IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v18y2021i4p1857-d499489.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Personal Exposure Assessment to Wi-Fi Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields in Mexican Microenvironments

Author

Listed:
  • Raquel Ramirez-Vazquez

    (Applied Physics Department, Faculty of Computer Science Engineering, University of Castilla-La Mancha, Avda. de España s/n, Campus Universitario, 02071 Albacete, Spain)

  • Jesus Gonzalez-Rubio

    (Medical Science Department, School of Medicine, University of Castilla-La Mancha, C/Almansa 14, 02071 Albacete, Spain)

  • Isabel Escobar

    (Applied Physics Department, Faculty of Computer Science Engineering, University of Castilla-La Mancha, Avda. de España s/n, Campus Universitario, 02071 Albacete, Spain)

  • Carmen del Pilar Suarez Rodriguez

    (Department of Mechanical Engineering, Autonomous University of San Luis Potosi, Academic Coordination of the Huasteca South Region, Tamazunchale, San Luis Potosi 79960, Mexico)

  • Enrique Arribas

    (Applied Physics Department, Faculty of Computer Science Engineering, University of Castilla-La Mancha, Avda. de España s/n, Campus Universitario, 02071 Albacete, Spain)

Abstract

In recent years, personal exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields (RF-EMF) has substantially increased, and most studies about RF-EMF with volunteers have been developed in Europe. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study carried out in Mexico with personal exposimeters. The main objective was to measure personal exposure to RF-EMF from Wireless Fidelity or wireless Internet connection (Wi-Fi) frequency bands in Tamazunchale, San Luis Potosi, Mexico, to compare results with maximum levels permitted by international recommendations and to find if there are differences in the microenvironments subject to measurements. The study was conducted with 63 volunteers in different microenvironments: home, workplace, outside, schools, travel, and shopping. The mean minimum values registered were 146.5 μW/m 2 in travel from the Wi-Fi 2G band and 116.8 μW/m 2 at home from the Wi-Fi 5G band, and the maximum values registered were 499.7 μW/m 2 and 264.9 μW/m 2 at the workplace for the Wi-Fi 2G band and the Wi-Fi 5G band, respectively. In addition, by time period and type of day, minimum values were registered at nighttime, these values being 129.4 μW/m 2 and 93.9 μW/m 2 , and maximum values were registered in the daytime, these values being 303.1 μW/m 2 and 168.3 μW/m 2 for the Wi-Fi 2G and Wi-Fi 5G bands, respectively. In no case, values exceeded limits established by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). Of the study participants ( n = 63), a subgroup ( n = 35) answered a survey on risk perception. According to these results, the Tamazunchale (Mexico) population is worried about this situation in comparison with several European cities; however, the risk perception changes when they are informed about the results for the study.

Suggested Citation

  • Raquel Ramirez-Vazquez & Jesus Gonzalez-Rubio & Isabel Escobar & Carmen del Pilar Suarez Rodriguez & Enrique Arribas, 2021. "Personal Exposure Assessment to Wi-Fi Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields in Mexican Microenvironments," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(4), pages 1-20, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:4:p:1857-:d:499489
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/4/1857/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/4/1857/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Myrtill Simkó & Mats-Olof Mattsson, 2019. "5G Wireless Communication and Health Effects—A Pragmatic Review Based on Available Studies Regarding 6 to 100 GHz," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(18), pages 1-23, September.
    2. Yazan Akkam & Ahmed A. Al-Taani & Salam Ayasreh & Abeer Almutairi & Nosaibah Akkam, 2020. "Correlation of Blood Oxidative Stress Parameters to Indoor Radiofrequency Radiation: A Cross Sectional Study in Jordan," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(13), pages 1-17, June.
    3. Berihun M. Zeleke & Christopher Brzozek & Chhavi Raj Bhatt & Michael J. Abramson & Rodney J. Croft & Frederik Freudenstein & Peter Wiedemann & Geza Benke, 2018. "Personal Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields among Australian Adults," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-10, October.
    4. Raquel Ramirez-Vazquez & Sameer Arabasi & Hussein Al-Taani & Suhad Sbeih & Jesus Gonzalez-Rubio & Isabel Escobar & Enrique Arribas, 2020. "Georeferencing of Personal Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields from Wi-Fi in a University Area," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(6), pages 1-19, March.
    5. Corentin Regrain & Julien Caudeville & René de Seze & Mohammed Guedda & Amirreza Chobineh & Philippe de Doncker & Luca Petrillo & Emma Chiaramello & Marta Parazzini & Wout Joseph & Sam Aerts & Anke Hu, 2020. "Design of an Integrated Platform for Mapping Residential Exposure to Rf-Emf Sources," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(15), pages 1-19, July.
    6. Bernd Kowall & Jürgen Breckenkamp & Maria Blettner & Brigitte Schlehofer & Joachim Schüz & Gabriele Berg-Beckhoff, 2012. "Determinants and stability over time of perception of health risks related to mobile phone base stations," International Journal of Public Health, Springer;Swiss School of Public Health (SSPH+), vol. 57(4), pages 735-743, August.
    7. Ellen Van Kleef & Arnout R. H. Fischer & Moin Khan & Lynn J. Frewer, 2010. "Risk and Benefit Perceptions of Mobile Phone and Base Station Technology in Bangladesh," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(6), pages 1002-1015, June.
    8. Peter Gajšek & Paolo Ravazzani & James Grellier & Theodoros Samaras & József Bakos & György Thuróczy, 2016. "Review of Studies Concerning Electromagnetic Field (EMF) Exposure Assessment in Europe: Low Frequency Fields (50 Hz–100 kHz)," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-14, September.
    9. Michael Siegrist & Timothy C. Earle & Heinz Gutscher & Carmen Keller, 2005. "Perception of Mobile Phone and Base Station Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(5), pages 1253-1264, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Tehseen Mazhar & Rizwana Naz Asif & Muhammad Amir Malik & Muhammad Asgher Nadeem & Inayatul Haq & Muhammad Iqbal & Muhammad Kamran & Shahzad Ashraf, 2023. "Electric Vehicle Charging System in the Smart Grid Using Different Machine Learning Methods," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-26, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mei‐Chih Meg Tseng & Yi‐Ping Lin & Fu‐Chang Hu & Tsun‐Jen Cheng, 2013. "Risks Perception of Electromagnetic Fields in Taiwan: The Influence of Psychopathology and the Degree of Sensitivity to Electromagnetic Fields," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(11), pages 2002-2012, November.
    2. Rojalin Pradhan & Mahim Sagar & Tushar Pandey & Ishwar Prasad, 2019. "Consumer health risk awareness model of RF-EMF exposure from mobile phones and base stations: An exploratory study," International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, Springer;International Association of Public and Non-Profit Marketing, vol. 16(1), pages 125-145, March.
    3. Christoph Boehmert & Peter Wiedemann & Rodney Croft, 2016. "Improving Precautionary Communication in the EMF Field? Effects of Making Messages Consistent and Explaining the Effectiveness of Precautions," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-18, October.
    4. Peter M. Wiedemann & Holger Schuetz & Franziska Boerner & Martin Clauberg & Rodney Croft & Rajesh Shukla & Toshiko Kikkawa & Ray Kemp & Jan M. Gutteling & Barney de Villiers & Flavia N. da Silva Medei, 2013. "When Precaution Creates Misunderstandings: The Unintended Effects of Precautionary Information on Perceived Risks, the EMF Case," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(10), pages 1788-1801, October.
    5. Michael K. Lindell & Seong Nam Hwang, 2008. "Households' Perceived Personal Risk and Responses in a Multihazard Environment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(2), pages 539-556, April.
    6. Mathew P. White & J. Richard Eiser & Peter R. Harris & Sabine Pahl, 2007. "Who Reaps the Benefits, Who Bears the Risks? Comparative Optimism, Comparative Utility, and Regulatory Preferences for Mobile Phone Technology," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 741-753, June.
    7. Michael R. Greenberg, 2012. "The Affect Heuristic, Correspondence Analysis, and Understanding LULUs," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(3), pages 478-480, March.
    8. Milena Foerster & Katharina Roser & Anna Schoeni & Martin Röösli, 2015. "Problematic mobile phone use in adolescents: derivation of a short scale MPPUS-10," International Journal of Public Health, Springer;Swiss School of Public Health (SSPH+), vol. 60(2), pages 277-286, February.
    9. Raquel Ramirez-Vazquez & Sameer Arabasi & Hussein Al-Taani & Suhad Sbeih & Jesus Gonzalez-Rubio & Isabel Escobar & Enrique Arribas, 2020. "Georeferencing of Personal Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields from Wi-Fi in a University Area," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(6), pages 1-19, March.
    10. Christoph Boehmert & Peter Wiedemann & Jonathon Pye & Rodney Croft, 2017. "The Effects of Precautionary Messages about Electromagnetic Fields from Mobile Phones and Base Stations Revisited: The Role of Recipient Characteristics," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(3), pages 583-597, March.
    11. Corinna Jenal & Sven Endreß & Olaf Kühne & Caroline Zylka, 2021. "Technological Transformation Processes and Resistance—On the Conflict Potential of 5G Using the Example of 5G Network Expansion in Germany," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(24), pages 1-20, December.
    12. Marie‐Eve Cousin & Michael Siegrist, 2011. "Cell Phones and Health Concerns: Impact of Knowledge and Voluntary Precautionary Recommendations," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(2), pages 301-311, February.
    13. Silvia Banfi & Massimo Filippini & Andrea Horehájová, 2008. "Valuation of Environmental Goods in Profit and Non-Profit Housing Sectors: Evidence from the Rental Market in the City of Zurich," Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics (SJES), Swiss Society of Economics and Statistics (SSES), vol. 144(IV), pages 631-654, December.
    14. Julie Olivero & Pierre Batteau, 2012. "Les risques industrialo-environnementaux perçus par les entreprises et impacts sur les décisions en matière de gestion. Etude exploratoire sur les bassins industriels de Gardanne et de Fos-Berre," Post-Print hal-02274494, HAL.
    15. Loredana Ivan & Mireia Fernández-Ardèvol, 2017. "Older People, Mobile Communication and Risks," Societies, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-16, April.
    16. Silvia Banfi & Massimo Filippini & Andrea Horehájová, 2012. "Using a choice experiment to estimate the benefits of a reduction of externalities in urban areas with special focus on electrosmog," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 44(3), pages 387-397, January.
    17. Myung-Soon Seo & Jae-Wook Choi & Kyung-Hee Kim & Hyung-Do Choi, 2020. "The Relationship between Risk Perception of Cell Phones and Objective Knowledge of EMF in Korea," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(19), pages 1-10, October.
    18. Michael Siegrist, 2021. "Trust and Risk Perception: A Critical Review of the Literature," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 480-490, March.
    19. Stephanie Moser & Susanne Elisabeth Bruppacher & Hans‐Joachim Mosler, 2011. "How People Perceive and Will Cope with Risks from the Diffusion of Ubiquitous Information and Communication Technologies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(5), pages 832-846, May.
    20. Marett, Kent & Pearson, Allison W. & Pearson, Rodney A. & Bergiel, Erich, 2015. "Using mobile devices in a high risk context: The role of risk and trust in an exploratory study in Afghanistan," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 54-64.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:4:p:1857-:d:499489. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.