4.3 Review

Evaluation and characterization of fetal exposures to low frequency magnetic fields generated by laptop computers

期刊

PROGRESS IN BIOPHYSICS & MOLECULAR BIOLOGY
卷 107, 期 3, 页码 456-463

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.pbiomolbio.2011.10.003

关键词

Laptop computers; Fetal exposures; Low frequency; Magnetic field; Numerical dosimetry

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Portable - or laptop - computers (LCs) are widely and increasingly used all over the world. Since LCs are often used in tight contact with the body even by pregnant women, fetal exposures to low frequency magnetic fields generated by these units can occur. LC emissions are usually characterized by complex waveforms and are often generated by the main AC power supply (when connected) and by the display power supply sub-system. In the present study, low frequency magnetic field emissions were measured for a set of five models of portable computers. For each of them, the magnetic flux density was characterized in terms not just of field amplitude, but also of the so called weighted peak (WP) index, introduced in the 2003 ICNIRP Statement on complex waveforms and confirmed in the 2010 ICNIRP Guidelines for low frequency fields. For the model of LC presenting the higher emission, a deeper analysis was also carried out, using numerical dosimetry techniques to calculate internal quantities (current density and in-situ electric field) with reference to a digital body model of a pregnant woman. Since internal quantities have complex waveforms too, the concept of WP index was extended to them, considering the ICNIRP basic restrictions defined in the 1998 Guidelines for the current density and in the 2010 Guidelines for the in-situ electric field. Induced quantities and WP indexes were computed using an appropriate original formulation of the well known Scalar Potential Finite Difference (SPFD) numerical method for electromagnetic dosimetry in quasi-static conditions. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据