Evaluation of hazards caused by magnetic field emitted from magnetotherapy applicator to the users of bone conduction hearing prostheses
More details
Hide details
Centralny Instytut Ochrony Pracy – Państwowy Instytut Badawczy / Central Institute for Labour Protection – National Research Institute, Warszawa, Poland (Pracownia Zagrożeń Elektromagnetycznych / Laboratory of Electromagnetic Hazards)
Patryk Zradziński   

Centralny Instytut Ochrony Pracy – Państwowy Instytut Badawczy, Pracownia Zagrożeń Elektromagnetycznych, ul. Czerniakowska 16, 00-701 Warszawa
Online publication date: 2017-06-27
Med Pr 2017;68(4):469–477
Background: Low frequency magnetic field, inducing electrical field (Ein) inside conductive structures may directly affect the human body, e.g., by electrostimulation in the nervous system. In addition, the spatial distribution and level of Ein are disturbed in tissues neighbouring the medical implant. Material and Methods: Numerical models of magneto-therapeutic applicator (emitting sinusoidal magnetic field of frequency 100 Hz) and the user of hearing implant (based on bone conduction: Bonebridge type – IS-BB or BAHA (bone anchorde hearing aid) type – IS-BAHA) were worked out. Values of Ein were analyzed in the model of the implant user’s head, e.g., physiotherapist, placed next to the applicator. Results: It was demonstrated that the use of IS-BB or IS-BAHA makes electromagnetic hazards significantly higher (up to 4-fold) compared to the person without implant exposed to magnetic field heterogeneous in space. Hazards for IS-BAHA users are higher than those for IS-BB users. It was found that applying the principles of directive 2013/35/EU, at exposure to magnetic field below exposure limits the direct biophysical effects of exposure in hearing prosthesis users may exceed relevant limits. Whereas applying principles and limits set up by Polish labor law or the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) guidelines, the compliance with the exposure limits also ensures the compliance with relevant limits of electric field induced in the body of hearing implant user. Conclusions: It is necessary to assess individually electromagnetic hazard concerning hearing implant users bearing in mind significantly higher hazards to them compared to person without implant or differences between levels of hazards faced by users of implants of various structural or technological solutions. Med Pr 2017;68(4):469–477