Patrick Reilly J
*Metatec Associates. 12516 Davan Dr., Silver Spring, MD 20904.
Health Phys. 2014 Oct;107(4):343-50. doi: 10.1097/HP.0000000000000112.
Differences between IEEE C95 Standards (C95.6-2002 and C95.1-2005) in the low-frequency (1 Hz-100 kHz) and the ICNIRP-2010 guidelines appear across the frequency spectrum. Factors accounting for lack of convergence include: differences between the IEEE standards and the ICNIRP guidelines with respect to biological induction models, stated objectives, data trail from experimentally derived thresholds through physical and biological principles, selection and justification of safety/reduction factors, use of probability models, compliance standards for the limbs as distinct from the whole body, defined population categories, strategies for central nervous system protection below 20 Hz, and correspondence of environmental electric field limits with contact currents. This paper discusses these factors and makes the case for adoption of the limits in the IEEE standards.
IEEE C95标准（C95.6 - 2002和C95.1 - 2005）与ICNIRP - 2010指南在低频（1赫兹至100千赫兹）范围内的差异呈现于整个频谱。导致缺乏一致性的因素包括：IEEE标准与ICNIRP指南在生物感应模型、既定目标、从实验得出的阈值经物理和生物学原理推导的数据路径、安全/降低系数的选择与论证、概率模型的使用、肢体与全身不同的合规标准、定义的人群类别、20赫兹以下中枢神经系统保护策略以及环境电场限值与接触电流的对应关系等方面存在差异。本文讨论了这些因素，并论证了采用IEEE标准限值的理由。
