Model Variability in Assessment of Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Fields
This review examines how variability in computational dosimetry models affects assessment of human RF exposure from MHz to terahertz frequencies, focusing on SAR, absorbed power density, and temperature rise. It reports that anatomical scaling and model choices can drive meaningful differences in predicted SAR (including higher values in children/smaller models), while temperature-rise predictions are especially sensitive to thermophysiological parameters and vascular modeling. The authors indicate that computed variability remains within ICNIRP/IEEE safety margins but argue that uncertainties warrant ongoing research and refinement as new technologies (e.g., 6G) emerge.
Key points
- Reviews computational dosimetry advances for RF exposure assessment across MHz-to-terahertz frequencies.
- Assesses heating factors (steady-state temperature rise per SAR) for brain, eye lens, skin, and body core.
- Discusses guideline considerations around the transition from SAR to absorbed power density at 6 GHz and spatial averaging choices.
- Reports that SAR variability is largely driven by anatomical scaling, with children potentially showing higher localized absorption than adults in rare cases.
- Notes WBASAR is generally reported as 40%–60% higher in children and smaller models compared with adults, with additional variability from body shape, methods, and tissue properties.
- Finds temperature-rise variability is more sensitive to thermal and physiological parameters (e.g., blood perfusion and thermoregulation) than anatomy alone.
- States that variability in computed SAR and temperature rise remains within ICNIRP and IEEE guideline safety margins, while emphasizing the importance of continued research.
Referenced studies & papers
Relevant papers in OpenMel
Source:
Open original
AI-generated summaries may be incomplete or incorrect. This content is for informational purposes only and is not medical advice.
AI-generated summaries may be incomplete or incorrect. This content is for informational purposes only and is not medical advice.
Comments
Log in to comment.
No comments yet.