Computational Assessment of RF Exposure Levels due to 5G Mobile Phones

2022 · No effect · Low evidence

← Research stream

No effectLow evidencePaper 750

Study snapshot

Publicationmanual · 2022

Study typeexposure_assessment

Reported directionNo effect

Evidence ratingLow

Abstract

Computational Assessment of RF Exposure Levels due to 5G Mobile Phones M. Bonato et al. Computational Assessment of RF Exposure Levels due to 5G Mobile Phones. 2022 Microwave Mediterranean Symposium (MMS), 2022, pp. 1-4, doi: 10.1109/MMS55062.2022.9825603. Abstract The present work was performed to expand the knowledge on human RF-EMF exposure, considering the use of mm-wave spectrum in mobile communication applications, due to the deployment of 5th generation (5G) networks. The mobile antenna was modelled based on the 5G innovation technologies (i.e., mm-Wave bands, beamforming capability and high gain), resulting in a phased array antenna with 8 elements at the working frequency of 27 GHz. Three different skin layers models were simulated, to spot differences in the peaks of absorbed power density averaged over 4 cm2, following the ICNIRP guidelines. The simulations were implemented using the Sim4Life platform, simulating not only the presence of a mobile phone user, but also of a person passing nearby, who could be hit by the phased array antenna main beam. This work underlined that the absorbed power density peaks were greatly underestimated using the homogeneous skin model, respect to the multi-layers skin models. Moreover, for the person passing nearby, we found slightly higher exposure levels than those assessed for the mobile phone user. Lastly, in all the examined cases, the limits indicated by the ICNIRP guidelines were well respected. Excerpt These findings are also confirmed evaluating the three different configurations for the other two multi-layers models and analyzing the peak values of Sab in the most superficial tissue (i.e., the dermis in the homogeneous model and the stratum corneum in the two multi-layers models). Indeed, as we can see from Fig. 3, where the peak values of Sab are illustrated, the highest exposure levels are obtained for the person passing nearby. The highest peak value for the person passing nearby is obtained for the three-layers skin model, in the configuration where both the user and the person nearby are considered, with values equal to 6.97 W/m2 > whereas the highest peak value for the user is obtained in the same configuration, but for the four-layers model, with value equal to 5.80 W/m2. Interestingly, the results showed that the use of a homogenous skin model could led to underestimate the exposure peak levels from 18% to 55% respect to the use of multi-layer models. This is probably due to the multiple reflections of the mm-waves that occur at the boundaries of the different tissue layers, and it is in line with other literature studies, where it was underlined the need to use multi-layers models for assessing the exposure levels when the mm-wave spectrum is considered [13], [16]. Lastly, all the peak values obtained greatly respected the basic restrictions of 20 W/m2, indicated in the ICNIRP guidelines [7]. ieeexplore.ieee.org

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 directionno_effect

PopulationNot supplied

Sample sizeNot supplied

ExposuremmWave · 27000 MHz

Evidence strengthLowConfidence: 78% · Peer reviewed: unknown

Main findings

Computational simulations at 27 GHz using an 8-element phased-array 5G phone antenna found that homogeneous skin models underestimated absorbed power density peak levels by about 18% to 55% compared with multilayer skin models. Simulations including a nearby passerby indicated slightly higher exposure levels for the passerby than for the phone user. In all examined cases, peak absorbed power density values were below the ICNIRP basic restriction of 20 W/m^2.

Outcomes measured

Absorbed power density peaks averaged over 4 cm^2 (Sab) in skin models
Comparison of homogeneous vs multilayer skin models for exposure peak estimation
Exposure comparison between mobile phone user and nearby passerby
Compliance with ICNIRP basic restrictions (20 W/m^2)

Limitations

Computational/simulation study (no direct measurements reported)
Results depend on modeled antenna configuration (8-element phased array, beamforming/high gain)
Only three skin-layer modeling approaches were simulated; generalizability to other anatomical/usage scenarios not stated

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "exposure_assessment",
  "exposure": {
    "band": "mmWave",
    "source": "mobile phone",
    "frequency_mhz": 27000,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": null
  },
  "population": null,
  "sample_size": null,
  "outcomes": [
    "Absorbed power density peaks averaged over 4 cm^2 (Sab) in skin models",
    "Comparison of homogeneous vs multilayer skin models for exposure peak estimation",
    "Exposure comparison between mobile phone user and nearby passerby",
    "Compliance with ICNIRP basic restrictions (20 W/m^2)"
  ],
  "main_findings": "Computational simulations at 27 GHz using an 8-element phased-array 5G phone antenna found that homogeneous skin models underestimated absorbed power density peak levels by about 18% to 55% compared with multilayer skin models. Simulations including a nearby passerby indicated slightly higher exposure levels for the passerby than for the phone user. In all examined cases, peak absorbed power density values were below the ICNIRP basic restriction of 20 W/m^2.",
  "effect_direction": "no_effect",
  "limitations": [
    "Computational/simulation study (no direct measurements reported)",
    "Results depend on modeled antenna configuration (8-element phased array, beamforming/high gain)",
    "Only three skin-layer modeling approaches were simulated; generalizability to other anatomical/usage scenarios not stated"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "low",
  "confidence": 0.78,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "unknown",
  "keywords": [
    "5G",
    "mmWave",
    "27 GHz",
    "RF-EMF exposure",
    "absorbed power density",
    "Sab",
    "skin models",
    "multilayer tissue",
    "homogeneous model",
    "beamforming",
    "phased array",
    "ICNIRP guidelines",
    "Sim4Life"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "5g-policy",
      "weight": 0.62,
      "reason": "Assesses RF exposure from 5G mmWave mobile phones and compares results to ICNIRP limits."
    },
    {
      "slug": "who-icnirp",
      "weight": 0.74,
      "reason": "Explicitly evaluates compliance with ICNIRP basic restrictions and follows ICNIRP averaging guidance."
    }
  ]
}

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: 10.1109/mms55062.2022.9825603
PubMed: Not supplied

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library