Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (13)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Yost, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Yost, M.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Radiation Protection Dosimetry 83:99-106 (1999)
© 1999 Oxford University Press

Alternative Magnetic Field Exposure Metrics: Occupational Measurements in Trolley Workers

M. Yost (INVITED)

Epidemiological studies on extremely low frequency (ELF) magnetic fields have widely used personal or area sampling to evaluate exposures based on the time-weighted averaged flux density magnitude (TWA field). Relatively few studies have evaluated 'alternative' exposure metrics related to field characteristics such as temporal variability, frequency harmonics, vector polarisation, spatial orientation, static fields, high frequency transients, or induced electric fields. These field attributes fall into three major categories: (1) temporal characteristics of exposure intensity and timing, (2) frequency-domain characteristics, (3) spatial characteristics. The first category describes the magnitude and time history of exposure, including the TWA field metric, which most often is the focus of MF exposure assessment. The second category depicts the waveform characteristic (harmonic content), which has been relatively poorly described in most studies. The third category describes the field vector's time-space orientation and relation to static fields. Some examples of 'alternative metrics' that have been proposed based on biological mechanisms and potential measurement techniques are examined. The limited correlation of some alternative metrics with the TWA field metric in available data suggests that substantial exposure misclassification could occur if measurement protocols only focus on average field levels.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Occup. Environ. Med.Home page
K Karipidis, G Benke, M Sim, L Fritschi, M Yost, B Armstrong, A M Hughes, A Grulich, C M Vajdic, J Kaldor, et al.
Occupational exposure to power frequency magnetic fields and risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma
Occup. Environ. Med., January 1, 2007; 64(1): 25 - 29.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Radiat Prot DosimetryHome page
T. G. Cooper, S. G. Allen, R. P. Blackwell, I. Litchfield, S. M. Mann, J. M. Pope, and M. J. A. van Tongeren
Assessment of occupational exposure to radiofrequency fields and radiation
Radiat Prot Dosimetry, September 15, 2004; 111(2): 191 - 203.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am J EpidemiolHome page
S. Davis, D. K. Mirick, and R. G. Stevens
Residential Magnetic Fields and the Risk of Breast Cancer
Am. J. Epidemiol., March 1, 2002; 155(5): 446 - 454.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am J EpidemiolHome page
S. Davis, W. T. Kaune, D. K. Mirick, C. Chen, and R. G. Stevens
Residential Magnetic Fields, Light-at-Night, and Nocturnal Urinary 6-Sulfatoxymelatonin Concentration in Women
Am. J. Epidemiol., October 1, 2001; 154(7): 591 - 600.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.