Potential exposure assessment errors associated with body‐worn RF dosimeters

Blas, Juan; Lago, F.A.; Fernández, Patricia; Lorenzo, Rubén M.; Abril, Evaristo J.

doi:10.1002/bem.20355

Cited by 59 publications

(59 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These devices have the advantage that they can be worn on body and thus allow for a measurement of the electric fields on the same location as the subject wearing the device. However, PEMs are faced with relatively large uncertainties [9][10][11][12][13][14] caused by two effects: the uncertainty of the position of the PEM on the body and the varying multi-path RF fields incident on a subject.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

On-body calibration and processing for a combination of two radio-frequency personal exposimeters

Thielens

Agneessens

Verloock

et al. 2014

Radiation Protection Dosimetry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[9] using both numerical simulations and measurements of the electric fields in a transverse plane of the human body. Variations up to 30 dB (a factor of 10³) in power density were found for constant incident field strength.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

On-body calibration and processing for a combination of two radio-frequency personal exposimeters

Thielens

Agneessens

Verloock

et al. 2014

Radiation Protection Dosimetry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…As shown in [10,11] and [17][18][19], using a single sensor is largely ineffective in an overall estimation exposure. Indeed, Figures 3 and 7 show the field level around the chest for different incident fields direction.…”

Section: Body Errors Classification For a Single Pointmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is shown in [10] and [11] that the body can produce attenuations up to 30 dB at 900 MHz. The errors due to the position of the exposimeter on the body were shown to be significant in [8], with ten exposimeter positions considered (six around the waist, two on arms and two on the upper back).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measurement Methodologies for Reducing Errors in the Assessment of Emf by Exposimeter

Kwate¹,

Taybi²,

Elmagroud³

et al. 2017

PIER B

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-Objective: As well known, using a single body worn sensor exposimeter introduces systematic errors on the measurement of the incident free space electric field strength. This is because the body creates around it high, intermediate and low level field zones, which depend on the direction of arrival of the incident field. The goal of this work is to propose an efficient method for the reduction of these errors. Methods: After classifying the perturbations induced by the body on the measured electric and magnetic fields thanks to realistic numerical simulations, we then propose a two-sensor setup in conjunction with simple semi-empirical correction formulas, in order to compensate these perturbations. Results: At 942 MHz, when the two sensors are placed in any opposite sides of the body at chest height, the worst case, maximum and average errors respectively decrease to 12% and 3% compared to 83% and 22% for measurement techniques using a single sensor, or 32% and 11% when using the average value of the measurements. Conclusion: The error related to the measurement in the presence of the body was significantly reduced by the proposed method making use of two opposite sensors, E-field and H-field at the chest. Significance: The conformity of exposure to EMF in terms of reference values according to the ICNIRP is given in the abscence of the human body. The interest of this work lies in the reduction of the errors made when measuring the field in the presence of the body.

show abstract

“…Specifically, simulation volume is divided into electrically small cells, typically with a maximum size of 0.1λ. Each node of this sampling mesh has its own permittivity, conductivity and permeability, allowing a detailed representation of complex lossy structures and heterogeneous materials in detail [10,11]. Some examples of indoor propagation models based on FDTD are [12][13][14].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Model for Transition Between Outdoor and Indoor Propagation

Prieto¹,

Reguero²,

Toledo³

et al. 2008

PIER

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-We present a novel outdoor-indoor radio wave propagation model. It predicts the electric field envelope Cumulative Distribution Function (CDF) in a room placed near a radio communication emitter. The experimental CDF obtained from the simulation, fits the experimental CDF obtained from a measurement campaign carried out over 19200 sampling points inside the room. The maximum deviation found between these CDFs is less than 1%. Kolmogorov-Smirnov test is employed to analyze the goodness of fit. P-values around 99% are reached. A comparison is made with other classical methods reported in the literature as ray-tracing (RT) and a hybrid method employing finite-difference time-domain (FDTD) together with RT. The proposed model significantly improves the results achieved in those previous investigations. Although we study the problem in three dimensions, the repetitive nature of the algorithm allows us to parallelize the computation process speeding the calculations.

show abstract

Potential exposure assessment errors associated with body‐worn RF dosimeters

Cited by 59 publications

References 5 publications

On-body calibration and processing for a combination of two radio-frequency personal exposimeters

On-body calibration and processing for a combination of two radio-frequency personal exposimeters

Measurement Methodologies for Reducing Errors in the Assessment of Emf by Exposimeter

A Model for Transition Between Outdoor and Indoor Propagation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About