Premium
Human exposure to magnetic fields: A comparative assessment of two dosimeters
Author(s) -
Dlugosz Larry,
Belanger Kathleen,
Johnson Pamela,
Bracken Michael B.
Publication year - 1994
Publication title -
bioelectromagnetics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.435
H-Index - 81
eISSN - 1521-186X
pISSN - 0197-8462
DOI - 10.1002/bem.2250150613
Subject(s) - dosimeter , intraclass correlation , nuclear medicine , coefficient of variation , magnetic field , correlation coefficient , nuclear magnetic resonance , reproducibility , physics , medicine , statistics , mathematics , dosimetry , quantum mechanics
Two types of dosimeters for measuring human exposure to 60 Hz magnetic fields were compared. Fifty adults wore the single‐axis, wrist model AMEX (average magnetic field exposure system) and the triple axis, hip‐pocket or pouch model AMEX‐3D meters for 2 days. Ninety‐six percent of the tests were accomplished without apparent dosimeter failure. The average root mean square magnetic flux density measurements with the AMEX3D (mean = 0.10 μT, S.D. = 0.07, range = 0.03 − 0.31) were significantly higher than with the AMEX meter (mean = 0.07 μT, S.D. 0.05, range = 0.02 − 0.27 μT) ( t test, P < 0.01). There was substantial correlation between the AMEX and the AMEX‐3D measurements (Pearson's correlation coefficient = 0.65, P < 0.01) but poor concordance (Intraclass correlation coefficient = − 0.25). These results suggest that there is a wide variation in exposure to extremely low frequency magnetic fields in the population. Magnetic field measurements with the AMEX‐3D are nearly always higher than with the AMEX dosimeters. Caution is advised when comparing magnetic field measurements made with different types of dosimeters. © 1994 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.