A Comparative Study of Electromagnetic

Absorption of PIFA and Helical Antenna

in the Human Head

M.I. Hossain, M.R.I. Faruque and M.T. Islam

Abstract In this paper, a comparative analysis of electromagnetic (EM) absorption

in the human head is presented using planar inverted-F antenna (PIFA) and helical
antenna. Both antennas are designed for operating in global system for mobile
(GSM) 900 MHz. The EM absorption is evaluated by using two parameters-the
peak specific absorption rate (SAR) in the human head tissue and total absorbed
power from the mobile phone user. Three different distance configurations are
considered to take effects of distance of mobile phone from human head on EM
absorption for both antennas. The investigation is based on the finite-difference
time-domain (FDTD) method of CST Microwave Studio. The results show that the
PIFA provides a significantly lower value of peak SAR in the human head than that
of helical antenna. In case of PIFA, total absorbed power is more than 34 % than
that of helical antenna.

1 Introduction

The wearable Technology i.e. a combination of wireless technology with human

body is a growing trend in the field of mobile communication. The mobile phones
emit electromagnetic radiation, which disrupts the biological system of the human
body [1]. The effects of EM radiation on human tissues can be classified into two
categories comprising thermal effects and non-thermal effects. The absorbed EM
energy of the biological organism is converted into heat inside the human body.
When this heat exceeds the normal heat range of organism, the temperature rise will
occur, which is called thermal effect [2]. Thermal effect from EM radiation has the

M.I. Hossain (&)
M.R.I. Faruque

Space Science Center (ANGKASA), Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia,
UKM, Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia
e-mail: [email protected]
M.T. Islam
Department of Electrical, Electronic and Systems Engineering,
Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, UKM, Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015 167

H.A. Sulaiman et al. (eds.), Theory and Applications of Applied
Electromagnetics, Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering 344,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-17269-9_18
168 M.I. Hossain et al.

ability to cause disruption of tissue cell function and development. Besides this,
thermal effects may cause headaches, earaches, blurring of vision, and bad
sleep. On the other hand, the non-thermal effects might cause the cells to activate
the third messenger systems and gene expression mechanisms. The use of a mobile
phone for a long period of time may lead to the Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA)
damage, brain tumor, cancer and other diseases [3].
The defined parameter for power absorption in the human body is SAR which is
directly related to the electric and magnetic field distribution in the human body
tissues [4]. International authoritative bodies have defined SAR limit for the EM
devices used in the vicinity of human body considering user health. American
National Standards Institute (ANSI) and Federal Communication Commission
(FCC) has define the SAR limit to 1.6 W/kg per 1 g of tissue [5]. International
Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) and IEEE has impose
the limit of 2 W/kg absorbed per 10 g of tissue.
The PIFA and helical antenna are two mostly used antennas for mobile phone. In
[6], a comparison has been presented among a monopole and PIFA antenna. The size
of presented handset antennas and casings are noticeably greater than modern
handsets. In [7], SAR analysis has been reported for helical antenna with metallic
box at 900 MHz. This investigation provides a comparative study on EM absorption
in the human head phantom of PIFA and helical antenna operating at GSM 900 MHz.

2 Models and Methods

Figure 1 shows the helical antenna geometry with conducting box which operates at
GSM frequency 900 MHz. The helical antenna is fed by a 50 Ω coaxial line. The E-
shaped PIFA structure with FR-4 substrate (0.8 mm thickness) is shown in Fig. 2.

Fig. 1 Geometry of helical

antenna with metallic box
A Comparative Study of Electromagnetic Absorption … 169

Fig. 2 Geometry of PIFA

with FR-4 substrate

Fig. 3 Reflection coefficients

(S11) of PIFA and helical
antenna

The PIFA consists of patch, ground, feed and shortening point. The distance
between antenna patch and ground plane is 8 mm. Figure 3 indicates the reflection
coefficient (S11) of PIFA and helical antenna.
Three-dimensional anatomical models were used for head and hand phantom.
The head model provided by the whole brain atlas website consists of six types of
tissues: bone, brain, skin, muscle, fat, and eye. The electrical properties of head and
hand model are listed in Table 1.
The EM radiation effects on human health is often evaluated by the parameter
SAR, which is a defined figure to evaluate the power absorption in the human body.
According to the definition of IEEE, SAR is defined as the time derivative of
incremental energy absorption by an incremental mass contained in a volume
element of a certain density, as shown in (1) [8]:



d dW d dW
SAR ¼ ¼ ð1Þ
dt dm dt qdV
170 M.I. Hossain et al.

Table 1 The electrical Tissues Conductivity (S/m) Relative permittivity

properties of the head and
hand phantoms tissues Muscle 1.50 55.95
Skin 1.48 49.60
Brain 1.11 41.7
Bone 0.12 4.83
Fat 0.13 5.10
Eye 2.03 68.6
Hand 1 20

where, the symbols dW and dm represent incremental energy, incremental mass

respectively. ρ and V stand for density and volume respectively.
The total absorbed power by the user’s head can be calculated by formula (2) [9]:
Z
1
Pabs ¼ rjEj2 dv ð2Þ
2
V

The numerical simulation of SAR values and total absorbed power were evalu-
ated adopting the FDTD method on the Computer Simulation Technology (CST)
Microwave Studio. The Fig. 4 shows the simulation setup indicating the relative
positions of the mobile handset and human head model. In lossy-Drude simulation
model, 128 × 128 × 128 cells domain was used with cell size of Δx = Δy =
Δz = 3 mm. The SAR values were evaluated adopting IEEE standard algorithm using
1 and 10 g body tissues averaging [10]. The stimulated power 600 mW was used in
experimental set-up and the SAR calculation was performed in the post processing
phase of the simulation.

Fig. 4 Talk position configuration a with helical antenna b with PIFA

A Comparative Study of Electromagnetic Absorption … 171

3 Results and Discussions

In this investigation, a comparison of EM absorption in the human head between

helical antenna and PIFA is presented. Tables 2 and 3 represent the 3D distribution
of SAR for helical antenna and PIFA with three different distance (0, 5, and 10 mm)

Table 2 1 g SAR values for PIFA and helical antenna

Dis. Helical Antenna PIFA

0 mm

4.29 W/Kg 3 W/Kg

5 mm

3.19 W/Kg 2.45 W/Kg

10 mm

2.42 W/Kg 1.95 W/Kg

172 M.I. Hossain et al.

Table 3 10 g SAR values for PIFA and helical antenna

Dis. Helical Antenna PIFA

0 mm

2.91 W/Kg 2.02 W/Kg

5 mm

2.27 W/Kg 1.66 W/Kg

10 mm

1.79 W/kg 1.34 W/Kg

A Comparative Study of Electromagnetic Absorption … 173

Fig. 5 SAR values for PIFA 5

0 mm 5 mm 10 mm
and helical antenna
4

SAR (W/Kg)
3

0
SAR 1g SAR 10g SAR 1g SAR 10g
Helical Antenna PIFA

configurations considering 1 and 10 g of tissue averaging respectively. Moreover,

Fig. 5 shows the peak SAR values for helical and PIFA at 900 MHz with different
distances. From the obtained results, it is clear that the SAR values from helical
antenna are always higher than that of PIFA. For 0 mm distance configuration,
helical antenna produces 30.1 % higher 1 g SAR in the human head than PIFA.
Similarly, 23.2 and 19.4 % higher 1 g SAR is observed for helical antenna in case
of 5 and 10 mm distance configurations respectively. In addition, PIFA provides
30.6, 26.9, and 25.1 % lower 10 g SAR than that of the helical antenna for 0, 5, and
10 mm distance configurations respectively. Increasing the distance between cell
phone antenna and human head phantom results significantly lower SAR as the
strength of the induced electric field is inversely proportional to the distance. For
helical antenna, 5 and 10 mm distance configurations provide 25.6 and 43.6 %
reduction in 1 g SAR respectively than that of 0 mm distance configuration.
Similarly, 22 and 38.5 % 10 g SAR reduction can be obtained with 5 and 10 mm
separation between helical antenna and head model respectively. On the other hand,
PIFA shows 18.33 and 35 % 1 g SAR reduction for 5 and 10 mm spacing increment
respectively. For 10 g SAR value, 5 and 10 mm configurations provide 17.8 and
33.7 % decrement respectively in case of PIFA compared with 0 mm distance
configuration. The results indicate that the SAR values decrease more quickly for
helical antenna with increasing distance of the antenna from the human head model.
Figure 6 illustrates the values of total absorbed power by the user’s head for both
PIFA and helical antenna. The values of total absorbed power also exhibit similar
tendency as like as SAR values. Comparing with helical antenna, PIFA provides

Fig. 6 Total absorbed power 0.35

Helical Antenna PIFA
Total Absorbed Power (W)

by user’s head for PIFA and

0.3
helical antenna
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0 mm 5 mm 10 mm
174 M.I. Hossain et al.

significantly lower power absorption in the user’s head. For 0, 5, and 10 mm

distance configurations, helical antenna provides 36.5, 37.1, and 34.7 % higher
absorbed power in the human head than that of PIFA.

4 Conclusion

In this paper, a comparison of EM absorption in the human head has been presented
between PIFA and helical antenna at GSM 900 MHz. The SAR and total absorbed
power have been computed in the human head phantom to assess which cell phone
antenna has less health hazards. The obtained results indicate that the SAR from
helical antenna are always higher than that of PIFA for all cases. Helical antenna
produces 20 % higher 1 g SAR and 25 % 10 g SAR than that of PIFA. Increasing
the separation between antenna and human head phantom results significantly lower
SAR as the strength of the induced electric field is inversely proportional to the
separation. The results indicate that the SAR values decrease more quickly for
helical antenna with increasing distance of antenna from the human head model. In
case of total absorbed power by the user’s head, PIFA absorbs less than 30 % power
than helical antenna.

References

1. Islam, M.T., Faruque, M.R.I., Misran, N.: SAR reduction in a muscle cube with metamaterial
attachment. Appl. Phys. A Mater. Sci. Process. 103(2), 367–372 (2011)
2. Wainwright, P.: Thermal effects of radiation from cellular telephones. Phys. Med. Biol. 45(8),
2363 (2000)
3. Khurana, V.G., Teo, C., Kundi, M., Hardell, L., Carlberg, M.: Cell phones and brain tumors: a
review including the long-term epidemiologic data. Surg. Neurol. 72(3), 205–214 (2009)
4. Hossain, M.I., Mohammad, R.I.F., Islam, M.T., Hanafi, N.H.M.: Application of auxiliary
antenna elements for SAR reduction in the human head. Adv. Mater. Res. 974, 288–292
(2014)
5. Faruque, M.R.I., Islam, M.T., Misran, N.: Effects of dielectric values and substrate materials
on electromagnetic (EM) absorption in human head. Frequenz 66(3–4), 79–83 (2012)
6. Jensen, M.A., Rahamat-Samii, Y.: EM interaction of handset antennas and a human in
personal communication. Proc. IEEE 83(1), 7–17 (1995)
7. Kouveliotis, N.K., Panagiotou, S.C., Varlamos, P.K., Capsalis, C.N.: Theoretical approach of
the interaction between a human head model and a mobile handset helical antenna using
numerical methods. Prog. Electromagnet. Res. 65, 309–327 (2006)
8. Faruque, M.R.I., Islam, M.T., Misran, N.: Analysis of electromagnetic absorption in mobile
phones using metamaterials. Electromagnetics 31(3), 215–232 (2011)
9. Hwang, J.-N., Chen, F.-C.: Reduction of the peak SAR in the human head with metamaterials.
IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag. 54(12), 3763–3770 (2006)
10. Faruque, M.R.I., Husni, N.A., Hossain, M.I., Islam, M.T., Misran, N.: Effects of mobile phone
radiation onto human head with variation of holding cheek and tilt positions. J. Appl. Res.
Technol. 12(5), 871–876 (2014)