Compare fabric and brick wall as shielding material dependence on electromagnetic field

2021 · Unclear · Insufficient evidence

← Research stream

UnclearInsufficient evidencePaper 924

In measurements from 1–9 GHz, brick wall shielding effectiveness increased up to about 5.5 GHz and then remained approximately the same at higher frequencies. The shielding fabric’s effectiveness did not change much across the monitored frequency range and wa…

Study snapshot

Publicationmanual · 2021

Study typeengineering

Reported directionUnclear

Evidence ratingInsufficient

Abstract

Compare fabric and brick wall as shielding material dependence on electromagnetic field M. Pavlík, J. Zbojovský, I. Kolcunová. Compare of fabric and brick wall as shielding material dependence on electromagnetic field. 2021 IEEE 4th International Conference and Workshop Óbuda on Electrical and Power Engineering (CANDO-EPE), 2021, pp. 139-142, doi: 10.1109/CANDO-EPE54223.2021.9667841. Abstract The electromagnetic field is a much discussed topic, especially now with the advent of 5G networks. The general public is concerned about the possible impact of the electromagnetic field on human health. By using wireless technologies, we increase the influence of the electromagnetic field on the human body. The basic measures for the protection against electromagnetic radiation are: 1. shielding of the radiation source, 2. shielding of the workplace, 3. personal protective equipment, 4. reduction of radiation in the immediate vicinity of the radiation source. In the household it is possible to shade the “working” environment which is our house. In this paper, we focused on measuring the shielding efficiency of the electromagnetic field. Shielding effectiveness is an indicator of the shielding ability of the material. The measured objects were a brick and a shielding fabric, which can be used practically anywhere. The research focused on the frequency range from 1 GHz to 9 GHz. The results showed the shielding ability achieved by the brick material and the shielding fabric. Excerpts A brick wall with 33cm thickness (Fig. 3) and a shielding fabric (Fig. 2) were placed in the middle between the antennas. The shielding fabric was attached to polystyrene. The shielding efficiency of the polystyrene on which the fabric was attached was also measured during the experiment. The shielding efficiency of the polystyrene was subtracted from the total shielding efficiency of the shielding fabric. The composition of the shielding fabric is approximately 68% cotton, 16% polyester, 16% stainless steel.... The current trend of increasing the sources of the electromagnetic field will probably not stop. We can assume that the number of sources of the electromagnetic field will continue to increase. As mentioned in the introduction, the basic measures for the protection against electromagnetic radiation are: 1. shielding of the radiation source, 2. shielding of the workplace, 3. personal protective equipment, 4. reduction of radiation in the immediate vicinity of the radiation source. However, not all are feasible. At present, however, there are many ways to protect yourself from the effects of the electromagnetic field. The basic protection against the external electromagnetic field is provided by buildings, which prevent the penetration of the electromagnetic field into the interior. However, inside the building, there are many sources of electromagnetic fields that are commonly used. It is therefore possible to additionally protect yourself, for example by using shielding materials which can be commercially purchased. Such a material is, for example, a shielding fabric. In this paper, we focused on measuring the shielding efficiency, which is an indicator of the shielding ability of the material. The measurement was performed on the basis of [6] IEEE 299–2006 Standard: Method for Measuring the Effectiveness of Electromagnetic Shielding Enclosures, EMC Society. The research focused on the frequency range from 1 GHz to 9 GHz. The shielding ability of both materials was monitored. From the results shown in Fig. 4 we can see the shielding ability of both materials. The brick wall shading efficiency gradually increases in the monitored frequency band up to 5.5 GHz. At higher frequencies, the shielding efficiency remains approximately the same. The shielding efficiency of the shielding fabric does not change much in the monitored frequency range. The results of the research show that the shielding fabric is a more suitable material than brick wall, which could be assumed. However, it must be said that brick wall is a material that is commonly available in the house. The shielding fabric can be used to supplement and increase the shielding ability. Since we need an electromagnetic field for the functionality of, for example, a mobile phone, wifi internet, etc., it would be appropriate to use a shielding fabric when these devices are not in use. For example, at night. In futures we could other materials be used to shield the radiation, for example materials used for thermal and acoustic insulation of buildings. ieeexplore-ieee- org.libproxy.berkeley.edu/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=9667841&isnumber=9667546

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 typeengineering

Effect directionunclear

PopulationNot supplied

Sample sizeNot supplied

ExposureRF

Evidence strengthInsufficientConfidence: 74% · Peer reviewed: unknown

Main findings

Outcomes measured

Shielding effectiveness of brick wall (33 cm thickness) from 1–9 GHz
Shielding effectiveness of shielding fabric (composition ~68% cotton, 16% polyester, 16% stainless steel) from 1–9 GHz

Limitations

No quantitative shielding effectiveness values reported in the provided abstract/excerpts
Exposure source and measurement setup details (e.g., power levels, antenna types/distances) not fully described in the provided text
Single brick wall thickness and a single fabric type/composition described; generalizability to other materials/configurations unclear

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "engineering",
  "exposure": {
    "band": "RF",
    "source": null,
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": null
  },
  "population": null,
  "sample_size": null,
  "outcomes": [
    "Shielding effectiveness of brick wall (33 cm thickness) from 1–9 GHz",
    "Shielding effectiveness of shielding fabric (composition ~68% cotton, 16% polyester, 16% stainless steel) from 1–9 GHz"
  ],
  "main_findings": "In measurements from 1–9 GHz, brick wall shielding effectiveness increased up to about 5.5 GHz and then remained approximately the same at higher frequencies. The shielding fabric’s effectiveness did not change much across the monitored frequency range and was reported as more suitable (higher shielding ability) than the brick wall.",
  "effect_direction": "unclear",
  "limitations": [
    "No quantitative shielding effectiveness values reported in the provided abstract/excerpts",
    "Exposure source and measurement setup details (e.g., power levels, antenna types/distances) not fully described in the provided text",
    "Single brick wall thickness and a single fabric type/composition described; generalizability to other materials/configurations unclear"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "insufficient",
  "confidence": 0.74,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "unknown",
  "keywords": [
    "electromagnetic field",
    "shielding effectiveness",
    "shielding fabric",
    "brick wall",
    "1–9 GHz",
    "IEEE 299–2006",
    "5G",
    "RF"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "5g-policy",
      "weight": 0.2,
      "reason": "Mentions 5G networks as context; study measures shielding in 1–9 GHz range relevant to some 5G bands."
    }
  ]
}

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/cando-epe54223.2021.9667841
PubMed: Not supplied

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library