SAR versus Sinc: what is the appropriate RF exposure metric in the range 1-10 GHz? Part I: using planar body models
This is the first of two articles addressing the most appropriate crossover frequency at which incident power flux density (Sinc) replaces the spatial peak value of the specific energy absorption rate (SAR) averaged over 1 or 10 g (i.e., peak 1 or 10 g SAR) as the basic restriction for protecting against radiofrequency (RF) heating effects in the 1–10 GHz range. Our general approach has been to compare the degree of correlation between these basic restrictions and the peak induced tissue temperature rise (DT) for a representative range of population/exposure scenarios. In this article we particularly address the effect of human population diversity in the thickness of body tissue layers at eight different sites of the body.We used a Monte Carlo approach to specify 32000 models (400 models for each of 8 body sites for 10 frequencies) which were representative of tissue thicknesses for age (18–74 years) and sex at the eight body sites. Histogram distributions of Sinc and peak 1 and 10 g SAR corresponding to a peak 1 8C temperature rise were obtained from RF and thermal analyses of 1D multiplanar models exposed to a normally incident plane wave ranging from 1 to 10 GHz in thermoneutral environmental conditions. Examination of the distribution spread of the histograms indicated that peak SAR was a better predictor of peak tissue temperature rise across the entire 1–10 GHz frequency range than Sinc, as indicated by the smaller spread in its histogram distributions, and that peak 10 g SAR was a slightly better predictor than peak 1 g SAR. However, this result must be weighed against partly conflicting indications from complex body modeling in the second article of this series, which incorporates near-field effects and the influence of complex body geometries.
Anderson, V., Croft, R. J. & McIntosh, R. (2010). SAR versus Sinc: what is the appropriate RF exposure metric in the range 1-10 GHz? Part I: using planar body models. Bioelectromagnetics, 31 (6), 454-466.