Pj. Villeneuve et al., ALTERNATE INDEXES OF ELECTRIC AND MAGNETIC-FIELD EXPOSURES AMONG ONTARIO ELECTRICAL UTILITY WORKERS, Bioelectromagnetics, 19(3), 1998, pp. 140-151
Epidemiologic studies examining the risk of cancer among occupational
groups exposed to electric fields (EF) and or magnetic fields (MF) hav
e relied on traditional summaries of exposure such as the time weighte
d arithmetic or geometric mean exposure. Findings from animal and cell
ular studies support the consideration of alternative measures of expo
sure capable of capturing threshold and intermittent measures of field
strength. The main objective of this study was to identify a series o
f suitable exposure metrics for an ongoing cancer incidence study in a
cohort of Ontario electric utility workers. Principal components anal
ysis (PCA) and correlational analysis were used to explore the relatio
nships within and between series of EF and MF exposure indices. Exposu
re data were collected using personal monitors worn by a sample of 820
workers which yielded 4247 worker days of measurement data. For both
EF and MF, the first axis of the PCA identified a series of intercorre
lated indices that included the geometric mean, median and arithmetic
mean. A considerable portion of the variability in EF and MF exposures
were accounted for by two other principal component axes. The second
axes for EF and MF exposures were representative of the standard devia
tion (standard deviation) and thresholds of field measures. To a lesse
r extent, the variability in the exposure variable was explained by ti
me dependent indices which consisted of autocorrelations at 5 min lags
and average transitions in field strength. Our results suggest that t
he variability in exposure data can only be accounted for by using sev
eral exposure indices, and consequently, a series of metrics should be
used when exploring the risk of cancer owing to MF and EF exposure in
this cohort. Furthermore, the poor correlations observed between indi
ces of MF and EF reinforce the need to be take both fields into accoun
t when assessing the risk of cancer in this occupational group. (C) 19
98 Wiley-Liss, Inc.