The properties of human body phantoms used in calculations of electromagnetic fields exposure by wireless communication handsets or hand-operated industrial devices.

Electromagnetic biology and medicine · 2013 · Unclear · Insufficient evidence

← Research stream

UnclearInsufficient evidencePaper 4610

Study snapshot

PublicationElectromagnetic biology and medicine · 2013

Study typereview

Reported directionUnclear

Evidence ratingInsufficient

Abstract

According to international guidelines, the assessment of biophysical effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF) generated by hand-operated sources needs the evaluation of induced electric field (E(in)) or specific energy absorption rate (SAR) caused by EMF inside a worker's body and is usually done by the numerical simulations with different protocols applied to these two exposure cases. The crucial element of these simulations is the numerical phantom of the human body. Procedures of E(in) and SAR evaluation due to compliance analysis with exposure limits have been defined in Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers standards and International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection guidelines, but a detailed specification of human body phantoms has not been described. An analysis of the properties of over 30 human body numerical phantoms was performed which has been used in recently published investigations related to the assessment of EMF exposure by various sources. The differences in applicability of these phantoms in the evaluation of E(in) and SAR while operating industrial devices and SAR while using mobile communication handsets are discussed. The whole human body numerical phantom dimensions, posture, spatial resolution and electric contact with the ground constitute the key parameters in modeling the exposure related to industrial devices, while modeling the exposure from mobile communication handsets, which needs only to represent the exposed part of the human body nearest to the handset, mainly depends on spatial resolution of the phantom. The specification and standardization of these parameters of numerical human body phantoms are key requirements to achieve comparable and reliable results from numerical simulations carried out for compliance analysis against exposure limits or within the exposure assessment in EMF-related epidemiological studies.

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 typereview

Effect directionunclear

Populationworkers (context of compliance assessment)

Sample size30

ExposureNot supplied

Evidence strengthInsufficientConfidence: 74% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

The paper analyzes properties of over 30 numerical human body phantoms used in published EMF exposure assessments and discusses how phantom parameters affect E(in) and SAR evaluation for hand-operated industrial devices versus SAR evaluation for mobile handsets. Key parameters for industrial-device modeling include whole-body phantom dimensions, posture, spatial resolution, and electric contact with ground, while handset modeling mainly depends on phantom spatial resolution near the exposed body part; standardization is identified as necessary for comparable and reliable simulation results.

Outcomes measured

Induced electric field (E(in))
Specific energy absorption rate (SAR)
Numerical human body phantom properties (dimensions, posture, spatial resolution, grounding/contact)
Comparability/reliability of numerical simulation results for compliance analysis and exposure assessment

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "review",
  "exposure": {
    "band": null,
    "source": "mobile phone; hand-operated industrial devices (occupational)",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": null
  },
  "population": "workers (context of compliance assessment)",
  "sample_size": 30,
  "outcomes": [
    "Induced electric field (E(in))",
    "Specific energy absorption rate (SAR)",
    "Numerical human body phantom properties (dimensions, posture, spatial resolution, grounding/contact)",
    "Comparability/reliability of numerical simulation results for compliance analysis and exposure assessment"
  ],
  "main_findings": "The paper analyzes properties of over 30 numerical human body phantoms used in published EMF exposure assessments and discusses how phantom parameters affect E(in) and SAR evaluation for hand-operated industrial devices versus SAR evaluation for mobile handsets. Key parameters for industrial-device modeling include whole-body phantom dimensions, posture, spatial resolution, and electric contact with ground, while handset modeling mainly depends on phantom spatial resolution near the exposed body part; standardization is identified as necessary for comparable and reliable simulation results.",
  "effect_direction": "unclear",
  "limitations": [],
  "evidence_strength": "insufficient",
  "confidence": 0.74,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "numerical phantom",
    "human body phantom",
    "electromagnetic fields",
    "exposure assessment",
    "compliance analysis",
    "induced electric field",
    "specific absorption rate",
    "mobile communication handsets",
    "hand-operated industrial devices",
    "IEEE standards",
    "ICNIRP guidelines"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "occupational-exposure",
      "weight": 0.6,
      "reason": "Discusses EMF exposure assessment for workers operating hand-operated industrial devices and induced electric field/SAR compliance evaluation."
    },
    {
      "slug": "who-icnirp",
      "weight": 0.55,
      "reason": "Explicitly references ICNIRP guidelines in the context of compliance assessment and phantom specification."
    }
  ]
}

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: 10.3109/15368378.2013.776434
PubMed: 23675626

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library