High Frequency Electromagnetic Field Exposure in Paediatric and Female Patients with Implanted

Abstract

High Frequency Electromagnetic Field Exposure in Paediatric and Female Patients with Implanted Cardiac Pacemaker Bacova F, Benova M, Psenakova Z, Smetana M, Pacek M, Ochodnicky J. High Frequency Electromagnetic Field Exposure in Paediatric and Female Patients with Implanted Cardiac Pacemaker. Applied Sciences. 2024; 14(16):7198. doi: 10.3390/app14167198. Abstract This article investigates the effects of electromagnetic field (EMF) from mobile phones on human tissues and implanted medical devices. The intensity of the electric field (E) is evaluated based on simulations and measurements of various exposure scenarios. An area of interest is the case of a person with an implanted device (heart pacemaker) who may be affected by this exposure. Due to the rapid development of communication technologies and the growing awareness of the potential health risks of radio frequency (RF) EMF, the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) has established exposure limits within the European Union. Our study models and analyses EMF values in human tissues in an ideal environment, in a situation where a person uses a mobile phone in the DCS (Digital Cellular System) band, including the case of a person with an implanted pacemaker. Pilot simulations were verified by experimental measurements. Based on them, specific human models with the best matching results were selected for modelling other possible interactions of exogenous EMF and cardiac pacemaker in the same situations and locations Excerpt Based on our simulations and experimental measurements, we found that maintaining a minimum distance of 15 cm between the mobile phone and the pacemaker is not sufficient to ensure patient safety. Our results show that even at a distance of 30 cm, the E values for the models were: MM—54.96 V/m, for Child—65.34 V/m, for Laura—62.81 V/m, and measurements—52.72 In M. In the case of the Child and Laura complex models, the E values still exceeded the exposure limit of 58 V/m for a frequency of 1800 MHz. Our recommendation is to push this limit up to more than 30 cm. Another recommendation is protective equipment that reduces the exposure of parts of the human body to EMF. However, these aids must have a certificate of satisfactory EM compatibility. Open access paper: mdpi.com

AI evidence extraction

Main findings

Using simulations verified by pilot experimental measurements for mobile phone exposure in the DCS band (1800 MHz), the authors report that a 15 cm separation between phone and pacemaker is not sufficient for safety. At 30 cm, modeled E-field values were 54.96 V/m (MM), 65.34 V/m (Child), and 62.81 V/m (Laura), with measurements reported as 52.72 (unit not clearly stated); Child and Laura models exceeded the 58 V/m exposure limit at 1800 MHz, leading the authors to recommend a separation distance greater than 30 cm.

Outcomes measured

• Electric field intensity (V/m) in human tissues near implanted pacemaker
• Exceedance of ICNIRP exposure limit (58 V/m at 1800 MHz)
• Recommended minimum separation distance between mobile phone and pacemaker

Limitations

• Study is based on simulations with pilot verification measurements; full experimental/clinical outcome data are not described in the abstract.
• Sample size and participant details are not provided; results appear to rely on specific human models (e.g., Child, Laura, MM).
• Measurement unit for the reported value 52.72 is unclear in the provided excerpt.
• Focuses on E-field/exposure-limit exceedance rather than direct clinical endpoints (e.g., pacemaker malfunction or health outcomes).

Suggested hubs

• who-icnirp (0.78)
  ICNIRP exposure limits are explicitly discussed and used as the comparison benchmark.

{
    "study_type": "engineering",
    "exposure": {
        "band": "RF",
        "source": "mobile phone",
        "frequency_mhz": 1800,
        "sar_wkg": null,
        "duration": null
    },
    "population": "Paediatric and female patients with implanted cardiac pacemaker (human models; includes child and adult female models)",
    "sample_size": null,
    "outcomes": [
        "Electric field intensity (V/m) in human tissues near implanted pacemaker",
        "Exceedance of ICNIRP exposure limit (58 V/m at 1800 MHz)",
        "Recommended minimum separation distance between mobile phone and pacemaker"
    ],
    "main_findings": "Using simulations verified by pilot experimental measurements for mobile phone exposure in the DCS band (1800 MHz), the authors report that a 15 cm separation between phone and pacemaker is not sufficient for safety. At 30 cm, modeled E-field values were 54.96 V/m (MM), 65.34 V/m (Child), and 62.81 V/m (Laura), with measurements reported as 52.72 (unit not clearly stated); Child and Laura models exceeded the 58 V/m exposure limit at 1800 MHz, leading the authors to recommend a separation distance greater than 30 cm.",
    "effect_direction": "harm",
    "limitations": [
        "Study is based on simulations with pilot verification measurements; full experimental/clinical outcome data are not described in the abstract.",
        "Sample size and participant details are not provided; results appear to rely on specific human models (e.g., Child, Laura, MM).",
        "Measurement unit for the reported value 52.72 is unclear in the provided excerpt.",
        "Focuses on E-field/exposure-limit exceedance rather than direct clinical endpoints (e.g., pacemaker malfunction or health outcomes)."
    ],
    "evidence_strength": "low",
    "confidence": 0.7399999999999999911182158029987476766109466552734375,
    "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
    "keywords": [
        "electromagnetic field",
        "RF EMF",
        "mobile phone",
        "DCS",
        "1800 MHz",
        "electric field",
        "pacemaker",
        "implanted medical device",
        "paediatric",
        "ICNIRP",
        "exposure limits",
        "separation distance",
        "simulation",
        "measurement"
    ],
    "suggested_hubs": [
        {
            "slug": "who-icnirp",
            "weight": 0.7800000000000000266453525910037569701671600341796875,
            "reason": "ICNIRP exposure limits are explicitly discussed and used as the comparison benchmark."
        }
    ]
}

Comments

Log in to comment.

No comments yet.