Setup and dosimetry for exposing anaesthetised pigs in vivo to 900 MHz GSM mobile phone fields.

Bioelectromagnetics · 2008 · Unclear · Insufficient evidence

← Research stream

UnclearInsufficient evidencePaper 5029

Study snapshot

PublicationBioelectromagnetics · 2008

Study typeexposure_assessment

Reported directionUnclear

Evidence ratingInsufficient

Abstract

The aim of this study was a dosimetrical analysis of the setup used in the exposure of the heads of domestic pigs to GSM-modulated radio frequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) at 900 MHz. The heads of pigs were irradiated with a half wave dipole using three different exposure routines; short bursts of 1-3 s at two different exposure levels and a continuous 10-min exposure. The electroencephalogram (EEG) was registered continuously during the exposures to search for RF-EMF originated changes. The dosimetry was based on simulations with the anatomical heterogeneous numerical model of the pig head. The simulation results were validated by experimental measurements with the exposure dipole and a homogeneous liquid phantom resembling the pig head. The specific absorption rate (SAR), defined as a maximum average over 10 g tissue mass (SAR(10g)), was 7.3 W/kg for the first set of short bursts and 31 W/kg for the second set of short bursts. The SAR(10g) in the continuous 10-min exposure was 31 W/kg. The estimated uncertainty for the dosimetry was +/-25% (K = 2).

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

PopulationAnaesthetised domestic pigs (in vivo head exposure)

Sample sizeNot supplied

ExposureRF · 900 MHz · 31 W/kg · Short bursts of 1–3 s (two exposure levels) and continuous 10-min exposure

Evidence strengthInsufficientConfidence: 74% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

Pig heads were exposed to GSM-modulated RF-EMF at 900 MHz using a half-wave dipole with short bursts (1–3 s) and a continuous 10-min routine. Simulations using an anatomical heterogeneous numerical pig head model were validated with measurements using a homogeneous liquid phantom; SAR(10g) was 7.3 W/kg for the lower-level short bursts and 31 W/kg for the higher-level short bursts and the continuous 10-min exposure, with estimated dosimetry uncertainty of ±25% (K=2).

Outcomes measured

Dosimetry (SAR(10g))
Electroencephalogram (EEG) monitoring for RF-EMF originated changes

Limitations

Sample size not reported in the abstract
Abstract does not report EEG results (only that EEG was registered to search for changes)
Dosimetry validation used a homogeneous liquid phantom rather than an anatomical phantom

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "exposure_assessment",
  "exposure": {
    "band": "RF",
    "source": "mobile phone",
    "frequency_mhz": 900,
    "sar_wkg": 31,
    "duration": "Short bursts of 1–3 s (two exposure levels) and continuous 10-min exposure"
  },
  "population": "Anaesthetised domestic pigs (in vivo head exposure)",
  "sample_size": null,
  "outcomes": [
    "Dosimetry (SAR(10g))",
    "Electroencephalogram (EEG) monitoring for RF-EMF originated changes"
  ],
  "main_findings": "Pig heads were exposed to GSM-modulated RF-EMF at 900 MHz using a half-wave dipole with short bursts (1–3 s) and a continuous 10-min routine. Simulations using an anatomical heterogeneous numerical pig head model were validated with measurements using a homogeneous liquid phantom; SAR(10g) was 7.3 W/kg for the lower-level short bursts and 31 W/kg for the higher-level short bursts and the continuous 10-min exposure, with estimated dosimetry uncertainty of ±25% (K=2).",
  "effect_direction": "unclear",
  "limitations": [
    "Sample size not reported in the abstract",
    "Abstract does not report EEG results (only that EEG was registered to search for changes)",
    "Dosimetry validation used a homogeneous liquid phantom rather than an anatomical phantom"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "insufficient",
  "confidence": 0.74,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "dosimetry",
    "SAR(10g)",
    "GSM",
    "900 MHz",
    "RF-EMF",
    "pig",
    "in vivo",
    "EEG",
    "half-wave dipole",
    "phantom validation"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": []
}

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: 10.1002/bem.20404
PubMed: 18247366

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library