4.7 Article

Variability of radiofrequency exposure across days of the week: A population-based study

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH
卷 111, 期 4, 页码 510-513

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.envres.2011.02.015

关键词

Day of the week; Exposure assessment; Prediction model; Radiofrequency

资金

  1. French Agency for Environmental and Occupational Health Safety [PC-ERF-2005-002]
  2. French National Commission for the Confidentiality of Computerized Data [1104049]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although measurement of the radiofrequency (RF) exposure can today be performed with personal exposure meters, this approach would be very expensive and time-consuming for large studies, and long term measurements would require considerable commitment of the study participants. Thus, there is a need for validated exposure assessment methods that do not require individual measurements for each study participant. Among the potential predictors, one of the most amenable to being recorded adequately is the day of the week. Drawing upon an existing population-based study, our goal was therefore to assess variability of individual RF exposure across days of the week. The random sample consisted of 34 people who were supplied with a personal exposure meter for seven consecutive days, and kept a time-location-activity diary. A total of 225,414 electric field strength measurements were recorded in 12 different RF bands. Summary statistics were calculated with the robust regression on order statistics method. We found evidence for statistically significant variability of individual RF exposure across days of the week, though the relative magnitude of the differences observed was small. Larger studies are needed to validate these results and determine whether day of the week is an important determinant for inclusion in individual RF exposure prediction models that remain urgently needed to conduct epidemiological studies on potential health effects. (c) 2011 Elsevier Inc. 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

4.7
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