4.6 Article

New Method for Determining Dielectric Properties of Skin and Phantoms at Millimeter Waves Based on Heating Kinetics

期刊

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/TMTT.2011.2176746

关键词

Body-centric applications; experimental phantoms; human skin permittivity; infrared thermometry; permittivity measurement

资金

  1. Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR), France [ANR-09-RPDOC-003-01]
  2. Centre National de la Recherche Scientifiques (CNRS), France

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recent progress in millimeter-wave (MMW) wireless body-centric applications triggered an increasing interest to characterize the interactions between the millimeter waves and the human body. The determination of the dielectric properties of skin and phantoms (artificial models with tissue-equivalent dielectric properties) at MMW is crucial for the accurate evaluation of the power absorption and distribution in the skin. In this study, we show that the heating kinetics resulting from the MMW exposure can be used for the accurate determination of the penetration depth (delta) and power density (I) in different samples (1% and 4% agar phantoms, 20% and 25% polyethylene powder (PEP) phantoms, and human skin). The samples have been exposed at 60.4 GHz using an open-ended waveguide. The temperature distribution and dynamics are recorded using an infrared camera. The values of delta and I are defined by fitting the analytical solution of the bio-heat transfer equation to the experimental heating kinetics. The values of delta are further used to retrieve the permittivity spectra of materials described by Debye equation. Simultaneously, delta is calculated using the permittivity directly measured using a slim coaxial probe. Both results are in good agreement. Finally, our results demonstrate that the permittivity of a 20% PEP phantom is close to that of skin. Hence, this phantom can be used to model the MMW interactions with skin and to characterize on-body wearable MMW antennas.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据