Electromagnetic Radiation Exposure and Risk Management of Health Personnel

halksagligiozel10-2-24kapaka

Bahriye SIRAV ARALa , Enis Taha ÖZKANa

aGazi University Faculty of Medicine, Department of Biophysics, Ankara, Türkiye

ABSTRACT
Electromagnetic (EM) fields are emitted by many natural or man-made sources. Gamma rays, X-rays, and some ultraviolet (UV) radiation carry an ionizing effect due to their high energy and are included named as ionizing radiation in the upper region of the electromagnetic spectrum. Lower-energy ultraviolet radiation, visible and infrared radiation, radio frequency (RF) fields, very low-frequency fields, and static fields are belong constitute the lower part of the spectrum as non-ionizing radiation. As a result of developments in technology, the use of both ionizing and non-ionizing components of the electromagnetic spectrum is increasing day by day, and people are exposed to electromagnetic fields at levels far above the electromagnetic fields found in nature in their ordinary lives in work and home environments. In recent years, the adverse health effects of these unusual exposures on human health have been a subject of intense debate, and studies on personnel exposed to electromagnetic fields in hospitals due to their work are frequently encountered. In this section, besides the concept of an electromagnetic field and its possible biological effects, examples from the literature studies on the systems and electromagnetic field exposures that hospital workers frequently face will be given.
Keywords: Electromagnetic fields; electromagnetic radiation; electromagnetic phenomena; health personnel; medical staff, hospital

Referanslar

  1. Hall EJ. Radiobiology for the Radiologist. 4th ed. Lippincott Company; 1994.
  2. Alcocer GaA, Priscilla and Alcocer, Xavier and Márquez, Carlos. Burn Due to the Use of the Mobile Telephone and Interaction of the Non-Ionizing Radiation With the Electric Field of High Voltage. Mediterranean Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences (MJBAS). 2018;2(2):48-58.
  3. Eder H, Seidenbusch M, Oechler LS. tertiary X-radiation-A problem for staff protection? Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2020;189(3):304-11. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  4. Erdemir RU, Abuzaid MM, Cavli B, Tekin HO, Elshami W. Assessment of extremity dose for medical staff involved in positron emission tomography/computed tomography imaging: Retrospective study. Medicine (Baltimore). 2023;102(43):e35501. [Crossref]  [PubMed]  [PMC]
  5. Polk C, Postow E. Handbook of Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields. Second ed. CRC Press; 1996.
  6. Ilhan A, Gurel A, Armutcu F, et al. Ginkgo biloba prevents mobile phone-induced oxidative stress in rat brain. Clin Chim Acta. Feb 2004;340(1-2):153-62. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  7. Meral I, Mert H, Mert N, et al. Effects of 900-MHz electromagnetic field emitted from cellular phone on brain oxidative stress and some vitamin levels of guinea pigs. Brain Res. 2007;1169:120-4. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  8. Salford LG, Brun AE, Eberhardt JL, Malmgren L, Persson BR. Nerve cell damage in mammalian brain after exposure to microwaves from GSM mobile phones. Environ Health Perspect. 2003;111(7):881-3; discussion A408. [Crossref]  [PubMed]  [PMC]
  9. Lai H, Horita A, Guy AW. Acute low-level microwave exposure and central cholinergic activity: studies on irradiation parameters. Bioelectromagnetics. 1988;9(4):355-62. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  10. Frey AH. Headaches from cellular telephones: are they real and what are the implications? Environ Health Perspect. 1998;106(3):101-3. [Crossref]  [PubMed]  [PMC]
  11. Gabriel C. Dielectric properties of biological tissue: variation with age. Bioelectromagnetics. 2005;Suppl 7:S12-8. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  12. Kramarenko AV, Tan U. Effects of high-frequency electromagnetic fields on human EEG: a brain mapping study. Int J Neurosci. 2003;113(7):1007-19. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  13. Fragopoulou AF, Miltiadous P, Stamatakis A, Stylianopoulou F, Koussoulakos SL, Margaritis LH. Whole body exposure with GSM 900MHz affects spatial memory in mice. Pathophysiology. 2010;17(3):179-87. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  14. Lapinsky SE, Easty AC. Electromagnetic interference in critical care. J Crit Care. 2006;21(3):267-70. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  15. Wild C. IARC Report to the Union for International Cancer Control (UICC) on the Interphone Study. 2011. 03.10.2011. [Link]
  16. Lahkola A, Auvinen A, Raitanen J, et al. Mobile phone use and risk of glioma in 5 North European countries. Int J Cancer. 2007;120(8):1769-75. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  17. Stam R, Yamaguchi-Sekino S. Occupational exposure to electromagnetic fields from medical sources. Ind Health. 2018;56(2):96-105. [Crossref]  [PubMed]  [PMC]
  18. Read R, O'Riordan T. The Precautionary Principle Under Fire. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development. 2017;59(5):4-15. [Crossref]
  19. Miller DL. Safety assurance in obstetrical ultrasound. Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 2008;29(2):156-64. [Crossref]  [PubMed]  [PMC]
  20. Tarantal AF, O'Brien WD, Hendrickx AG. Evaluation of the bioeffects of prenatal ultrasound exposure in the cynomolgus macaque (Macaca fascicularis): III. Developmental and hematologic studies. Teratology. 1993;47(2):159-70. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  21. Salvesen KA. Epidemiological prenatal ultrasound studies. Prog Biophys Mol Biol. 2007;93(1-3):295-300. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  22. Church CC, Miller MW. Quantification of risk from fetal exposure to diagnostic ultrasound. Prog Biophys Mol Biol. 2007;93(1-3):331-53. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  23. Fatemi M, Ogburn PL Jr, Greenleaf JF. Fetal stimulation by pulsed diagnostic ultrasound. J Ultrasound Med. 2001;20(8):883-9. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  24. Barnett SB. Routine ultrasound scanning in first trimester: what are the risks? Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 2002;23(5):387-91. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  25. Claes L, Willie B. The enhancement of bone regeneration by ultrasound. Prog Biophys Mol Biol. 2007;93(1-3):384-98. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  26. Ang ES Jr, Gluncic V, Duque A, Schafer ME, Rakic P. Prenatal exposure to ultrasound waves impacts neuronal migration in mice. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006;103(34):12903-10. [Crossref]  [PubMed]  [PMC]
  27. Bartal G, Sailer AM, Vano E. Should We Keep the Lead in the Aprons? Tech Vasc Interv Radiol. 2018;21(1):2-6. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  28. Schueler BA, Vrieze TJ, Bjarnason H, Stanson AW. An investigation of operator exposure in interventional radiology. Radiographics. 2006;26(5):1533-41; discussion 1541. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  29. International Commission on Radiological Protection. Accessed 14.03.2024, [Link]
  30. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Accessed 14.03.2024, [Link]
  31. Sammet S. Magnetic resonance safety. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2016;41(3):444-51. [Crossref]  [PubMed]  [PMC]
  32. Hipp ES, S.; Straus, C. MR Safety Standards for Medical Students Nationwide. presented at: Proceedings of the 19th Annual Meeting of ISMRM; 2012; Melbourne, Australia.
  33. Shellock F. Magnetic resonance procedures : health effects and safety. CRC Press; 2001. [Crossref]
  34. Schenck JF. Safety of strong, static magnetic fields. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2000;12(1):2-19. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  35. Kanal E, Barkovich AJ, Bell C, et al. ACR guidance document on MR safe practices: 2013. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2013;37(3):501-30. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  36. Schaefer DJ. Safety aspects of radiofrequency power deposition in magnetic resonance. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 1998;6(4):775-89. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  37. Shellock FG. Radiofrequency energy-induced heating during MR procedures: a review. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2000;12(1):30-6. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  38. Collins CM, Wang Z. Calculation of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields and their effects in MRI of human subjects. Magn Reson Med. 2011;65(5):1470-82. [Crossref]  [PubMed]  [PMC]
  39. Woods TO. Standards for medical devices in MRI: present and future. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2007;26(5):1186-9. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  40. Sammet S, Sammet CL. Implementation of a comprehensive MR safety course for medical students. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2015;42(6):1478-86. [Crossref]  [PubMed]  [PMC]
  41. Sammet S, Koch RM, Aguila F, Knopp MV. Residual magnetism in an MRI suite after field-rampdown: what are the issues and experiences? J Magn Reson Imaging. 2010;31(5):1272-6. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  42. Kanal E, Shellock FG, Talagala L. Safety considerations in MR imaging. Radiology. 1990;176(3):593-606. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  43. Alenezi A, Soliman K. Trends in radiation protection of positron emission tomography/computed tomography imaging. Ann ICRP. 2015;44(1 Suppl):259-75. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  44. Wernick MAJ. Emission tomography: the fundamentals of PET and SPECT. 2004.
  45. Hudzietzova J, Fulop M, Sabol J. Possibilities of the exposure reduction of hands during the preparation and application of radiopharmaceuticals. Bratisl Lek Listy. 2016;117(7):413-7. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  46. Al-Aamria M, Al-Balushia N, Bailey D. Estimation of Radiation Exposure to Workers During [18F] FDG PET/CT Procedures at Molecular Imaging Center, Oman. Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences. 2019;50(4):565-570. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  47. Sailer AM, Vergoossen L, Paulis L, et al. Personalized Feedback on Staff Dose in Fluoroscopy-Guided Interventions: A New Era in Radiation Dose Monitoring. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2017;40(11):1756-62. [Crossref]  [PubMed]  [PMC]