The Comparison of Approaches to Power Frequency Electromagnetic Field Hygienic Regulations

  • Nina Rubtsova
  • Sergey PerovEmail author
  • Olga Belaya
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering book series (LNEE, volume 598)


Power frequency electromagnetic fields are the risk factor for occupational and general public health. International and national electromagnetic safety guidelines set the exposure limit values and have some significant differences. The goal of this paper is to compare Russian hygienic norms with ICNIRP guidelines, EU Directive requirements for 50 Hz electromagnetic fields occupational and general public exposure, analyze and demonstrate the principal differences. The protection from harmful human electromagnetic field effect is based on principles: protection by time, protection by distance and protection by protective equipment. Various hygienic regulations use different approaches to the human harmful effect definitions therefore there are distinctions of electromagnetic fields permissible limit values in International and national electromagnetic safety standards and guidelines. ICNIRP guidelines and Directive EU regard safety limits only from short-term, acute effect. Chronic electromagnetic field exposure harmful effect threshold is a basis for Russian hygienic norm. These thresholds are defined as a results of biomedical complex researches. Protection by time principle is realized in Russian hygienic norms, which are strong time dependent for occupational exposure. It is the main distinctive characteristics from International hygienic guidelines and is based on chronic exposure harmful human health effect threshold definition and electromagnetic field cumulative effects concept. Russian permissible limit value (25 kV/m) may be higher than ICNIRP (10 kV/m) and Directive EU (20 kV/m) levels, but is limited by working time (no more than 10 min per day). In Russia for general public permissible limit values are graded according to possible exposure time per day.


Power frequency electromagnetic field Protection principles Permissible limit value 


  1. 1.
    IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans, “Non-ionizing radiation, Part 1: Static and extremely low-frequency (ELF) electric and magnetic fields”, Lyon, vol. 80 (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    SanPiN Sanitary and epidemiological requirements for physical factors in the workplace (2016). (in Russian)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    HN 2.1.8/ Threshold permissible values of 50 Hz magnetic fields in residential construction, living quarter and residential area (2007). (in Russian)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    SanPiN Changes and addendums No. 1 to SanPiN Sanitary and Epidemiological requirements to residential construction and living quarter residence conditions, Moscow (2010). (in Russian)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    SN 2971-84 Sanitary norms and rules of general public protection from electric field created by dc power frequency overhead transmission lines (1984). (in Russian)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    ICNIRP Guidelines for limiting exposure to time-varying electric and magnetic fields (1 Hz to 100 kHz). Health Phys. 99(6), 818–836 (2010)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Directive 2013/35/EU of 26 June 2013 on the minimum health and safety requirements regarding the exposure of workers to the risks arising from physical agents (electromagnetic fields) (2013)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Council Recommendation 1999/519/EC of 12 July 1999 on the limitation of exposure of the general public to electromagnetic fields (0 Hz to 300 GHz) (1999)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rubtsova, N., Paltsev, Yu., Perov, S., Bogacheva, E.: Dosing as intensity-time dependence criterion in the EMF hygienic rating in Russia. Electromagn. Biol. Med. 37(1), 43–49 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.FSBSI “Izmerov Research Institute of Occupational Health”MoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations