Human Electromagnetic Field Exposure in 5G at 28 GHz

2020 · Mixed · Insufficient evidence

← Research stream

MixedInsufficient evidencePaper 1677

Study snapshot

Publicationmanual · 2020

Study typeengineering

Reported directionMixed

Evidence ratingInsufficient

Abstract

Human Electromagnetic Field Exposure in 5G at 28 GHz Seungmo Kim; Imtiaz Nasim. Human Electromagnetic Field Exposure in 5G at 28 GHz. IEEE Consumer Electronics Magazine. 9(6):41-48. Nov. 1 2020. DOI: 10.1109/MCE.2019.2956223. Abstract The fifth-generation wireless (5G) has already started showing its capability to achieve extremely fast data transfer, which makes itself considered to be a promising mobile technology. However, concerns have been raised on adverse health impacts that human users can experience in a 5G system by being exposed to electromagnetic fields (EMFs). This article investigates the human EMF exposure in a 5G system and compares them with those measured in the previous-generation cellular systems. It suggests a minimum separation distance between a transmitter and a human user for keeping the EMF exposure below the safety regulation level, which provides consumers with a general understanding on the safe use of 5G communications. ieeexplore.ieee.org Excerpts "First, we discuss the human EMF exposure in the downlink as well as the uplink. Most of the prior work studies the uplink only, while hardly paying attention to EMF emissions generated by BSs [base stations or cell towers] in a 5G network. Recall the aforementioned changes that the 5G adopts: 1) operation at higher carrier frequencies; 2) reduction of cell size (which leads to increase in number of BSs; and 3) concentration of higher EMF energy into an antenna beam. They all imply that in 5G, unlike the previous-generation wireless systems, the downlink can also be a threat to human health as well as the uplink. Second, we suggest that both SAR [Specific Absorption Rate] and PD [power density] should be used to display human EMF exposure for a wireless system. The reason is that SAR captures an amount of EMF energy that is actually "absorbed" into human tissues, whereas PD is an efficient metric only to present the EMF energy being introduced to a human user. Third, we present an explicit comparison of human EMF exposure in 5G to those in the currently deployed wireless standards.... Fourth, we consider the maximum possible exposure that a human user can experience. " " in a 5G network, a consumer is likely to be exposed to high EMF energy more consistently. Nevertheless, it is easier to apply a "compliance distance" [17] in a downlink than in an uplink. Thus, this article suggests 1) an overhaul of the compliance distances defined in different standards and 2) the consumers' discretion on being close to a BS. " " the fact that a high-frequency EMF cannot penetrate deep into human skin does not mean that it is not dangerous. Specifically, although the penetration is limited only at the skin surface, the SAR (illustrated as a heat map in Figure 4) can be higher within the concentrated area, which can cause subsequent health problems such as skin heating." Downlink vs. Uplink "Figure 3(c) and (d) compare PD and SAR in uplink to the ICNIRP guidelines set at 10 W/m2 and 2W/kg, respectively. PD and SAR are remarkably higher in uplink than those in downlink, shown via a comparison of the results for uplink to those for downlink shown in Figure 3(a) and (b). It is attributed to smaller separation distance between a transmitter and a human body. Imagine one talking on a voice call; it is a "direct" physical contact of the phone and the head! Also, it is significant to notice that no regulation exists at 28 GHz where this article investigates for 5G. As such, we refer to the ICNIRP's guideline that is set to be 2 W/kg by ICNIRP[11] at a frequency "below 10 GHz." In Figure 3(d), it provides a ""inferred" understanding on SAR in an uplink. The zoom-in look shown in Figure 3(d) suggests that in 5G, use of a handheld device within the distance of 8 cm causes an EMF absorption exceeding 2 W/kg, which would have been prohibited if the carrier frequency was lower than 10 GHz. This implies the gravity of human EMF exposure in an uplink of 5G." Conclusion "This article has discussed human EMF exposure in 5G operating at 28 GHz, while most of the prior work focuses only on the technological benefits that the technology brings. Considering the significance of wireless technologies in our daily life, the potential danger of using them should also be emphasized for sustainable advancement of the technologies. In this article, the first case study has demonstrated how much EMF exposure is caused in a 5G system compared to 4G and 3.9G. Then, the latter case study has suggested an adequate separation distance from a transmitter, in order to keep a human user from being exposed to EMF below a regulatory guideline. This article is expected to ignite continued interest in overarching research on the design of future wireless systems that achieve high performance while keeping consumer safety guaranteed. However, considering the gravity of this issue, we suggest several directions to be achieved in our future research. * Human EMF exposure mitigation strategy: We are particularly interested in exploiting the technical features in future wireless systems-i.e., a larger number of BSs within a unit area. Such a paradigm change will enable a holistic, network-based approach to mitigate the EMF exposure as an optimization problem with a set of constraints representing the PD, SAR, and skin-temperature elevation. * Further studies regarding exact human health impacts caused by EMF exposure: The particular focus will be put on 1) skin dielectric effect with respect to frequency and 2) the effect of radiation when the body is covered with clothing or garment materials."

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 directionmixed

PopulationNot supplied

Sample sizeNot supplied

ExposuremmWave · 28000 MHz

Evidence strengthInsufficientConfidence: 74% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

This article investigates human EMF exposure in a 5G system operating at 28 GHz and compares exposure metrics (PD and SAR) with previous-generation cellular systems. It suggests a minimum separation (compliance) distance between transmitter and user to keep exposure below safety regulation levels, and notes that uplink exposures can exceed an ICNIRP SAR guideline value (2 W/kg, referenced for <10 GHz) when a handheld device is used within about 8 cm.

Outcomes measured

Power density (PD)
Specific absorption rate (SAR)
Compliance/separation distance relative to safety guidelines
Skin heating (discussed as potential health problem)

Limitations

Article notes that no regulation exists at 28 GHz and therefore refers to ICNIRP SAR guidance set for frequencies below 10 GHz, implying indirect/inferred comparison at 28 GHz.
Health impacts are discussed as potential concerns; the article calls for further studies on exact health impacts (e.g., skin dielectric effects, clothing/garments).
No human participant details or sample size are provided in the abstract/excerpts.

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "engineering",
  "exposure": {
    "band": "mmWave",
    "source": "5G (handheld device uplink; base station downlink)",
    "frequency_mhz": 28000,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": null
  },
  "population": null,
  "sample_size": null,
  "outcomes": [
    "Power density (PD)",
    "Specific absorption rate (SAR)",
    "Compliance/separation distance relative to safety guidelines",
    "Skin heating (discussed as potential health problem)"
  ],
  "main_findings": "This article investigates human EMF exposure in a 5G system operating at 28 GHz and compares exposure metrics (PD and SAR) with previous-generation cellular systems. It suggests a minimum separation (compliance) distance between transmitter and user to keep exposure below safety regulation levels, and notes that uplink exposures can exceed an ICNIRP SAR guideline value (2 W/kg, referenced for <10 GHz) when a handheld device is used within about 8 cm.",
  "effect_direction": "mixed",
  "limitations": [
    "Article notes that no regulation exists at 28 GHz and therefore refers to ICNIRP SAR guidance set for frequencies below 10 GHz, implying indirect/inferred comparison at 28 GHz.",
    "Health impacts are discussed as potential concerns; the article calls for further studies on exact health impacts (e.g., skin dielectric effects, clothing/garments).",
    "No human participant details or sample size are provided in the abstract/excerpts."
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "insufficient",
  "confidence": 0.74,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "5G",
    "28 GHz",
    "millimeter wave",
    "EMF exposure",
    "power density",
    "specific absorption rate",
    "uplink",
    "downlink",
    "base station",
    "compliance distance",
    "ICNIRP"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "5g-policy",
      "weight": 0.78,
      "reason": "Focuses on 5G at 28 GHz and discusses compliance distance and regulatory context."
    },
    {
      "slug": "who-icnirp",
      "weight": 0.7,
      "reason": "Explicitly references ICNIRP guideline values and lack of regulation at 28 GHz."
    }
  ]
}

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/mce.2019.2956223
PubMed: Not supplied

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library