These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Occupational and residential 60-Hz electromagnetic fields and high-frequency electric transients: exposure assessment using a new dosimeter.
    Author: Deadman JE, Camus M, Armstrong BG, Héroux P, Cyr D, Plante M, Thériault G.
    Journal: Am Ind Hyg Assoc J; 1988 Aug; 49(8):409-19. PubMed ID: 3177219.
    Abstract:
    One problem that has limited past epidemiologic studies of cancer and exposure to extremely low-frequency (0-100 Hz) electric and magnetic fields has been the lack of adequate methods for assessing personal exposure to these fields. A new 60-Hz electromagnetic field dosimeter was tested to assess occupational and residential exposures of a group of electrical utility workers and a comparison background group over a 7-day period. Comparing work periods only, utility workers' exposures were significantly higher than background levels by a factor of about 10 for electric (E) and magnetic (B) fields and by a factor of 171 for high-frequency transient electric (HFTE) fields. When overall weekly time-weighted averages combining work and nonwork exposures were compared, ratios of the exposed to background groups were lower. B and HFTE exposure ratios remained statistically significant, with values of 3.5 and 58, respectively, whereas the electric field exposure ratio was no longer significant, with a value of 1.7. E-field exposures of the background group were the highest during the nonwork period, probably reflecting the use of electrical appliances at home. Residential E- and B-field exposures were in the same range as published results from other surveys, whereas occupational E-field exposures tended to be lower than exposures reported in other studies. The high variability associated with occupational exposures probably accounts for the latter discrepancy. Worker acceptance of wearing the dosimeter was good: 95% of participants found it to be of little or no inconvenience while at work. At home, 37% found the device to be inconvenient in its present form but would not object to wearing a slightly smaller and lighter dosimeter.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]