
[10] Directive 2013/35/EU of the European Parliament and of theCouncil of 26 June 2013 on the minimum health and safetyrequirements regarding the exposure of workers to the risksarising from physical agents (electromagnetic fields) (20thindividual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) ofDirective 89/391/EEC), O.J. No. L-179 of 29 June 2013, Brussels,Belgium.
[11] Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, โIEEE stan-dard for safety levels with respect to human exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz,โ Tech.Rep. IEEE C95.1-2005, Institute of Electrical and ElectronicsEngineers, New York, NY, USA.
[12] P. Zradzinski, J. Karpowicz, K. Gryz, andW. Leszko, โAnthropo-metric differentiation of effects of radiofrequency electromag-netic fields of frequency 100MHz onworkers,โMedycyna Pracy,vol. 65, no. 3, pp. 351โ360, 2014.
[13] European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization(CENELEC), โBasic standard on measurement and calculationprocedures for human exposure to electric. magnetic andelectromagnetic fields (0 Hz - 300 GHz),โ Tech. Rep. EN50413:2009, CENELEC, Brussels. Belgium, 2009.
[14] International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), โDetermi-nation of RF field strength and SAR in the vicinity of radio-communication base stations for the purpose of evaluatinghuman exposure,โ Tech. Rep. IEC 62232-2011, IEC, Geneva,Switzerland, 2011.
[15] P. Zradzinski, โThe properties of human body phantoms usedin calculations of electromagnetic fields exposure by wirelesscommunication handsets or hand-operated industrial devices,โElectromagnetic Biology and Medicine, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 226โ235, 2013.
[16] P. Zradzinski, โExamination of virtual phantomswith respect totheir possible use in assessing compliance with the electromag-netic field exposure limits specified by Directive 2013/35/EU,โInternational Journal of Occupational Medicine and Environ-mental Health, vol. 28, no. 5, pp. 781โ792, 2015.
[17] P. Zradzinski, โDifficulties in applying numerical simulations toan evaluation of occupational hazards caused by electromag-netic fields,โ International Journal of Occupational Safety andErgonomics, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 213โ220, 2015.
[18] K. Gryz and J. Karpowicz, โPrinciples for electromagnetichazards assessment related to induced and contact currents,โPodstawy I Metody Oceny Srodowiska Pracy, vol. 4, no. 58, pp.137โ171, 2008.
[19] J. Wilen, K. H. Mild, L.-E. Paulsson, and G. Anger, โInducedcurrent measurements in whole body exposure condition toradio frequency electric fields,โ Bioelectromagnetics, vol. 22, no.8, pp. 560โ567, 2001.
[20] Cst.com [Internet], โComputer simulation technology,โ 2016,http://cst.com.
[21] I. Laakso, Uncetainty in computational RF dosimetry [Doctoraldissertations], School of Electrical Engineering, Helsinki, Fin-land, 2011.
[22] G. Schmid, T. Bolz, R. Uberbacher et al., โDesign anddosimetricanalysis of a 385MHz TETRA head exposure system for use inhuman provocation studies,โ Bioelectromagnetics, vol. 33, no. 7,pp. 594โ603, 2012.
[23] J. Gren, Mathematical Statistics: Models and Exercises, PWN,Warszawa, Poland, 1976, (in Polish).
[24] C. Dancey and J. Reidy, Statistics Without Mats for Psychology,Pearson Education Limited, Harlow, UK, 5th edition, 2011.
[25] L. H. Korpinen, J. A. Elovaara, and H. A. Kuisti, โOccupationalexposure to electric fields and induced currents associatedwith 400 kV substation tasks from different service platforms,โBioelectromagnetics, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 79โ83, 2011.
Submit your manuscripts athttps://www.hindawi.com
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Anatomy Research International
PeptidesInternational Journal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Hindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com
International Journal of
Volume 201
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Molecular Biology International
GenomicsInternational Journal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
The Scientific World JournalHindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
BioinformaticsAdvances in
Marine BiologyJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Signal TransductionJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
BioMed Research International
Evolutionary BiologyInternational Journal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Biochemistry Research International
ArchaeaHindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Genetics Research International
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Advances in
Virolog y
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com
Nucleic AcidsJournal of
Volume 2014
Stem CellsInternational
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Enzyme Research
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
International Journal of
Microbiology