Next Article in Journal
Efficient Wheel-Rail Stick-Slip Numerical Modeling for Railway Traction Vehicles
Next Article in Special Issue
Determination of Lichens’ Bioaccumulation Capacity for Radioactive Isotopes Under Laboratory Conditions as a Basis for Their Application as Biomonitors
Previous Article in Journal
Impact Mechanisms of Different Ecological Forest Restoration Modes on Soil Microbial Diversity and Community Structure in Loess Hilly Areas
Previous Article in Special Issue
Ecological and Health Risks from Trace Elements Contamination in Soils at the Rutile Bearing Area of Akonolinga, Cameroon
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Applied Sciences
Volume 14
Issue 23
10.3390/app142311161
applsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Systematic Review

Systematic Review of Exposure Studies to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields: Spot Measurements and Mixed Methodologies

by
Raquel Ramirez-Vazquez
1,2,3,
Isabel Escobar
2,4,
Enrique Arribas
2,4,* and
Guy A. E. Vandenbosch
3
1
Department of Physics, Polytechnic School of Cuenca, University of Castilla-La Mancha, University Campus, 16071 Cuenca, Spain
2
MORFEO Research Group, University of Castilla-La Mancha, University Campus, Avda. de España s/n, 02071 Albacete, Spain
3
ESAT-WaveCoRE, Department of Electrical Engineering, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Kasteelpark Arenberg 10, 3001 Leuven, Belgium
4
Department of Physics, Faculty of Computer Science Engineering, University of Castilla-La Mancha, University Campus, Avda. de España s/n, 02071 Albacete, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14(23), 11161; https://doi.org/10.3390/app142311161
Submission received: 20 October 2024 / Revised: 12 November 2024 / Accepted: 27 November 2024 / Published: 29 November 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Environmental Applied Physics—2nd Edition)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This work presents a review and evaluation of studies measuring exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields (RF-EMF). The review meets the basic quality criteria and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines after the eligibility criteria of the PECO (Population, Exposure, Comparator, and Outcome) methodology and the instrument Critical Appraisal Skills Programme Español (CASPe). A total of 86 papers published between 1 January 1998 and 31 December 2023 are included: 61 studies with spot measurements and 25 studies with mixed methodologies (spot measurements, personal measurements with volunteers or with a trained researcher and prediction models) are highlighted. Forty-three percent of the studies use Spectrum Analyzers in the spot measurements, mainly the Narda SRM–3006, followed by the Narda SRM-3000, highlighting the introduction and use of Sensors for this kind of study. The minimum mean value was measured in Palestine at 0.0600 µW/m2, and the maximum mean value was measured in Norway at 200,000 µW/m2. The RF-EMF exposure levels measured in the different microenvironments are minimal and far from the maximum levels established by the ICNIRP guidelines.

1. Introduction

In recent years, the proliferation of connected applications has caused changes in our electromagnetic environment. The accelerated development and increase in telecommunication technologies are an important factor influencing Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields (RF-EMF) exposure patterns in the different microenvironments in which we live, and they are everywhere: in schools [1,2,3,4,5], residences [6], malls [7,8], industries and transport [9,10,11], and urban, suburban, and rural areas [2,12,13,14,15,16,17,18].
International institutions such as the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) have established guidelines for limiting and monitoring human exposure to these fields [19,20]. Nevertheless, some countries, for instance, Canada, Italy, Poland, Switzerland, China, Russia, France, and Belgian regions, have adopted even stricter limits based on RF-EMF guidelines [21] that could postpone or even hinder the implementation of new technologies, such as 5G networks and future generations [22].
In 1998, the ICNIRP made the first publication on maximum reference levels, and RF-EMF exposure measurement studies began to monitor the RF-EMF exposure levels to which we are exposed (100 kHz to 300 GHz) [19,23,24,25]. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses allow us to know and analyze published scientific studies based on the declaration Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) [26,27,28,29]. In addition, the comparison of studies allows us to know the different methodologies that these studies have used, such as RF-EMF studies (Figure 1).
This review presents scientific works published between 1 January 1998 and 31 December 2023, in which the RF-EMF exposure has been measured by means of the spot measurements method and studies using a mixed methodology, combining spot measurements, personal measurements with volunteers or with trained researcher, spatiotemporal exposure measurements and using model predictions (Figure 1).
In a recent publication [30], studies were presented and carried out through personal measurements with volunteers and with a trained researcher. The present review has been motivated by this review [30] to answer the following questions: What studies have been carried out applying spot measurements and mixed methodology? Also, what were the results? Do these results comply with the reference limits established by the ICNIRP?

2. Materials and Methods

This article is based on the PRISMA statement [28,31] on the Population, Exposure, Comparator, and Outcome (PECO) methodology [32] of the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme Español (CASPe) [33].
We searched and analyzed studies published between 1 January 1998 and 31 December 2023. The search was conducted on the Web of Science (WOS) and PubMed databases, resulting in 2372 articles in WOS and 489 in PubMed. The publications recorded on the PubMed database were the same as those found in the WOS database. Therefore, to avoid duplication of papers, these were eliminated, and those in the WOS were considered.
The suitability criteria are:
Topics: Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields or RF-EMF, personal exposure and environment, and measurements Mobile phone or base stations, wireless or Wi-Fi, Exposure assessment or exposure measurement, personal experiment and children, and school and spot measurements.
Document Types: Article.
Database: Web of Science Core Collection.
Research Areas: Physics or Research Experimental Medicine or Public Environmental Occupational Health or Life Sciences Biomedicine Other Topics.
Languages: English.
Publication Years: 1998 to 2023.
Of the 2372 records, 2053 were excluded because they did not meet the objective of the review. Thus, only 319 abstracts of the publications were reviewed and examined. Of these 319 documents, 316 full papers were found in PDF format, and 3 works were requested and retrieved from the corresponding authors of the study. A general review of the 319 complete papers was conducted, of which 233 publications were excluded because they did not meet the objective of the search. They did not report on exposure measurements using the spot measurements method or using a mixed methodology, including spot measurements, personal measurements with volunteers or with a trained researcher, spatiotemporal exposure measurements, and model predictions. Finally, 86 complete papers were selected and analyzed and, finally, were included in this review (Figure 2 and Table 1).
The eligibility criteria considered in the PECO methodology were: (1) Title + Abstract + Results relevant; Original research + Peer reviewer + RF-EMF exposure measurements Results report; (2) Population; (3) Exposure; (4) Comparator; (5) Outcome. The CASPe questions [33] are as follows: Were the research objectives clearly defined? Is the research method adequate to achieve the objectives? Is the case selection strategy consistent with the research question and the method used? Are the data collection techniques used consistently with the research question and the method applied? Was data analysis sufficiently rigorous? Is the presentation of the results clear? Finally, the chosen studies were classified in Table 1.

3. Results

We are providing RF-EMF exposure measurement studies through spot measurement and mixed methodology (combining spot measurements, personal measurements with volunteers or with a trained researcher, and a prediction model).

3.1. Selected Studies

By analyzing the studies that have measured RF-EMF exposure using exposimeters, Spectrum Analyzers or other devices, in addition to the studies presented in the last review [30], we can identify and classify other studies into two types: (1) Spot measurements in specific places or points during a fixed period of time (without moving), points previously selected by the researcher, carrying the personal exposimeters hanging on his body or placing them on a fixed base (such as a cardboard or plastic tube), or exposimeters or equipment placed on a fixed base, such as a tripod for a continuous period of time, including equipment temporarily placed at one or more points in a city [1,3,4,67,112,113], involving measurements carried out by the researcher himself or by a trained person. The second type is (2) Mixed method (combining spot measurements, personal measurements with volunteers or including a prediction model) in which measurements with volunteers, spot measurement, mobile measurements with a trained researcher, and a prediction model are combined.

3.2. Study Description

Table 1 shows all the studies in the Review, highlighting the two kinds of studies: (1) spot measurements and (2) mixed method. After Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3 show the studies ordered according to the measurement method applied and the descriptive statistical results.

3.3. Spot Measurements

Studies on exposure to RF-EMF using spot measurements in different microenvironments, measure at a previously selected fixed point and without moving for a specific period of time [7,18,35,36,51,53,54,55,57,60,61,62,63,64,65,70,78,79,81,82,87,93,96]; near MBPSs [34,46,58,94,98]; around buildings [2,52,114]; in university areas (inside and outside buildings) [1,3,84,92]; in a library [91]; at home [40,68,69,86,95,115]; in schools [4,44,80,83,85]; and in residences [116]. Most of these studies were performed in European countries.
In this study, the terms power density and intensity of electromagnetic waves will be considered fully equivalent. The intensity of an electromagnetic wave is measured in Watts per square meter (W/m2) in the International System of Units (SI). Additionally, some people refer to it as power density [117].

3.4. Mixed Method Measurements

Some studies have used a mixed method, personal measurements with volunteers and spot measurements [37,88,101,118,119], sometimes including a prediction model [120]. Other investigations have measured exposure with the participation of volunteers, with specific measurements in a university setting [45] and in a home setting [48,49,100].
Other studies made spot measurements in different microenvironments and developed simulation models to predict exposure in zones or microenvironments that were not measured [38,42,54,56,75,76,97,99,121]. In other studies, measurement prediction models were applied [14,41,122]. Table 3 shows the studies that used the mixed method and the published descriptive results, with the units needing to be changed in the majority of the studies.

3.5. Analysis of RF-EMF Studies

In the 86 publications included in this work, 27 countries are involved: Spain, Belgium, Switzerland, France, Greece, Turkey, Poland, Sweden, Austria, Netherlands, Serbia, Asia, China, Germany, Italy, Romania, United Kingdom, USA, Amsterdam, Australia, India, Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, Norway, Palestine, and Slovenia (Table 4).
Of the 86 studies included in this review, 61 conducted spot measurements, and 25 used a mixed method (Figure 3).
Of all the studies reviewed, the ten lowest values and the ten highest values of the mean and median have been identified (Figure 4, Figure 5, Figure 6 and Figure 7). Figure 4 and Figure 5 show the ten lowest and highest mean values of the different studies.
The highest average was 200,000 µW/m2 (0.20 W/m2) measured in Kristiansand, Norway (Figure 5), and the lowest was 0.0600 µW/m2 measured in Palestine (Figure 4). Figure 6 and Figure 7 show the ten lowest and highest median values of the different studies reviewed.
Out of the 86 studies included in this Review, 43% of them used a Spectrum Analyzer, a device that is mostly used for spot measurements. The most commonly used model was the Narda SRM-3006, followed by the Narda SRM-3000 (Figure 8). As we know, personal exposimeters are more appropriate for measurements involving moving volunteers. In addition to Spectrum Analyzer, Exposimeters, Band probes, Databases and Antennas, we want to highlight the introduction and use of Sensors, devices that allow us to monitor at different spatial points over time.

4. Discussion

Two main approaches were identified in RF-EMF exposure studies: spot measurements and mixed methodologies. Spot measurements involve taking measurements at specific locations during a fixed period of time, while mixed methodologies combine different approaches, such as personal measurements with volunteers, mobile measurements with trained researchers, and prediction models.
Spot measurements allow for the intensity of the electromagnetic wave and, therefore, the exposure in specific locations chosen by the researcher. In studies that aim to characterize the signals from RF-EMF, they are widely used because they allow the knowledge of the exposure in a room, a classroom, a work area, or a laboratory environment. Spot measurements are key in research on electromagnetic waves because they help analyze propagation patterns and signal losses within buildings, and they are particularly useful for the study and design of wireless networks.
We know that spot measurements have specific limitations, such as fluctuations in the intensity of the RF signal that can vary due to changes in the environment or the influence of other electronic devices. It is known that a spot measurement is not able to capture these temporal variations. There are also limitations with the frequency bands that can lead to obtaining values far from the real ones. A single measurement does not provide us with information on how an RF wave interacts with other variables (people, obstacles, etc.). But these types of measurements help us understand the sophisticated way in which waves interact with the medium in which they travel.
If we want to compare the different studies in which RF-EMF exposure measures have been carried out, we realize that it is difficult to make a direct comparison of the results since both the methodologies and the equipment used are different. For this reason, it is necessary to define the objectives of the different studies and, accordingly, determine the type of study and select the measurement and analysis method, measurement devices, even the microenvironments and the subjects that will participate in the study.
As Jalilian [123] has highlighted in his review, different study protocols could affect the results; for instance, in measurements with volunteers, the body effect could be one of the main factors of underestimation of the exposure, including the use of their electronic devices during the measurement process. In the spot measurements, one of the aspects that could affect the results is, for instance, the inadequate selection of the chosen spatio-temporal points or the measurements recorded below the equipment’s detection limit. These types of difficulties can be solved by following the strategies used by other researchers, as specified in each study. Just to highlight some, on the one hand, to avoid the effect on the body, two exposimeters have been used (one on each side of the waist of the study subject) or carrying the exposimeter above the head; and on the other hand, to know the intensity levels at unmeasured points, interpolation methods have been used.
We want to highlight the 23 systematic reviews published in this field of study that have also helped us find publications on the RF-EMF [30,123,124,125,126,127,128,129,130,131,132,133,134,135,136,137,138,139,140,141,142], reviews cited in the latest review by Ramirez-Vazquez [30] that is based on the PRISMA guidelines, combining the PECO methodology and the CASPe instrument.
We would like to highlight some of the works cited in this review, which were conducted by Joseph, Chiaramello, Roosli, Markussen, Jalilian, and Ramirez-Vazquez. Joseph [50] evaluates the in-situ exposure to RF-EMF from base stations of emerging wireless technologies in 311 locations, 68 indoors and 243 outdoors, distributed in three European countries (Belgium, the Netherlands and Sweden) using spectrum analyzers. It has been extensive study, and the results are valued well below the limits allowed by ICNIRP. We see that the maximal total field value was measured in a residential environment and was equal to 3.9 V/m (0.0255 W/m2) from GSM900 signals, 11 times below the ICNIRP reference levels for electric field strength.
Chiaramello [127] also reports that from the last ten years of studies reviewed on RF-EMF exposure in indoor environments, the highest average maximum exposure levels considering all RF-EMF frequency bands were 1.14 V/m (0.0034 W/m2) in offices, which are also very far from the maximum permitted values.
The contributions of Roosli [142] are also very interesting, reporting that the exposure cut-off points for the most exposed groups were lower than 0.5 V/m (663.13 µW/m2) in all studies, a value that is much lower than the reference levels established by the ICNIRP. On the other hand, Markussen [105], who obtained an overview of the changes in exposure when new technologies were introduced during the period 2013 to 2019, reported that the population exposure is well below the limits established by the ICNIRP and relatively constant over time despite the introduction of new technologies. In this same study, Markussen shows a graph with the total values of all frequency bands measured in relation to the limit values for the different measurement points. We could even see that there is a value of 200,000 µW/m2 in the 800 MHz band in 2017 (Figure 5 of this review) that seems to be high, but it really is not; this value is equivalent to 0.20 W/m. Markussen highlights that levels increased in 2017 and then decreased again at the end of the year and beyond 2018 due to reconfigurations at mobile operators and the installation of new base stations. Some UMTS base stations were removed during the same period, and with the implementation of 4G technology, these totals also decreased.
In another of the most recent works, Jalilian [123], who has reviewed 144 investigations, shows that in homes, schools and offices, the average exposure to RF-EMF was between 0.04 and 0.76 V/m (4.24 µW/m2 and 1532.10 µW/m2, respectively); and the mean values for outdoor exposure ranged between 0.07 and 1.27 V/m (13.00 µW/m2 and 4278.25 µW/m2, respectively), with the downlink signals from mobile phone base stations being the most significant contributors. Finally, the highest levels ranged between 1.97 V/m (0.0103 W/m2) measured at public transport stations, with the downlink being the most significant. We also observed that the values are very small compared to the limits established by ICNIRP. The review that precedes the present article is Ramirez-Vazquez [30], which includes measurement studies with volunteers and/or with a trained researcher (touring a specific area, one or several microenvironments, an entire city, walking or in some means of transport), which covers the period from 1 January 1998 to 31 December 2021, in which other important and preceding reviews were also mentioned. In this last review, it is highlighted that after comparing 56 investigations, the minimum value was measured in Egypt with a value of 0.00100 μW/m2 (1.00 nW/m2) in 2007, and the highest average was measured in Belgium with a value of 285,000 μW/m2 (0.285 W/m2) in 2019, also very far from the reference limits established by the ICNIRP.

5. Conclusions

This study reviewed 86 scientific works on personal exposure to RF-EMF that conducted measurements through spot measurements and/or using different methods (mixed method) combining spot measurements, personal measurements with volunteers or with trained researchers, spatiotemporal exposure measurements and in some cases using model predictions.
In addition to the exposure measurement studies, we want to refer to a study recently published by McKenzie [143] in which electromagnetic fields produced by “smart” devices used daily in a modern “smart” home are measured. It is interesting to see the activity of these EMFs in different periods of time while they are used. This study has not been included in this review because although specific measures have been taken, exposure to these fields has not been measured.
As far as we know, today, despite the different methodologies used, the results are comparable with international reference levels and comparable between microenvironments and countries; although it is true that some values are higher than others, they are still lower than these reference levels. The minimum average was measured in Palestine at 0.0600 µW/m2 in 2017, and the maximum average was measured in Norway at 200,000 µW/m2 in 2022, equivalent to 0.200 W/m2, far below the permitted international reference levels. During the development of this work, we have seen that the statistical data confirm that the exposure levels to RF-EMF are much lower than the maximum levels allowed in the ICNIRP guidelines, both for the general public scenario (10 W/m2) and for the occupational scenario (50 W/m2). However, these values can change over time, considering the new 5G technologies introduced everywhere right at this moment, so it is recommended to stay vigilant and continue expanding research in this field.
As previously indicated, with this work, we want to help researchers scrutinize this field with a review that classifies, orders, and synthesizes, thus making a reference for future research and comparisons. We believe that in the future, some research areas may be prioritized in the field of radiofrequency electromagnetic exposure fields: exploring new measurement devices, such as the use of sensors that have already begun to be used to monitor RF-EMF [111], as well as carrying out longitudinal studies to evaluate possible long-term effects.
We want to highlight that in this society in which we currently live, in which we are always immersed in a sea of electromagnetic waves, the importance of clear and effective communication of the possible risks associated with RF-EMF exposure, as well as the need to educate the public on how to minimize exposure in everyday environments.

Author Contributions

All the authors, R.R.-V., I.E., E.A., and G.A.E.V., made a substantial contribution to this manuscript. R.R.-V., I.E., E.A., and G.A.E.V. collaborated in the drafting of the manuscript and discussed the results and the implications of the manuscript at all stages. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

R.R.-V. gratefully acknowledges financial support from the University of Castilla-La Mancha through the postdoctoral contract Margarita Salas MS2022, Junta de Comunidades de Castilla-La Mancha, through the predoctoral contract PREJCCM2019/13. E.A., I.E. and R.R.-V. gratefully acknowledge the financial support from the Junta de Comunidades de Castilla-La Mancha of Spain, Project SBPLY/23/180225/00089, and from the University of Castilla-La Mancha grant number 2022-GRIN-34356.

Data Availability Statement

Not Applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Fernández, M.; Guerra, D.; Gil, U.; Trigo, I.; Peña, I.; Arrinda, A. Measurements and Analysis of Temporal and Spatial Variability of WiFi Exposure Levels in the 2.4 GHz Frequency Band. Measurement 2020, 149, 106970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Ramirez-Vazquez, R.; Escobar, I.; Martinez-Plaza, A.; Arribas, E. Comparison of Personal Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields from Wi-Fi in a Spanish University over Three Years. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 858, 160008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Ramirez-Vazquez, R.; Arabasi, S.; Al-Taani, H.; Sbeih, S.; Gonzalez-Rubio, J.; Escobar, I.; Arribas, E. Georeferencing of Personal Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields from Wi-Fi in a University Area. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 1898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Ramirez-Vazquez, R.; Escobar, I.; Thielens, A.; Arribas, E. Measurements and Analysis of Personal Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields at Outdoor and Indoor School Buildings: A Case Study at a Spanish School. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 195692–195702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Van Wel, L.; Vermeulen, R.; van Eijsden, M.; Vrijkotte, T.; Kromhout, H.; Huss, A. Radiofrequency Exposure Levels in Amsterdam Schools. Bioelectromagnetics 2017, 38, 397–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Thielens, A.; Vanveerdeghem, P.; Van Torre, P.; Gaengler, S.; Roeoesli, M.; Rogier, H.; Martens, L.; Joseph, W. A Personal, Distributed Exposimeter: Procedure for Design, Calibration, Validation, and Application. Sensors 2016, 16, 180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Aminzadeh, R.; Thielens, A.; Bamba, A.; Kone, L.; Gaillot, D.P.; Lienard, M.; Martens, L.; Joseph, W. On-Body Calibration and Measurements Using Personal Radiofrequency Exposimeters in Indoor Diffuse and Specular Environments. Bioelectromagnetics 2016, 37, 298–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Celaya-Echarri, M.; Azpilicueta, L.; Ramos, V.; Lopez-Iturri, P.; Falcone, F. Empirical and Modeling Approach for Environmental Indoor RF-EMF Assessment in Complex High-Node Density Scenarios: Public Shopping Malls Case Study. IEEE Access 2021, 9, 46755–46775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Bhatt, C.R.; Thielens, A.; Redmayne, M.; Abramson, M.J.; Billah, B.; Sim, M.R.; Vermeulen, R.; Martens, L.; Joseph, W.; Benke, G. Measuring Personal Exposure from 900 MHz Mobile Phone Base Stations in Australia and Belgium Using a Novel Personal Distributed Exposimeter. Environ. Int. 2016, 92–93, 388–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Celaya-Echarri, M.; Azpilicueta, L.; Karpowicz, J.; Ramos, V.; Lopez-Iturri, P.; Falcone, F. From 2G to 5G Spatial Modeling of Personal RF-EMF Exposure Within Urban Public Trams. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 100930–100947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Hardell, L.; Koppel, T.; Carlberg, M.; Ahonen, M.; Hedendahl, L. Radiofrequency Radiation at Stockholm Central Railway Station in Sweden and Some Medical Aspects on Public Exposure to RF Fields. Int. J. Oncol. 2016, 49, 1315–1324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Frei, P.; Mohler, E.; Neubauer, G.; Theis, G.; Bürgi, A.; Fröhlich, J.; Braun-Fahrländer, C.; Bolte, J.; Egger, M.; Röösli, M. Temporal and Spatial Variability of Personal Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields. Environ. Res. 2009, 109, 779–785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Iyare, R.N.; Volskiy, V.; Vandenbosch, G.A.E. Comparison of Peak Electromagnetic Exposures from Mobile Phones Operational in Either Data Mode or Voice Mode. Environ. Res. 2021, 197, 110902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Ramirez-Vazquez, R.; Gonzalez-Rubio, J.; Escobar, I.; Suarez Rodriguez, C.D.P.; Arribas, E. Personal Exposure Assessment to Wi-Fi Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields in Mexican Microenvironments. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 1857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Ramirez-Vazquez, R.; Gonzalez-Rubio, J.; Arribas, E.; Najera, A. Characterisation of Personal Exposure to Environmental Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields in Albacete (Spain) and Assessment of Risk Perception. Environ. Res. 2019, 172, 109–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Ramirez-Vazquez, R.; Gonzalez-Rubio, J.; Arribas, E.; Najera, A. Personal RF-EMF Exposure from Mobile Phone Base Stations during Temporary Events. Environ. Res. 2019, 175, 266–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Röösli, M.; Frei, P.; Bolte, J.; Neubauer, G.; Cardis, E.; Feychting, M.; Gajsek, P.; Heinrich, S.; Joseph, W.; Mann, S.; et al. Conduct of a Personal Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Field Measurement Study: Proposed Study Protocol. Environ. Health 2010, 9, 23–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Sagar, S.; Struchen, B.; Finta, V.; Eeftens, M.; Roosli, M. Use of Portable Exposimeters to Monitor Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Field Exposure in the Everyday Environment. Environ. Res. 2016, 150, 289–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. ICNIRP. Guidelines for Limiting Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields (100 kHz to 300 GHz). Health Phys. 2020, 118, 483–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. IEEE. IEEE Standard for Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Electric, Magnetic, and Electromagnetic Fields, 0 Hz to 300 GHz. In IEEE Std C95.1-2019 (Revision of IEEE Std C95.1-2005/Incorporates IEEE Std C95.1-2019/Cor 1-2019); IEEE: New York, NY, USA, 2019; pp. 1–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Ramirez-Vazquez, R.; Escobar, I.; Vandenbosch, G.A.E.; Arribas, E. Personal Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields: A Comparative Analysis of International, National, and Regional Guidelines. Environ. Res. 2024, 246, 118124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. ITU International Telecommunication Union. ITU-T—Recommendations on Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields. Available online: https://www.itu.int/net/ITU-T/lists/standards.aspx?Group=5&Domain=40 (accessed on 13 September 2023).
  23. ICNIRP International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection. Guidelines for Limiting Exposure to Time-Varying Electric, Magnetic, and Electromagnetic Fields (up to 300 GHz). Health Phys. 1998, 74, 494–522. [Google Scholar]
  24. ICNIRP International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection. Review of Concepts, Quantities, Units, and Terminology for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection. Health Phys. 1985, 49, 1329–1362. [Google Scholar]
  25. ICNIRP International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection. Statement on the “Guidelines for Limiting Exposure to Time-Varying Electric, Magnetic, and Electromagnetic Fields (up to 300 GHz)”. Health Phys. 2009, 97, 257–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G.; PRISMA Group. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. Ann. Intern. Med. 2009, 151, 264–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Liberati, A.; Altman, D.G.; Tetzlaff, J.; Mulrow, C.; Gøtzsche, P.C.; Ioannidis, J.P.A.; Clarke, M.; Devereaux, P.J.; Kleijnen, J.; Moher, D. The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration. PLoS Med. 2009, 6, e1000100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 Statement: An Updated Guideline for Reporting Systematic Reviews. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2021, 134, 178–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Tetzlaff, J.; Page, M.; Moher, D. The Prisma 2020 Statement: Development of and Key Changes in an Updated Guideline for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. Value Health 2020, 23, S312–S313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Ramirez-Vazquez, R.; Escobar, I.; Vandenbosch, G.A.E.; Vargas, F.; Caceres-Monllor, D.A.; Arribas, E. Measurement Studies of Personal Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields: A Systematic Review. Environ. Res. 2023, 218, 114979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Page, M.J.; Moher, D.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. PRISMA 2020 Explanation and Elaboration: Updated Guidance and Exemplars for Reporting Systematic Reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, n160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Morgan, R.L.; Whaley, P.; Thayer, K.A.; Schünemann, H.J. Identifying the PECO: A Framework for Formulating Good Questions to Explore the Association of Environmental and Other Exposures with Health Outcomes. Environ. Int. 2018, 121, 1027–1031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. CASPe Instrumentos Para La Lectura Crítica|CASPe. Programa de Habilidades En Lectura Crítica Español (Critical Appraisal Skills Programme Español). Available online: https://redcaspe.org/materiales/ (accessed on 1 May 2023).
  34. Keow, M.A.; Radiman, S. Assessment of Radiofrequency/Microwave Radiation Emitted by the Antennas of Rooftop-Mounted Mobile Phone Base Stations. Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 2006, 121, 122–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Foster, K.R. Radiofrequency Exposure from Wireless LANS Utilizing Wi-Fi Technology. Health Phys. 2007, 92, 280–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Trcek, T.; Valic, B.; Gajsek, P. Measurements of Background Electromagnetic Fields in Human Environment. In 11th Mediterranean Conference on Medical and Biological Engineering and Computing 2007; Jarm, T., Kramar, P., Zupanic, A., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2007; Volume 16, pp. 222–225. ISBN 978-3-540-73043-9. [Google Scholar]
  37. Joseph, W.; Vermeeren, G.; Verloock, L.; Heredia, M.M.; Martens, L. Characterization of Personal RF Electromagnetic Field Exposure and Actual Absorption for the General Public. Health Phys. 2008, 95, 317–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Bürgi, A.; Theis, G.; Siegenthaler, A.; Röösli, M. Exposure Modeling of High-Frequency Electromagnetic Fields. J. Expo. Sci. Environ. Epidemiol. 2008, 18, 183–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Gotsis, A.; Papanikolaou, N.; Komnakos, D.; Yalofas, A.; Constantinou, P. Non-Ionizing Electromagnetic Radiation Monitoring in Greece. Ann. Telecommun. 2008, 63, 109–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Tomitsch, J.; Dechant, E.; Frank, W. Survey of Electromagnetic Field Exposure in Bedrooms of Residences in Lower Austria. Bioelectromagnetics 2010, 31, 200–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Frei, P.; Mohler, E.; Buergi, A.; Froehlich, J.; Neubauer, G.; Braun-Fahrlaender, C.; Roosli, M. Classification of Personal Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields (RF-EMF) for Epidemiological Research: Evaluation of Different Exposure Assessment Methods. Environ. Int. 2010, 36, 714–720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Buergi, A.; Frei, P.; Theis, G.; Mohler, E.; Braun-Fahrlaender, C.; Froehlich, J.; Neubauer, G.; Egger, M.; Roeoesli, M. A Model for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Field Predictions at Outdoor and Indoor Locations in the Context of Epidemiological Research. Bioelectromagnetics 2010, 31, 226–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Peyman, A.; Khalid, M.; Calderon, C.; Addison, D.; Mee, T.; Maslanyj, M.; Mann, S. Assessment of Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields from Wireless Computer Networks (Wi-Fi) in Schools; Results of Laboratory Measurements. Health Phys. 2011, 100, 594–612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Rodriguez, B.; Blas, J.; Lorenzo, R.M.; Fernandez, P.; Abril, E.J. Statistical Perturbations in Personal Exposure Meters Caused by the Human Body in Dynamic Outdoor Environments. Bioelectromagnetics 2011, 32, 209–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Bolte, J.F.B.; van der Zande, G.; Kamer, J. Calibration and Uncertainties in Personal Exposure Measurements of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields. Bioelectromagnetics 2011, 32, 652–663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Montana Rufo, M.; Paniagua, J.M.; Jimenez, A.; Antolin, A. Exposure to High-Frequency Electromagnetic Fields (100 Khz-2 Ghz) in Extremadura (Spain). Health Phys. 2011, 101, 739–745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Tomitsch, J.; Dechant, E. Trends in Residential Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields from 2006 to 2009. Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 2012, 149, 384–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Breckenkamp, J.; Blettner, M.; Schuez, J.; Bornkessel, C.; Schmiedel, S.; Schlehofer, B.; Berg-Beckhoff, G. Residential Characteristics and Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Field Exposures from Bedroom Measurements in Germany. Radiat. Environ. Biophys. 2012, 51, 85–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Joseph, W.; Verloock, L.; Goeminne, F.; Vermeeren, G.; Martens, L. Assessment of RF Exposures from Emerging Wireless Communication Technologies in Different Environments. Health Phys. 2012, 102, 161–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Dhami, A.K. Study of Electromagnetic Radiation Pollution in an Indian City. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2012, 184, 6507–6512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Paniagua, J.M.; Rufo, M.; Jimenez, A.; Antolin, A. The Spatial Statistics Formalism Applied to Mapping Electromagnetic Radiation in Urban Areas. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2013, 185, 311–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Markakis, I.; Samaras, T. Radiofrequency Exposure in Greek Indoor Environments. Health Phys. 2013, 104, 293–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Beekhuizen, J.; Vermeulen, R.; Kromhout, H.; Buergi, A.; Huss, A. Geospatial Modelling of Electromagnetic Fields from Mobile Phone Base Stations. Sci. Total Environ. 2013, 445, 202–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Aerts, S.; Deschrijver, D.; Joseph, W.; Verloock, L.; Goeminne, F.; Martens, L.; Dhaene, T. Exposure Assessment of Mobile Phone Base Station Radiation in an Outdoor Environment Using Sequential Surrogate Modeling. Bioelectromagnetics 2013, 34, 300–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Wu, T.; Shao, Q.; Yang, L.; Qi, D.; Lin, J.; Lin, X.; Yu, Z. A Large-Scale Measurement of Electromagnetic Fields near GSM Base Stations in Guangxi, China for Risk Communication. Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 2013, 155, 25–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Beekhuizen, J.; Heuvelink, G.B.M.; Huss, A.; Bürgi, A.; Kromhout, H.; Vermeulen, R. Impact of Input Data Uncertainty on Environmental Exposure Assessment Models: A Case Study for Electromagnetic Field Modelling from Mobile Phone Base Stations. Environ. Res. 2014, 135, 148–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Urbinello, D.; Joseph, W.; Huss, A.; Verloock, L.; Beekhuizen, J.; Vermeulen, R.; Martens, L.; Röösli, M. Radio-Frequency Electromagnetic Field (RF-EMF) Exposure Levels in Different European Outdoor Urban Environments in Comparison with Regulatory Limits. Environ. Int. 2014, 68, 49–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. 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. 2014, 134, 134–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Gryz, K.; Karpowicz, J.; Leszko, W.; Zradzinski, P. Evaluation of Exposure to Electromagnetic Radiofrequency Radiation in the Indoor Workplace Accessible to the Public by the Use of Frequency-Selective Exposimeters. Int. J. Occup. Med. Environ. Health 2014, 27, 1043–1054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Kim, B.C.; Kim, W.-K.; Lee, G.-T.; Choi, H.-D.; Kim, N.; Pack, J.-K. Evaluation of Radiofrequency Exposure Levels From Multiple Wireless Installations in Population Dense Areas in Korea. Bioelectromagnetics 2014, 35, 603–606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Lahham, A.; Sharabati, A.; ALMasri, H. Public Exposure from Indoor Radiofrequency Radiation in the City of Hebron, West Bank-Palestine. Health Phys. 2015, 109, 117–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Gryz, K.; Karpowicz, J. Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation Exposure inside the Metro Tube Infrastructure in Warszawa. Electromagn. Biol. Med. 2015, 34, 265–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. De Miguel-Bilbao, S.; Garcia, J.; Ramos, V.; Blas, J. Assessment of Human Body Influence on Exposure Measurements of Electric Field in Indoor Enclosures. Bioelectromagnetics 2015, 36, 118–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Tomitsch, J.; Dechant, E. Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields in Households-Trends From 2006 to 2012. Bioelectromagnetics 2015, 36, 77–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Pachon-Garcia, F.T.; Fernandez-Ortiz, K.; Paniagua-Sanchez, J.M. Assessment of Wi-Fi Radiation in Indoor Environments Characterizing the Time & Space-Varying Electromagnetic Fields. Measurement 2015, 63, 309–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Thielens, A.; Agneessens, S.; De Clercq, H.; Lecoutere, J.; Verloock, L.; Tanghe, E.; Aerts, S.; Puers, R.; Rogier, H.; Martens, L.; et al. On-Body Calibration and Measurements Using a Personal, Distributed Exposimeter for Wireless Fidelity. Health Phys. 2015, 108, 407–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Njera Lopez, A.; Gonzalez-Rubio, J.; Villalba Montoya, J.M.; Arribas, E. Using Multiple Exposimeters to Evaluate the Influence of the Body When Measuring Personal Exposition to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields. COMPEL—Int. J. Comp. Math. Electr. Electron. Eng. 2015, 34, 1063–1069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Kottou, S.; Nikolopoulos, D.; Yannakopoulos, P.H.; Vogiannis, E.; Petraki, E.; Panagiotaras, D.; Koulougliotis, D. Preliminary Background Indoor EMF Measurements in Greece. Phys. Med. 2015, 31, 808–816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Calvente, I.; Fernandez, M.F.; Perez-Lobato, R.; Davila-Arias, C.; Ocon, O.; Ramos, R.; Rios-Arrabal, S.; Villalba-Moreno, J.; Olea, N.; Nunez, M.I. Outdoor Characterization of Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields in a Spanish Birth Cohort. Environ. Res. 2015, 138, 136–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Djuric, N.; Kljajic, D.; Kasas-Lazetic, K.; Bajovic, V. The SEMONT Continuous Monitoring of Daily EMF Exposure in an Open Area Environment. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2015, 187, 191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Aerts, S.; Joseph, W.; Maslanyj, M.; Addison, D.; Mee, T.; Colussi, L.; Kamer, J.; Bolte, J. Prediction of RF-EMF Exposure Levels in Large Outdoor Areas through Car-Mounted Measurements on the Enveloping Roads. Environ. Int. 2016, 94, 482–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Bolte, J.F.B.; Maslanyj, M.; Addison, D.; Mee, T.; Kamer, J.; Colussi, L. Do Car-Mounted Mobile Measurements Used for Radio-Frequency Spectrum Regulation Have an Application for Exposure Assessments in Epidemiological Studies? Environ. Int. 2016, 86, 75–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Rowley, J.T.; Joyner, K.H. Observations from National Italian Fixed Radiofrequency Monitoring Network. Bioelectromagnetics 2016, 37, 136–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Engiz, B.K.; Kurnaz, C. Long-Term Electromagnetic Field Measurement and Assessment for a Shopping Mall. Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 2017, 175, 321–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Fernandez-Garcia, R.; Gil, I. Measurement of the Environmental Broadband Electromagnetic Waves in a Mid-Size European City. Environ. Res. 2017, 158, 768–772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Hedendahl, L.K.; Carlberg, M.; Koppel, T.; Hardell, L. Measurements of Radiofrequency Radiation with a Body-Borne Exposimeter in Swedish Schools with Wi-Fi. Front. Public Health 2017, 5, 279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Sánchez-Montero, R.; Alén-Cordero, C.; López-Espí, P.L.; Rigelsford, J.M.; Aguilera-Benavente, F.; Alpuente-Hermosilla, J. Long Term Variations Measurement of Electromagnetic Field Exposures in Alcalá de Henares (Spain). Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 598, 657–668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Lahham, A.; Sharabati, A.; ALMasri, H. Assessment of Public Exposure Form Wlans in the West Bank-Palestine. Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 2017, 176, 434–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Karipidis, K.; Henderson, S.; Wijayasinghe, D.; Tjong, L.; Tinker, R. Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields from Wi-Fi in Australian Schools. Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 2017, 175, 432–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Kurnaz, C.; Engiz, B.K.; Kose, U. An Empirical Study: The Impact of the Number of Users on Electric Field Strength of Wireless Communications. Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 2018, 182, 494–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Kurnaz, C.; Engiz, B.K.; Bozkurt, M.C. Measurement and Evaluation of Electric Field Strength Levels in Primary and Secondary Schools in a Pilot Region. Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 2018, 179, 282–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Hardell, L.; Carlberg, M.; Hedendahl, L.K. Radiofrequency Radiation from Nearby Base Stations Gives High Levels in an Apartment in Stockholm, Sweden: A Case Report. Oncol. Lett. 2018, 15, 7871–7883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Cansiz, M.; Abbasov, T.; Kurt, M.B.; Celik, A.R. Mapping of Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Field Exposure Levels in Outdoor Environment and Comparing with Reference Levels for General Public Health. J. Expo. Sci. Environ. Epidemiol. 2018, 28, 161–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Gallastegi, M.; Huss, A.; Santa-Marina, L.; Aurrekoetxea, J.J.; Guxens, M.; Ellen Birks, L.; Ibarluzea, J.; Guerra, D.; Roeoesli, M.; Jimenez-Zabala, A. Children’s Exposure Assessment of Radiofrequency Fields: Comparison between Spot and Personal Measurements. Environ. Int. 2018, 118, 60–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Aerts, S.; Wiart, J.; Martens, L.; Joseph, W. Assessment of Long-Term Spatio-Temporal Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Field Exposure. Environ. Res. 2018, 161, 136–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. Iyare, R.N.; Volskiy, V.; Vandenbosch, G.A.E. Study of the Correlation between Outdoor and Indoor Electromagnetic Exposure near Cellular Base Stations in Leuven, Belgium. Environ. Res. 2019, 168, 428–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Tang, C.; Yang, C.; Cai, R.S.; Ye, H.; Duan, L.; Zhang, Z.; Shi, Z.; Lin, K.; Song, J.; Huang, X.; et al. Analysis of the Relationship between Electromagnetic Radiation Characteristics and Urban Functions in Highly Populated Urban Areas. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 654, 535–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Kljajic, D.; Djuric, N. Comparative Analysis of EMF Monitoring Campaigns in the Campus Area of the University of Novi Sad. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2020, 27, 14735–14750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Aerts, S.; Van den Bossche, M.; Vergara, X.; Odie, S.; Verloock, L.; Martens, L.; Joseph, W. Spatial and Temporal Assessment of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields Emitted by Smart Meters and Smart Meter Banks in Urban Environments. Environ. Res. 2020, 183, 109196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Chiaraviglio, L.; Di Paolo, C.; Bianchi, G.; Blefari-Melazzi, N. Is It Safe Living in the Vicinity of Cellular Towers? Analysis of Long-Term Human EMF Exposure at Population Scale. arXiv 2020, arXiv:2002.00910. [Google Scholar]
  95. Paniagua, J.M.; Rufo, M.; Jimenez, A.; Antolin, A. Dimensionless Coefficients for Assessing Human Exposure to Radio-Frequency Electromagnetic Fields Indoors and Outdoors in Urban Areas. Environ. Res. 2020, 183, 109188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. Kurnaz, C.; Mutlu, M. Comprehensive Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Field Measurements and Assessments: A City Center Example. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2020, 192, 334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Regrain, C.; Caudeville, J.; de Seze, R.; Guedda, M.; Chobineh, A.; de Doncker, P.; Petrillo, L.; Chiaramello, E.; Parazzini, M.; Joseph, W.; et al. Design of an Integrated Platform for Mapping Residential Exposure to Rf-Emf Sources. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 5339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  98. Sarbu, A.; Miclaus, S.; Digulescu, A.; Bechet, P. Comparative Analysis of User Exposure to the Electromagnetic Radiation Emitted by the Fourth and Fifth Generations of Wi-Fi Communication Devices. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 8837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  99. Eeftens, M.; Dongus, S.; Burgler, A.; Roosli, M. A Real-World Quality Assessment Study in Six ExpoM-RF Measurement Devices. Environ. Res. 2020, 182, 109049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  100. Martin, S.; De Giudici, P.; Genier, J.-C.; Cassagne, E.; Dore, J.-F.; Ducimetiere, P.; Evrard, A.-S.; Letertre, T.; Segala, C. Health Disturbances and Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields from Mobile-Phone Base Stations in French Urban Areas. Environ. Res. 2021, 193, 110583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. De Giudici, P.; Genier, J.-C.; Martin, S.; Dore, J.-F.; Ducimetiere, P.; Evrard, A.-S.; Letertre, T.; Segala, C. Radiofrequency Exposure of People Living near Mobile-Phone Base Stations in France. Environ. Res. 2021, 194, 110500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. López, I.; Félix, N.; Rivera, M.; Alonso, A.; Maestú, C. What Is the Radiation before 5G? A Correlation Study between Measurements in Situ and in Real Time and Epidemiological Indicators in Vallecas, Madrid. Environ. Res. 2021, 194, 110734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  103. Gryz, K.; Karpowicz, J.; Zradzinski, P. Complex Electromagnetic Issues Associated with the Use of Electric Vehicles in Urban Transportation. Sensors 2022, 22, 1719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Iakovidis, S.; Apostolidis, C.; Manassas, A.; Samaras, T. Electromagnetic Fields Exposure Assessment in Europe Utilizing Publicly Available Data. Sensors 2022, 22, 8481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Markussen, A.C.; Sjoemoen, T.-M.; Unander, E.H.; Klaeboe, L. Regular Measurements of EMF in a Representative Norwegian City-Constant Exposure over Time despite Introduction of New Technologies. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2022, 194, 694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Koppel, T.; Ahonen, M.; Carlberg, M.; Hardell, L. Very High Radiofrequency Radiation at Skeppsbron in Stockholm, Sweden from Mobile Phone Base Station Antennas Positioned Close to Pedestrians’ Heads. Environ. Res. 2022, 208, 112627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Loizeau, N.; Zahner, M.; Schindler, J.; Stephan, C.; Frohlich, J.; Gugler, M.; Ziegler, T.; Roosli, M. Comparison of Ambient Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Field (RF-EMF) Levels in Outdoor Areas and Public Transport in Switzerland in 2014 and 2021. Environ. Res. 2023, 237, 116921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  108. Ramirez-Vazquez, R.; Escobar, I.; Moreno, J.J.H.; Martínez-Plaza, A.; Maffey, S.; Arribas, E. Personal Exposure from Free Wi-Fi Hotspots in Downtown Mexico City. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2023, 30, 91216–91225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Tyrakis, C.; Theodorou, K.; Kiouvrekis, Y.; Alexias, A.; Kappas, C. Radiofrequency Exposure Levels in Greece. Bioelectromagnetics 2023, 44, 17–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Mulugeta, B.A.; Wang, S.; Ben Chikha, W.; Liu, J.; Roblin, C.; Wiart, J. Statistical Characterization and Modeling of Indoor RF-EMF Down-Link Exposure. Sensors 2023, 23, 3583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  111. Manassas, A.; Apostolidis, C.; Iakovidis, S.; Babas, D.; Samaras, T. A Study of the Long Term Changes in the Electromagnetic Environment Using Data from Continuous Monitoring Sensors in Greece. Sci. Rep. 2023, 13, 13784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  112. De Miguel-Bilbao, S.; Blas, J.; Ramos, V. Effective Analysis of Human Exposure Conditions with Body-Worn Dosimeters in the 2.4 GHz Band. J. Vis. Exp. 2018, 135, e56525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. De Miguel-Bilbao, S.; Ramos, V.; Blas, J. Assessment of Polarization Dependence of Body Shadow Effect on Dosimetry Measurements in 2.4 GHz Band. Bioelectromagnetics 2017, 38, 315–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  114. García-Cobos, F.J.; Paniagua-Sánchez, J.M.; Gordillo-Guerrero, A.; Marabel-Calderón, C.; Rufo-Pérez, M.; Jiménez-Barco, A. Personal Exposimeter Coupled to a Drone as a System for Measuring Environmental Electromagnetic Fields. Environ. Res. 2023, 216, 114483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Chiaramello, E.; Plets, D.; Fiocchi, S.; Bonato, M.; Tognola, G.; Parazzini, M.; Le Brusquet, L.; Martens, L.; Joseph, W.; Ravazzani, P. Innovative Stochastic Modeling of Residential Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Field Sources. IEEE J. Electromagn. RF Microw. Med. Biol. 2021, 5, 62–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Aerts, S.; Verloock, L.; Van den Bossche, M.; Martens, L.; Vergara, X.; Joseph, W. Emissions from Smart Meters and Other Residential Radiofrequency Sources. Health Phys. 2019, 116, 776–788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  117. Ramirez-Vazquez, R.; Escobar, I.; Franco, T.; Arribas, E. Physical Units to Report Intensity of Electromagnetic Wave. Environ. Res. 2022, 204, 112341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  118. Gryz, K.; Zradzinski, P.; Karpowicz, J. The Role of the Location of Personal Exposimeters on the Human Body in Their Use for Assessing Exposure to the Electromagnetic Field in the Radiofrequency Range 98-2450MHz and Compliance Analysis: Evaluation by Virtual Measurements. BioMed Res. Int. 2015, 2015, 272460–272472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  119. Joseph, W.; Vermeeren, G.; Verloock, L.; Goeminne, F. In Situ Magnetic Field Exposure and ICNIRP-Based Safety Distances for Electronic Article Surveillance Systems. Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 2012, 148, 420–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. De Miguel-Bilbao, S.; Aguirre, E.; Lopez Iturri, P.; Azpilicueta, L.; Roldan, J.; Falcone, F.; Ramos, V. Evaluation of Electromagnetic Interference and Exposure Assessment from S-Health Solutions Based on Wi-Fi Devices. BioMed Res. Int. 2015, 2015, 784362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Huang, Y.; Varsier, N.; Niksic, S.; Kocan, E.; Pejanovic-Djurisic, M.; Popovic, M.; Koprivica, M.; Neskovic, A.; Milinkovic, J.; Gati, A.; et al. Comparison of Average Global Exposure of Population Induced by a Macro 3G Network in Different Geographical Areas in France and Serbia. Bioelectromagnetics 2016, 37, 382–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  122. Frei, P.; Mohler, E.; Buergi, A.; Froehlich, J.; Neubauer, G.; Braun-Fahrlaender, C.; Roosli, M. A Prediction Model for Personal Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Field Exposure. Sci. Total Environ. 2009, 408, 102–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Jalilian, H.; Eeftens, M.; Ziaei, M.; Röösli, M. Public Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields in Everyday Microenvironments: An Updated Systematic Review for Europe. Environ. Res. 2019, 176, 108517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Adair, E.R.; Bansal, R.; Bassen, H.; Black, D.; Bodemann, R.; Brecher, A.; Bushberg, J.T.; Chadwick, P.; Cohen, J.; D’Andrea, J.; et al. Comar Technical Information Statement: Expert Reviews on Potential Health Effects of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields and Comments on the Bioinitiative Report. Health Phys. 2009, 97, 348–356. [Google Scholar]
  125. Baliatsas, C.; Van Kamp, I.; Bolte, J.; Schipper, M.; Yzermans, J.; Lebret, E. Non-Specific Physical Symptoms and Electromagnetic Field Exposure in the General Population: Can We Get More Specific? A Systematic Review. Environ. Int. 2012, 41, 15–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Bolte, J.F.B. Lessons Learnt on Biases and Uncertainties in Personal Exposure Measurement Surveys of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields with Exposimeters. Environ. Int. 2016, 94, 724–735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  127. Chiaramello, E.; Bonato, M.; Fiocchi, S.; Tognola, G.; Parazzini, M.; Ravazzani, P.; Wiart, J. Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields Exposure Assessment in Indoor Environments: A Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  128. Christopoulou, M.; Karabetsos, E. In Situ Measurements of Radiofrequency Exposure Levels in Greece from 2008 to 2013: A Multi-Parametric Annual Analysis. Bioelectromagnetics 2015, 36, 325–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  129. Cucurachi, S.; Tamis, W.L.M.; Vijver, M.G.; Peijnenburg, W.J.G.M.; Bolte, J.F.B.; de Snoo, G.R. A Review of the Ecological Effects of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields (RF-EMF). Environ. Int. 2013, 51, 116–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  130. Duerrenberger, G.; Froehlich, J.; Roeoesli, M.; Mattsson, M.-O. EMF Monitoring-Concepts, Activities, Gaps and Options. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2014, 11, 9460–9479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  131. Foster, K.R.; Moulder, J.E. Wi-Fi and Health: Review of Current Status of Research. Health Phys. 2013, 105, 561–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  132. Gajsek, P.; Ravazzani, P.; Grellier, J.; Samaras, T.; Bakos, J.; Thuroczy, G. Review of Studies Concerning Electromagnetic Field (EMF) Exposure Assessment in Europe: Low Frequency Fields (50 Hz–100 kHz). Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016, 13, 875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  133. Gajsek, P.; Ravazzani, P.; Wiart, J.; Grellier, J.; Samaras, T.; Thuroczy, G. Electromagnetic Field Exposure Assessment in Europe Radiofrequency Fields (10 MHz–6 GHz). J. Expo. Sci. Environ. Epidemiol. 2015, 25, 37–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  134. Galli, C.; Pedrazzi, G.; Guizzardi, S. The Cellular Effects of Pulsed Electromagnetic Fields on Osteoblasts: A Review. Bioelectromagnetics 2019, 40, 211–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  135. Inyang, I.; Benke, G.; Mckenzie, R.; Abramson, M. Comparison of Measuring Instruments for Radiofrequency Radiation from Mobile Telephones in Epidemiological Studies: Implications for Exposure Assessment. J. Expo. Sci. Environ. Epidemiol. 2008, 18, 134–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  136. Khurana, V.G.; Hardell, L.; Everaert, J.; Bortkiewicz, A.; Carlberg, M.; Ahonen, M. Epidemiological Evidence for a Health Risk from Mobile Phone Base Stations. Int. J. Occup. Environ. Health 2010, 16, 263–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  137. Mann, S. Assessing Personal Exposures to Environmental Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields. C. R. Phys. 2010, 11, 541–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Moulder, J.E.; Foster, K.R.; Erdreich, L.S.; McNamee, J.P. Mobile Phones, Mobile Phone Base Stations and Cancer: A Review. Int. J. Radiat. Biol. 2005, 81, 189–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  139. Pophof, B.; Burns, J.; Danker-Hopfe, H.; Dorn, H.; Egblomassé-Roidl, C.; Eggert, T.; Fuks, K.; Henschenmacher, B.; Kuhne, J.; Sauter, C.; et al. The Effect of Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields on Cognitive Performance in Human Experimental Studies: A Protocol for a Systematic Review. Environ. Int. 2021, 157, 106783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Repacholi, M.H.; Lerchl, A.; Roosli, M.; Sienkiewicz, Z.; Auvinen, A.; Breckenkamp, J.; d’Inzeo, G.; Elliott, P.; Frei, P.; Heinrich, S.; et al. Systematic Review of Wireless Phone Use and Brain Cancer and Other Head Tumors. Bioelectromagnetics 2012, 33, 187–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  141. Röösli, M. Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Field Exposure and Non-Specific Symptoms of Ill Health: A Systematic Review. Environ. Res. 2008, 107, 277–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  142. Röösli, M.; Frei, P.; Mohler, E.; Hug, K. Systematic Review on the Health Effects of Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields from Mobile Phone Base Stations. Bull. World Health Organ. 2010, 88, 887–896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  143. McKenzie, R.J.; Iskra, S.; Knipe, P. Assessment of Radio Frequency Fields in the 2.45 GHz Band Produced by Smart Home Devices. Bioelectromagnetics 2024, 45, 184–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Applsci 14 11161 g001
Figure 1. Methods used in RF-EMF exposure measurement studies. This review includes spot measurements and mixed methodology.
Figure 1. Methods used in RF-EMF exposure measurement studies. This review includes spot measurements and mixed methodology.
Applsci 14 11161 g001
Applsci 14 11161 g002
Figure 2. PRISMA flowchart for selection and exclusion of articles. Methods used in RF-EMF exposure measurement studies: spot measurements and mixed methodology.
Figure 2. PRISMA flowchart for selection and exclusion of articles. Methods used in RF-EMF exposure measurement studies: spot measurements and mixed methodology.
Applsci 14 11161 g002
Applsci 14 11161 g003
Figure 3. Type and number of studies included in the review.
Figure 3. Type and number of studies included in the review.
Applsci 14 11161 g003
Applsci 14 11161 g004
Figure 4. Ten minimum mean values in µW/m2. Please see the comments section in Table 2 and Table 3, where the full reference is located [1,2,70,82,83,99,106].
Figure 4. Ten minimum mean values in µW/m2. Please see the comments section in Table 2 and Table 3, where the full reference is located [1,2,70,82,83,99,106].
Applsci 14 11161 g004
Applsci 14 11161 g005
Figure 5. Ten maximum mean values in µW/m2. Please see the comments section in Table 2 and Table 3, where the full reference is located [8,64,71,79,85,96,105].
Figure 5. Ten maximum mean values in µW/m2. Please see the comments section in Table 2 and Table 3, where the full reference is located [8,64,71,79,85,96,105].
Applsci 14 11161 g005
Applsci 14 11161 g006
Figure 6. Ten minimum median values in µW/m2. Please see the comments section in Table 2 and Table 3, where the full reference is located [1,53,69,82,95,108].
Figure 6. Ten minimum median values in µW/m2. Please see the comments section in Table 2 and Table 3, where the full reference is located [1,53,69,82,95,108].
Applsci 14 11161 g006
Applsci 14 11161 g007
Figure 7. Ten maximum median values in µW/m2. Please see the comments section in Table 2 and Table 3, where the full reference is located [50,86,104,108,110].
Figure 7. Ten maximum median values in µW/m2. Please see the comments section in Table 2 and Table 3, where the full reference is located [50,86,104,108,110].
Applsci 14 11161 g007
Applsci 14 11161 g008
Figure 8. Equipment used in the studies included in the review.
Figure 8. Equipment used in the studies included in the review.
Applsci 14 11161 g008
Table 1. Studies on exposure to RF-EMF: Spot measurements and Mixed method.
Table 1. Studies on exposure to RF-EMF: Spot measurements and Mixed method.
IDPublication YearPublicationCountry/CityStudy DesignMeasuring DeviceSampleExperiment Duration/Measurement IntervalDiary/GPSNon-Detects Treatment
Measurement EnvironmentSample Size
12006[34]Malaysia/Kuala Lumpur, Selangor and PerakSpot measurementsSpectrum analyzer RF HF35C200 sites around 47 MBPSs200 sitesdaytime from 8:00 to 12:00 h, 1 hUnspecifiedUnspecified
22007[35]USA, France, Germany and SwedenSpot measurementsNarda SRM-3000 selective radiation meter356 measurements at 55 sites4 countries (USA, France, Germany, Sweden) and 55 sites 64 sweeps, with a sweep time of 0.6–1.9 s per spectrum/40 to 120 sUnspecifiedUnspecified
32007[36]Slovenia/Ljubljana, Maribor, Kranj, Koper and Villages (Labour, Hrvatini, Tinjan and Čelje)Spot measurementsAntennessa DSP 0908 locations: cities
Ljubljana and Maribor Kranj, Koper villages Labor, Hrvatini and Tinjan and Čelje near Ilirska Bistrica 		20,000 measurents
captured and only 12,059 measurements remained		measurements that are closer than 20 m GPSUnspecified
42008[37]Belgium/Ghent—BrusselsMixed method (spot measurements, personal measurements with volunteers or prediction model)EME SPY 120 28 scenarios28 scenarios10 s/6 am to 6
pm (working hours) and “night” as the period after 6 pm
and before 6 am		GPSUnspecified
52008[38]Switzerland/Basel (rural area Bubendorf)Mixed method (spot measurements, personal measurements with volunteers or prediction model)NARDA SRM-3000 (RMS antenna)Urban outdoor
(Basel City), 20 sites in Basel and 18 sites in Bubendorf		38 places (3 measurements by site)1345 h in Basel (March–April 2005) and 1515 h in Bubendorf. (November 2005) UnspecifiedUnspecified
62008[39]GreeceSpot measurementsIsotropic tri-axial E-field probe, Narda SRM-3000 devicemonitoring
stations		46 monitoring stations, 4 million measurements november 2002/every 3 s and 6 minUnspecifiedUnspecified
72009[12]Switzerland/BaselMixed method (spot measurements, personal measurements with volunteers and prediction model)EME SPY 120166 participants166 participants1 week (two separate weeks in 32 participants)/every 90 sdiaryROS
82010[40]AustriaSpot measurementsSpectrum analyzer (MT8220A) and two biconical antennas (SBA 9113 and BBVU9135 þ UBAA9114)226 households throughout Lower Austria226 participants6 min/2 s 10 s 30 sUnspecifiedUnspecified
92010[41]Switzerland/BaselMixed method (spot measurements, personal measurements with volunteers or prediction model)EME Spy 120 and NARDA SRM-30007 points per
room, 1.5 m above ground		166 volunteersapril 2007 and february 2008/1 week/90 sdiaryUnspecified
102010[42]Switzerland/BaselMixed method (spot measurements, personal measurements with volunteers or prediction model)NARDA SRM-3000 (NARDA Safety
Test Solution, Hauppauge, NY, USA)		in the bedrooms; the outdoor measurements at street level and in front of the bedroom windows of study participant377 points: outside values (113) at street level, indoor measurements in
the bedrooms (133), and measurements
outside the windows of the bedrooms (131)		daytime (6–22 h)/30 sUnspecifiedUnspecified
112010[43]BelgiumSpot measurementsWLAN packet analyzerexposure to all WLANs and the WiLab in the office environment (workplace). 222 measurement positions: 27 with WiLab off and 195 with WiLab on222 locations with 7 WLAN networks present in office environments November 2009/6 min or 30 min UnspecifiedUnspecified
122011[44]United KingdomSpot measurementsA 20 MHz bandwidth signal analyzer was used, enabling the whole Wi-Fi signal to be captured and monitored. Equivalent Isotropically Radiated Power (EIRP)15 laptops and 12 access points for power density measurements over short distances (less than 1 m at 2.4 GHz and 1.5 m at 5 GHz)12 points and 50 samples30 min to 2 hUnspecifiedUnspecified
132011[45]Spain/ValladolidMixed method (spot measurements, personal measurements with volunteers or prediction model)PEM DSP 090 de SatimoMiguel Delibes Campus of the University of Valladolid Brick and concrete buildings with an approximate height of 15 m1 campus areameasurements in a 35-min walk/3 sGPSUnspecified
142011[46]NetherlandsSpot measurementsEME Spy 121 and NBM 550/probe EF0391, NardaA person. The exposimeters
were carried in a camera bag, one on the left hip and
one on the right hip		11 EME Spy 121 January 2008 to January 2010/each frequency band was measured for at least 60 s at a sampling interval of 5 sUnspecifiedUnspecified
152011[47]Spain/Extremadura Spot measurementsPMM model 8053 field meter and a PMM model EP330 broadband electric field probe 35 points of the towns 35 towns6-min period at each pointUnspecifiedUnspecified
162012[48]AustriaMixed method (spot measurements, personal measurements with volunteers or prediction model)Spectrum analyzer (MT8220A) and two biconical antennas (SBA 9113 and BBVU9135 þ UBAA9114)Measurements in bedrooms or a neighboring building were performed.213 assessed households2006 to 2009/8:00 and 21:00 h/2 sUnspecifiedROS
172012[49]GermanyMixed method (spot measurements, personal measurements with volunteers or prediction model)EME Spy 120 Urban regions: Berlin, Hamburg, Cologne/Bonn, Dresden, Munich, the western part of Ruhr district,
the city and the district of Hanover, and Stuttgart with the district of Ludwigsburg		1348 households in Germany; 280 measures were available for each frequency band per household75 measurements were taken within 5 minUnspecifiedNaïve approach and Robust ROS method
182012[50]Belgium, the Netherlands and SwedenMixed method (spot measurements, personal measurements with volunteers or prediction model)Tri-axial Rohde and
Schwarz R&S TS-EMF Isotropic Antennas		311 locations, 68 indoor and 243 outdoor, spread over 35 areas in three European countries: Belgium, The Netherlands, and
Sweden		6 different environmental categories: rural, residential,
urban, suburban, office, and industrial		September 2009–April 2010/30 min at each location/narrowband
measurements (in- and outdoor) are executed at 8 to 10 locations per site		UnspecifiedUnspecified
192012[51]India/ChandigarhSpot measurementsTES 593 (Electrical Electronic Corp.)3 different spots around the area of interest were then averaged. 62 locations with 50 schools and 12 hospitals of Chandigarh and surrounding localitiesUnspecified2 to 3 minUnspecifiedUnspecified
202013[52]Spain/Valladolid (Cáceres)Spot measurementsBroadband PMM-8053 1020 measurements around buildings and along the perimeter of the study area. The distance between the sampling points was 5 m and 16 building blocks with dimensions 64 × 64 m Unspecified1 min, taking one datum per second/60 samples UnspecifiedROS
212013[53]Greece/Thessaloniki Spot measurementsNarda, Broadband meters, NBM-550, SRM-3000 (Narda 2012), EME SPY 121 and EME SPY 140 (Satimo)40 in separate locations in GreeceUnspecified3 days = 72 h/23 July 2010 to 19 January 2012/30 sUnspecifiedROS
222013[54]Amsterdam/HollandSpot measurementsEME-SPY1405 areas in Amsterdam along predefined paths of 2 km length. 132 antennas located within 200 m of our measurement areas 1827 measured and modelled point pairs10 repeated measurement series between november
2010 and January 2011/Wednesdays and Thursdays, every two weeks/4 s		UnspecifiedUnspecified
232013[55]Belgium/GhentSpot measurementsNBM-550 broadband field meter with an EF-0391 isotropic electric field probe600 input and 50 validation measurements in an urban subarea of Ghent, BelgiumUnspecifiedMarch to August
2012/30 s		UnspecifiedUnspecified
242013[56]Belgium/GhentSpot measurementsDSP120 EME SPY50 measurement locations Unspecifiedmore than 15 min per location/4 sUnspecifiedUnspecified
252013[57]Belgium and GreeceSpot measurementsEME SPY 140 and EME SPY 121 153 positions spread over 55 indoor microenvironments with spectral equipment in Belgium and GreeceUnspecifiedone week at 98 positions/30 sUnspecifiedROS
262013[58]China/GuangxiSpot measurementsSRM-3000 Narda827 base stations in 12 cities (totally 6207 measurement points)two teams co-worked on the measurementApril to July of 2009/9.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m.)/3 minGPSUnspecified
272014[59]Netherlands/AmsterdamMixed method (spot measurements, personal measurements with volunteers or prediction model)EME-SPY140263 rooms in 101 primary schools and 30 private homes in AmsterdamUnspecified15-min spot measurementsUnspecifiedUnspecified
282014[60]Belgium (Brussels, Ghent), Switzerland (Basel), and The Netherlands (Amsterdam) Spot measurementsEME Spy 120 and EME Spy 140 Amsterdam, Basel, Ghent and Brussels (Belgium) in three different types of outdoor areas (central and non-central residential areas and downtown)5 areas 2011 and 2012 at 12 different days/every 4 s for 15 to 30 min
per area, 12 times for 1 year		UnspecifiedROS
292014[61]Basel (Switzerland), Ghent and Brussels (Belgium)Spot measurementsEME Spy 120Basel, Ghent and Brussels: outdoor outside buildings in free space, public transport UnspecifiedApril 2011 and March 2012/every 4 s during 10–50 min per environment and measurement dayUnspecifiedROS
302014[62]PolandSpot measurementsEME SPY 12145 buildings (in urban and rural areas in various regions of Poland)during workers’ common activities. The exposimeters were located at a distance of 1 m from the worker’s seat1 to 24 h every 4 s and 6 s in the entire dayUnspecifiedUnspecified
312014[63]BelgiumSpot measurementsBroadband probe of type Narda NBM-55010 microenvironments, 5 schools and 5 homesUnspecifiedOctober 2012–April 2013/weekday (24 h) every 3 minUnspecifiedUnspecified
322014[64]South KoreaSpot measurementsSpectrum analyzer
(N9340A) and a low
frequency receiving antenna (FP2000 and FP030H), and three-axis
isotropic probe (AT3000)		1260 locations around densely populated areas: 638 positions in schools, 289 in hospitals, and 28 on subway platformsUnspecified4 months/1 or 6 minUnspecifiedUnspecified
332015[65]West Bank/HebronSpot measurementsNarda SRM-3000 selective radiation meter343 different locations
across the city, 236 houses, 57 public places, 33 schools, seven coffee shops, four hospitals, and six locations inside three universities		Unspecified6 minGPS systemUnspecified
342015[66]Poland/WarszawaMixed method (spot measurements, personal measurements with volunteers or prediction model)SRM 3000 (Narda) and EME SPY 121 21 stations
of line number 1 of the metro in Warszawa—taking 40 min. walking along the platform of each of the 21 stations—taking 3–4 min at each platform. Peak hour subgroups (7 and 9 a.m. and 4–6 p.m.)		UnspecifiedSummer and autumn of 2014/4 sUnspecifiedUnspecified
352015[67]Spain/MadridMixed method (spot measurements, personal measurements with volunteers or prediction model)EME SPY 120 and EME SPY 121 348 samples1 volunteerThe time spent on the predefined path was
about 25–30 min/4 s		GPSYes, but not indicated
362015[68]AustriaSpot measurementsThree-dimensional field probe (Mlog 3D). Spectrum analyzer (MT8220A) and two bionic antennas (SBA 9113 and BBVU9135þUBAA9114)219 bedrooms in
Lower Austria: 113 measurements were done in the same households in 2006, 2009 and 2012, and 106 were conducted in neighboring buildings added in 2009 and newly recruited buildings in urban areas in 2012		Unspecified2006 and 2009/April to November 2012 (by night, de 10 pm a 6 am)/30 sUnspecifiedROS
372015[69]Spain/ExtremaduraSpot measurementsEME Spy-1404875 samples were collected, analyzing 25 locations in the mentioned houseUnspecifiedEvery 4 s during 6- and 12-min period/4 sUnspecifiedROS
382015[70]BelgiumSpot measurementsEME SPY 140 Measurements of the Wi-Fi signal an outdoor trajectory in the city center of Ghent. 2 groups: front of the torso (103 points) and back of the torso (84 points). walking route1 researcherTarde (12 to 16 h)/4 s.UnspecifiedROS
392015[71]Spain/AlbaceteSpot measurementsEME SPY14032 different measurement points separated two meters a large straight hall in the Faculty of Medicine at UCLM. 64 points and 192 measurements 1 researcher5 sNot indicatedNot indicated
402015[72]GreeceSpot measurementsAaronia spectrum analyzer and NARDA EMR-300 RF4540 measurements inside dwellings in different regions of Attica: 3301 in Attica, 963 in Lesvos and 276 in Zakynthos Unspecified5 and
15 min/6 min and 10 min with a sampling time of 8 s		UnspecifiedUnspecified
412015[73]Spain/GranadaSpot measurementsTS/001/UB TaomaUrban, suburban, and rural123 families 2012 and 2013GPSUnspecified
422015[74]Novi SadSpot measurementsNarda NBM 550 handheld broadband field meter10 locations in the University of Novi Sad campus, as an open area environmentUnspecified4 h/from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m., using 6 min averaging, 10 sUnspecifiedUnspecified
432016[7]Belgium/GhentMixed method (spot measurements, personal measurements with volunteers or prediction model)EME SPY14090 samples were recorded at a sample rate of 0.25 Hz1 researcher20 min, 10 times/10 sUnspecifiedROS
442016[18]SwissSpot measurementsExpoM-RF Walking in 51 different outdoor microenvironments from 20 different municipalities in Switzerland: 5 different city centers, 5 central residential areas, 5 non-central residential areas, 15 rural residential areas, 15 rural centers and 6 industrial areas A researcher with devices mounted on a backpack25 March and 11 July 201/each path measures a length of about 1 km to be covered by walking about 15 min/4 sUnspecifiedThe values below half of
the lower quantification limit was set to half of the lower quantification limit
452016[75]United Kingdom/Cambridge and The Netherlands/AmersfoortMixed method (spot measurements, personal measurements with volunteers or prediction model)Spectrum Analyzer with built-in GPS tracker of type Adapt AD-8505 geographical
areas in two cities Cambridge, (United Kingdom) and Amersfoort (The Netherlands)		A researcher and devices mounted on a car rooftopperiod
14–16 May 2013 and 22 October 2013/2s		GPSUnspecified
462016[76]United Kingdom/Cambridge and The Netherlands/AmersfoortMixed method (measurements with a trained researcher and measurement system)EME Spy versions 120, 121, and 140 (Satimo, France)2 countries: Amersfoort and CambridgeA researcher with exposimeters mounted in a car and a bicycle period 14–16 May 2013 and 22 October 2013/15 min per microenvironment/4 sdiaryThe non-detect value was set to 0 mW/m2
472016[77]ItalySpot measurementsA monitoring system (EIT-EE4070 probe)Homes, public places (including zones opened to the public like gardens, shops,
etc.), hospitals, and schools (outdoor)		100 stations, 50,662,433 lines of measurement dataJune 2002 and November 2006/6 minUnspecifiedROS
482017[78]TurkeySpot measurementsSRM–3006 and PMM–8053 portable1 area: shopping mall from Turkey1 researcher10 to 16 February 2016/24 h measurements, 4 s sampling period/starting at 10:00 a.m. and ending at
09.59 a.m.		UnspecifiedUnspecified
492017[79]Spain/TerrassaSpot measurementsWave control SMP2 and a WPF18 broadband isotropic probe271 measurements points were evaluated and distributed in Terrassa (Spain)1 researcherSeptember
2016 to December 2016/between 15:00 and 17:00 p.m./6 min. between 15:00 and 17:00 h/0.5 s		UnspecifiedUnspecified
502017[80]Sweden/Örebro and NorrbottenSpot measurementsEME-Spy 200 7 schools, both rural and urban. The schools were in the city of Örebro in the middle of Sweden and in the county of Norrbotten in the northern part18 teachers were recruitedMarch to November 2016/for 4 days (6 to 31 h)/4 sdiary and GPSUnspecified
512017[81]Spain/Alcalá de HenaresSpot measurementsNarda EMR-300 and broadband isotropic probeAt 78 locations covering all the populated areas of Alcalá de Henares.
This includes residential, commercial, industrial and educational parts of the city. 		1 researcher2006 to 2015/6 minGPSUnspecified
522017[82]Palestine/West BankSpot measurementsNarda SRM-3000271 measurements were conducted at 69 different sites including homes, hospitals, educational institutions and other public places1 researcher6 minUnspecifiedUnspecified
532017[83]AustraliaSpot measurementsNarda
SRM–3006		23 schools located in
two states in Australia: 12 in Victoria and 11 in New South Wales 		1 researcherJune to September 2016/8:30 to 15:30 h/10 min and 1 minUnspecifiedUnspecified
542018[84]Turkey/SamsunSpot measurementsPMM-8053 and SRM-3006Ondokuz Mayıs University’s (OMU) Kurupelit Campus1 researcher24-h/08:00 a.m. and 08.00 a.m./5-s/1 minUnspecifiedUnspecified
552018[85]Turkey/Ilkadim of SamsunSpot measurementsPMM-8053 and Narda SRM-300692 primary and secondary schools located in the Ilkadim district of Samsun1 researcher24 h/10:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m./2016/6 min/5 sUnspecifiedUnspecified
562018[86]Sweden StockholmSpot measurementsEME-Spy 200Walking through all the rooms and balconies and 3rd floor in a high building of 9 floors at Gärdet in central part of Stockholm1 researcherJune 5, 6, and
August 21, 22, 30, 31, 2017 and October 27–29 and November 6, 2017/day and night/4 s		UnspecifiedUnspecified
572018[87]Turkey/Diyarbakır (Diclekent
and Batıkent)		Spot measurementsNarda SRM-3006 mounted on the top of the vehicle and isotropic probe 3501/03 3 areas two places in Diyarbakır: Batıkent and Diclekent. In dense urban, urban and suburban areas each dayA researcher with devices was mounted on the top of the vehicle10 and 16 November 2014/7 consecutive days/17:00 to 18:20 h/10 sUnspecifiedUnspecified
582018[88]Spain/País VascoMixed method (spot measurements, personal measurements with volunteers or prediction model)Expo-M-RFHomes, schools, playgrounds, and parks154 volunteers: 104 participants: homes (104), schools and their playgrounds (26) and parks (79). Subsample of 50 children for 3 daysApril 2006 and January 2008/4 sdiary Unspecified
592018[89]Belgium and FranceSpot measurements32 exposimeters that were active1 researcher32 areas (50 days)09-12-2015 and 15-02-2017, 326 days/5 min and 10 minUnspecifiedUnspecified
602019[90]Belgium/LeuvenSpot measurements2 antennas IR-GSMPB-02-C5 and hyperLOG 7040 and two portable spectrum analyzers: Anritsu MS2721A and Keysight N9344CPublic and private areas in 60 outdoor and 60 indoor locations in Leuven (23 outdoor out of 30 and 22 indoor locations out of 30). Residential homes, offices, event centers, Leuven train station, shopping centers and schools1 researcherSeptember and December 2017 during working days/6 minGPSUnspecified
612019[91]China/Xiamen, (including Siming Huli districts)Spot measurementsPMM 8053B EMR analyzer and portable frequency analyzer N9344C 44 monitoring sites 2 km × 2 km1 researcherOctober 2010 to August 2015 and June 2012 to August 2015/6 min, 12 min and 2 minGPSUnspecified
622020[3]Asia/JordanSpot measurementsEME SPY140Outside the university area at German Jordanian University. 26 points, 10 points outside the university area, 8 points outside building H, and another 8 outside building C. 3 areas 28 points 12,450 measurements1 researcher2 min at each selected point/June 2018/every 4 sdiary and GPSThe non-detecs values were replaced by the detection limit divided by two
632020[92]SerbiaSpot measurementsNarda NBM-550 and SMP2 wave control University of Novi Sad: 10 areasA researcher9 a.m.
until 1 p.m., 4 h/2012 and 2018 campaign/6 min		UnspecifiedUnspecified
642020[93]USA/New York City and Westchester CountySpot measurementsSpectrum analyzer (SA) of type Rohde and Schwarz (AMI smart meters)5 urban locations near smart meter infrastructure urban areas (in townhouses), on-site and at meter installation. 24 and 48 smart meters1 researcher2018/12-h temporal assessment, every 45 s and 15 min (at home) and 5 min (shop)/12-h temporal measurement at one position near the AMI/6 minUnspecifiedUnspecified
652020[4]Spain/AlbaceteSpot measurementsEME SPY140Outdoor and indoor school buildings, at a Spanish school. 17 points (10 Outdoor and 7 indoor)1 researcher6 min every point/10:00 to 11:00 h (week and weekend) June 2018/every 5 sGPSThe non-detecs values were replaced by the detection limit divided by two.
662020[94]Italy/Emilia-RomagnaSpot measurementsProfessional broadband meter: selected TP and EMF equipment meter2000 measurement points, 2700 measurements, inside/outside private buildings, as well as in proximity to sensitive places, such as schools, hospitals, retirement houses, and nursing houses. In Emilia-Romagna, a vast Italian region1 researcher2003 to 2019 (over almost 20 years) intervals every 24 h UnspecifiedUnspecified
672020[1]Spain/País VascoSpot measurements2 EMI ESPI3 spectrum analyzer of Rohde and Schwarz and EME Spy 200Faculty of the University of the Basque Country, located in an urban environment surrounded by homes, offices, and restaurants. 2 labs on the 4th floor of building B. Record at 5 different points in each lab different points: at the center and in the four corners of the room at 1.4 m1 researcher1 h and 24 h duration/4 sdiaryno
682020[95]Spain/CáceresMixed method (spot measurements, personal measurements with volunteers and prediction model)EME Spy 20014 dwellings throughout the city. 40 m from mobile telephone antennas rooms, inside the dwellings in 3 rooms: living room, kitchen, and main bedroom. An experiment on the terrace of a 3-storey building in the School of Technology of Cáceres in the University of Extremadura1 researcherFor 6 min, five times (between 10 and 22 h), on different days (working and weekend days), 2018/6 and 1 min/4 sUnspecifiedWe
replace the non-detects with LOD/2 (LOD: limit of Detection)
692020[96]Turkey/OrduSpot measurementsPMM-8053 EMF meter with the EP-330 electric field isotropic probe and Band selective RF-EMF with the SRM-3006 EMF meter500 locations in Ordu city center (Altınordu District of Ordu City, Turkey) on the main streets at different outdoor environments500 locations in Ordu city center2016 and 2018/intervals of 6 min/24-h period (06:00 a.m. to next day at 06:00 a.m.)/4 sGPSUnspecified
702020[97]France/ParisMixed method (spot measurements, personal measurements with volunteers or prediction model)Spectrum analyzer (NARDA SRM-3006).In the 14th district of Paris, densely urbanized (100 × 100 m) with an SRM-3006 antenna was installed on top of a car. And children (less than 15 years) and adults (more than 15
years) moving inside a room (3 to 4 m2) 1100 measurement points recorded during the trial to cover the entire district residential and occupational exposure.		One researcher and volunteers5 s and 2.5 sGPSUnspecified
712020[98]RomaniaSpot measurementsA probe (E-field sniffer) from Aaronia AG, connected to a RTSA model FSVR by Rohde and Schwarz (R&S). Broadband meter (100 kHz to 6 GHz) Measurements in far field conditions. The 20 cm distance from the User Diagram Protocol (DUT) was chosen to determine the field strength (V/m) 1 researcherFor 60 s/every 4 sUnspecifiedUnspecified
722020[99]Switzerland/BaselMixed methods (measurements with a trained researcher and simulation model)Six ExpoM RF mounted in a polystyrene box inside a wooden handcart15 microenvironments (9 walking routes, 4 tram routes and 2 bus routes) on 6 different days1 researcherWalking tracks in each neighborhood were approx. 1 km long and took between 10 and 15 min to walk.UnspecifiedUnspecified
732021[100]France/Paris, Antony, Lyon, Lille and AngersMixed method (spot measurements, personal measurements with volunteers or prediction model)EME SPY 200 and NARDA SRM-3006 Spectrum analyzer5 large cities in France 354 people
living in buildings located at a distance of 250 m or less from an MPBS and in the main transmit beam of the antennas 		2015 and 2017 diary and GPSNon-detects were replaced by half the limit (i.e., 0.005 or 0.0025 V/m)
742021[101]Francie/Paris, Antony, Lyons, Lille and AngersMixed method (spot measurements, personal measurements with volunteers or prediction model)EME SPY 200 and NARDA analyzer composed of an SRM 30065 districts, in 4 microenvironments: home, means of transport, workplace and other places354 participants are located in urban areas within 250 m of a mobile-phone base station and in the main beam direction of the antennaspot measurements for 1 h and 48 h, and 40 for 7 continuous days, 2015 and 2017/5 min (spot measurement), 55 s (48 h) and 150 (7 days)diary and GPSThe non-detects values were replaced by half the detection limit (i.e., 0.005 or 0.0025 V/m)
752021[8]Poland/Warszawa, Spain/Madrid, Pamplona, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, and Mexico/MonterreySpot measurementsEME SPY Evolution and EME SPY2005 shopping malls: shopping malls: Warszawa (Poland), Madrid (Spain), Pamplona (Spain), Santa Cruz de Tenerife (Spain) and Monterrey (Mexico)1 researcher2 h inside the shopping malls, including 3 areas: indoor shops, general corridors, and indoor/outdoor coffee-shops, 20 min., in 2017/4 s SPY 200 and 5 s SPY EvolutionUnspecifiedUnspecified
762021[102]Spain/MadridSpot measurementsSpectrum analyzer and an isotropic antenna105 measurements in situ and in real time, outside and inside the houses1 researcherApril and May 2019, 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.UnspecifiedYes, omitting these values
772022[103]Warszawa, PolandSpot measurementsEME SPY 121 (Satimo, Brest, France)—a portable, pocket-sized data logger sensitive to EF strength (E) in the frequency range from 88 to 2500 MHzDuring regular ground routine journeys inside PEV buses with data loggers located on seats in the middle part of the passenger section and in the driver’s cabin, in the case of buses equipped in internal Wi-Fi 2G routers located inside cabin1 researcher4 sUnspecifiedUnspecified
782022[104]European countries: Greece, Spain, France–Belgium, Romania, SerbiaSpot measurementsBroadband sensors provide a single result for a wide frequency range (100 kHz–7 GHz)
local MySQL (Oracle Corporation,
Austin, TX, USA) database		Five large monitoring networks: NOEF, SMRF, Observatoire des Onde, ANCOM, RATEL in six countries with more than 1200 measuring sensorsMeasuring sensors installed in different regions24/7 basis. accessed during February and March 2022 UnspecifiedUnspecified
792022[105]Kristiansand, NorwaySpot measurementsAntenna TS-EMF
type and covers the frequency range 30 MHz–3 GHz and spectrum analyzer from Rohde and
Schwarz		parks/green spaces/playgrounds, schools, parking
spaces and residential areas 		16 measurement points From June 2013 to October 2019. Averaged over any 6-min period. Weekdays between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m. and the measurement probe was 200 cm above ground.UnspecifiedUnspecified
802022[106]Stockholm, SwedenSpot measurementsNarda NBM-520, with an E-field probe E0391 (Narda-Safety-Test-Solutions GmbH, Pfullingen, Germany) and EME Spy 200Area at Skeppsbron street with an aggregation
of base station antennas placed at low level close to pedestrians’ heads 		One positioned within the city centerconducted on a business day afternoon.
(14 January 2019) with busy traffic which allows us to assume higher
network traffic. About 1 min
812023[107]SwitzerlandMixed method (spot measurements, personal measurements with volunteers or prediction model)ExpoM-RF4 from
Fields at Work GmbH		Outdoor areas and public
transport (train, buses, trams) in Switzerland		49 microenvironments. 150 data pointstwo campaigns during weekdays, 15 min to obtain at least 150 data points, 6s and 3s sampling intervalUnspecifiedYes
822023[108]Mexico/Mexico CityMixed method (spot measurements, personal measurements with volunteers or prediction model)2 Satimo EME SPY 140Around the Zócalo (nearby streets) and spot measurements at the Zócalo plaza, inside the subway, in the street and at home16 pointsWeek and weekend, during 6 minYes Yes, ND replaced by the DL
832023[2]Spain/AlbaceteMixed method (spot measurements, personal measurements with volunteers or prediction model)2 Satimo EME SPY 140Around the building, inside a classroom and inside a professor’s office12 spot pointsduring 6 minYes Yes, ND replaced by the DL
842023[109]Greece/Athens and ThessalonikiSpot measurementsSRM 3006 spectrum analyzerMetropolitan locations and urban/rural locations1000 measurementsthe average value in 6 min.UnspecifiedUnspecified
852023[110]France/ParisMixed method (spot measurements, personal measurements with volunteers or prediction model)Tektronix RSA306B spectrum analyzer and Tri-axis E-field
Probe TAS-1208-01		In the corridors and some offices of three buildings1080 spatial measurements were conducted in the corridors of all
buildings		1 for each pointUnspecifiedUnspecified
862023[111]Greece/ThessalonikiSpot measurementsMonitoring
sensors of the Hermes network (MCE-410 model and Pedion24)		21 regions in Greece31 sensorsevery 6 min during 24 h, between 2004 and 2022YesUnspecified
The abbreviations used in this table can be consulted in the last published review [30], except PEV: plug-in electric vehicle, NOEF: National Observatory of Electromagnetic Fields, SMRF: Sistema de Monitoratge de Radiofreqüència, ANCOM: National Authority for Administration and Regulation in Communications, RATEL: Regulatory Agency for Electronic Communications and Postal Services. Abbreviations that do not appear in this review and that are not defined can be consulted in the review published by the authors of this work [30].
Table 2. Results of the spot measurements studies (µW/m2 and V/m).
Table 2. Results of the spot measurements studies (µW/m2 and V/m).
IDPublicationCountry/CityMean or Median in µW/m2 (V/m)Min. or Max. in µW/m2 (V/m)Source and Place Where the Min and Max Were Measured75 or 95 Percentile in µW/m2 (V/m)Comment
MeanMedianMin.Max.
1[34]Malaysia/Kuala Lumpur, Selangor and Perak3.00 (0.0336)Unspecified1.00 (0.0194)5.00 (0.0434)Min. and max. value from base stations on the rooftop at 190 mUnspecifiedExposure from base stations on the rooftop at 190 m
2[35]USA, France, Germany and SwedenUnspecified16.0 (0.0780)Unspecified1000 (0.614)Max. value from WLANUnspecifiedExposure from WLAN (2.400 to 2.483 MHz) downloading file (1 m)
3[36]Slovenia/Ljubljana, Maribor, Kranj, Koper and Towns (Labour, Hrvatini, Tinjan and Čelje)42.8 (0.127)UnspecifiedUnspecified13,800 (2.28)Max. value from GSM signal in Ljubljana-TomacevoUnspecifiedTotal exp. in Ljubljana from GSM
26.5 (0.100)UnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedTotal exp. in Maribor from GSM
4[39]Greece3600 (1.16)UnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedTotal exp. from base station
5[40]Austria90.3 (0.185)8.18 (0.0560)UnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecified37.2 (0.118)Total exp. MBPSs
98.4 (0.193)9.92 (0.0612)UnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecified26.7 (0.100)WLAN (households with ISM devices)
6[43]Belgium318 (0.346)Unspecified89.6 (0.184)332 (0.354)Max. value from WLAN, WiLab offUnspecifiedTotal exp. from WLAN, WiLab off
9580 (1.90)UnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedMax. value from WLAN, WiLab in operation29,300 (3.32)Total exp. from WLAN, WiLab in operation
7[44]United KingdomUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecified11,100 (2.05)Max. value around 15 laptops at 0.5 mUnspecifiedTotal around 15 laptops at 0.5 m access points
UnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecified43,300 (4.04)Max. value from 12 access points at 0.5 mUnspecifiedTotal 12 access points at 0.5 m
UnspecifiedUnspecified33,200 (3.54)383,000 (12.0)Min. and max. value from 15 laptops in the 2.45 GHz bandUnspecifiedTotal 15 laptops in the 2.45 GHz band
UnspecifiedUnspecified1330 (0.708)340,000 (11.3)Min. and max. value from 8 laptops in the 5 GHz bandUnspecifiedTotal exp. from 8 laptops in the 5 GHz band
8[46]NetherlandsUnspecifiedUnspecified1700 (0.801)3700 (1.18)Min. and max. value from DECTUnspecifiedTotal exp. DECT
UnspecifiedUnspecified2140 (0.898)3500 (1.15)Min. and max. value from Wi-FiUnspecifiedTotal exp. from Wi-Fi
9[47]Spain/Extremadura761 (0.536)70.8 (0.163)6.18 (0.0480)9200 (1.86)Min. and max. value from total bandsUnspecifiedTotal exp. from total bands in town
10[51]India/Chandigarh11,500 (2.08)UnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedTotal exp. from cell phone towers
UnspecifiedUnspecified1000 (0.614)11,000 (2.04)Min. and max. value from cell phone towersUnspecifiedSchools
UnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecified7700 (1.70)Max. value from cell phone towersUnspecifiedHospital
11[52]Spain/Valladolid (Cáceres)1260 (0.689)514 (0.440)238 (0.300)28,400 (3.27)Min. and max. value from various locations with transmitting antennas in an urban area11,000 (2.04)Total exp. from various
locations with transmitting antennas
12[53]Greece/Thessaloniki586 (0.470)364 (0.370)26.6 (0.100)32,400 (3.495)Min. and max. value from DECT or WiFi signals1230 (0.681)Total exp. at different places and times
178 (0.259)4.24 (0.0400)Unspecified384 (0.380)Max. value from GSM RxUnspecifiedTotal exp. from GSM Rx
45.6 (0.131)6.64 (0.0500)Unspecified238 (0.300)Max. value from DCS RxUnspecifiedTotal exp. from DCS Rx
38.2 (0.120)2.38 (0.0300)Unspecified208 (0.280)Max. value from UMTS RxUnspecifiedTotal exp. from UMTS Rx
13[54]Amsterdam/Holland210 (0.281)Unspecified0.260 (0.00990)1960 (0.860)Max. value from GSM and Max. value from UMTSUnspecifiedTotal exp. from total bands
117 (0.210)Unspecified0.260 (0.00990)1960 (0.860)Min. and max. value from GSMUnspecifiedTotal exp. from GSM
21.4 (0.0898)Unspecified0.260 (0.00990)1916 (0.850)Min. and max. value from UMTSUnspecifiedTotal exp. from UMTS
14[55]Belgium/Ghent1300 (0.700)636 (0.490)4.24 (0.0400)25,400 (3.09)Min. and max. value from total bands9580 (0.270)Total exp. from total bands
15[56]Belgium/Ghent384 (0.380)Unspecified13.0 (0.0700)384 (0.380)Min. and max. value from total bands193 (0.270)Total exp. from total bands
86.0 (0.180)UnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedStreets
16[57]Belgium and Greece802 (0.550)UnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedTotal exp. Belgium
718 (0.520)UnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedTotal exp. Greece
6.64 (0.0500)UnspecifiedUnspecified153 (0.240)Max. value from Wi-Fi 2G at schoolUnspecifiedWi-Fi 2G at school in Belgium
21.4 (0.0898)UnspecifiedUnspecified106 (0.200)Max. value from Wi-Fi 2G at schoolUnspecifiedWi-Fi 2G at school in Greece
17[58]China/GuangxiUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedValues not indicated
18[60]Switzerland and The Netherlands/(Brussels, Ghent) Belgium, (Basel) Switzerland, and (Amsterdam) The Netherlands162 (0.247)Unspecified9.54 (0.060)892 (0.580)Max. value from all frequency bands in Amsterdam490 (0.430)Total exp. all outdoor in Basel
446 (0.410)UnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecified1780 (0.819)Total exp. all outdoor in Amsterdam
272 (0.320)UnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedTotal exp. downtown areas Ghent
892 (0.580)UnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedTotal exp. downtown areas Brussels
19[61]Basel (Switzerland), Ghent and Brussels (Belgium)446 (0.410)UnspecifiedUnspecified636 (0.490)Max. value from all frequency bands in downtown areas (BaselUnspecifiedTotal exp. all outdoor areas Brussels
254 (0.309)UnspecifiedUnspecified892 (0.580)Max. value from all frequency bands in railway station in Brussels193 (0.270)Total exp. all outdoor areas Ghent
179 (0.260)UnspecifiedUnspecified468 (0.420)Max. value from all frequency bands in one central residential area in Ghent179 (0.260)Total exp. all outdoor areas Basel
20[62]PolandUnspecified95.8 (0.190)UnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecified166 (0.250)Total exp. in urban buildings
Unspecified6.64 (0.0500)6.64 (0.0500)2.00 (0.0275)Max. value from in rural areas from the outdoor BTS21.6 (0.0902)Total exp. outdoor
21[63]Belgium2140 (0.898)UnspecifiedUnspecified28,800 (3.30)Max. value from telecommunication in schools, homes, and public placesUnspecifiedTotal exp. public places from telecommunication
26.6 (0.100)UnspecifiedUnspecified3220 (1.10)Max. value from telecommunication in schools, homes, and public placesUnspecifiedTotal exp. in homes from telecommunication
106 (0.200)UnspecifiedUnspecified27,200 (3.20)Max. value from Wi-Fi bandUnspecifiedTotal exp. in schools from Wi-Fi
22[64]South Korea22,000 (2.88)Unspecified0.0600 (0.00476)22,000 (2.88)Max. value from cellular serviceUnspecifiedTotal exp. from total bands
23[65]West Bank/Hebron810 (0.553)Unspecified15.0 (0.0752)22,800 (2.93)Max. value from cordless DECT phonesUnspecifiedTotal exposure
200 (0.275)UnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedExposure from GSM900
15.0 (0.0752)UnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedExposure from GSM1800
230 (0.294)UnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedExposure from DECT phones
24[68]Austria698 (0.513)28.1 (0.103)0.0700 (0.00514)550 (0.455)Min. value from LTE base stations and max. value from DECT132 (0.223)Total exp. from total RF range (all places)
550 (0.455)52.8 (0.141)UnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecified137 (0.227)Total exp. 2006 from total RF range (identical places)
365 (0.371)52.2 (0.140)UnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecified129 (0.221)Total exp. 2009 from total RF range (identical places)
371 (0.374)54.4 (0.143)UnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecified172 (0.255)Total exp. 2012 from total RF range (identical places)
25[69]Spain/Extremadura383 (0.380)1.16 (0.0209)0.520 (0.0140)17,940 (2.60)Min. and max. value from Wi-Fi band12,800 (2.20)Total exp. from Wi-Fi band, upper floor
Unspecified0.100 (0.00614)0.0200 (0.00275)166 (0.250)Min. and max. value from Wi-Fi bandUnspecifiedTotal exp. from Wi-Fi band, lower floor
26[70]Belgium0.350 (0.0115)Unspecified0.00100 (0.000614)0.0148 (0.00236)Min. and max. value from Wi-Fi bandUnspecifiedTotal exp. for node 1
0.330 (0.0112)UnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedTotal exposure
27[71]Spain/Albacete27,200 (3.20)UnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedDCS
32,400 (3.49)UnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUMTS
11,700 (2.10)UnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedGSM
28[72]Greece332 (0.354)UnspecifiedUnspecified41,600 (3.96)Min. and max. value from RF electric field in MytileneUnspecifiedTotal exp. from RF electric field in Mytilene
29[73]Spain/Granada157 (0.243)66.2 (0.158)4.48 (0.0411)1240 (0.684)Min. and max. value from 100 kHz to 6 GHz frequency range196 (0.623)Exposure from 100 kHz to 6 GHz frequency range
30[74]Serbia/Novi Sad112 (0.205)UnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedTotal exp. from total bands
31[18]Switzerland745 (0.530)484 (0.427)344 (0.360)1210 (0.675)Min. and max. value from total bands in the city centerUnspecifiedTotal exp. from total bands in the city center (Downlink, Uplink, Broadcasting)
272 (0.320)UnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecified624 (0.485)Exposure in city centers
32[77]Italy470 (0.421)UnspecifiedUnspecified1000 (0.614)Max. value from mobile communicationsUnspecifiedTotal exp. from mobile communications
33[78]Turkey923 (0.590)UnspecifiedUnspecified165,000 (7.89)Max. value from the band between 100 kHz and 3 GHz, UMTS 2100UnspecifiedTotal exposure
34[79]Spain/Terrassa30,500 (3.39)UnspecifiedUnspecified48,600 (4.28)UnspecifiedUnspecifiedTotal exp. center neighborhood
20,500 (2.78)UnspecifiedUnspecified35,700 (3.67)UnspecifiedUnspecifiedPlaça Catalunya—Escola Industrial
11,800 (2.11)UnspecifiedUnspecified24,400 (3.03)UnspecifiedUnspecifiedUniversitari- Cementiri Vell
35[80]Sweden/Örebro and Norrbotten22.5 (0.0921)4.60 (0.0416)UnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedTotal exp. in seven schools in Sweden
66.1 (0.158)Unspecified1.10 (0.0204)397 (0.387)Min. and max. value from Wi-Fi 2.4 GHzUnspecifiedTotal exp. from Wi-Fi connection
UnspecifiedUnspecified242 (0.302)82,900 (5.59)Min. and max. value from mobile phoneUnspecifiedTotal exp. from mobile phone
36[81]Spain/Alcalá de Henares342 (0.359)Unspecified106 (0.200)11,100 (2.05)Min. and max. value from total bandsUnspecifiedTotal exp. for all period and total bands (digital television, mobile technologies, wireless networks)
37[82]Palestine/West Bank0.140 (0.00726)0.0500 (0.00434)0.00100 (0.000614)1.23 (0.0215)Min. and max. value from WLAN in public placesUnspecifiedTotal exp. in public place
0.180 (0.00824)0.0900 (0.00582)0.00130 (0.000700)1.90 (0.0268)Min. and max. value from WLAN in public places at universitiesUnspecifiedUniversities
0.0600 (0.00476)300 (0.336)0.0100 (0.00194)0.0400 (0.00388)Min. and max. value from WLAN in public places at schoolsUnspecifiedSchools
38[83]Australia48.0 (0.135)Unspecified0.083032.0 (0.110)max. value from Wi-Fi in classUnspecifiedTotal exp. from Wi-Fi in class
66.0 (0.158)UnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedTotal exp. from Wi-Fi in yard
18.0 (0.0824)UnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedTotal exp. from Wi-Fi in class
0.110 (0.00644)UnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedTotal exp. from Wi-Fi in yard
39[84]Turkey/Samsun4830 (1.35)Unspecified1450 (0.739)52,500 (4.45)Min. and max. value from 1.9 to 2.17 GHz UMTSUnspecifiedTotal exposure
17,500 (2.57)Unspecified4010 (1.23)43,500 (4.05)Min. when students started leaving campus, and max. value during midday (with students)UnspecifiedTotal exp. from 1.9 to 2.17 GHz universal mobile telecommunications system (UMTS)
40[85]Turkey/Ilkadim of Samsun606 (0.478)Unspecified4.24 (0.0400)12,600 (2.18)Min. and max. value from all measurement resultsUnspecifiedTotal exp. from Wi-Fi
44,100 (4.08)UnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedTotal exposure
41[86]Sweden, Stockholm3810 (1.20)1310 (0.703)15.2 (0.0757)112,000 (6.50)Min. and max. value from total RF radiation (total bands)UnspecifiedTotal exp. (the whole apartment, including balconies)
42[87]Turkey/Batıkent and Diclekent DiyarbakırUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecified137,000 (7.19)Max. value from Total exp. in BatıkentUnspecifiedTotal exp. in Batıkent
UnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecified89,500 (5.81)Max. value from Total exp. in BatıkentUnspecifiedTotal exp. from Diclekent
43[89]Belgium and France9.87 (0.0610)UnspecifiedUnspecified742 (0.529)Max. value from GSM900UnspecifiedTotal exp. from GSM900
26.0 (0.0990)Unspecified366 (0.371)UnspecifiedMin. value from GSM900 (downlink)UnspecifiedGSM1800
10.8 (0.0638)Unspecified0.170 (0.00801)UnspecifiedMin. value from UMTSUnspecifiedUMTS
44[90]Belgium/Leuven1090 (0.641)UnspecifiedUnspecified3.60 (0.0368)Max. value from GSM 900UnspecifiedTotal exp. outdoor from GSM 900
272 (0.320)Unspecified0.0800 (0.00549)UnspecifiedMin. value from GSM 900UnspecifiedTotal exp. indoors from GSM 900
45[91]China/Xiamen, (including Siming Huli districts)UnspecifiedUnspecified272 (0.320)7660 (1.70)Max. and max. value from integrated
electric field intensity in Xiamen Island		UnspecifiedTotal exp. in Xiamen Island
46[3]Asia/Jordan1600 (0.777)UnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedTotal exposure
28.8 (0.104)Unspecified16.6 (0.0791)51.5 (0.139)Max. and max. value from Wi-Fi bandUnspecifiedTotal exp. from Wi-Fi band
23.0 (0.0931)UnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedAround university area
453 (0.413)UnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedDCS DL, GSM DL, UMTS
47[92]Serbia26.6 (0.100)Unspecified26.4 (0.100)4480 (1.30)UnspecifiedUnspecifiedTotal exp. 2012
4480 (1.30)UnspecifiedUnspecified20,800 (2.80)UnspecifiedUnspecifiedTotal exp. 2018
48[93]USA/New York City and Westchester CountyUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecified898,000 (18.4)Max. value from total exposureUnspecifiedTotal exp. of 48 devices located at 3 m from ISM 915 MHz band
UnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecified1,810,000 (26.1)Max. value from total exposureUnspecifiedTotal exp. in 81 devices located at 3 m from ISM 915 MHz band
49[4]Spain/Albacete20.4 (0.0877)Unspecified1.03 (0.0197)121 (0.214)Max. and max. value from the Wi-Fi band at weekendUnspecifiedTotal exp. outside building on the weekend
13.0 (0.0700)Unspecified0.610 (0.0152)38.6 (0.121)Max. and max. value from the Wi-Fi band at weekUnspecifiedTotal exp. outside building on the week
25.3 (0.0977)UnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedTotal exp. inside building on the weekend
19.5 (0.0857)UnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedTotal exp. inside building on the week
144 (0.233)UnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedGSM DL, DCS DL, UMTS DL weekend and week
50[94]Italy/Emilia-Romagna664 (0.500)Unspecified26.4 (0.0998)664 (0.500)Max. and max. value from Cellular TowersUnspecifiedTotal exp. from Cellular Towers
51[1]Spain/País Vasco2.55 (0.0310)2.23 (0.0290)0.0663 (0.00500)192 (0.269)Min. and max. value from WiFi band2.55 (0.0310)Total exp. in 1 h (with Analyzer)
0.0663 (0.00500)0.0663 (0.00500)0.0663 (0.00500)155 (0.242)Min. and max. value from WiFi band0.0663 (0.00500)Total exp. in 1 h (with EME Spy 200)
52[96]Turkey/Ordu55,000 (4.55)UnspecifiedUnspecified69,800 (5.13)night and morningUnspecifiedTotal exp. in 2016
91,000 (5.86)UnspecifiedUnspecified91,000 (5.86)Not specifically indicatedUnspecifiedTotal exp. in 2017
9600 (1.90)UnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedTotal exp. in 17 locations in short-term
53[98]RomaniaUnspecifiedUnspecified68.0 (0.160)114 (0.207)Min. and max. value from total bandsUnspecifiedTotal exp. for 802.11n standard
UnspecifiedUnspecified2550 (0.980)11,200 (2.05)Min. and max. value from total bandsUnspecifiedTotal exp. for 802.11ac standard
54[8]Poland/Warszawa, Spain/Madrid, Pamplona, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, and Mexico/Monterrey10,900 (2.03)Unspecified690 (0.510)29,000 (3.31)Min. and max. value from 2G/3G frequency bandUnspecifiedTotal spatial exposure within the shopping mall (2G/3G frequency bands)
53,800 (4.50)UnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedCorridors in the city of Warszawa
77,400 (5.40)UnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedIn the city of Madrid
55[102]Spain/Madrid556 (0.458)UnspecifiedUnspecified6700 (1.59)Max. value from 1810.48 MHz bandUnspecifiedOutdoor at 1810 MHz
5.73 (0.0465)Unspecified1.18 (0.0211)5310 (1.41)Max. value from 1768.41 MHz bandUnspecifiedIndoor at 1768 MHz
14.3 (0.0734)UnspecifiedUnspecified13,000 (2.21)Max. value from 809.36 MHzUnspecifiedTotal exp. on the street
56[103]Warszawa, PolandUnspecified663 (0.500)UnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecified10,600 (2.00)Inside ground public transportation EVs is caused mainly using mobile handsets inside vehicles
57[104]GreeceUnspecified1190 (0.670)96.0 (0.190)124,000 (6.85)Total exposure4350 (1.28)Total exposure
RomaniaUnspecified3570 (1.16)10.0 (0.060)366,000 (11.7)Total exposure11,800 (2.11)Total exposure
SerbiaUnspecified6050 (1.51)179 (0.260)50,400 (4.36)Total exposure12,000 (2.13)Total exposure
France–BelgiumUnspecified1610 (0.780)21.0 (0.0900)43,700 (4.06)Total exposure3950 (1.22)Total exposure
SpainUnspecified5420 (1.43)32.0 (0.110)1,440,000 (23.3)Total exposure19,800 (2.73)Total exposure
58[105]Kristiansand, Norway200,000 (8.68)UnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedall measuring points for 800 MHz frequency band allocated to mobile telephony
59[106]Stockholm, Sweden0.388 (12.1)UnspecifiedUnspecified2.65 (31.6)UnspecifiedUnspecifiedMobile phone downlink bands. Most dominant are 2600 and 2100 MHz bands used by 4G and 3G mobile phone services.
60[109]Greece/Athens and Thessaloniki446 (0.410)307 (0.340)208 (0.280)9280 (1.87)TV and Radio FM signals514 (0.440)Metropolitan areas
344 (0.360)239 (0.300)193 (0.270)10,400 (1.98)TV and Radio FM signals344 (0.360)Urban/rural locations
61[111]Greece/ThessalonikiUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecified0.970 (0.0192)max. from the 31 sensorsUnspecifiedUnspecified
EVs: electric vehicles.
Table 3. Results of the studies with mixed methods (µW/m2 and V/m).
Table 3. Results of the studies with mixed methods (µW/m2 and V/m).
IDPublicationCountry/CityMean or Median in µW/m2 (V/m)Min. or Max. in µW/m2 (V/m)Source or Place Where the Min and Max Were Measured75 or 95 Percentile in µW/m2 (V/m)Comments
MeanMedianMin.Max.
1[37]Belgium/Ghent-BrusselsUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecified586 (0.470)Total exp. day-urban-outdoor-walking
UnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecified117 (0.210)Total exp. day-rural-outdoor-walking
2[38]Switzerland/Basel (rural area Bubendorf)664 (0.500)Unspecified1.00 (0.0194)68.0 (0.160)Min. value from GSM 1800 and max. value from GSM 900UnspecifiedTotal exp. GSM 1800, 900, FM, DAB, TV in Basel (city)
60.0 (0.150)Unspecified4.00 (0.0388)5970 (1.50)Max. value from mobile phone base stationsUnspecifiedTotal exp. GSM 1800, 900, FM, DAB, TV in Bubendorf (rural)
3[12]Switzerland/Basel130 (0.221)Unspecified14.0 (0.0726)881 (0.576)Min. and max. value from during nighttimeUnspecifiedTotal exposure
4[41]Switzerland/Basel130 (0.221)UnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedTotal exposure
5[42]Switzerland/Basel364 (0.370)Unspecified26.6 (0.100)10,500 (1.99)Min. and max. value in rooms to the field strength outside the windowUnspecifiedTotal exposure
6[45]Spain/Valladolid106 (0.200)Unspecified26.5 (0.100)2000 (0.868)Min. and max. value measured with PEMUnspecifiedTotal exposure
7[48]Austria182 (0.262)848 (0.565)Unspecified60.4 (0.151)Max. value from total high frequency range190 (0.268)Total exp. (GSM and UMTS)
8[49]Germany20.5 (0.0879)UnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedTotal exposure
60.8 (0.151)UnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedTotal exp. (naive method)
35.2 (0.115)UnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedTotal exp. (ROS method)
9[50]Belgium, the Netherlands and Sweden6800 (1.60)1450 (0.739)0.0460 (0.00416)40,400 (3.90)Max. value from GSM900 signal in a residential environment9580 (1.90)Total exp. urban environments
UnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecified18,000 (2.60)Max. value in urban
environment		UnspecifiedTotal exp. urban environments Belgium
UnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecified1450 (0.739)Max. value from LTE in urbanUnspecifiedTotal exp. urban environments Stockholm
10[59]Netherlands/Amsterdam16.0 (0.0777)4.89 (0.0429)8.00 (0.0549)29.0 (0.105)UnspecifiedUnspecifiedTotal exp. at antenna location
11[66]Poland/WarszawaUnspecified128 (0.220)Unspecified20.0 (0.0868)Max. value from GSM 900 (DL)364 (0.370)Total exp. Base Station and terminal
12[67]Spain/Madrid5960 (1.50)UnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedTotal exp. (non-shadow)
13[7]Belgium/GhentUnspecified166 (0.250)Unspecified8.90 (0.0579)Max. value from Wi-FiUnspecifiedTotal exp. from Wi-Fi
14[75]United Kingdom/Cambridge46.8 (0.133)46.7 (0.133)2.89 (0.0330)2240 (0.919)Min. and max. value from GSM900 and GSM1800UnspecifiedTotal exp. (GSM900 and GSM1800)
30.8 (0.108)28.1 (0.103)2.32 (0.0296)1860 (0.837)Min. and max. value from GSM 900UnspecifiedExposure Amersfoort-City (GSM 900)
23.2 (0.0935)18.0 (0.0824)0.910 (0.0185)2300 (0.931)Min. and max. value from GSM 900UnspecifiedTotal exp. Cambridge-City (GSM 900)
4.14 (0.0395)4.05 (0.0391)0.440 (0.0129)1070 (0.635)Min. and max. value from GSM 1800UnspecifiedTotal exp. Amersfoort-City (GSM 1800)
15.3 (0.0759)10.5 (0.0629)0.610 (0.0152)8950 (1.84)Min. and max. value from GSM 1800UnspecifiedTotal exp. Cambridge-City (GSM 1800)
60.6 (0.151)59.8 (0.150)4.21 (0.0398)1700 (0.801)Min. and max. value from GSM 900UnspecifiedTotal exp. GSM 900
32.9 (0.111)33.5 (0.112)1.57 (0.0243)2790 (1.03)Min. and max. value from GSM 1800UnspecifiedTotal exp. GSM 1800
15[76]United Kingdom/Cambridge and The Netherlands/Amersfoort208 (0.280)UnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedTotal exp. inner city GSM in Amersfoort
80.5 (0.174)UnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedTotal exp. inner city DCS
16[88]Spain/País Vasco169 (0.252)52.1 (0.140)2.88 (0.0330)5040 (1.38)Min. and max. value from Total exp. and personal measurement202 (0.276)Total personal exposure
120 (0.213)82.8 (0.177)2.77 (0.0323)36,900 (3.73)Min. and max. value from Total exp. in classrooms363 (0.370)Total in school
196 (0.272)51.6 (0.139)2.75 (0.0322)6310 (1.54)Min. and max. value from Total exp. in living room315 (0.345)Total in at home
17[95]Spain/CáceresUnspecified523 (0.444)UnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedTotal exp. outdoors (GSM + UMTS900, GSM1800 and UMTS2100)
Unspecified258 (0.312)UnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedTotal exp. indoors (GSM + UMTS900, GSM1800 and UMTS2100)
Unspecified0.380 (0.0120)UnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedWi-Fi 2G band indoors
Unspecified1.17 (0.0210)UnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedWi-Fi 5G band indoors
18[97]France/Paris424 (0.400)1160 (0.660)Unspecified1780 (0.819)Max. value near Denfert-Rochereau square and Montparnasse stationUnspecifiedTotal exp. outdoor 14th district
19[99]Switzerland/Basel330 (0.353)UnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedTotal exp. downtown route
170 (253)UnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedTotal exp. park route
1.10 (0.0204)UnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedTotal exp. Wi-Fi downtown route
0.13 (0.00700)UnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedTotal exp. Wi-Fi Park route
20[100]France/Paris, Antony, Lyon, Lille and Angers892 (0.580)514 (0.440)67.9 (0.160)35,100 (3.64)Min. and max. value from total sourcesUnspecifiedTotal exp. from total sources
490 (0.430)193 (0.270)2.39 (0.0300)34,000 (3.58)Min. and max. value from MPBS sourcesUnspecifiedTotal exp. from MPBS
21[101]Francie/Paris, Antony, Lyons, Lille and Angers892 (0.580)514 (0.440)67.9 (0.160)35,100 (3.64)Min. value from telephone (DECT) and max. value from total sourcesUnspecifiedTotal exp. with spot measurements
490 (0.430)193 (0.270)2.39 (0.0300)34,000 (3.58)Min. and max. value from MPBSUnspecifiedTotal exp. from the MPBS
22[107]Switzerland21.0 (0.090)Unspecified21.0 (0.090)6.60 (0.0500)Min. value in residential areasUnspecifiedrural
residential areas
255 (0.310)Unspecified289 (0.33)UnspecifiedUnspecified1660 (0.790)industry areas.
95.8 (0.190)UnspecifiedUnspecified20,800 (2.80)Max. value in public transportUnspecifiedIn buses
117 (0.210)UnspecifiedUnspecified42,400 (4.00)Max. value in public transportUnspecifiedin trains and trams
23[108] Mexico/Mexico City326 (0.351)119 (0.212)Unspecified2800 (1.03)Max. at Zócalo from 2.4 GHz Wi-FiUnspecifiedat zocalo from 2.4- to 2.5 GHz
Wi-Fi
2370 (0.945)1500 (0.752)UnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedat zocalo from 5.15- to 5.85 GHz Wi-Fi
119 (0.212)80.2 (0.174)UnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedOn the street from 2.4- to 2.5 GHz
31.8 (0.109)26.9 (0.101)14.0 (0.0726)UnspecifiedMin. in the subway from 5.85 GHz bandUnspecifiedOn the street from 5.15- to 5.85 GHz
122 (0.214)29.4 (0.105)UnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedat home from 2.4- to 2.5 GHz
33.9 (0.113)3.07 (0.034)UnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedat home from 5.15- to 5.85 GHz
24[2]Spain/Albacete93.1 (0.187)Unspecified0.0900(0.0058)211 (0.323)Min. in the 2.4 GHz Wi-Fi and max. in the 5.85 GHz Wi-Fi bandUnspecified2.4 GHz Wi-Fi Inside a classroom inside a classroom with students
205 (0.278)UnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecified5.85 GHz Wi-Fi Inside a classroom inside a classroom with students
71.7 (0.164)UnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecified2.4 GHz Wi-Fi Inside a classroom inside a classroom without students
54.6 (0.144)UnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecified5.85 GHz Wi-Fi inside a classroom inside a classroom without students
0.217 (0.009)UnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecified2.4 GHz Wi-Fi inside a professor’s office
0.530 (0.0141)UnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecified5.85 GHz Wi-Fi inside a professor’s office
25[110]France/Paris2620 (0.993)2630 (0.996)UnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedFrom down-link inside building A
2600 (0.990)2570 (0.985)UnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedFrom down-link inside building B
2520 (0.975)2560 (0.982)UnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedFrom down-link inside building C
Table 4. Total studies by nations involved.
Table 4. Total studies by nations involved.
NationsTotal of StudiesNationsTotal of Studies
Spain17Germany2
Belgium13Italy2
Switzerland9Romania2
France7USA2
Greece7Mexico2
Turkey5Amsterdam1
Poland4Australia1
Sweden4India1
Austria3Korea1
Netherlands3Malaysia1
Serbia3Slovenia1
United Kingdom3Norway1
Asia2Palestine1
China2
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ramirez-Vazquez, R.; Escobar, I.; Arribas, E.; Vandenbosch, G.A.E. Systematic Review of Exposure Studies to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields: Spot Measurements and Mixed Methodologies. Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 11161. https://doi.org/10.3390/app142311161

AMA Style

Ramirez-Vazquez R, Escobar I, Arribas E, Vandenbosch GAE. Systematic Review of Exposure Studies to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields: Spot Measurements and Mixed Methodologies. Applied Sciences. 2024; 14(23):11161. https://doi.org/10.3390/app142311161

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ramirez-Vazquez, Raquel, Isabel Escobar, Enrique Arribas, and Guy A. E. Vandenbosch. 2024. "Systematic Review of Exposure Studies to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields: Spot Measurements and Mixed Methodologies" Applied Sciences 14, no. 23: 11161. https://doi.org/10.3390/app142311161

APA Style

Ramirez-Vazquez, R., Escobar, I., Arribas, E., & Vandenbosch, G. A. E. (2024). Systematic Review of Exposure Studies to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields: Spot Measurements and Mixed Methodologies. Applied Sciences, 14(23), 11161. https://doi.org/10.3390/app142311161

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop