Duality Between Uplink Local and Downlink Whole-Body Exposures in Operating Networks

The paper deals with the assessment of the exposure to radio-frequency fields induced by mobile networks. The study focuses on the instantaneous relationship between the power transmitted by handsets and that received from the base stations. The power measurements are extrapolated to estimate the exposure. This analysis is based on a set of more than 3.5 million collected samples covering GSM at 900-MHz and 1800-MHz carriers and universal mobile telecommunications system networks at 2100-MHz band. Globally, the study shows that the exchanged powers are much lower than the maximum allowed ones. The duality between the two is highlighted to emphasize that exposure to handsets is higher, whereas exposure to base transceiver station is low and vice versa . In GSM, the exposure from mobiles is shown to be much higher (around 60 dB) than that from base stations. Moreover, although the handset power is adapted depending on the receiving conditions, the analysis shows notable differences between 2G and 3G networks. Indeed, in 3G networks, the highest exposure is not always due to handsets compared to base-station antennas. Based on the presented approach, simple formulations can be derived to take into account real-time public exposure enclosing both devices and base-station contributions.

[1]  A. Ahlbom Guidelines for limiting exposure to time-varying electric, magnetic, and electromagnetic fields (up to 300 GHz) , 1998 .

[2]  M.F. Wong,et al.  Inverse source characterization for electromagnetic near field reconstruction and interaction with the environment , 2006, 2006 IEEE Antennas and Propagation Society International Symposium.

[3]  E Cardis,et al.  Determinants of mobile phone output power in a multinational study: implications for exposure assessment , 2009, Occupational and Environmental Medicine.

[4]  P. Dimbylow,et al.  Fine resolution calculations of SAR in the human body for frequencies up to 3 GHz. , 2002, Physics in medicine and biology.

[5]  M Feychting,et al.  Output power levels from mobile phones in different geographical areas; implications for exposure assessment , 2004, Occupational and Environmental Medicine.

[6]  Joe Wiart,et al.  Analysis of electric field averaging for in situ radiofrequency exposure assessment , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology.

[7]  Joe Wiart,et al.  Analysis of the influence of the power control and discontinuous transmission on RF exposure with GSM mobile phones , 2000 .

[8]  J. Wiart,et al.  Variability analysis of SAR from 20 MHz to 2.4 GHz for different adult and child models using finite-difference time-domain , 2008, Physics in medicine and biology.

[9]  Paolo Vecchia,et al.  Determinants of exposure to electromagnetic fields from mobile phones. , 2004, Radiation protection dosimetry.

[10]  A. Hirata,et al.  Correlation Between Absorption Cross Section and Body Surface Area of Human for Far-Field Exposure at GHz Bands , 2007, 2007 IEEE International Symposium on Electromagnetic Compatibility.

[11]  J Wiart,et al.  Statistical analysis of whole-body absorption depending on anatomical human characteristics at a frequency of 2.1 GHz , 2010, Physics in medicine and biology.

[12]  Niels Kuster,et al.  Assessment of induced radio-frequency electromagnetic fields in various anatomical human body models , 2009, Physics in medicine and biology.

[13]  Joe Wiart,et al.  Exposure induced by WCDMA mobiles phones in operating networks , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications.

[14]  B Thors,et al.  The generation of simple compliance boundaries for mobile communication base station antennas using formulae for SAR estimation. , 2009, Physics in medicine and biology.

[15]  Gert F. Pedersen,et al.  User's proximity effects in mobile phones , 2009, 2009 3rd European Conference on Antennas and Propagation.