The present study provides an intercomparison of the induced quantities in a human model for uniform magnetic field exposures at extremely low frequency. A total of six research groups have cooperated in this joint intercomparison study. The computational conditions and numeric human phantom including the conductivity of tissue were set identically to focus on the uncertainty in computed fields. Differences in the maximal and 99th percentile value of the in situ electric field were less than 30 and 10 % except for the results of one group. Differences in the current density averaged over 1 cm(2) of the central nerve tissue are 10 % or less except for the results of one group. This comparison suggests that the computational uncertainty of the in situ electric field/current density due to different methods and coding is smaller than that caused by different human phantoms and the conductivitys of tissue, which was reported in a previous study.

No abstract

Contact currents flow through the human body when a conducting object with different potential is touched. There are limited reports on numerical dosimetry for contact current exposure compared with electromagnetic field exposures. In this study, using an anatomical human adult male model, we performed numerical calculation of internal electric fields resulting from 60 Hz contact current flowing from the left hand to the left foot as a basis case. Next, we performed a variety of similar calculations with varying tissue conductivity and contact area, and compared the results with the basis case. We found that very low conductivity of skin and a small electrode size enhanced the internal fields in the muscle, subcutaneous fat and skin close to the contact region. The 99th percentile value of the fields in a particular tissue type did not reliably account for these fields near the electrode. In the arm and leg, the internal fields for the muscle anisotropy were identical to those in the isotropy case using a conductivity value longitudinal to the muscle fibre. Furthermore, the internal fields in the tissues abreast of the joints such as the wrist and the elbow, including low conductivity tissues, as well as the electrode contact region, exceeded the ICNIRP basic restriction for the general public with contact current as the reference level value.

An ungrounded human, such as a substation worker, receives contact currents when touching a grounded object in electric fields. In this article, contact currents and internal electric fields induced in the human when exposed to non-uniform electric fields at 50 Hz are numerically calculated. This is done using a realistic human model standing at a distance of 0.1-0.5 m from the grounded conductive object. We found that the relationship between the external electric field strength and the contact current obtained by calculation is in good agreement with previous measurements. Calculated results show that the contact currents largely depend on the distance, and that the induced electric fields in the tissues are proportional to the contact current regardless of the non-uniformity of the external electric field. Therefore, it is concluded that the contact current, rather than the spatial average of the external electric field, is more suitable for evaluating electric field dosimetry of tissues. The maximum induced electric field appears in the spinal cord in the central nervous system tissues, with the induced electric field in the spinal cord approaching the basic restriction (100 mV/m) of the new 2010 International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection guidelines for occupational exposure, if the contact current is 0.5 mA.

The main aim of this study was to investigate occupational exposure to electric fields, and current densities and contact currents associated with tasks at air-insulated 110 kV substations and analyze if the action value of EU Directive 2004/40/EC was exceeded. Four workers volunteered to simulate the following tasks: Task (A) maintenance of an operating device of a disconnector at ground or floor level, Task (B) maintenance of an operating device of a circuit breaker at ground or floor level, Task (C) breaker head maintenance from a man hoist, and Task (D) maintenance of an operating device of a circuit breaker from a service platform. The highest maximum average current density in the neck was 1.8 mA/m(2) (calculated internal electric field 9.0-18.0 mV/m) and the highest contact current was 79.4 µA. All measured values at substations were lower than the limit value (10 mA/m(2)) of the EU Directive 2004/40/EC and the 2010 basic restrictions (0.1 and 0.8 V/m for central nervous system tissues of the head, and all tissues of the head and body, respectively) of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP).