Comparison of Low-Cost 5G Electromagnetic Field Sensors

PAPER manual 2023 Exposure assessment Effect: no_effect Evidence: Moderate

Read original paper → DOI: 10.3390/s23063312 Evidence Lab

Abstract

Comparison of Low-Cost 5G Electromagnetic Field Sensors Deprez K, Colussi L, Korkmaz E, Aerts S, Land D, Littel S, Verloock L, Plets D, Joseph W, Bolte J. Comparison of Low-Cost 5G Electromagnetic Field Sensors. Sensors. 2023; 23(6):3312. doi:10.3390/s23063312. Abstract This paper compares different low-cost sensors that can measure (5G) RF-EMF exposure. The sensors are either commercially available (off-the-shelf Software Defined Radio (SDR) Adalm Pluto) or constructed by a research institution (i.e., imec-WAVES, Ghent University and Smart Sensor Systems research group (S³R), The Hague University of Applied Sciences). Both in-lab (GTEM cell) and in-situ measurements have been performed for this comparison. The in-lab measurements tested the linearity and sensitivity, which can then be used to calibrate the sensors. The in-situ testing confirmed that the low-cost hardware sensors and SDR can be used to assess the RF-EMF radiation. The variability between the sensors was 1.78 dB on average, with a maximum deviation of 5.26 dB. Values between 0.09 V/m and 2.44 V/m were obtained at a distance of about 50 m from the base station. These devices can be used to provide the general public and governments with temporal and spatial 5G electromagnetic field values. Conclusions and Future Work This study compared low-cost hardware sensors and SDR sensors with expensive verified measurement setups consisting of spectrum analyzer equipment for RF-EMF radiation. Both in-lab (GTEM cell) and in-situ measurements have been performed for this comparison. The in-lab testing showed the importance of selecting the correct components for the hardware sensors to ensure shielding from crosstalk. Furthermore, an in-lab calibration must be performed to guarantee an accurate response to real-life exposure. The in-situ testing confirmed that the low-cost hardware sensors and SDR can be used to assess the RF-EMF radiation. Values between 0.09 V/m and 2.44 V/m were obtained at a distance of about 50 m from the base station. The variability between the sensors was 1.78 dB on average, with a maximum deviation of 5.26 dB. However, it must be kept in mind that these RF-EMF sensors only measured one vector component (purpose of temporal monitoring) of the field, and therefore, the given field will be an underestimation of the total field at that measurement location. These devices can be used to provide the general public and governments only temporal and spatial 5G field behavior values. These data can then be combined with more accurate measurement systems to create highly accurate spatial-temporal EMF radiation maps. Future research on these sensors entails including the maximum measurable field level to verify the extendibility of the conclusions presented in this paper in case of high EMFs. In addition, new tri-axial sensors must be constructed which can measure all three vector components. In addition, mm-waves hardware sensors must be made to cover all 5G NR frequencies (FR2). Furthermore, the current sensors could be recalibrated so that their response is mapped to tri-axial measurement devices. Open access paper: mdpi.com

AI evidence extraction

At a glance

Study type

Exposure assessment

Effect direction

no_effect

Population

—

Sample size

—

Exposure

RF base station

Evidence strength

Moderate

Confidence: 78% · Peer-reviewed: yes

Main findings

Low-cost hardware sensors and an off-the-shelf SDR (Adalm Pluto) were compared against expensive verified spectrum analyzer setups using in-lab (GTEM cell) and in-situ measurements. In-situ testing indicated the low-cost sensors/SDR can be used to assess RF-EMF; average variability between sensors was 1.78 dB (maximum deviation 5.26 dB). Electric field values of 0.09–2.44 V/m were measured at ~50 m from a base station, with the note that single-vector-component measurements underestimate total field.

Outcomes measured

Sensor performance (linearity, sensitivity) for 5G RF-EMF measurements
Between-sensor variability (dB)
In-situ electric field strength (V/m) near a base station

Limitations

Sensors measured only one vector component, leading to underestimation of total field at the measurement location
Need for in-lab calibration to ensure accurate response to real-life exposure
Component selection/shielding from crosstalk affects performance
Maximum measurable field level not yet verified for high-EMF conditions
Current devices do not cover mmWave/FR2; mmWave sensors and tri-axial sensors are suggested for future work

Suggested hubs

5g-policy (0.55)
Focuses on measuring 5G RF-EMF near base stations and providing data for public/government use.

View raw extracted JSON

{
    "study_type": "exposure_assessment",
    "exposure": {
        "band": "RF",
        "source": "base station",
        "frequency_mhz": null,
        "sar_wkg": null,
        "duration": null
    },
    "population": null,
    "sample_size": null,
    "outcomes": [
        "Sensor performance (linearity, sensitivity) for 5G RF-EMF measurements",
        "Between-sensor variability (dB)",
        "In-situ electric field strength (V/m) near a base station"
    ],
    "main_findings": "Low-cost hardware sensors and an off-the-shelf SDR (Adalm Pluto) were compared against expensive verified spectrum analyzer setups using in-lab (GTEM cell) and in-situ measurements. In-situ testing indicated the low-cost sensors/SDR can be used to assess RF-EMF; average variability between sensors was 1.78 dB (maximum deviation 5.26 dB). Electric field values of 0.09–2.44 V/m were measured at ~50 m from a base station, with the note that single-vector-component measurements underestimate total field.",
    "effect_direction": "no_effect",
    "limitations": [
        "Sensors measured only one vector component, leading to underestimation of total field at the measurement location",
        "Need for in-lab calibration to ensure accurate response to real-life exposure",
        "Component selection/shielding from crosstalk affects performance",
        "Maximum measurable field level not yet verified for high-EMF conditions",
        "Current devices do not cover mmWave/FR2; mmWave sensors and tri-axial sensors are suggested for future work"
    ],
    "evidence_strength": "moderate",
    "confidence": 0.7800000000000000266453525910037569701671600341796875,
    "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
    "keywords": [
        "5G",
        "RF-EMF",
        "low-cost sensors",
        "software defined radio",
        "SDR",
        "Adalm Pluto",
        "GTEM cell",
        "in-situ measurements",
        "base station",
        "electric field strength",
        "calibration",
        "variability",
        "mmWave",
        "FR2",
        "tri-axial"
    ],
    "suggested_hubs": [
        {
            "slug": "5g-policy",
            "weight": 0.5500000000000000444089209850062616169452667236328125,
            "reason": "Focuses on measuring 5G RF-EMF near base stations and providing data for public/government use."
        }
    ]
}

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

No comments yet.