Investigation of Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) near model of fetus in uterus

2020 · Mixed · Low evidence

← Research stream

MixedLow evidencePaper 2058

Study snapshot

Publicationmanual · 2020

Study typeengineering

Reported directionMixed

Evidence ratingLow

Abstract

Investigation of Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) near model of fetus in uterus Zuzana Psenakova, Mariana Beňová, Timea Lauková. Investigation of Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) near model of fetus in uterus 2020. ELEKTRO, 25-28 May 2020, DOI: 10.1109/ELEKTRO49696.2020.9130308. Abstract This article deals with effects of electromagnetic fields (EMF) to different models that represent the model of a pregnant woman- AustinWoman, model in first trimester of pregnancy and model of fetus in uterus in 35 weeks of pregnancy. There are differences between specific absorption rate (SAR) near model of fetus in uterus and AustinWoman model in open area. In the presented approach, the investigation is focused on modelling of EMF proceeded on the finite integration method. The simulations were carried out for specific scenario where a person-pregnant woman was placed in the open space using a cellular phone. The results were evaluated in terms of the SAR values - the determination of electromagnetic (EM) energy absorption inside the human models. Two antennas- dipole antenna with a frequency of 2,4 GHz and planar monopole antenna were designed and work as radio frequency sources in our simulations. In the proposed matching method, two models of human body - Model of fetus in uterus and AustinWoman model - were chosen to simulate in different situations with different models of antennas. Both have the dielectric properties determined to the evaluated frequency of source. The numerical results have shown that the obtained maximal SAR values in AustiWoman model is higher than are maximum values determined according to maximum SAR in European standards limit. Conclusions In this paper, the study of the electromagnetic energy absorption changes caused to the two models by pregnancy by different antennas and frequencies were proposed. The near-field exposure results from have shown that the SAR values vary for the antenna type and pregnant model type, where is the antenna placed 10mm from models. In some cases of our simulation scenarios, the SAR values results are not within the limits for public radio- frequency EMF field exposure by ICNRIP. However, it could be caused by setting the specific parameters of our simulations - such as dielectric parameters of materials, number of voxels, boundary conditions in each space and types of using models. On the other hand, the cases presented in this paper represent a risk for long-term exposure of human body, especially of fetus by pregnancy, to EMF. In this article we want to show differences between two models of human body in pregnancy and differences by specific frequencies and antennas types. Our investigation shows, that higher SAR value is by higher resolution model -AustinWoman, model in first trimester of pregnancy, and by frequency 900MHz for monopole antenna. In first trimester of pregnancy is fetus the most sensitive for negative influences from environment and not enough safety is not recommended. Therefore, a woman at this stage of pregnancy should be particularly protected and the limits of SAR should be respected. 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 typeengineering

Effect directionmixed

PopulationHuman body models representing a pregnant woman (AustinWoman; first trimester) and a fetus in uterus (35 weeks)

Sample sizeNot supplied

ExposureRF · 2400 MHz

Evidence strengthLowConfidence: 74% · Peer reviewed: unknown

Main findings

Finite-integration-method simulations of near-field exposure with antennas placed 10 mm from models found SAR varied by antenna type, frequency, and model type. The maximal SAR in the AustinWoman model was reported as higher than maximum values according to European standards limits, and some simulated scenarios were reported as not within ICNIRP public RF exposure limits, though the authors note this could be due to simulation parameter settings.

Outcomes measured

Specific absorption rate (SAR) in human body models
Comparison of SAR to European standards limits / ICNIRP public exposure limits

Limitations

Simulation/modeling study (finite integration method) rather than measurements in people
Some exceedances of limits may depend on simulation parameter choices (dielectric parameters, voxel number/resolution, boundary conditions, model types) as noted by authors
SAR values and key quantitative results not provided in the abstract

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "engineering",
  "exposure": {
    "band": "RF",
    "source": "mobile phone",
    "frequency_mhz": 2400,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": null
  },
  "population": "Human body models representing a pregnant woman (AustinWoman; first trimester) and a fetus in uterus (35 weeks)",
  "sample_size": null,
  "outcomes": [
    "Specific absorption rate (SAR) in human body models",
    "Comparison of SAR to European standards limits / ICNIRP public exposure limits"
  ],
  "main_findings": "Finite-integration-method simulations of near-field exposure with antennas placed 10 mm from models found SAR varied by antenna type, frequency, and model type. The maximal SAR in the AustinWoman model was reported as higher than maximum values according to European standards limits, and some simulated scenarios were reported as not within ICNIRP public RF exposure limits, though the authors note this could be due to simulation parameter settings.",
  "effect_direction": "mixed",
  "limitations": [
    "Simulation/modeling study (finite integration method) rather than measurements in people",
    "Some exceedances of limits may depend on simulation parameter choices (dielectric parameters, voxel number/resolution, boundary conditions, model types) as noted by authors",
    "SAR values and key quantitative results not provided in the abstract"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "low",
  "confidence": 0.74,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "unknown",
  "keywords": [
    "SAR",
    "specific absorption rate",
    "pregnancy",
    "fetus",
    "uterus",
    "AustinWoman",
    "finite integration method",
    "near-field exposure",
    "cellular phone",
    "dipole antenna",
    "planar monopole antenna",
    "ICNIRP limits",
    "European standards",
    "900 MHz",
    "2.4 GHz"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "who-icnirp",
      "weight": 0.7,
      "reason": "Abstract explicitly discusses ICNIRP public RF exposure limits and comparisons to limits."
    }
  ]
}

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/elektro49696.2020.9130308
PubMed: Not supplied

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library