Objectives
Assessing occupational exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) presents significant challenges due to the considerable variability in exposure levels within and between occupations. This spatial and temporal variability complicates the reliable evaluation of potential health risks associated with RF-EMF exposure in the workplace. Accurate assessment methods are crucial to understand the extent of exposure and to evaluate potential health risks, especially given the potential for higher exposures in occupational settings compared to the general population. This study compares the historical RF-EMF exposure estimates in the INTEROCC RF-EMF job-exposure matrix (RF-JEM) with recent personal measurement data collected in 2 countries as part of the OccRF-Health study, to assess the broader applicability of the RF-JEM.
Methods
Weighted kappa (k w) coefficients and Spearman rank correlation tests were performed to assess the alignment between RF-JEM estimates and measurements for 8 h time-weighted average exposure intensity and prevalence estimates across various occupations. The comparisons were mainly based on 22 jobs having ≥5 measured workers in the OccRF-Health study.
Results
Poor agreement was found for both exposure prevalence and intensity between both methods (k w < 0.1). RF-JEM values likely overestimated exposure levels for both electric (E) and magnetic (H) fields (mean percentage difference >194%) compared to current personal measurements.
Conclusions
Findings suggest that the INTEROCC-JEM likely overestimates current exposure intensity levels in the measured jobs. Adopting a semiquantitative JEM could also mitigate misclassification errors due to exposure variability, improving accuracy in exposure assessment. These findings indicate the need for more targeted personal measurements, including among highly exposed workers, and for potentially considering new exposure metrics to more accurately assess occupational RF-EMF exposures in occupational epidemiological research.
