Dosimetric evaluation and comparison of different RF exposure apparatuses used in human volunteer studies

24Citations
Citations of this article
36Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

The aim of this study was to provide the information necessary to enable the comparison of exposure conditions in different human volunteer studies published by the research groups at the Universities of Turku, Swinburne, and Zurich. The latter applied a setup optimized for human volunteer studies in the context of risk assessment while the first two applied a modified commercial mobile phone for which detailed dosimetric data were lacking. While the Zurich Setup exposed the entire cortex of the target hemisphere, the other two setups resulted in only very localized exposure of the upper cheek, and concentrated on a limited area of the middle temporal gyrus just above the ear. The resulting peak spatial SAR averaged over 1 g of the cortex was 0.19 W/kg of the Swinburne Setup, and 0.31 W/kg for the Turku Setup, compared to 1 W/kg for the Zurich Setup. The average exposure of the thalamus was 5% and 9% of the Zurich Setup results for the Swinburne and Turku Setups, respectively. In general, the phone-based setup results in only reasonably defined exposures in a very limited area around the maximum exposure; the exposure of the rest of the cortex was low, and may vary greatly as a function of the setup, position, and local anatomy. The analysis confirms the need for a carefully designed exposure setup that exposes the relevant brain areas to a well-defined level in human volunteer studies, and shows that studies can only be properly compared and replicated if sufficiently detailed dosimetric information is available. © 2007 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Boutry, C. M., Kuehn, S., Achermann, P., Romann, A., Keshvari, J., & Kuster, N. (2008). Dosimetric evaluation and comparison of different RF exposure apparatuses used in human volunteer studies. Bioelectromagnetics, 29(1), 11–19. https://doi.org/10.1002/bem.20356

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free