The reference levels and maximum permissible exposure values for magnetic fields that are currently used have been derived from basic restrictions under the assumption of upright standing body models in a standard posture, i.e. with arms laterally down and without contact with metallic objects. Moreover, if anatomical modelling of the body was used at all, the skin was represented as a single homogeneous tissue layer. In the present paper we addressed the possible impacts of posture and skin modelling in scenarios of exposure to a 50 Hz uniform magnetic field on the in situ electric field strength in peripheral tissues, which must be limited in order to avoid peripheral nerve stimulation. We considered different body postures including situations where body parts form large induction loops (e.g. clasped hands) with skin-to-skin and skin-to-metal contact spots and compared the results obtained with a homogeneous single-layer skin model to results obtained with a more realistic two-layer skin representation consisting of a low-conductivity stratum corneum layer on top of a combined layer for the cellular epidermis and dermis. Our results clearly indicated that postures with loops formed of body parts may lead to substantially higher maximum values of induced in situ electric field strengths than in the case of standard postures due to a highly concentrated current density and in situ electric field strength in the skin-to-skin and skin-to-metal contact regions. With a homogeneous single-layer skin, as is used for even the most recent anatomical body models in exposure assessment, the in situ electric field strength may exceed the basic restrictions in such situations, even when the reference levels and maximum permissible exposure values are not exceeded. However, when using the more realistic two-layer skin model the obtained in situ electric field strengths were substantially lower and no violations of the basic restrictions occurred, which can be explained by the current-limiting effect of the low-conductivity stratum corneum layer.

No abstract

For the assessment of non-sinusoidal magnetic fields the European EMF Directive 2013/35/EU specified the Weighted Peak Method in Time Domain (WPM-TD) as the reference method. However, also other scientifically validated methods are allowed, provided that they lead to approximately equivalent and comparable results. In the non-binding guide for practical implementation of 2013/35/EU three methods alternative to the WPM-TD are described, i.e. the Weighted Peak Method in Frequency Domain (WPM-FD), the Multiple Frequency Rule (MFR), and an alternative Time Domain Assessment Method (TDAM). In this paper the results of a benchmark comparison of these assessment methods, based on 12 different time domain signals of magnetic induction, measured close to real devices and nine additional generic waveforms, are presented. The results demonstrated that assessments obtained with WPM-TD and WPM-FD can be considered approximately equivalent (maximum deviation 3.4 dB). The MFR systematically overestimates exposure, due to its inherently conservative definitions. In contrast, the TDAM significantly and systematically underestimates exposure up to a factor of 22 (26.8 dB) for the considered waveforms. The main reasons for this exposure underestimation by the TDAM are the introduction of an inappropriate time averaging, and the fact that the characteristic time parameter τp,min, describing the minimum duration of all field changes dB/dt of the waveform is derived independently from the extent of the field change in the definitions of the TDAM. Consequently, we recommend not to use the TDAM as presently published in the non-binding guide to 2013/35/EU, as its application would be in contradiction with the underlying aim of 2013/35/EU, i.e. a harmonised level of occupational safety with respect to exposure to electromagnetic fields.

A simplified procedure, using circular disk models with homogeneous electric conductivity as representations for different body parts, has been proposed recently by product standard IEC 62822-3 for the assessment of magnetic field exposure in proximity to current-carrying conductors of welding equipment. Based on such simplified models, worst case coupling coefficients CCEi(I), i.e. maximum induced electric field strength, normalised for current and frequency, for body parts at different distances d to straight single and double wire arrangements, as well as rectangular loop-shaped current paths are tabulated in the standard. In this work we compared CCEi(I) values obtained by numerical computations with detailed anatomical models of the hand/forearm with the corresponding values given in IEC 62822-3 for current-carrying single wire conductors along the forearm at distances d = 30, 50 and 100 mm, respectively. Our results clearly indicated that the CCEi(I) given in the standard may substantially underestimate the actual exposure. Using average values for tissue conductivities the observed extent of underestimation was up to 8.9 dB (factor 2.79) and may be even higher for worst case combinations of tissue conductivities. The reasons for this substantial underestimation are the oversimplified geometry, i.e. the circular disk does not reflect anatomical constrictions of the induction area present in realistic hand/forearm geometries, as well as the missing conductivity contrast between different tissues in the homogeneous disk models. Results of exposure assessment and corresponding minimum distances to components of welding equipment obtained by the simplified disk model approach suggested by IEC 62822-3 should therefore be considered with caution.

A non-binding guide to practical implementation of European Directive 2013/35/EU concerning the limitation of occupational exposure against electromagnetic fields has been published recently. With regard to exposure assessment this guide proposes practically applicable assessment methods for non-uniform and non-sinusoidal environmental electric and magnetic fields, respectively. For non-sinusoidal magnetic fields in the low frequency range this guide proposes a time domain assessment (TDA) method, claimed to reduce the overestimation of exposure inherent to other assessment methods while being based on fundamental physiological principles regarding nerve stimulation. In the present paper we demonstrate that the proposed TDA method is not consistent with the obvious underlying principles of directive 2013/35/EU. Based on practically relevant waveforms and general considerations it can be shown that external magnetic fields may be deemed compliant by the TDA method although the underlying exposure limit values defined in 2013/35/EU may be exceeded. We therefore strongly recommend that the TDA method is removed from the guide for implementing 2013/35/EU as soon as possible.