Share
𝕏 Facebook LinkedIn

Analyzing the SAR in Human Head Tissues under Different Exposure Scenarios

PAPER manual 2023 Exposure assessment Effect: mixed Evidence: Insufficient

Abstract

Analyzing the SAR in Human Head Tissues under Different Exposure Scenarios Turgut A, Engiz BK. Analyzing the SAR in Human Head Tissues under Different Exposure Scenarios. Applied Sciences. 2023; 13(12):6971. doi.org Abstract This paper deals with the assessment of induced specific absorption rate (SAR) in various human models under different exposure scenarios, including both laboratory measurements and simulations. Firstly, SAR values were measured in a standardized SAR laboratory using a phantom for two radiofrequency electromagnetic field (RF- EMF) sources at 900 MHz and 1800 MHz. These laboratory measurements served as a reference for SAR calculations conducted on a specific anthropomorphic mannequin (SAM) using a computer simulation technology (CST) program, thus enabling the determination of antenna location and excitation signal levels for further evaluation. Subsequently, simulations were carried out with CST to evaluate average SAR for the head and for specific head tissues such as the brain, muscles, and fat. Realistic computational human models were also used alongside SAM in CST to explore the influence of gender, age, and tissue type on SAR. Various power levels representing low, moderate, and high RF-EMF exposure were applied to the human models to compare against basic restrictions and reference levels. The simulation results indicate significantly higher SAR values calculated for 1800 MHz compared with 900 MHz. The ratio of the highest SAR values at 1800 MHz to 900 MHz is approximately 1.70 for a baby, 2.59 for a child, and 2.84 for both adult female and adult male. While the SAR values for the brain, fat, muscle, and head are comparable at 900 MHz for the baby, the brain’s SAR value at 1800 MHz stands out significantly from the other tissues. In contrast with the baby, the difference in SAR values between 900 MHz and 1800 MHz is more pronounced for the child, adult female and adult male. The lowest SAR values at 900 MHz and 1800 MHz were obtained for brain tissue in all human models, while the head has the highest SAR value. The maximum SAR change ratio between the brain and the head is calculated to be 4.44 for the male at 1800 MHz. The results reveal that, although the applied electromagnetic field levels were below reference levels for general public local exposure, some local SAR values exceeded the International Commission of Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection’s basic restriction for the general public at certain power levels, particularly at 1800 MHz. The SAR analysis derived from this study is significant in understanding the impact of wireless technologies on health, establishing safety standards, guiding technology advancement, conducting risk assessments, and increasing public awareness. Open access paper: mdpi.com

AI evidence extraction

At a glance
Study type
Exposure assessment
Effect direction
mixed
Population
Computational human models (baby, child, adult female, adult male) and a standardized phantom/SAM mannequin for SAR assessment
Sample size
Exposure
RF
Evidence strength
Insufficient
Confidence: 74% · Peer-reviewed: yes

Main findings

SAR was measured in a standardized SAR lab using a phantom for RF-EMF sources at 900 MHz and 1800 MHz and used as reference for CST simulations on SAM and realistic human models. Simulations indicated higher SAR at 1800 MHz than 900 MHz, with highest-SAR ratios (1800/900) of ~1.70 (baby), 2.59 (child), and 2.84 (adult female and adult male). Although applied field levels were below general public local exposure reference levels, some local SAR values exceeded ICNIRP basic restrictions at certain power levels, particularly at 1800 MHz.

Outcomes measured

  • Specific absorption rate (SAR) in head and head tissues (brain, muscle, fat)
  • Comparison of SAR at 900 MHz vs 1800 MHz
  • Comparison to ICNIRP basic restrictions and reference levels (general public local exposure)

Suggested hubs

  • who-icnirp (0.86)
    Abstract explicitly compares results to ICNIRP basic restrictions and reference levels for the general public.
View raw extracted JSON
{
    "study_type": "exposure_assessment",
    "exposure": {
        "band": "RF",
        "source": null,
        "frequency_mhz": null,
        "sar_wkg": null,
        "duration": null
    },
    "population": "Computational human models (baby, child, adult female, adult male) and a standardized phantom/SAM mannequin for SAR assessment",
    "sample_size": null,
    "outcomes": [
        "Specific absorption rate (SAR) in head and head tissues (brain, muscle, fat)",
        "Comparison of SAR at 900 MHz vs 1800 MHz",
        "Comparison to ICNIRP basic restrictions and reference levels (general public local exposure)"
    ],
    "main_findings": "SAR was measured in a standardized SAR lab using a phantom for RF-EMF sources at 900 MHz and 1800 MHz and used as reference for CST simulations on SAM and realistic human models. Simulations indicated higher SAR at 1800 MHz than 900 MHz, with highest-SAR ratios (1800/900) of ~1.70 (baby), 2.59 (child), and 2.84 (adult female and adult male). Although applied field levels were below general public local exposure reference levels, some local SAR values exceeded ICNIRP basic restrictions at certain power levels, particularly at 1800 MHz.",
    "effect_direction": "mixed",
    "limitations": [],
    "evidence_strength": "insufficient",
    "confidence": 0.7399999999999999911182158029987476766109466552734375,
    "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
    "keywords": [
        "SAR",
        "specific absorption rate",
        "RF-EMF",
        "900 MHz",
        "1800 MHz",
        "phantom",
        "SAM",
        "CST simulation",
        "head tissues",
        "brain",
        "muscle",
        "fat",
        "ICNIRP basic restriction",
        "reference levels"
    ],
    "suggested_hubs": [
        {
            "slug": "who-icnirp",
            "weight": 0.85999999999999998667732370449812151491641998291015625,
            "reason": "Abstract explicitly compares results to ICNIRP basic restrictions and reference levels for the general public."
        }
    ]
}

AI can be wrong. Always verify against the paper.

AI-extracted fields are generated from the abstract/metadata and may be incomplete or incorrect. This content is for informational purposes only and is not medical advice.

Comments

Log in to comment.

No comments yet.