| Title |
Conduct of a personal radiofrequency electromagnetic field measurement study: proposed study protocol
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Environmental Health, May 2010
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1476-069x-9-23 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Martin Röösli, Patrizia Frei, John Bolte, Georg Neubauer, Elisabeth Cardis, Maria Feychting, Peter Gajsek, Sabine Heinrich, Wout Joseph, Simon Mann, Luc Martens, Evelyn Mohler, Roger C Parslow, Aslak Harbo Poulsen, Katja Radon, Joachim Schüz, György Thuroczy, Jean-François Viel, Martine Vrijheid |
| Abstract |
The development of new wireless communication technologies that emit radio frequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) is ongoing, but little is known about the RF-EMF exposure distribution in the general population. Previous attempts to measure personal exposure to RF-EMF have used different measurement protocols and analysis methods making comparisons between exposure situations across different study populations very difficult. As a result, observed differences in exposure levels between study populations may not reflect real exposure differences but may be in part, or wholly due to methodological differences. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 96 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 1% |
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 93 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 17 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 14 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 10% |
| Lecturer | 8 | 8% |
| Other | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 19 | 20% |
| Unknown | 22 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Engineering | 20 | 21% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 16% |
| Environmental Science | 12 | 13% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 6% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 14 | 15% |
| Unknown | 25 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 November 2021.
All research outputs
#6,392,214
of 22,710,079 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Health
#731
of 1,483 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,274
of 94,247 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Health
#4
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,710,079 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,483 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 31.3. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 94,247 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.