Article review date
October 2024
Article publication date
September 2024
Summary
This study compares the radiofrequency electric and magnetic field (RF-EMF) exposures estimated for the INTEROCC RF-EMF job-exposure matrix (JEM) and the measured personal exposure data to assess whether it can be used as a surrogate measure for occupational RF-EMF exposure in epidemiological studies. First, some occupations relevant to RF-EMF exposures were selected based on exposure prevalence and levels indicated in the preliminary INTEROCC-JEM. Personal RF-EMF exposure measurements were then undertaken for some selected occupational group of workers. The workplace exposure (i.e. high-intensity RF-EMF) levels over full work shifts (8 hours) were measured with a personal exposure meter (RadMan 2XT) worn outside the participant's clothing at the left chest level. Total RF-EMF exposure measured was estimated. The level of agreement between the exposure measure (exposure intensity or level and prevalence) of the INTEROCC-JEM and that of the measured personal exposure was estimated. A total of 333 workers representing 22 occupations provided their personal exposure data. The study found a poor agreement for both intensity and exposure prevalence between the measurements and the INTEROCC-JEM estimates. On average, the INTEROCC-JEM tended to overestimate the measured RF-EMF exposure levels by >194%. The study also found that the exposure prevalence was higher in the measurements compared to the JEM.
Published in
Annals of Work Exposures and Health
Link to study
Commentary by ARPANSA
Overall, the data of personal exposure-based JEM and source-based (INTEROCC) JEM showed little agreement as the former seemed to overestimate the workplace RF-EMF exposure. Therefore, the findings of the previous epidemiological research using the INTEROCC-JEM should be interpreted accordingly in view of the overestimation by this particular JEM. Importantly, the findings also indicate the need for considering new metrics for occupational RF-EMF exposure and collecting additional personal exposure data. This will help improve job exposure matrix applicable in future epidemiological studies. The main strength of this study is that it compared the measured RF-EMF exposures from a large number of workers (Migault et al., 2019). The study limitations were: i) the high detection threshold and low sensitivity of the measurement device limited the measurements to detect low level RF-EMF exposures such as those from Wi-Fi and mobile phone telecommunication sources which generally co-exist in occupational environments; ii) the exposure measurements did not characterise source (frequency band) specific exposures. The INTEROCC group has published (Vila et al., 2016; Migault et al., 2019) an occupational RF-EMF exposure measurement database to provide some evidence for epidemiological studies.
Occupational RF-EMF exposures in Australia are generally far below the limits given in the Australian Safety Standard (e.g. RPS-S1), s. The Australian Safety Standard, developed by ARPANSA, is consistent with the 2020 ICNIRP guidelines and is based on validated international scientific evidence.
