Abstract

This study examines thermal responses of skin to pulsed millimeter wave (mm-wave) and radiofrequency (RF) radiation. We review limits for pulse fluence in the IEEE Std. C95.1-2019 and the 2020 guideline of the International Commission on Nonionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), as well as the recently re-affirmed guidelines of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The focus of the study is on millimeter-wave frequencies (30-300 GHz) where energy is absorbed close to the body surface and intense pulses could potentially cause high temperature gradients at the skin, but the model is extended to lower frequencies as well. The study employs a simple one-dimensional baseline thermal model for skin and Pennes' bioheat equation (BHTE), together with a baseline model for thermal damage to skin based on a standard model. The predicted temperature increases produced by 3-sec pulses at 94 GHz are consistent with previous experimental results with no adjustable parameters in the model. The few reported data on thermal damage to the skin from pulsed 94 GHz energy are insufficient to enable a conventional analysis of damage thresholds and the data may be affected by errors in dosimetry. The baseline model suggests that the implicit limits on pulse fluence in the present FCC guidelines might allow, in extreme (but in practice unrealistic) cases, transient increases in skin temperature that approach thresholds for thermal pain but which remain well below levels anticipated to cause thermal damage. Limits on pulse fluence in the current IEEE and ICNIRP exposure guidelines would preclude such effects. Such extreme pulses are far above those that are emitted by wireless and other technologies but may be emitted by some nonlethal weapons systems. FCC's proposed “device-based time averaging” rules will restrict thermal transients in skin from mm-wave transmitters to levels that are roughly an order of magnitude below the slower temperature increases produced by the low-frequency components of the modulation waveform and appear to be excessively conservative. An appendix discusses the applicability of two approximations to the analytical solutions to the bioheat equation that can be used to estimate temperature increases in skin from exposure to mm-waves.

Highlights

  • Two major international exposure guidelines for radiofrequency (RF) energy (International Commission on Nonionizing Radiation Protection, ICNIRP (2020) [1] and IEEE C95.1-2019 [2]) have been recently updated, while the U.S Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has recentlyThe associate editor coordinating the review of this manuscript and approving it for publication was Pu-Kun Liu .announced that its present RF exposure limits [3] will be continued without revision

  • The IEEE and ICNIRP limits were explicitly designed to protect against identified hazards of RF energy, which at frequencies above about 100 kHz are thermal in nature

  • It shows that thermal transients from pulsed mm-waves that comply with FCC exposure limits are too small to be significant for health and safety with the possible exception of extreme highfluence pulses that are mathematically compliant with the limits, that can produce peak increases in skin temperature that might elicit cutaneous thermal pain but not cause burns

Read more

Summary

INTRODUCTION

Two major international exposure guidelines for radiofrequency (RF) energy (International Commission on Nonionizing Radiation Protection, ICNIRP (2020) [1] and IEEE C95.1-2019 [2]) have been recently updated, while the U.S Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has recently. If energy is pushed quickly into skin (e.g. from a high-fluence mm-wave pulse), its temperature rise is limited by conduction into deeper layers of tissue, whereas at lower rates of heating (from more moderate exposures), the increase in skin temperature is limited by the rate of removal of heat from subcutaneous tissues to the body core. These two processes occur on significantly different time scales, ranging from seconds to several minutes. Only thermal hazards are considered; the controversial issue of ‘‘nonthermal’’ effects would require a separate analysis

THERMAL MODEL
TRANSIENT TEMPERATURE INCREASES
MODEL UNCERTAINTY
THERMAL HAZARDS
RELEVANCE OF MODEL TO EXPOSURE LIMITS
Findings
DISCUSSION
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call