ArticleEnvironmental monitoring and assessment2018
Exposure levels of ELF magnetic fields in the residential areas of Mangaung Metropolitan Municipality.
Article in Environmental monitoring and assessment, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Occupational exposure to extremely low-frequency fields and cardiovascular consequences: a systematic review.Public health reviews · 2026Pooled it
- Ergonomics, Health, and Perceptions about Remote Domestic Workposts: Study in Areas of City of João Pessoa, Paraíba, Brazil.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024Article
- Risk-Based Assessment of 132 kV Electric Distribution Substations and Proximal Residential Areas in the Mangaung Metropolitan Region.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- Magnetic Fields and Cancer: Epidemiology, Cellular Biology, and Theranostics.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Review
- Exposure To Extremely Low-Frequency Magnetic Fields In Low- And Middle-Income Countries: An Overview.Radiation protection dosimetry · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate the exposure levels of ELF magnetic fields in the residential areas of Mangaung metropolitan municipality. Fifteen residential sites were randomly selected in Bloemfontein, nine in Botshabelo and six in Thaba Nchu areas of Mangaung. Measurements were collected at the distances of 3 m, 6 m and 9 m outside electrical substations, near every corner, using a Trifield meter model XE 100. Measurements were also collected from four different corners inside substations, near barrier screening and were referred to as a distance of 0 m (reference point). The results indicated a non-significant difference among 15 residential areas; BRE1 to BRE15 and six areas; TNRE1 to TRNE6. The exposure levels were significantly high in one residential area BORE1 (0.55 μT) as compared to other residential sites in Botshabelo (p < 0.001). The results obtained from the measurements also show a significant difference between the residential areas BORE4 and BORE8 (p < 0.01) as well as BORE4 and BORE9 (p < 0.006). The four distance interims also demonstrated a highly significant difference (p < 0.0001) when compared to one another. The t test showed a statistically significant difference for exposure levels recorded at 3 m, 6 m and 9 m in comparison to 0 m (p < 0.01). The exposure levels recorded at 3 m were also significantly different to those recorded at 6 m (p < 0.05) and 9 m (p < 0.01). The exposure levels measured at all distances are below the ICNIRP guidelines and the fields decrease rapidly with an increased distance from the source.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.