Modelling of daily radiofrequency electromagnetic field dose for a prospective adolescent cohort

Marloes Eeftens*, Chen Shen, Jana Sönksen, Claudia Schmutz, Luuk van Wel, Ilaria Liorni, Roel Vermeulen, Elisabeth Cardis, Joe Wiart, Mireille Toledano, Martin Röösli

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Radiofrequency electromagnetic fields originate from a variety of wireless communication sources operating near and far from the body, making it challenging to quantify daily absorbed dose. In the framework of the prospective cohort SCAMP (Study of Cognition, Adolescents and Mobile Phones), we aimed to characterize RF-EMF dose over a 2-year period.

METHODS: The SCAMP cohort included 6605 children from greater London, UK at baseline (age 12.1 years; 2014-2016) and 5194 at follow-up (age 14.2; 2016-2018). We estimated the daily dose of RF-EMF to eight tissues including the whole body and whole brain, using dosimetric algorithms for the specific absorption rate transfer into the body. We considered RF-EMF dose from 12 common usage scenarios such as mobile phone calls or data transmission. We evaluated the association between sociodemographic factors (gender, ethnicity, phone ownership and socio-economic status), and the dose change between baseline and follow-up.

RESULTS: Whole body dose was estimated at an average of 170 mJ/kg/day at baseline and 178 mJ/kg/day at follow-up. Among the eight tissues considered, the right temporal lobe received the highest daily dose (baseline 1150 mJ/kg/day, follow-up 1520 mJ/kg/day). Estimated daily dose [mJ/kg/day] increased between baseline and follow-up for head and brain related tissues, but remained stable for the whole body and heart. Doses estimated at baseline and follow-up showed low correlation among the 3384 children who completed both assessments. Asian ethnicity (compared to white) and owning a bar phone or no phone (as opposed to a smartphone) were associated with lower estimated whole-body and whole-brain RF-EMF dose, while black ethnicity, a moderate/low socio-economic status (compared to high), and increasing age (at baseline) were associated with higher estimated RF-EMF dose.

CONCLUSION: This study describes the first longitudinal exposure assessment for children in a critical period of development. Dose estimations will be used in further epidemiological analyses for the SCAMP study.

Original languageEnglish
Article number107737
Pages (from-to)1-10
Number of pages10
JournalEnvironment international
Volume172
Early online date5 Jan 2023
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Feb 2023

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
SCAMP is independent research funded (2021-2025) by the Medical Research Council (MRC) (MR/V004190/1), and originally commissioned and funded (March 2014-Dec 2021) by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Policy Research Programme (PRP) (Secondary School Cohort Study of Mobile Phone Use and Neurocognitive and Behavioural Outcomes/091/0212) via the Research Initiative on Health and Mobile Telecommunications (RIHMT) - a partnership between public funders and the mobile phone industry. This study is part supported by the MRC Centre for Environment and Health, which is currently funded by the MRC (MR/S019669/1, 2019-2024). The study is also supported by funds from the NIHR Health Protection Research Units in Environmental Exposures and Health & Chemical and Radiation Threats and Hazards, based at Imperial College London, in partnership with the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) (HPRU-2012-10141). Infrastructure support for the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Imperial College London was provided by the NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre. MBT's Chair and the work in this paper is supported in part by a donation from Marit Mohn to Imperial College London to support Population Child Health through the Mohn Centre for Children's Health and Wellbeing. The funders of the study had no role in the design or conduct of the study nor the reporting of the SCAMP study results. The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the MRC, NIHR or UKHSA.

Funding Information:
SCAMP is independent research funded (2021-2025) by the Medical Research Council (MRC) (MR/V004190/1), and originally commissioned and funded (March 2014-Dec 2021) by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Policy Research Programme (PRP) (Secondary School Cohort Study of Mobile Phone Use and Neurocognitive and Behavioural Outcomes/091/0212) via the Research Initiative on Health and Mobile Telecommunications (RIHMT) - a partnership between public funders and the mobile phone industry. This study is part supported by the MRC Centre for Environment and Health, which is currently funded by the MRC (MR/S019669/1, 2019-2024). The study is also supported by funds from the NIHR Health Protection Research Units in Environmental Exposures and Health & Chemical and Radiation Threats and Hazards, based at Imperial College London, in partnership with the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) (HPRU-2012-10141). Infrastructure support for the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Imperial College London was provided by the NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre. MBT’s Chair and the work in this paper is supported in part by a donation from Marit Mohn to Imperial College London to support Population Child Health through the Mohn Centre for Children’s Health and Wellbeing. The funders of the study had no role in the design or conduct of the study nor the reporting of the SCAMP study results. The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the MRC, NIHR or UKHSA.

Publisher Copyright:
© 2023 The Authors

Keywords

  • Dose modelling
  • Mobile phones
  • Personal exposure
  • Radiofrequency electromagnetic Fields
  • SCAMP
  • Smart Phones
  • WiFi

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Modelling of daily radiofrequency electromagnetic field dose for a prospective adolescent cohort'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this