Development of a source-exposure matrix for occupational exposure assessment of electromagnetic fields in the INTEROCC study

To estimate occupational exposures to electromagnetic fields (EMF) for the INTEROCC study, a database of source-based measurements extracted from published and unpublished literature resources had been previously constructed. The aim of the current work was to summarize these measurements into a source-exposure matrix (SEM), accounting for their quality and relevance. A novel methodology for combining available measurements was developed, based on order statistics and log-normal distribution characteristics. Arithmetic and geometric means, and estimates of variability and maximum exposure were calculated by EMF source, frequency band and dosimetry type. The mean estimates were weighted by our confidence in the pooled measurements. The SEM contains confidence-weighted mean and maximum estimates for 312 EMF exposure sources (from 0 Hz to 300 GHz). Operator position geometric mean electric field levels for radiofrequency (RF) sources ranged between 0.8 V/m (plasma etcher) and 320 V/m (RF sealer), while magnetic fields ranged from 0.02 A/m (speed radar) to 0.6 A/m (microwave heating). For extremely low frequency sources, electric fields ranged between 0.2 V/m (electric forklift) and 11,700 V/m (high-voltage transmission line-hotsticks), whereas magnetic fields ranged between 0.14 μT (visual display terminals) and 17 μT (tungsten inert gas welding). The methodology developed allowed the construction of the first EMF-SEM and may be used to summarize similar exposure data for other physical or chemical agents.This work was funded by the National Institutes for Health (NIH) Grant No. 1R01CA124759-01. Coding of the French occupational data was in part funded by AFSSET (Convention N° ST-2005-004). The INTERPHONE study was supported by funding from the European Fifth Framework Program, ‘Quality of Life and Management of Living Resources’ (contract 100 QLK4-CT-1999901563) and the International Union against Cancer (UICC). The UICC received funds for this purpose from the Mobile Manufacturers’ Forum and GSM Association. Provision of funds to the INTERPHONE study investigators via the UICC was governed by agreements that guaranteed INTERPHONE’s complete scientific independence (http://interphone.iarc.fr/ interphone_funding.php). In Australia, funding was received from the Australian National Health and Medical Research 5 Council (EME Grant 219129) with funds originally derived from mobile phone service licence fees; a University of Sydney Medical Foundation Program; the Cancer Council NSW and The Cancer Council Victoria. In Montreal, Canada, funding was received from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (project MOP-42525); the Canada Research Chair programme; the Guzzo-CRS Chair in Environment and Cancer; the Fonds de la recherche en sante du Quebec; the Société de recherché sur le cancer; in Ottawa and Vancouver, Canada, from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), the latter including partial support from the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association; the NSERC/SSHRC/McLaughlin Chair in Population Health Risk Assessment at the University of Ottawa. In France, funding was received by l’Association pour la Recherche sur le Cancer (ARC) (Contrat N85142) and three network operators (Orange, SFR, Bouygues Telecom). In Germany, funding was received from the German Mobile Phone Research Program (Deutsches Mobilfunkforschungsprogramm) of the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nuclear 45 Safety, and Nature Protection; the Ministry for the Environment and Traffic of the state of Baden- Wurttemberg; the Ministry for the Environment of the state of North Rhine-Westphalia; the MAIFOR Program (Mainzer Forschungsforderungsprogramm) of the University of Mainz. In New Zealand, funding was provided by the Health Research Council, Hawkes Bay Medical Research Foundation, the Wellington Medical Research Foundation, the Waikato Medical Research Foundation and the Cancer Society of New Zealand. Additional funding for the UK study was received from the Mobile Telecommunications, Health and Research (MTHR) program, funding from the Health and Safety Executive, the Department of Health, the UK Network Operators (O2, Orange, T-Mobile, Vodafone, ‘3’) and the Scottish Executive. All industry funding was governed by contracts guaranteeing the complete scientific independence of the investigator

Bias and imprecision in posture percentile variables estimated from short exposure samples

BACKGROUND: Upper arm postures are believed to be an important risk determinant for musculoskeletal disorder development in the neck and shoulders. The 10th and 90th percentiles of the angular elevation distribution have been reported in many studies as measures of neutral and extreme postural exposures, and variation has been quantified by the 10th-90th percentile range. Further, the 50th percentile is commonly reported as a measure of "average" exposure. These four variables have been estimated using samples of observed or directly measured postures, typically using sampling durations between 5 and 120 min. METHODS: The present study examined the statistical properties of estimated full-shift values of the 10th, 50th and 90th percentile and the 10th-90th percentile range of right upper arm elevation obtained from samples of seven different durations, ranging from 5 to 240 min. The sampling strategies were realized by simulation, using a parent data set of 73 full-shift, continuous inclinometer recordings among hairdressers. For each shift, sampling duration and exposure variable, the mean, standard deviation and sample dispersion limits (2.5% and 97.5%) of all possible sample estimates obtained at one minute intervals were calculated and compared to the true full-shift exposure value. RESULTS: Estimates of the 10th percentile proved to be upward biased with limited sampling, and those of the 90th percentile and the percentile range, downward biased. The 50th percentile was also slightly upwards biased. For all variables, bias was more severe with shorter sampling durations, and it correlated significantly with the true full-shift value for the 10th and 90th percentiles and the percentile range. As expected, shorter samples led to decreased precision of the estimate; sample standard deviations correlated strongly with true full-shift exposure values. CONCLUSIONS: The documented risk of pronounced bias and low precision of percentile estimates obtained from short posture samples presents a concern in ergonomics research and practice, and suggests that alternative, unbiased exposure variables should be considered if data collection resources are restricted