Comparison of extremely low frequency (ELF) magnetic field personal exposure monitors
Open Access
- 1 February 2002
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Springer Nature in Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology
- Vol. 12 (1) , 1-8
- https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.jea.7500194
Abstract
The MultiWave® System III (MW III), a recently developed personal monitor for extremely low frequency (ELF) magnetic fields, was compared with the standard EMDEX Lite (Electric and Magnetic Field Digital Exposure System), the type of monitor widely used in epidemiology and other exposure assessments. The MW III captures three-axis magnetic field waveforms for the calculation of many exposure metrics, while the EMDEX monitors measure only the root-mean-squared (RMS) vector magnitude (or resultant). Thirty-eight partial period personal samples were monitored in six different job classifications. The sampling time for each personal sample ranged from 90 to 133 min, with a mean sample time of 110 min. The EMDEX Lite and MW III were evaluated by comparing the maximum and partial period time-weighted average (TWA) of the ELF magnitude. TWA exposures measured for the 38 partial period samples by the EMDEX Lite ranged from 1.2 to 65.3 mG, with a mean of 18.1 mG, while corresponding values for the MW III ranged from 1.1 to 65.8 mG, with a mean of 17.7 mG. The maximum magnetic field exposures measured for the 38 partial period personal samples by the EMDEX Lite ranged from 27.0 to 420.2 mG, with a mean of 216.3 mG, while corresponding values for the MW III ranged from 40.2 to 1311.8 mG, with a mean of 368.4 mG. The maximum and TWA ELF magnetic field exposures measured by the EMDEX Lite and MW III were compared using a two-tailed, paired t-test. Analyses indicate that there was no significant difference in the TWA magnetic field magnitude measured by the EMDEX Lite and MW III. On the other hand, the EMDEX Lite reported significantly lower (P=0.002) maximum magnetic field measurements compared to the MW III. From a detailed analysis of the time traces, the EMDEX Lite appears to measure the ELF magnitude inaccurately when the field changes rapidly over a 4-s sampling interval. The results of this comparison suggest that the standard EMDEX Lite and MW III provide similar measure of the TWA magnetic field in a variety of occupational settings and ELF magnetic field magnitudes. However, the EMDEX Lite underestimates maximum exposures when compared to the MW III.Keywords
This publication has 6 references indexed in Scilit:
- Hazard surveillance for industrial magnetic fields: II. Field characteristics from waveform measurementsAnnals of Occupational Hygiene, 2000
- 60 hertz magnetic field exposure assessment for an investigation of leukemia in telephone lineworkersAmerican Journal of Industrial Medicine, 1994
- ELF magnetic field exposures in an office environmentAmerican Journal of Industrial Medicine, 1994
- OVERVIEW OF EPIDEMIOLOGIC RESEARCH ON ELECTRIC AND MAGNETIC FIELDS AND CANCERAihaj Journal, 1993
- EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT FOR POWER Frequency Electric and Magnetic FieldsAihaj Journal, 1993
- Misclassification of ELF occupational exposure resulting from spatial variation of the magnetic fieldBioelectromagnetics, 1993