Investigation of fetal exposure to electromagnetic waves between 2.45 and 5 GHz during pregnancy

Radiation Protection Dosimetry · 2025 · Unclear · Insufficient evidence

← Research stream

UnclearInsufficient evidencePaper 2529

Using dosimetry simulations from 2.45 to 5 GHz with different incidence directions and polarizations, SAR increased in the presence of a metal object (belly-button piercing). The highest reported fetal SAR10g was 16 mW/kg in lungs and 14 mW/kg in brain at 2.4…

Study snapshot

PublicationRadiation Protection Dosimetry · 2025

Study typeexposure_assessment

Reported directionUnclear

Evidence ratingInsufficient

Abstract

Category: Radiation Dosimetry, Electromagnetic Field Safety Tags: fetal exposure, pregnancy, EMF, SAR, radiofrequency, metal objects, nonionizing radiation DOI: 10.1093/rpd/ncaf110 URL: pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov Overview This study assesses the specific absorption rate (SAR) in the fetal brain and lungs during the second trimester of pregnancy under body exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) between 2.45 and 5 GHz. Research Approach - SAR calculations were conducted for both frontal and lateral incidences. - Vertical and horizontal polarization of incident EM waves were considered. - Frequencies assessed ranged from 2.45 to 5 GHz. - A highly realistic pregnant human model, including a belly button piercing, was used for nonionizing dosimetry simulations. Findings - SAR increases in the presence of metal objects, such as belly-button piercings. - The fetus’s lungs recorded the highest SAR10g at 16 mW/kg at 2.45 GHz. - The fetus’s brain exhibited a maximum SAR10g of 14 mW/kg at 2.45 GHz. - All obtained SAR values were below the safety limits set by international bodies such as IEEE and ICNIRP. Conclusion Metal objects on the body, like piercings, can amplify fetal RF-EMF exposure. While values remained within internationally accepted limits, this link points to the critical need for precaution regarding metallic object use during pregnancy due to increased susceptibility to electromagnetic field exposure.

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

PopulationPregnant human model (second trimester) with fetus; fetal brain and lungs assessed

Sample sizeNot supplied

ExposureRF

Evidence strengthInsufficientConfidence: 78% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

Outcomes measured

SAR10g in fetal lungs
SAR10g in fetal brain
Effect of metal object (belly-button piercing) on SAR
Comparison of SAR values to IEEE/ICNIRP safety limits

Limitations

Simulation/dosimetry study using a model rather than measurements in pregnant people
No health outcomes assessed; only SAR estimates reported
Exposure conditions (incidence, polarization) are modeled and may not represent real-world scenarios

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "exposure_assessment",
  "exposure": {
    "band": "RF",
    "source": "body exposure (incident RF-EMF; metal object/piercing considered)",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": null
  },
  "population": "Pregnant human model (second trimester) with fetus; fetal brain and lungs assessed",
  "sample_size": null,
  "outcomes": [
    "SAR10g in fetal lungs",
    "SAR10g in fetal brain",
    "Effect of metal object (belly-button piercing) on SAR",
    "Comparison of SAR values to IEEE/ICNIRP safety limits"
  ],
  "main_findings": "Using dosimetry simulations from 2.45 to 5 GHz with different incidence directions and polarizations, SAR increased in the presence of a metal object (belly-button piercing). The highest reported fetal SAR10g was 16 mW/kg in lungs and 14 mW/kg in brain at 2.45 GHz. All obtained SAR values were reported as below IEEE and ICNIRP safety limits.",
  "effect_direction": "unclear",
  "limitations": [
    "Simulation/dosimetry study using a model rather than measurements in pregnant people",
    "No health outcomes assessed; only SAR estimates reported",
    "Exposure conditions (incidence, polarization) are modeled and may not represent real-world scenarios"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "insufficient",
  "confidence": 0.78,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "fetal exposure",
    "pregnancy",
    "RF-EMF",
    "radiofrequency",
    "SAR",
    "2.45 GHz",
    "5 GHz",
    "nonionizing radiation",
    "dosimetry",
    "metal objects",
    "piercing",
    "ICNIRP",
    "IEEE"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "who-icnirp",
      "weight": 0.6,
      "reason": "Abstract explicitly compares SAR results to ICNIRP (and IEEE) safety 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: 10.1093/rpd/ncaf110
PubMed: 40995977

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library