Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36992024›Full record

ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2023

Comparison of Low-Cost 5G Electromagnetic Field Sensors.

Kenneth Deprez, Loek Colussi, Erdal Korkmaz, Sam Aerts, Derek Land, Stephan Littel, Leen Verloock, David Plets, Wout Joseph, John Bolte

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Kenneth DeprezDepartment of Information Technology, IMEC-WAVES, Ghent University, 9052 Ghent, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-1954-6738
Loek ColussiRadiocommunications Agency, 9726 AH Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-1175-9165
Erdal KorkmazResearch Group Smart Sensor Systems, The Hague University of Applied Sciences, 2521 EN Den Haag, The Netherlands.
Sam AertsDepartment of Information Technology, IMEC-WAVES, Ghent University, 9052 Ghent, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-7444-4312
Derek LandResearch Group Smart Sensor Systems, The Hague University of Applied Sciences, 2521 EN Den Haag, The Netherlands.
Stephan LittelResearch Group Smart Sensor Systems, The Hague University of Applied Sciences, 2521 EN Den Haag, The Netherlands.
Leen VerloockDepartment of Information Technology, IMEC-WAVES, Ghent University, 9052 Ghent, Belgium.
David PletsDepartment of Information Technology, IMEC-WAVES, Ghent University, 9052 Ghent, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-8879-5076
Wout JosephDepartment of Information Technology, IMEC-WAVES, Ghent University, 9052 Ghent, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-8807-0673
John BolteResearch Group Smart Sensor Systems, The Hague University of Applied Sciences, 2521 EN Den Haag, The Netherlands.
Ghent University · BEThe Hague University of Applied Sciences · NLNational Institute for Public Health and the Environment · NLRadiocommunications Agency · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This paper compares different low-cost sensors that can measure (5G) RF-EMF exposure. The sensors are either commercially available (off-the-shelf Software Defined Radio (SDR) Adalm Pluto) or constructed by a research institution (i.e., imec-WAVES, Ghent University and Smart Sensor Systems research group (S³R), The Hague University of Applied Sciences). Both in-lab (GTEM cell) and in-situ measurements have been performed for this comparison. The in-lab measurements tested the linearity and sensitivity, which can then be used to calibrate the sensors. The in-situ testing confirmed that the low-cost hardware sensors and SDR can be used to assess the RF-EMF radiation. The variability between the sensors was 1.78 dB on average, with a maximum deviation of 5.26 dB. Values between 0.09 V/m and 2.44 V/m were obtained at a distance of about 50 m from the base station. These devices can be used to provide the general public and governments with temporal and spatial 5G electromagnetic field values.

Indexed as

5G new radioelectromagnetic fieldsexposure assessmentmeasurement equipmentRF-EMFRF measurement

Identifiers

PMID36992024
PMCPMC10056984
OpenAlexW4328125497

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.