基于射频电场和磁场源的工作暴露矩阵与个人射频暴露测量结果的比较。

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q3 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Annals Of Work Exposures and Health Pub Date : 2024-09-26 DOI:10.1093/annweh/wxae072
Maxime Turuban, Hans Kromhout, Javier Vila, Frank de Vocht, Miquel Vallbona-Vistós, Isabelle Baldi, Elisabeth Cardis, Michelle C Turner
{"title":"基于射频电场和磁场源的工作暴露矩阵与个人射频暴露测量结果的比较。","authors":"Maxime Turuban, Hans Kromhout, Javier Vila, Frank de Vocht, Miquel Vallbona-Vistós, Isabelle Baldi, Elisabeth Cardis, Michelle C Turner","doi":"10.1093/annweh/wxae072","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Assessing occupational exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) presents significant challenges due to the considerable variability in exposure levels within and between occupations. This spatial and temporal variability complicates the reliable evaluation of potential health risks associated with RF-EMF exposure in the workplace. Accurate assessment methods are crucial to understand the extent of exposure and to evaluate potential health risks, especially given the potential for higher exposures in occupational settings compared to the general population. This study compares the historical RF-EMF exposure estimates in the INTEROCC RF-EMF job-exposure matrix (RF-JEM) with recent personal measurement data collected in 2 countries as part of the OccRF-Health study, to assess the broader applicability of the RF-JEM.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Weighted kappa (k  w) coefficients and Spearman rank correlation tests were performed to assess the alignment between RF-JEM estimates and measurements for 8 h time-weighted average exposure intensity and prevalence estimates across various occupations. The comparisons were mainly based on 22 jobs having ≥5 measured workers in the OccRF-Health study.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Poor agreement was found for both exposure prevalence and intensity between both methods (k  w < 0.1). RF-JEM values likely overestimated exposure levels for both electric (E) and magnetic (H) fields (mean percentage difference >194%) compared to current personal measurements.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Findings suggest that the INTEROCC-JEM likely overestimates current exposure intensity levels in the measured jobs. Adopting a semiquantitative JEM could also mitigate misclassification errors due to exposure variability, improving accuracy in exposure assessment. These findings indicate the need for more targeted personal measurements, including among highly exposed workers, and for potentially considering new exposure metrics to more accurately assess occupational RF-EMF exposures in occupational epidemiological research.</p>","PeriodicalId":8362,"journal":{"name":"Annals Of Work Exposures and Health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of a radiofrequency electric and magnetic field source-based job-exposure matrix with personal radiofrequency exposure measurements.\",\"authors\":\"Maxime Turuban, Hans Kromhout, Javier Vila, Frank de Vocht, Miquel Vallbona-Vistós, Isabelle Baldi, Elisabeth Cardis, Michelle C Turner\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/annweh/wxae072\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Assessing occupational exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) presents significant challenges due to the considerable variability in exposure levels within and between occupations. This spatial and temporal variability complicates the reliable evaluation of potential health risks associated with RF-EMF exposure in the workplace. Accurate assessment methods are crucial to understand the extent of exposure and to evaluate potential health risks, especially given the potential for higher exposures in occupational settings compared to the general population. This study compares the historical RF-EMF exposure estimates in the INTEROCC RF-EMF job-exposure matrix (RF-JEM) with recent personal measurement data collected in 2 countries as part of the OccRF-Health study, to assess the broader applicability of the RF-JEM.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Weighted kappa (k  w) coefficients and Spearman rank correlation tests were performed to assess the alignment between RF-JEM estimates and measurements for 8 h time-weighted average exposure intensity and prevalence estimates across various occupations. The comparisons were mainly based on 22 jobs having ≥5 measured workers in the OccRF-Health study.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Poor agreement was found for both exposure prevalence and intensity between both methods (k  w < 0.1). RF-JEM values likely overestimated exposure levels for both electric (E) and magnetic (H) fields (mean percentage difference >194%) compared to current personal measurements.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Findings suggest that the INTEROCC-JEM likely overestimates current exposure intensity levels in the measured jobs. Adopting a semiquantitative JEM could also mitigate misclassification errors due to exposure variability, improving accuracy in exposure assessment. These findings indicate the need for more targeted personal measurements, including among highly exposed workers, and for potentially considering new exposure metrics to more accurately assess occupational RF-EMF exposures in occupational epidemiological research.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8362,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals Of Work Exposures and Health\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals Of Work Exposures and Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/annweh/wxae072\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals Of Work Exposures and Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/annweh/wxae072","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目标:由于职业内部和职业之间的暴露水平存在很大差异,因此评估职业暴露于射频电磁场(RF-EMF)是一项重大挑战。这种空间和时间上的可变性使可靠评估工作场所射频电磁场暴露的潜在健康风险变得更加复杂。准确的评估方法对于了解暴露程度和评估潜在健康风险至关重要,特别是考虑到与普通人群相比,职业环境中的暴露量可能更高。本研究将 INTEROCC 射频-电磁场工作暴露矩阵(RF-JEM)中的历史射频-电磁场暴露估计值与 OccRF-Health 研究中在两个国家收集的最新个人测量数据进行比较,以评估 RF-JEM 的广泛适用性:方法:采用加权卡帕(k w)系数和斯皮尔曼等级相关性检验来评估 RF-JEM 估计值与不同职业 8 小时时间加权平均暴露强度和流行率估计值的测量值之间的一致性。比较主要基于 OccRF-Health 研究中测量人数≥5 人的 22 种工作:结果发现,两种方法在暴露流行率和强度方面的一致性较差(k w < 0.1)。与目前的个人测量值相比,RF-JEM 值可能高估了电场(E)和磁场(H)的暴露水平(平均百分比差异大于 194%):研究结果表明,INTEROCC-JEM 很可能高估了当前测量工作中的暴露强度水平。采用半定量的 JEM 还可以减少由于暴露变异造成的错误分类,提高暴露评估的准确性。这些研究结果表明,在职业流行病学研究中,需要进行更有针对性的个人测量,包括对高暴露工人进行测量,并考虑采用新的暴露指标,以更准确地评估职业射频-电磁场暴露。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Comparison of a radiofrequency electric and magnetic field source-based job-exposure matrix with personal radiofrequency exposure measurements.

Objectives: Assessing occupational exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) presents significant challenges due to the considerable variability in exposure levels within and between occupations. This spatial and temporal variability complicates the reliable evaluation of potential health risks associated with RF-EMF exposure in the workplace. Accurate assessment methods are crucial to understand the extent of exposure and to evaluate potential health risks, especially given the potential for higher exposures in occupational settings compared to the general population. This study compares the historical RF-EMF exposure estimates in the INTEROCC RF-EMF job-exposure matrix (RF-JEM) with recent personal measurement data collected in 2 countries as part of the OccRF-Health study, to assess the broader applicability of the RF-JEM.

Methods: Weighted kappa (k  w) coefficients and Spearman rank correlation tests were performed to assess the alignment between RF-JEM estimates and measurements for 8 h time-weighted average exposure intensity and prevalence estimates across various occupations. The comparisons were mainly based on 22 jobs having ≥5 measured workers in the OccRF-Health study.

Results: Poor agreement was found for both exposure prevalence and intensity between both methods (k  w < 0.1). RF-JEM values likely overestimated exposure levels for both electric (E) and magnetic (H) fields (mean percentage difference >194%) compared to current personal measurements.

Conclusions: Findings suggest that the INTEROCC-JEM likely overestimates current exposure intensity levels in the measured jobs. Adopting a semiquantitative JEM could also mitigate misclassification errors due to exposure variability, improving accuracy in exposure assessment. These findings indicate the need for more targeted personal measurements, including among highly exposed workers, and for potentially considering new exposure metrics to more accurately assess occupational RF-EMF exposures in occupational epidemiological research.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Annals Of Work Exposures and Health
Annals Of Work Exposures and Health Medicine-Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
19.20%
发文量
79
期刊介绍: About the Journal Annals of Work Exposures and Health is dedicated to presenting advances in exposure science supporting the recognition, quantification, and control of exposures at work, and epidemiological studies on their effects on human health and well-being. A key question we apply to submission is, "Is this paper going to help readers better understand, quantify, and control conditions at work that adversely or positively affect health and well-being?" We are interested in high quality scientific research addressing: the quantification of work exposures, including chemical, biological, physical, biomechanical, and psychosocial, and the elements of work organization giving rise to such exposures; the relationship between these exposures and the acute and chronic health consequences for those exposed and their families and communities; populations at special risk of work-related exposures including women, under-represented minorities, immigrants, and other vulnerable groups such as temporary, contingent and informal sector workers; the effectiveness of interventions addressing exposure and risk including production technologies, work process engineering, and personal protective systems; policies and management approaches to reduce risk and improve health and well-being among workers, their families or communities; methodologies and mechanisms that underlie the quantification and/or control of exposure and risk. There is heavy pressure on space in the journal, and the above interests mean that we do not usually publish papers that simply report local conditions without generalizable results. We are also unlikely to publish reports on human health and well-being without information on the work exposure characteristics giving rise to the effects. We particularly welcome contributions from scientists based in, or addressing conditions in, developing economies that fall within the above scope.
期刊最新文献
Exploring the link between occupationally relevant whole body vibration and headache and neck pain: is elevated muscle tension an intermediary factor? Power saw noise levels during steel stud cutting tasks on commercial construction sites: a tool characterization from a worker exposure standpoint. Measurement of inward leakage of full-face masks in EN and ISO standards: comparison of gas and aerosol test agents. Worker perspectives on improving occupational health and safety using wearable sensors: a cross-sectional survey. Feasibility of respirable crystalline silica exposure reduction in small-scale tanzanite mining in Tanzania.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1