The electromagnetic field (EMF) in electric vehicles (EVs) affects not only drivers, but also passengers (using EVs daily) and electronic devices inside. This article summarizes the measurement methods applicable in studies of complex EMF in EVs focused on the evaluation of characteristics of such exposure to EVs users and drivers, together with the results of investigations into the static magnetic field (SMF), the extremely low-frequency magnetic field (ELF) and radiofrequency (RF) EMF related to the use of the EVs in urban transportation. The investigated EMF components comply separately with limits provided by international labor law and guidelines regarding the evaluation of human short-term exposure; however other issues need attention—electromagnetic immunity of electronic devices and long-term human exposure. The strongest EMF was found in the vicinity of direct current (DC) charging installations—SMF up to 0.2 mT and ELF magnetic field up to 100 µT—and inside the EVs—up to 30 µT close to its internal electrical equipment. Exposure to RF EMF inside the EVs (up to a few V/m) was found and recognized to be emitted from outdoor radiocommunications systems, together with emissions from sources used inside vehicles, such as passenger mobile communication handsets and antennas of Wi-Fi routers.

The use of radiofrequency (98–2450 MHz range) personal exposimeters to measure the electric field (E-field) in far-field exposure conditions was modelled numerically using human body model Gustav and finite integration technique software. Calculations with 256 models of exposure scenarios show that the human body has a significant influence on the results of measurements using a single body-worn exposimeter in various locations near the body ((from −96 to +133)%, measurement errors with respect to the unperturbedE-field value). When an exposure assessment involves the exposure limitations provided for the strength of an unperturbedE-field. To improve the application of exposimeters in compliance tests, such discrepancies in the results of measurements by a body-worn exposimeter may be compensated by using of a correction factor applied to the measurement results or alternatively to the exposure limit values. The location of a single exposimeter on the waist to the back side of the human body or on the front of the chest reduces the range of exposure assessments uncertainty (covering various exposure conditions). However, still the uncertainty of exposure assessments using a single exposimeter remains significantly higher than the assessment of the unperturbedE-field using spot measurements.

The aim of the study was to identify and assess electromagnetic radiofrequency radiation (EMRR) exposure in a workplace located in a publicly accessible environment, and represented by offices (where exposure is caused by various transmitters of local fixed indoor and outdoor wireless communication systems). The investigations were performed in 45 buildings (in urban and rural areas in various regions of Poland), using frequency-selective electric field strength (E-field) exposimeters sensitive to the EMRR with a frequency range of 88–2500 MHz, split into 12 sub-bands corresponding to the operating frequencies of typical EMRR sources. The variability of the E-field was analyzed for each frequency range and the total level of exposure by statistical parameters of recorded exposimetric profiles: minimum, maximum, median values and 25–75th — percentiles. The main sources of exposure to EMRR are mobile phone base transceiver stations (BTS) and radio-television transmitters (RTV). The frequency composition in a particular office depends on the building’s location. The E-field recorded in buildings in urban and rural areas from the outdoor BTS did not exceed respectively: medians − 0.19 and 0.05 V/m, 75th percentiles − 0.25 and 0.09 V/m. In buildings equipped with the indoor BTS antennas the E-field did not exceed: medians − 1 V/m, 75th percentiles − 1.8 V/m. Whereas in urban and rural areas, the median and 75th percentile values of the E-field recorded in buildings located near the RTV (within 1 km) did not exceed: 1.5 and 3.8 V/m or 0.4 and 0.8 V/m, for radio FM band or for TV bands, respectively. Investigations confirmed the practical applicability of the exposimetric measurements technique for evaluating parameters of worker’s exposure in both frequency- and time-domain. The presented results show EMRR exposure of workers or general public in locations comparable to offices to be well below international limits.

The aim of this study was to model the absorption in the head of an electromagnetic field (EMF) emitted by a radiofrequency identification reader operating at a frequency of 13.56 MHz (recognized as an RFID HF reader), with respect to the direct biophysical effects evaluated by the specific absorption rate (SAR), averaged over the entire head or locally, over any 10 g of tissues. The exposure effects were compared between the head of a user of a hearing implant with an acoustic sensor and a person without such an implant, used as a referenced case. The RFID HF reader, such as is used in shops or libraries, was modeled as a loop antenna (35 × 35 cm). SAR was calculated in a multi-layer ellipsoidal model of the head—with or without models of hearing implants of two types: Bonebridge (MED-EL, Austria) or bone anchored hearing aid attract (BAHA) (Cochlear, Sweden). Relative SAR values were calculated as the ratio between the SAR in the head of the implant user and the non-user. It was found that the use of BAHA hearing implants increased the effects of 13.56 MHz EMF exposure in the head in comparison to non-user—up to 2.1 times higher localized SAR in the worst case exposure scenario, and it is statistically significant higher than when Bonebridge implants are used (Kruscal–Wallis test with Bonferroni correction, p < 0.017). The evaluation of EMF exposure from an RFID reader with respect to limits established for the implant non-user population may be insufficient to protect an implant user when exposure approaches these limits, but the significant difference between exposure effects in users of various types of implants need to be considered.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the absorption in a user’s head of an electromagnetic field (EMF) emitted by the Wi-Fi and/or Bluetooth module of a wearable small Internet of Things (IoT) electronic device (emitting EMF of up to 100 mW), in order to test the hypothesis that EMF has an insignificant influence on humans, and to compare the levels of such EMF absorption in various scenarios when using this device. The modelled EMF source was a meandered inverted-F antenna (MIFA)-type antenna of the ESP32-WROOM-32 radio module used in wearable devices developed within the reported study. To quantify the EMF absorption, the specific energy absorption rate (SAR) values were calculated in a multi-layer ellipsoidal model of the human head (involving skin, fat, skull bones and brain layers). The obtained results show up to 10 times higher values of SAR from the MIFA located in the headband, in comparison to its location on the helmet. Only wearable IoT devices (similar in construction and way of use to the investigated device) emitting at below 3 mW equivalent isotropically radiated power (EIRP) from Wi-Fi/Bluetooth communications modules may be considered environmentally insignificant EMF sources.

The aim of this study was to model and evaluate the Specific Energy Absorption Rate (SAR) values in humans in proximity to fixed multi-antenna I-RFID readers of passive tags under various scenarios mimicking exposure when they are incorporated in Real-Time Location Systems (RTLS), or used to monitor Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). The sources of the electromagnetic field (EMF) in the modelled readers were rectangular microstrip antennas at a resonance frequency in free space of 866 MHz from the ultra-high frequency (UHF) RFID frequency range of 865–868 MHz. The obtained results of numerical modelling showed that the SAR values in the body 5 cm away from the UHF RFID readers need consideration with respect to exposure limits set by international guidelines to prevent adverse thermal effects of exposure to EMF: when the effective radiated power exceeds 5.5 W with respect to the general public/unrestricted environments exposure limits, and with respect to occupational/restricted environments exposure limits, when the effective radiated power exceeds 27.5 W.