Perspectives on setting limits for RF contact currents: a commentary

The Clinical Validation of Modulated Electro-Hyperthermia (mEHT)

The mEHT method uses tissues' thermal and bioelectromagnetic heterogeneity for the selective mechanisms. The success of the therapy for advanced, relapsed, and metastatic aggressive tumors can only be demonstrated by measuring survival time and quality of life (QoL). The complication is that mEHT-treated patients cannot be curatively treated any longer with "gold standards", where the permanent progression of the disease, the refractory, relapsing situation, the organ failure, the worsening of blood counts, etc., block them. Collecting a cohort of these patients is frequently impossible. Only an intent-to-treat (ITT) patient group was available. Due to the above limitations, many studies have single-arm data collection. The Phase III trial of advanced cervix tumors subgrouping of HIV-negative and -positive patients showed the stable efficacy of mEHT in all patients' subgroups. The single-arm represents lower-level evidence, which can be improved by comparing the survival data of various studies from different institutes. The Kaplan-Meier probability comparison had no significant differences, so pooled data were compared to other methods. Following this approach, we demonstrate the feasibility and superiority of mEHT in the cases of glioblastoma multiform, pancreas carcinomas, lung tumors, and colorectal tumors.

Aligning Exposure Limits for Contact Currents with Exposure Limits for Electric Fields

ABSTRACT

The Institute for Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) and the International Commission on Non-ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) have established limits for exposures to electromagnetic fields across the 0-300 GHz (non-ionizing) spectrum, including limits on contact currents ( CC ) specified by IEEE for 0-110 MHz (ICNIRP issued a CC "guidance level"). Both sets of limits seek to protect against potentially adverse effects, including aversive electrostimulation at frequencies <100 kHz and excessive heating of tissue at frequencies >100 kHz. For the most part, CC is linked to electric field ( E -field) exposures for an ungrounded person contacting a grounded object, with the short-circuit current ( I SC ) through the contact point (usually the hand) equivalent to the current through the grounded feet of a free-standing person exposed to a vertically polarized E -field. The physical linkage between these two quantities dictates that their respective exposure limits align with one another, which is presently not the case, especially with respect to frequencies from100 kHz to 110 MHz. Here we focus specifically on recommendations for revisions to the IEEE standard, IEEE Std C95.1™-2019 ("IEEE C95.1"), in which the E -field exposure limit ( E -field exposure reference levels, ERL s) >100 kHz induces substantially greater currents than the CC ERL s currently prescribed. The most important scenario deserving of attention concerns finger contact through a 1-cm 2 cross-sectional interface between the skin and a grounded conductor in which the rate of temperature rise in the presence of an E -field ERL can be rapid enough to cause a burn injury. This rate is highly dependent on the moistness/dryness of the skin at the contact point (i.e., its impedance)-a highly variable value-with temperature increasing more rapidly with increasing dryness (greater contact impedance). The two main remedies to alleviate the possibility of injury in this "touch" scenario are to (a) limit the time of finger contact to 1 s in all cases and (b) revise the E -field ERL between 100 kHz and 30 MHz from a "hockey-stick-shaped" curve vs. frequency to a "ramp" across this frequency range. These measures factored in with the real-world prevalence of potentially hazardous scenarios should afford greater protection against adverse outcomes than is presently the case. IEEE C95.1 also specifies limits for grasp contact (15 cm 2 in the palm) and associated wrist heating, plus heating in the ankles from free-standing induction. However, these scenarios are more manageable compared to finger touch due mainly to the comparatively lower rates of tissue heating attributable to the wrist's and ankle's relatively greater cross-sectional area. Recommendations for grasp can thus be dealt with separately. Two identified but unaddressed issues in IEEE C95.1 deserving of further attention are first, the circumstance in which a grounded person contacts an ungrounded object situated in an electric field for which there are countless numbers of scenarios that are not amenable to a single ERL . Second, arcing between an extended limb and E -field-exposed object is perhaps the most hazardous of all scenarios. Both of these scenarios cannot be stereotyped and must be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Future revisions of IEEE Std C95.1-2019 (and the ICNIRP guidelines) will benefit from improved insight into strategies of affording protection from potentially adverse effects in these circumstances.

Characteristics of current perception produced by intermediate-frequency contact currents in healthy adults

Introduction

Contact electrical currents in humans stimulate peripheral nerves at frequencies of <100 kHz, producing sensations such as tingling. At frequencies above 100 kHz, heating becomes dominant, resulting in a sensation of warmth. When the current amplitude exceeds the threshold, the sensation results in discomfort or pain. In international guidelines and standards for human protection from electromagnetic fields, the limit for the contact current amplitude has been prescribed. Although the types of sensations produced by contact current at low frequencies, i.e., approximately 50-60 Hz, and the corresponding perception thresholds have been investigated, there is a lack of knowledge about those in the intermediate-frequency band-particularly from 100 kHz to 10 MHz.

Methods

In this study, we investigated the current-perception threshold and types of sensations for 88 healthy adults (range: 20-79 years old) with a fingertip exposed to contact currents at 100 kHz, 300 kHz, 1 MHz, 3 MHz, and 10 MHz.

Results

The current perception thresholds at frequencies ranging from 300 kHz to 10 MHz were 20-30% higher than those at 100 kHz (p < 0.001). In addition, a statistical analysis revealed that the perception thresholds were correlated with the age or finger circumference: older participants and those with larger finger circumferences exhibited higher thresholds. At frequencies of ≥300 kHz, the contact current mainly produced a warmth sensation, which differed from the tingling/pricking sensation produced by the current at 100 kHz.

Discussion

These results indicate that there exists a transition of the produced sensations and their perception threshold between 100 kHz and 300 kHz. The findings of this study are useful for revising the international guidelines and standards for contact currents at intermediate frequencies.

Clinical trial registration

https://center6.umin.ac.jp/cgi-open-bin/icdr_e/ctr_view.cgi?recptno=R000045660, identifier UMIN 000045213.

Assessment of the Electromagnetic Field Exposure during the Use of Portable Radios in the Context of Potential Health Effects

The paper presents research on the electromagnetic hazards related to the flow of electric currents throughout the bodies of employees using portable radios. The values often exceed established limits, which may lead to potential dysfunctions of the body and affect the safety of performed professional duties. The measurements of the electric field (E-field) distribution of a typical commercial portable radio, the limb contact current calculations, and the computer simulations determining a specific absorption rate (SAR) were supplemented with pilot neurophysiological tests. The assessment indicated a large spatial variability of the E-field strength around the devices. The head of the operator and the hand holding the radio were often in the electromagnetic field (EMF), which exceeded the established limits. The calculated SAR values ranged within the permitted limits. The conducted neurophysiological tests showed no effects of EMF exposure in comparison to the control group. The assessment of exposure to the EMF using a portable radio is initially performed by analyzing external measures: both computer simulations and measurements of workers’ limb currents. The SAR values exclude thermal effects; however, they do not eliminate potential neuromuscular effects. More neurophysiological tests are needed to obtain a broader picture of possible health effects.

Guidelines for Limiting Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields (100 kHz to 300 GHz)

Radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (EMFs) are used to enable a number of modern devices, including mobile telecommunications infrastructure and phones, Wi-Fi, and Bluetooth. As radiofrequency EMFs at sufficiently high power levels can adversely affect health, ICNIRP published Guidelines in 1998 for human exposure to time-varying EMFs up to 300 GHz, which included the radiofrequency EMF spectrum. Since that time, there has been a considerable body of science further addressing the relation between radiofrequency EMFs and adverse health outcomes, as well as significant developments in the technologies that use radiofrequency EMFs. Accordingly, ICNIRP has updated the radiofrequency EMF part of the 1998 Guidelines. This document presents these revised Guidelines, which provide protection for humans from exposure to EMFs from 100 kHz to 300 GHz.