A systematic review of observational studies was conducted to assess the association between everyday life low-frequency noise (LFN) components, including infrasound and health effects in the general population. Literature databases Pubmed, Embase and PsycInfo and additional bibliographic sources such as reference sections of key publications and journal databases were searched for peer-reviewed studies published from 2000 to 2015. Seven studies met the inclusion criteria. Most of them examined subjective annoyance as primary outcome. The adequacy of provided information in the included papers and methodological quality of studies was also addressed. Moreover, studies were screened for meta-analysis eligibility. Some associations were observed between exposure to LFN and annoyance, sleep-related problems, concentration difficulties and headache in the adult population living in the vicinity of a range of LFN sources. However, evidence, especially in relation to chronic medical conditions, was very limited. The estimated pooled prevalence of high subjective annoyance attributed to LFN was about 10%. Epidemiological research on LFN and health effects is scarce and suffers from methodological shortcomings. Low frequency noise in the everyday environment constitutes an issue that requires more research attention, particularly for people living in the vicinity of relevant sources.

In conclusion, there is no convincing evidence for an association between everyday life RF-EMF exposure and NSPS and sleep quality in the population. Better exposure characterization, in particular with respect to sources of extremely low frequency magnetic fields (ELF-MF) is needed to draw more solid conclusions. We argue that perceived exposure is an independent determinant of NSPS.

In a recent study of electronic health records (EHR) of general practitioners in a livestock-dense area in The Netherlands in 2009, associations were found between residential distance to poultry farms and the occurrence of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). In addition, in a recent cross-sectional study in 2494 adults in 2014/2015 an association between CAP and proximity to goat farms was observed. Here, we extended the 2009 EHR analyses across a wider period of time (2009–2013), a wider set of health effects, and a wider set of farm types as potential risk sources. A spatial (transmission) kernel model was used to investigate associations between proximity to farms and CAP diagnosis for the period from 2009 to 2013, obtained from EHR of in total 140,059 GP patients. Also, associations between proximity to farms and upper respiratory infections, inflammatory bowel disease, and (as a control disease) lower back pain were analysed. Farm types included as potential risk sources in these analyses were cattle, (dairy) goats, mink, poultry, sheep, and swine. The previously found association between CAP occurrence and proximity to poultry farms was confirmed across the full 5-year study period. In addition, we found an association between increased risk for pneumonia and proximity to (dairy) goat farms, again consistently across all years from 2009 to 2013. No consistent associations were found for any of the other farm types (cattle, mink, sheep and swine), nor for the other health effects considered. On average, the proximity to poultry farms corresponds to approximately 119 extra patients with CAP each year per 100,000 people in the research area, which accounts for approximately 7.2% extra cases. The population attributable risk percentage of CAP cases in the research area attributable to proximity to goat farms is approximately 5.4% over the years 2009–2013. The most probable explanation for the association of CAP with proximity to poultry farms is thought to be that particulate matter and its components are making people more susceptible to respiratory infections. The causes of the association with proximity to goat farms is still unclear. Although the 2007–2010 Q-fever epidemic in the area probably contributed Q-fever related pneumonia cases to the observed additional cases in 2009 and 2010, it cannot explain the association found in later years 2011–2013.

BackgroundIdiopathic environmental intolerance attributed to electromagnetic fields (IEI-EMF) remains a complex and unclear phenomenon, often characterized by the report of various, non-specific physical symptoms (NSPS) when an EMF source is present or perceived by the individual. The lack of validated criteria for defining and assessing IEI-EMF affects the quality of the relevant research, hindering not only the comparison or integration of study findings, but also the identification and management of patients by health care providers. The objective of this review was to evaluate and summarize the criteria that previous studies employed to identify IEI-EMF participants.MethodsAn extensive literature search was performed for studies published up to June 2011. We searched EMBASE, Medline, Psychinfo, Scopus and Web of Science. Additionally, citation analyses were performed for key papers, reference sections of relevant papers were searched, conference proceedings were examined and a literature database held by the Mobile Phones Research Unit of King’s College London was reviewed.ResultsSixty-three studies were included. “Hypersensitivity to EMF” was the most frequently used descriptive term. Despite heterogeneity, the criteria predominantly used to identify IEI-EMF individuals were: 1. Self-report of being (hyper)sensitive to EMF. 2. Attribution of NSPS to at least one EMF source. 3. Absence of medical or psychiatric/psychological disorder capable of accounting for these symptoms 4. Symptoms should occur soon (up to 24 hours) after the individual perceives an exposure source or exposed area. (Hyper)sensitivity to EMF was either generalized (attribution to various EMF sources) or source-specific. Experimental studies used a larger number of criteria than those of observational design and performed more frequently a medical examination or interview as prerequisite for inclusion.ConclusionsConsiderable heterogeneity exists in the criteria used by the researchers to identify IEI-EMF, due to explicit differences in their conceptual frameworks. Further work is required to produce consensus criteria not only for research purposes but also for use in clinical practice. This could be achieved by the development of an international protocol enabling a clearly defined case definition for IEI-EMF and a validated screening tool, with active involvement of medical practitioners.