Inconsistency of a recently proposed method for assessing magnetic field exposure for protection against peripheral nerve stimulation in occupational situations

Schmid, Gernot; Hirtl, Rene

doi:10.1088/0952-4746/36/4/n77

Cited by 3 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Schmid and Hirtl applied the BGM to some analytical signals and came to similar results ( Schmid and Hirtl 2016 ).…”

Section: Alternative Assessment Methodsmentioning

confidence: 75%

The Weighted Peak Method in the Time Domain Compared With Alternative Methods for Assessing LF Electric and Magnetic Fields

Keller¹

2017

Health Physics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Directive 2013/35/EU of the European Parliament and Council recommends the weighted peak method for assessing non-thermal effects of low frequency (LF) electric and magnetic fields. This article shows that this method is very practical and user friendly and is absolutely reliable to lead to correct results when applied in the time domain. The method can be used without limitations for any field profile and emulates the underlying physical and biological effects significantly better than all other presently known methods. For this reason, this method is described and recommended in many technical standards for assessing the non-thermal effects of electromagnetic fields and is recognized by the international scientific community. The disadvantages of competing methods are demonstrated. Some technical aspects of real measurement systems are also examined.

show abstract

“…Schmid and Hirtl applied the BGM to some analytical signals and came to similar results ( Schmid and Hirtl 2016 ).…”

Section: Alternative Assessment Methodsmentioning

confidence: 75%

The Weighted Peak Method in the Time Domain Compared With Alternative Methods for Assessing LF Electric and Magnetic Fields

Keller¹

2017

Health Physics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Each standard and guideline addresses this problem differently proposing solutions that depends on the shape of the waveform (ICNIRP 2003, 2010, Bailey et al 2019. The literature includes several papers using these methods to analyze specific exposure scenarios (Lodato et al 2012, Andreuccetti et al 2013, Fiocchi et al 2015, Canova et al 2016, Paffi et al 2016, Tang et al 2022 and other papers pointing out issues and performances of these methods (De Santis et al 2013, Schmid and Hirtl 2016, Keller 2017, Schmid et al 2019. Most of these methods move the problem from the time domain to the frequency domain by means of the Fourier decomposition of the waveform.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The WPM has been then included also in the ICNIRP guidelines (ICNIRP 2003(ICNIRP , 2010. Schmid and Hirtl (2016) analyze the inconsistency of a time domain method that is included in the non-binding guide to good practice for implementing Directive 2013/ 35/EU (European Commission 2016) and originally proposed by Heinrich (2007). This method is compared with the results obtained with the WPM showing that it violates the underlying principle above which reference levels and basic restrictions are defined and, for these reasons, it should be avoided.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Results will be presented as 95% confidence interval plots. It must be stressed that the method used for the uncertainty quantification is very general and it can be applied to all methods for the assessment of pulsed or multi-frequency fields, however, in this paper we take into account only the weighted peak method proposed by the ICNIRP because it is recognized to be the most suitable and less conservative among all methods (Schmid and Hirtl 2016, Keller 2017, Schmid et al 2019. The WPM can be applied both in time domain and frequency domain.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Uncertainty quantification in the assessment of human exposure to pulsed or multi-frequency fields

Giaccone

2023

Phys. Med. Biol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: pulsed fields or waveforms with multi-frequency content have to be assessed with suitable methods. This paper deals with the uncertainty quantification associated to these methods. Approach: among all possible approaches, the weighted peak method is widely employed in standards and guidelines, therefore, in this paper, we consider its implementation both in time domain and frequency domain. For the uncertainty quantification the polynomial chaos expansion theory is used. By means of a sensitivity analysis, for several standard waveforms, the parameters with more influence on the exposure index are identified and their sensitivity indices are quantified. The output of the sensitivity analysis is used to set up a parametric analysis with the aim of evaluating the uncertainty propagation of the analyzed methods and, finally, also several measured waveforms generated by a welding gun are tested. Main findings: it is shown that the time domain implementation of the weighted peak method provides results in agreement with the basilar mechanisms of electromagnetic induction and electrostimulation. On the opposite, the WPM in frequency domain is found to be too sensitive to parameters that should not influence the exposure index because its weight function includes sharp variations of the phase centered on real zeros and poles. To overcome this issue, a new definition for the phase of the weight function in frequency domain is proposed. Significance: it is shown that the time domain implementation of the weighted peak method is the more accurate and precise. The standard WPM in frequency domain has some issues that can be avoided with the proposed modification of the phase definition of the weight function. Finally, all the codes used in this paper are hosted on a GitHub and can be freely accessed at https://github.com/giaccone/wpm_uncertainty.

show abstract

Benchmark of different assessment methods for non-sinusoidal magnetic field exposure in the context of European Directive 2013/35/EU

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Inconsistency of a recently proposed method for assessing magnetic field exposure for protection against peripheral nerve stimulation in occupational situations

Cited by 3 publications

References 10 publications

The Weighted Peak Method in the Time Domain Compared With Alternative Methods for Assessing LF Electric and Magnetic Fields

The Weighted Peak Method in the Time Domain Compared With Alternative Methods for Assessing LF Electric and Magnetic Fields

Uncertainty quantification in the assessment of human exposure to pulsed or multi-frequency fields

Benchmark of different assessment methods for non-sinusoidal magnetic field exposure in the context of European Directive 2013/35/EU

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About