SAR versus S-inc: what is the appropriate RF exposure metric in the range 1-10 GHz? Part II: using complex human body models

Search Swinburne Research Bank

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/1959.3/91969

Check Swinburne's subscriptions for full text availability

Title: SAR versus S-inc: what is the appropriate RF exposure metric in the range 1-10 GHz? Part II: using complex human body models
Author(s): McIntosh, Robert L.; Anderson, Vitas
Abstract: This is the second of the two articles that present modeling data and reasoned arguments for specifying the appropriate crossover frequency at which incident power flux density (Sinc) replaces the peak 10 g averaged value of the specific energy absorption rate (SAR) as the designated basic restriction for protecting against radiofrequency electromagnetic heating effects in the 1–10 GHz range. In our first study, we compared the degree of correlation between these basic restrictions and the peak-induced tissue temperature rise (ΔT) for a representative range of population/exposure scenarios using simple multi-planar models exposed to plane wave conditions. In this complementary study, complex heterogeneous head models for an adult and 12-year-old child were analyzed at 1, 3, 6, 8, and 10 GHz for a variety of exposure conditions. The complex models indicate that peak ΔT is better correlated with peak 10 g SAR than Sinc at 1 and 3 GHz and with Sinc at 6–10 GHz, in contrast to the results from Part I. Considering the planar and complex body modeling results together, and given the equivocal indications of the two metrics in the 6–10 GHz range, we recommend that the breakpoint be set at 6 GHz. This choice is also based on other considerations such as ease of assessment. We also recommend that the limit level of Sinc should be adjusted to provide a better match with 10 g SAR in the induced tissue temperature rise.
Publication type: Journal article
Research centre: Swinburne University of Technology. Faculty of Life and Social Sciences. Brain Sciences Institute
Source: Bioelectromagnetics, Vol. 31, no. 6 (Sep 2010), pp. 467-478
Publication year: 2010
FOR Code(s): 06 Biological Sciences; 09 Engineering
Keyword(s): FDTD; Finite-difference time-domain; Human body modeling; Power flux density; Radiofrequency safety standards; SAR; Specific energy absorption rate; Temperature
Publisher: John Wiley & Sons
ISSN: 0197-8462
Publisher URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bem.20574
Peer reviewed