مقالات  دکتر منصور ضیایی  


  Public exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields in everyday microenvironments: An updated systematic review for Europe Environmental Research 2019 ISI IF=4.73 Hamed Jalilian, Marloes Eeftens, Mansour Ziaeid∗, Martin Röösli سوم
Communication technologies are rapidly changing and this may affect public exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF). This systematic review of literature aims to update a previous review on public everyday RF-EMF exposure in Europe, which covered publications until 2015. From 144 eligible records identified by means of a systematic search in PubMed, Embase and Web of Knowledge databases, published between May 2015 and 1 July 2018, 26 records met the inclusion criteria. We extracted quantitative data on public exposure in different indoors, outdoors and transport environments. The data was descriptively analyzed with respect to the exposure patterns between different types of environments. Mean RF-EMF exposure in homes, schools and offices were between 0.04 and 0.76 V/m. Mean outdoor exposure values ranged from 0.07 to 1.27 V/ m with downlink signals from mobile phone base stations being the most relevant contributor. RF-EMF levels tended to increase with increasing urbanity. Levels in public transport (bus, train and tram) and cars were between 0.14 and 0.69 V/m. The highest levels, up to 1.97 V/m, were measured in public transport stations with downlink as the most relevant contributor. In line with previous studies, RF-EMF exposure levels were highest in the transportation systems followed by outdoor and private indoor environments. This review does not indicate a noticeable increase in everyday RF-EMF exposure since 2012 despite increasing use of wireless communication devices.

دریافت فایل پیوست

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935119303068

  Coefficient of friction, walking speed and cadence on slippery and dry surfaces: shoes with different groove depths International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics 2019 ISI IF=1.377 Mansour Ziaei, Hamidreza Mokhtarinia, Farhad Tabatabai Ghomshe & Maryam Maghsoudipour نفر اول
Objective. The present study aimed to determine the coefficient of friction (COF), walking speed (WS) and cadence while walking on slippery and dry surfaces using shoes with different sole groove depths to predict likelihood of fall. Background. Design of shoe sole groove is crucial to prevent slipping during walking. Methods. 22 healthy young men (mean age 24.5, body mass index 22.5) volunteered for this semi-experimental study. Six different conditions of the test (combination of three shoes and two surfaces) were defined and the condition was repeated three times. In total, 396 trials (22 subjects × 3 groove depths × 2 surfaces × 3 times) were obtained for data analysis. COF was recorded by force platform at 1000 Hz and walking parameters recorded using 3D motion analysis with six infrared cameras at 200 Hz. Results. The highest COF was obtained from the deepest groove depth (5.0 mm) on both dry and slippery surfaces. The COF on slippery surfaces was significantly lower in comparison with dry surfaces. WS and cadence were not significantly different on dry and slippery surfaces. Conclusion. The deeper groove is better to prevent slipping because the COF increases by increasing the shoe sole groove depth. WS did not change on dry and slippery surfaces.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10803548.2017.1398922

  Author’s Reply to: Cancer incidence and mortality among firefighters International Journal of Cancer 2019 ISI IF=4.982 Hamed Jalilian, Mansour Ziaei, Elisabete Weiderpass, Corina Silvia Rueegg, Yahya Khosravi and Kristina Kjaerheim نفر دوم
Dear Editor,We reviewed with a great interest the letter to the editor by Kawada regarding our article on “Cancer incidence and mortality among firefighters”.1Atfirst, the letter presents a short summary of main results and then comments on the findings for incidence and mortality separately.We have carefully read the letter but have not been able to identify a specific question. As we understand it, however, the letter proposes that:1. There is no well-documented evidence indicating the mechanism of colon cancer among firefighters and comprehensive studies are needed, considering also lifestyle factors, to come to a conclusion on this relationship.2. The significant mortality risk of some cancers including digestive and respiratory cancers as well as mesothelioma is consistently caused by asbestos.Additionally, Kawada stated that there are not enough pro-spective studies to do another meta-analysis, beyond the latest review from LeMasterset al.2We agree with Kawada that no known exposures in firefighting work are strongly associated with colon cancer, and based on this the authors stated that occupational exposures might have smaller effects than lifestyles factors on digestive cancers including colon cancer.Regarding the second comment, similar statements have been presented in our review, indicating the probable association between asbestos exposure and digestive cancers as well as a consistent relationship between asbestos and mesothelioma in firefighters. However, the pooled risk estimates of17 mortality studies (1.00, 95% confidence interval [95%CI]0.92–1.09) and 17 incidence studies (0.94, 95%CI 0.84–1.06)showed no significantly elevated risk for lung cancer.Finally, we fully agree with the comment that more prospective studies are needed, which we also pointed out in our article.We still thought that our systematic review and meta-analysis could add enough individual studies (14 studies) to warrant for an update since the meta-analysis of LeMasterset al. in 2006.2However, we agree that we have limited number of studies for some of the cancers investigated (<5 studies) such as skin, intestine and breast cancers as well as Hodgkin’s disease, which could be the reason why we did not detect a significantly elevated risk in these types of cancers. Among cancers with a significantly elevated risk, the results were based on the pooling of at least five studies, and the literature suggests that there are enough studies to do a meta-analysis.3,4

دریافت فایل پیوست

https://authorservices.wiley.com/api/pdf/fullArticle/16439405

  Author’s reply to: Meta-analysis of cancer risks of professionalfirefighters International Journal of Cancer 2019 ISI IF=4.982 Hamed Jalilian, MansourZiaei, Elisabete Weiderpass,YahyaKhosravi, Kristina Kjaerheim and Corina S. Rueegg نفر دوم
Dear Sir,We would like to thank Dr Casjens and colleagues for their critical and thorough comments on our article: cancer incidence and mortality among firefighters.1We are happy to dis-cuss all the points raised below.The authors argue for stratification of the results by study design and disagree with the pooling of different risk estimates.We agree that pooling of different risk estimates can lead to biased results. However, if the outcome is rare (such as all cancers studied in our review) and the risk estimates are close to one(almost all cancers among firefighters) estimates from case–control and cohort studies can be pooled without bias.2,3Becauseof the few numbers of studies in some of the cancer types, we therefore preferred to not stratify by study design. Moreover, the proportion of case–control studies among all included studies was maximally 30% (for incidence/mortality of lung cancer). It is true that using multiple estimates of specific cancer sitesfrom one study would give more weight to this one study. How-ever, since it was only two studies that reported two estimates based on the same number of cases, we do not think that this distorts our results. Because the estimates reported differed, we thought it was important to include both of them. For example, Ahn et al.4reported a significantly elevated standardized mortality ratio of1.56 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1.01–2.41) for kidney cancer, with no significant elevation of standardized rate ratio (0.69;95% CI 0.16–2.99) for this organ.

دریافت فایل پیوست

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ijc.32403

  Cancer incidence and mortality among firefighters International Journal of Cancer 2019; 145 ISI 4.982 Hamed Jalilian, Mansour Ziaei, Elisabete Weiderpass, Corina Silvia Rueegg, Yahya Khosravi and Kristina Kjaerheim 2
Firefighters are exposed to both known and suspected carcinogens. This study aims to systematically review the literature on the association of firefighting occupation and cancer incidence and mortality, overall and for specific cancer sites. A systematic review using PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science was performed up to January 1, 2018. We extracted risk estimates of cancers and calculated summary incidence risk estimates (SIRE), summary mortality risk estimates (SMRE), and their 95% confidence intervals (CI). Publication bias and risk of bias in individual studies were assessed using Begg’s and Egger’s tests and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS), respectively. We included 50 papers in the review and 48 in the meta-analysis. We found significantly elevated SIREs for cancer of the colon (1.14; CI 1.06 to 1.21), rectum (1.09; CI 1.00 to 1.20), prostate (1.15; CI 1.05 to 1.27), testis (1.34; CI 1.08 to 1.68), bladder (1.12; CI 1.04 to 1.21), thyroid (1.22; CI 1.01 to 1.48), pleura (1.60; CI 1.09 to 2.34), and for malignant melanoma (1.21; CI 1.02 to 1.45). We found significant SMREs of 1.36 (1.18 to 1.57) and 1.42 (1.05 to 1.90) for rectal cancer and Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, respectively. Considering the significantly elevated risk of some cancers in this occupational group, we suggest improving preventive measures and securing adequate and relevant medical attention for this group. Further studies with more accurate and in-depth exposure assessments are indicated.

دریافت فایل پیوست

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ijc.32199


< >