Cargando…

Perspectives on setting limits for RF contact currents: a commentary

BACKGROUND: Limits for exposure to radiofrequency (RF) contact currents are specified in the two dominant RF safety standards and guidelines developed by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) and the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). These...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Tell, Richard A., Tell, Christopher A.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5769355/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29334937
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12938-018-0434-3
_version_ 1783292884323139584
author Tell, Richard A.
Tell, Christopher A.
author_facet Tell, Richard A.
Tell, Christopher A.
author_sort Tell, Richard A.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Limits for exposure to radiofrequency (RF) contact currents are specified in the two dominant RF safety standards and guidelines developed by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) and the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). These limits are intended to prevent RF burns when contacting RF energized objects caused by high local tissue current densities. We explain what contact currents are and review some history of the relevant limits with an emphasis on so-called “touch” contacts, i.e., contact between a person and a contact current source during touch via a very small contact area. RESULTS: Contact current limits were originally set on the basis of controlling the specific absorption rate resulting from the current flowing through regions of small conductive cross section within the body, such as the wrist or ankle. More recently, contact currents have been based on thresholds of perceived heating. In the latest standard from the IEEE developed for NATO, contact currents have been based on two research studies in which thresholds for perception of thermal warmth or thermal pain have been measured. Importantly, these studies maximized conductive contact between the subject and the contact current source. This factor was found to dominate the response to heating wherein high resistance contact, such as from dry skin, can result in local heating many times that from a highly conductive contact. Other factors such as electrode size and shape, frequency of the current and the physical force associated with contact are found to introduce uncertainty in threshold values when comparing data across multiple studies. CONCLUSIONS: Relying on studies in which the contact current is minimized for a given threshold does not result in conservative protection limits. Future efforts to develop limits on contact currents should include consideration of (1) the basis for the limits (perception, pain, tissue damage); (2) understanding of the practical conditions of real world exposure for contact currents such as contact resistance, size and shape of the contact electrode and applied force at the point of contact; (3) consistency of how contact currents are applied in research studies across different researchers; (4) effects of frequency.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5769355
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-57693552018-01-25 Perspectives on setting limits for RF contact currents: a commentary Tell, Richard A. Tell, Christopher A. Biomed Eng Online Review BACKGROUND: Limits for exposure to radiofrequency (RF) contact currents are specified in the two dominant RF safety standards and guidelines developed by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) and the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). These limits are intended to prevent RF burns when contacting RF energized objects caused by high local tissue current densities. We explain what contact currents are and review some history of the relevant limits with an emphasis on so-called “touch” contacts, i.e., contact between a person and a contact current source during touch via a very small contact area. RESULTS: Contact current limits were originally set on the basis of controlling the specific absorption rate resulting from the current flowing through regions of small conductive cross section within the body, such as the wrist or ankle. More recently, contact currents have been based on thresholds of perceived heating. In the latest standard from the IEEE developed for NATO, contact currents have been based on two research studies in which thresholds for perception of thermal warmth or thermal pain have been measured. Importantly, these studies maximized conductive contact between the subject and the contact current source. This factor was found to dominate the response to heating wherein high resistance contact, such as from dry skin, can result in local heating many times that from a highly conductive contact. Other factors such as electrode size and shape, frequency of the current and the physical force associated with contact are found to introduce uncertainty in threshold values when comparing data across multiple studies. CONCLUSIONS: Relying on studies in which the contact current is minimized for a given threshold does not result in conservative protection limits. Future efforts to develop limits on contact currents should include consideration of (1) the basis for the limits (perception, pain, tissue damage); (2) understanding of the practical conditions of real world exposure for contact currents such as contact resistance, size and shape of the contact electrode and applied force at the point of contact; (3) consistency of how contact currents are applied in research studies across different researchers; (4) effects of frequency. BioMed Central 2018-01-15 /pmc/articles/PMC5769355/ /pubmed/29334937 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12938-018-0434-3 Text en © The Author(s) 2018 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Review
Tell, Richard A.
Tell, Christopher A.
Perspectives on setting limits for RF contact currents: a commentary
title Perspectives on setting limits for RF contact currents: a commentary
title_full Perspectives on setting limits for RF contact currents: a commentary
title_fullStr Perspectives on setting limits for RF contact currents: a commentary
title_full_unstemmed Perspectives on setting limits for RF contact currents: a commentary
title_short Perspectives on setting limits for RF contact currents: a commentary
title_sort perspectives on setting limits for rf contact currents: a commentary
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5769355/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29334937
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12938-018-0434-3
work_keys_str_mv AT tellricharda perspectivesonsettinglimitsforrfcontactcurrentsacommentary
AT tellchristophera perspectivesonsettinglimitsforrfcontactcurrentsacommentary