Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Induced Electric Fields: Applications01:27

Induced Electric Fields: Applications

1.8K
An important distinction exists between the electric field induced by a changing magnetic field and the electrostatic field produced by a fixed charge distribution. Specifically, the induced electric field is nonconservative because it does not work in moving a charge over a closed path. In contrast, the electrostatic field is conservative and does no net work over a closed path. Hence, electric potential can be associated with the electrostatic field but not the induced field. The following...
1.8K
Electrostatic Boundary Conditions01:16

Electrostatic Boundary Conditions

547
Consider an external electric field propagating through a homogeneous medium. When the electric field crosses the surface boundary of the medium, it undergoes a discontinuity. The electric field can be resolved into normal and tangential components. The amount by which the field changes at any boundary is given by the difference between the field components above and below the surface boundary.
The surface integral of an electric field is given by Gauss's law in integral form and is related to...
547
Equipotential Surfaces and Conductors01:16

Equipotential Surfaces and Conductors

3.5K
For a conductor in which all charges are at rest, the conductor's surface is equipotential. The electric field is always perpendicular to equipotential surfaces. Therefore, in a conductor with static charges, the electric field just outside the conductor is always perpendicular to the conductor's surface. Any tangential component of the electric field will cause charges to move inside the conductor, which will violate the electrostatic nature of the system. In an electrostatic...
3.5K
Electromagnetic Fields01:30

Electromagnetic Fields

2.2K
Electric fields generated by static charges, often referred to as electrostatic fields, are characteristically different from electric fields created by time-varying magnetic fields. While the former is a conservative field, implying that no net work is done on a test charge if it goes around in a complete loop in the field, the latter is, by definition, not a conservative field; net work is done, and it is proportional to the rate of change of magnetic flux.
However, the observation of...
2.2K
Induced Electric Fields01:23

Induced Electric Fields

3.8K
The fact that emfs are induced in circuits implies that work is being done on the conduction electrons in the wires. What can possibly be the source of this work? We know that it’s neither a battery nor a magnetic field, as a battery does not have to be present in a circuit where current is induced, and magnetic fields never do any work on moving charges. The source of the work is in fact an electric field that is induced in the wires. For example, if a stationary conductor is placed in a...
3.8K
Boundary Conditions for Current Density01:25

Boundary Conditions for Current Density

934
Current density becomes discontinuous across an interface of materials with different electrical conductivities. The normal component of the current density is continuous across the boundary.
934

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Recent Advances and Future Perspective in Computational Bioelectromagnetics for Exposure Assessments.

Bioelectromagnetics·2025
Same author

An Alternative Approach for Evaluating Induced and Contact Currents for Compliance with Their Exposure Limits (100 kHz to 110 MHz) in IEEE Std C95.1-2019.

Health physics·2024
Same author

Thresholds and mechanisms of human magnetophosphene perception induced by low frequency sinusoidal magnetic fields.

Brain stimulation·2024
Same author

Cryptochromes in Mammals and Birds: Clock or Magnetic Compass?

Physiology (Bethesda, Md.)·2021
Same author

Perspectives on setting limits for RF contact currents: a commentary.

Biomedical engineering online·2018
Same author

Chinook salmon and green sturgeon migrate through San Francisco Estuary despite large distortions in the local magnetic field produced by bridges.

PloS one·2017

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Aug 11, 2025

Effective Analysis of Human Exposure Conditions with Body-worn Dosimeters in the 2.4 GHz Band
06:43

Effective Analysis of Human Exposure Conditions with Body-worn Dosimeters in the 2.4 GHz Band

Published on: May 2, 2018

7.1K

Aligning Exposure Limits for Contact Currents with Exposure Limits for Electric Fields.

Robert Kavet1, Richard A Tell2

  • 1Kavet Consulting LLC, 4455 Worden Way, Oakland, CA 94619.

Health Physics
|February 3, 2023
PubMed
Summary

Recommendations for revising IEEE electromagnetic field exposure limits focus on protecting against adverse effects like burns from finger contact. Proposed changes include limiting touch time and adjusting electric field exposure reference levels to enhance safety.

More Related Videos

X-ray Beam Induced Current Measurements for Multi-Modal X-ray Microscopy of Solar Cells
10:16

X-ray Beam Induced Current Measurements for Multi-Modal X-ray Microscopy of Solar Cells

Published on: August 20, 2019

13.9K
Finite Element Modelling of a Cellular Electric Microenvironment
08:23

Finite Element Modelling of a Cellular Electric Microenvironment

Published on: May 18, 2021

3.5K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Aug 11, 2025

Effective Analysis of Human Exposure Conditions with Body-worn Dosimeters in the 2.4 GHz Band
06:43

Effective Analysis of Human Exposure Conditions with Body-worn Dosimeters in the 2.4 GHz Band

Published on: May 2, 2018

7.1K
X-ray Beam Induced Current Measurements for Multi-Modal X-ray Microscopy of Solar Cells
10:16

X-ray Beam Induced Current Measurements for Multi-Modal X-ray Microscopy of Solar Cells

Published on: August 20, 2019

13.9K
Finite Element Modelling of a Cellular Electric Microenvironment
08:23

Finite Element Modelling of a Cellular Electric Microenvironment

Published on: May 18, 2021

3.5K

Area of Science:

  • Electromagnetic field (EMF) safety standards
  • Non-ionizing radiation protection
  • Human exposure to EMFs

Background:

  • Existing IEEE and ICNIRP limits for EMF exposure (0-300 GHz) aim to prevent adverse health effects.
  • Current limits for contact currents (CC) and electric field (E-field) exposure reference levels (ERLs) are not consistently aligned, particularly between 100 kHz and 110 MHz.
  • The IEEE standard (IEEE Std C95.1™-2019) has ERLs >100 kHz that induce higher currents than its CC ERLs.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To recommend revisions to the IEEE standard (IEEE Std C95.1™-2019) for electromagnetic field exposure limits.
  • To address discrepancies between E-field exposure reference levels and contact current limits.
  • To enhance protection against adverse effects, particularly thermal injury from finger contact.

Main Methods:

  • Analysis of the relationship between E-field exposure and induced contact currents.
  • Focus on the 'touch' scenario involving finger contact with a grounded conductor.
  • Evaluation of proposed remedies: limiting contact time to 1 second and modifying the E-field ERL frequency dependence.

Main Results:

  • IEEE C95.1 E-field ERLs >100 kHz induce significantly greater currents than prescribed CC ERLs.
  • Finger contact scenario poses a burn risk due to rapid temperature rise, influenced by skin impedance (moistness/dryness).
  • Proposed revisions, including a 1-second contact limit and a frequency-ramp for E-field ERLs (100 kHz-30 MHz), aim to mitigate this risk.

Conclusions:

  • Revising the IEEE standard with proposed changes can improve protection against adverse outcomes in touch scenarios.
  • Further attention is needed for scenarios like grounded persons contacting ungrounded objects and limb arcing, which require case-by-case analysis.
  • Future updates to IEEE and ICNIRP guidelines should incorporate insights into managing these complex exposure situations.