Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Original Article
  • Published:

Radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure in everyday microenvironments in Europe: A systematic literature review

Abstract

The impact of the introduction and advancement in communication technology in recent years on exposure level of the population is largely unknown. The main aim of this study is to systematically review literature on the distribution of radiofrequency electromagnetic field (RF-EMF) exposure in the everyday environment in Europe and summarize key characteristics of various types of RF-EMF studies conducted in the European countries. We systematically searched the ISI Web of Science for relevant literature published between 1 January 2000 and 30 April 2015, which assessed RF-EMF exposure levels by any of the methods: spot measurements, personal measurement with trained researchers and personal measurement with volunteers. Twenty-one published studies met our eligibility criteria of which 10 were spot measurements studies, 5 were personal measurement studies with trained researchers (microenvironmental), 5 were personal measurement studies with volunteers and 1 was a mixed methods study combining data collected by volunteers and trained researchers. RF-EMF data included in the studies were collected between 2005 and 2013. The mean total RF-EMF exposure for spot measurements in European “Homes” and “Outdoor” microenvironments was 0.29 and 0.54 V/m, respectively. In the personal measurements studies with trained researchers, the mean total RF-EMF exposure was 0.24 V/m in “Home” and 0.76 V/m in “Outdoor”. In the personal measurement studies with volunteers, the population weighted mean total RF-EMF exposure was 0.16 V/m in “Homes” and 0.20 V/m in “Outdoor”. Among all European microenvironments in “Transportation”, the highest mean total RF-EMF 1.96 V/m was found in trains of Belgium during 2007 where more than 95% of exposure was contributed by uplink. Typical RF-EMF exposure levels are substantially below regulatory limits. We found considerable differences between studies according to the type of measurements procedures, which precludes cross-country comparison or evaluating temporal trends. A comparable RF-EMF monitoring concept is needed to accurately identify typical RF-EMF exposure levels in the everyday environment.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

Purchase on Springer Link

Instant access to full article PDF

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. ICT Facts and Figures (Internet). International Telecommunication Union (2016). Available from https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Documents/facts/ICTFactsFigures2016.pdf.

  2. Sahota D . Small cells outnumber cellular base stations (Internet). Telecoms; 2012 (cited 21 February 2017). Available from http://telecoms.com/51947/small-cells-outnumber-cellular-base-stations/.

  3. Bornkessel C, Schubert M, Wuschek M, Schmidt P . Determination of the general public exposure around GSM and UMTS base stations. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2007; 124: 40–47.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Frei P, Mohler E, Neubauer G, Theis G, Bürgi A, Fröhlich J et al. Temporal and spatial variability of personal exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields. Environ Res 2009; 109: 779–785.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Gajšek P, Ravazzani P, Wiart J, Grellier J, Samaras T, Thuróczy G . Electromagnetic field exposure assessment in Europe radiofrequency fields (10 MHz–6 GHz). J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol 2015; 25: 37–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Joseph W, Vermeeren G, Verloock L, Heredia MM, Martens L . Characterization of personal RF electromagnetic field exposure and actual absorption for the general public. Health Phys 2008; 95: 317–330.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Röösli M, Frei P, Bolte J, Neubauer G, Cardis E, Feychting M et al. Conduct of a personal radiofrequency electromagnetic field measurement study: proposed study protocol. Environ Health 2010; 9: 23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Rowley J, Joyner K . Comparative international analysis of radiofrequency exposure surveys of mobile communication radio base stations. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol. 2012; 22: 304–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Urbinello D, Huss A, Beekhuizen J, Vermeulen R, Röösli M . Use of portable exposure meters for comparing mobile phone base station radiation in different types of areas in the cities of Basel and Amsterdam. Sci Total Environ 2014a; 468–469: 1028–1033.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Urbinello D, Joseph W, Huss A, Verloock L, Beekhuizen J, Vermeulen R et al. Radio-frequency electromagnetic field (RF-EMF) exposure levels in different European outdoor urban environments in comparison with regulatory limits. Environ Int. 2014c; 68: 49–54.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Urbinello D, Joseph W, Verloock L, Martens L, Röösli M . Temporal trends of radio-frequency electromagnetic field (RF-EMF) exposure in everyday environments across European cities. Environ Res 2014b; 134: 134–142.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Kim K, Kim H-J, Song DJ, Cho YM, Choi JW . Risk perception and public concerns of electromagnetic waves from cellular phones in Korea: Public Risk Perception of EMF from Cellular Phones. Bioelectromagnetics 2014; 35: 235–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Tjong L, Grzechnik M, Karipidis K, Tinker R, Communicating with the Public—Recent ARPANSA Updates. In: Proc the 40th Australasian Radiation Protection Society Conference p. 6–9 (Canberra, Australia, 2015).

  14. Wiedemann PM, Boerner FU, Repacholi MH . Do people understand IARC’s 2B categorization of RF fields from cell phones?: IARC’s 2B Categorization for Cell Phones. Bioelectromagnetics 2014; 35: 373–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. World Health Organization. WHO Research Agenda for Radiofrequency Fields. 2010 (cited 29 February 2010). Available from http://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/44396.

  16. Sagar S, Struchen B, Finta V, Eeftens M, Röösli M . Use of portable exposimeters to monitor radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure in the everyday environment. Environ Res 2016; 150: 289–298.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Joseph W, Frei P, Roösli M, Thuróczy G, Gajsek P, Trcek T et al. Comparison of personal radio frequency electromagnetic field exposure in different urban areas across Europe. Environ Res 2010; 110: 658–663.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Joseph W, Verloock L, Goeminne F, Vermeeren G, Martens L . Assessment of RF exposures from emerging wireless communication technologies in different environments. Health Phys 2012a; 102: 161–172.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Vermeeren G, Markakis I, Goeminne F, Samaras T, Martens L, Joseph W . Spatial and temporal RF electromagnetic field exposure of children and adults in indoor micro environments in Belgium and Greece. Prog Biophys Mol Biol 2013; 113: 254–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Bürgi A, Theis G, Siegenthaler A, Röösli M . Exposure modeling of high-frequency electromagnetic fields. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol 2008; 18: 183–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Aerts S, Deschrijver D, Verloock L, Dhaene T, Martens L, Joseph W . Assessment of outdoor radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure through hotspot localization using kriging-based sequential sampling. Environ Res 2013; 126: 184–191.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Joseph W, Verloock L, Goeminne F, Vermeeren G, Martens L . In situ LTE exposure of the general public: characterization and extrapolation. Bioelectromagnetics 2012b; 33: 466–475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Tomitsch J, Dechant E . Exposure to electromagnetic fields in households-Trends from 2006 to 2012: Trends in EMF From 2006 to 2012. Bioelectromagnetics 2015; 36: 77–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Verloock L, Joseph W, Vermeeren G, Martens L . Procedure for assessment of general public exposure from WLAN in offices and in wireless sensor network testbed. Health Phys 2010; 98: 628–638.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Beekhuizen J, Kromhout H, Bürgi A, Huss A, Vermeulen R . What input data are needed to accurately model electromagnetic fields from mobile phone base stations. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol. 2015; 25: 53–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Beekhuizen J, Vermeulen R, van Eijsden M, van Strien R, Bürgi A, Loomans E et al. Modelling indoor electromagnetic fields (EMF) from mobile phone base stations for epidemiological studies. Environ Int 2014; 67: 22–26.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Breckenkamp J, Blettner M, Schüz J, Bornkessel C, Schmiedel S, Schlehofer B et al. Residential characteristics and radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposures from bedroom measurements in Germany. Radiat Environ Biophys 2012; 51: 85–92.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Urbinello D, Röösli M . Impact of one’s own mobile phone in stand-by mode on personal radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol 2013; 23: 545–548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Estenberg J, Augustsson T . Extensive frequency selective measurements of radiofrequency fields in outdoor environments performed with a novel mobile monitoring system: RF measurements in outdoor environments. Bioelectromagnetics 2014; 35: 227–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Bolte JFB, Eikelboom T . Personal radiofrequency electromagnetic field measurements in the Netherlands: exposure level and variability for everyday activities, times of day and types of area. Environ Int 2012; 48: 133–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Thomas S, Kühnlein A, Heinrich S, Praml G, Nowak D, von Kries R et al. Personal exposure to mobile phone frequencies and well-being in adults: a cross-sectional study based on dosimetry. Bioelectromagnetics 2008b; 29: 463–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Thomas S, Kühnlein A, Heinrich S, Praml G, von Kries R, Radon K . Exposure to mobile telecommunication networks assessed using personal dosimetry and well-being in children and adolescents: the German MobilEe-study. Environ Health 2008a; 7: 54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Viel J-F, Cardis E, Moissonnier M, de Seze R, Hours M . Radiofrequency exposure in the French general population: Band, time, location and activity variability. Environ Int 2009; 35: 1150–1154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Verloock L, Joseph W, Goeminne F, Martens L, Verlaek M, Constandt K . Assessment of radio frequency exposures in schools, homes, and public places in Belgium. Health Phys 2014; 107: 503–513.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Bolte JFB . Lessons learnt on biases and uncertainties in personal exposure measurement surveys of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields with exposimeters. Environ Int 2016; 94: 724–735.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Berg-Beckhoff G, Blettner M, Kowall B, Breckenkamp J, Schlehofer B, Schmiedel S et al. Mobile phone base stations and adverse health effects: phase 2 of a cross-sectional study with measured radio frequency electromagnetic fields. Occup Environ Med 2008; 66: 124–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Bürgi A, Scanferla D, Lehmann H . Time averaged transmitter power and exposure to electromagnetic fields from mobile phone base stations. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2014; 11: 8025–8037.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Huang Y, Varsier N, Niksic S, Kocan E, Pejanovic-Djurisic M, Popovic M et al. Comparison of average global exposure of population induced by a macro 3G network in different geographical areas in France and Serbia: average EMF exposure of population. Bioelectromagnetics 2016; 37: 382–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Mahfouz Z, Verloock L, Joseph W, Tanghe E, Gati A, Wiart J et al. Comparison of temporal realistic telecommunication base station exposure with worst-case estimation in two countries. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2013; 157: 331–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Manassas A, Boursianis A, Samaras T, Sahalos JN . Continuous electromagnetic radiation monitoring in the environment: analysis of the results in Greece. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2012; 151: 437–442.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This project was supported by the Swiss Research Foundation for Electricity and Mobile Communication, ETH Zürich, Switzerland, under the contract number B2014-07.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Martin Röösli.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Supplementary Information accompanies the paper on the Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology website

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sagar, S., Dongus, S., Schoeni, A. et al. Radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure in everyday microenvironments in Europe: A systematic literature review. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol 28, 147–160 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/jes.2017.13

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/jes.2017.13

Keywords

This article is cited by

Search

Quick links