{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01882985877605918, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.526315789473684, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
[Calibration of measurement devices used in electromagnetic field monitoring in the occupational and municipal environments].

The accuracy of electromagnetic field (EMF) standard measurements are relatively low as compared to the accuracy of other standards of physical magnitudes mainly because all EMF components are defined with use of indirect methods. This approach leads to error dependent on methods currently used to determine standard field, available equipment, frequency range and other factors. One way to eliminate these errors is a simultaneous use of two or more methods or intercomparison of standards performed within one's own laboratory or in comparation with other national or/and foreign laboratories. The accuracy of a meter cannot exceed the accuracy of a standard applied to calibrate it. Unfortunately, this condition is frequently violated and (probably because of commercial reasons) the declared accuracy of meters available on the market exceed that of the best EMF standards. Some sources of errors in the work of several factors limiting accuracy of the EMF standards are discussed in details. The analysis reveals the need for appropriate choice of calibration method, taking into account EMF component, required accuracy, EMF intensity, frequency, and equipment applied. Such an approach and the use of calibration factors, estimated theoretically or/and experimentally, may contribute to remarkable improvement of the accuracy of procedures being used.