Simulating the Dispersion of the Energy Flux Density of the Electromagnetic Field Generated by Antennas for Mobile Communications

2022 · Unclear · Insufficient evidence

← Research stream

UnclearInsufficient evidencePaper 722

Study snapshot

Publicationmanual · 2022

Study typeexposure_assessment

Reported directionUnclear

Evidence ratingInsufficient

Abstract

Simulating the Dispersion of the Energy Flux Density of the Electromagnetic Field Generated by Antennas for Mobile Communications Buckus R, Chlebnikovas A, Strukcinskiene B, Stukas R, Austys D, Caban J, Bogucki M, Sidlauskiene A, Seleviciene V, Kilikevičius A, Matijošius J, Kilikevičienė K, Vainorius D. Simulating the Dispersion of the Energy Flux Density of the Electromagnetic Field Generated by Antennas for Mobile Communications. Electronics. 2022; 11(15):2431. doi.org. Abstract The last two decades have faced a significantly increased number of telecommunication antennas emitting electromagnetic radiation in residential areas. The theoretical simulation of the dispersion of the energy flux density of the electromagnetic field has been performed applying the physical peculiarities of the waves generating electromagnetic radiation. Having evaluated studies on simulation, the visual representation of the spread of electromagnetic radiation has been carried out according to the results obtained applying the AutoCad package. A comparison of the simulated value of the energy flux density radiated from antennas for mobile telecommunications with the measured one has disclosed an overlap of 30%. The simulation of the energy flux density showed that, in the close proximity zone (under a distance of 30 m), antennas radiate values within the range 10–10,000 µW/cm2. At a distance larger than 30 m, the values of energy flux density fluctuate from 10 to 0.001 µW/cm2. Conclusions The simulation of the energy flux density of the electromagnetic field allows estimating electromagnetic radiation emitted by antennas for mobile telecommunications, which results in the termination of the conducted experiments. A comparison of the simulated value of the energy flux density radiated from antennas for cell telecommunications with the measured one point to an overlap of 30%, because simulation encounters difficulties in precisely measuring a variety of natural and human-made obstacles and reflections. Thus, the properly selected simulation software allows understanding and preliminarily estimating the electromagnetic fields of mobile telecommunications as well as visually determining places where electromagnetic radiation exceeds the established standards. The simulation of the energy flux density of the electromagnetic field of antennas for mobile telecommunications showed that, in the close proximity zone (under a distance of 30 m), antennas radiate values from 10 to 10,000 µW/cm2, whereas the values fluctuate between 10 and 0.001 µW/cm2 at a distance larger than 30 m. The values of the energy flux density of the electromagnetic field decrease according to square dependence in free space, while at distances exceeding 100 m fluctuate in the range from 0.01 to 1 µW/cm2. The maximum density was equal to 10–100 µW/cm2 under the distance less than 25 m from the antenna in the direction of the most intensive radiation. The examination of the upcoming or available antenna or other powerful source of radio waves includes calculating the theoretical parameters of the density taking into account the qualities of the antenna and accepting surrounding terrain as an area with no significant unevenness. Similar places have most frequently installed antennas, and, although the obtained measurement results are satisfactory enough, in order to determine necessary safety requirements, the impact of land relief is unnecessarily downgraded. The wave propagated outwards the antenna is dispersed and, having reflected from terrain, is summed up with the previous one, thus creating a maximum. Uneven terrain changes the maximum position of this electromagnetic field, which needs further examination. Thus, if the simulated values are lower than the established standard, it is still advisable to check them experimentally. Open access paper: mdpi.com

Machine Enhanced Logic

AI evidence extraction

Structured fields below were generated from the paper’s abstract and metadata to make the evidence easier to inspect. Automated extraction may be incomplete or incorrect; verify important details against the original paper.

Study typeexposure_assessment

Effect directionunclear

PopulationNot supplied

Sample sizeNot supplied

ExposureRF

Evidence strengthInsufficientConfidence: 74% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

The authors simulated dispersion of energy flux density from mobile telecommunications antennas and compared simulated values with measured values, reporting an overlap of 30%. Simulated energy flux density values were reported as 10–10,000 µW/cm2 within 30 m of antennas, and 10 to 0.001 µW/cm2 beyond 30 m; at distances exceeding 100 m values fluctuated in the range 0.01–1 µW/cm2. Maximum density was reported as 10–100 µW/cm2 at distances less than 25 m in the direction of most intensive radiation.

Outcomes measured

Simulated energy flux density (µW/cm2) vs distance from antenna
Agreement/overlap between simulated and measured energy flux density (reported 30% overlap)
Identification/visualization of locations where EMF exceeds established standards (via simulation/visual representation)

Limitations

Only 30% overlap between simulated and measured values was reported, attributed to difficulties accounting for natural and human-made obstacles and reflections in simulation
Assumptions about surrounding terrain as having no significant unevenness may downgrade the impact of land relief; uneven terrain can change maximum field positions
Authors note that even if simulated values are below standards, experimental checking is advisable

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "exposure_assessment",
  "exposure": {
    "band": "RF",
    "source": "mobile communications antennas (base stations)",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": null
  },
  "population": null,
  "sample_size": null,
  "outcomes": [
    "Simulated energy flux density (µW/cm2) vs distance from antenna",
    "Agreement/overlap between simulated and measured energy flux density (reported 30% overlap)",
    "Identification/visualization of locations where EMF exceeds established standards (via simulation/visual representation)"
  ],
  "main_findings": "The authors simulated dispersion of energy flux density from mobile telecommunications antennas and compared simulated values with measured values, reporting an overlap of 30%. Simulated energy flux density values were reported as 10–10,000 µW/cm2 within 30 m of antennas, and 10 to 0.001 µW/cm2 beyond 30 m; at distances exceeding 100 m values fluctuated in the range 0.01–1 µW/cm2. Maximum density was reported as 10–100 µW/cm2 at distances less than 25 m in the direction of most intensive radiation.",
  "effect_direction": "unclear",
  "limitations": [
    "Only 30% overlap between simulated and measured values was reported, attributed to difficulties accounting for natural and human-made obstacles and reflections in simulation",
    "Assumptions about surrounding terrain as having no significant unevenness may downgrade the impact of land relief; uneven terrain can change maximum field positions",
    "Authors note that even if simulated values are below standards, experimental checking is advisable"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "insufficient",
  "confidence": 0.74,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "electromagnetic field",
    "energy flux density",
    "RF exposure",
    "mobile communications antennas",
    "base station",
    "simulation",
    "AutoCad",
    "dispersion",
    "obstacles",
    "reflections",
    "terrain"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "occupational-exposure",
      "weight": 0.15,
      "reason": "Focus is on antenna field estimation; could be relevant to site assessment/safety contexts, though no occupational population is described."
    },
    {
      "slug": "who-icnirp",
      "weight": 0.2,
      "reason": "Mentions comparison to 'established standards' for EMF exposure, without specifying which."
    }
  ]
}

AI can be wrong. Always verify against the paper.

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

Identifiers and source

DOI: 10.3390/electronics11152431
PubMed: Not supplied

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library