Search Results (223)

Figure 1
<p>A realistic 3D head model: anterior view (<b>a</b>) and side view (<b>b</b>).</p> Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Cross sections of the head model: transverse (<b>a</b>), sagittal (<b>b</b>), and coronal (<b>c</b>).</p> Full article ">Figure 3
<p>3D numerical model of cranial implant.</p> Full article ">Figure 4
<p>3D numerical model of a mobile phone and its relative position to the head (<b>a</b>); model of the planar inverted F antenna inside a phone (<b>b</b>).</p> Full article ">Figure 5
<p>S-parameters of the planar inverted F antenna.</p> Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Calculation line C at the transversal plane, perpendicular to the mobile phone, utilized to analyze the results.</p> Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Electric field distribution within the user’s head model: (<b>a</b>) with cranial implant and (<b>b</b>) without cranial implant.</p> Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Electric field strength along curve C.</p> Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Spatial distribution of SAR_1g inside the user’s head model: (<b>a</b>) with cranial implant and (<b>b</b>) without cranial implant.</p> Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Spatial distribution of SAR_10g inside the user’s head model: (<b>a</b>) with cranial implant and (<b>b</b>) without cranial implant.</p> Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Specific absorption rate—SAR_1g along line C.</p> Full article ">Figure 12
<p>Specific absorption rate—SAR_10g along line C.</p> Full article ">

Figure 1
<p>Measurement of body weight. All animals subjected to LTE-RF-EMF (LTE) or Pb exposure were weighed weekly for 4 weeks.</p> Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Evaluation of behavioral changes in the mice exposed to LTE or Pb treatments during adolescence. (<b>A</b>) The representative traces of movement measured in the open-field test. (<b>B</b>) Measured average velocity, distance traveled, and activity and time in the central zone. (<b>C</b>) The results of the marble-burying test with representative photos and quantification in the mice exposed to sham, LTE, or Pb treatments during adolescence. (<b>D</b>) The representative photos and scores of the built nests by the mice exposed to sham, LTE, or Pb treatments during adolescence. The data are presented as mean ± standard deviation (n = 10). * <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.05, *** <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.001, and **** <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.0001 versus sham; ^#### <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.0001 versus LTE exposure.</p> Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Analysis of the circulating hormone levels following LTE or Pb exposure during adolescence in the C57BL/6 mice. (<b>A</b>) Thyroid hormones: TSH, T3, and T4. (<b>B</b>) Pituitary hormones: brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) and adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH). (<b>C</b>) The testosterone levels. The data are presented as mean ± standard deviation (n = 7–8). * <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.05 versus sham.</p> Full article ">Figure 4
<p>RT-qPCR analysis of the thyroid hormone-regulating genes in the hypothalamic–pituitary–thyroid (HPT) axis. The relative mRNA expression levels of <span class="html-italic">Trh, Dio2, Dio3</span>, and <span class="html-italic">Oatp1c1</span> in the hypothalamus (<b>A</b>); <span class="html-italic">Trhr</span> and <span class="html-italic">Tshβ</span> in the pituitary gland (<b>B</b>); and <span class="html-italic">Tpo</span> and <span class="html-italic">Tg</span> in the thyroid glands (<b>C</b>). The data are presented as mean ± standard deviation (n = 7–8). * <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.05 and ** <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.01 versus sham; ^# <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.05 versus LTE exposure.</p> Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Experimental scheme and in vivo LTE signal exposing chamber. (<b>A</b>) LTE and Pb exposure and experimental procedure. (<b>B</b>) Image of the reverberation chamber and the positioned cages in the chamber.</p> Full article ">

Figure 1
<p>The microscopy study results: (<b>A</b>) TEM image of @Fe₃O₄-PEG400 nanospheres, (<b>B</b>) TEM image of a single @Fe₃O₄-PEG400 nanosphere, (<b>C</b>) AFM image of @Fe₃O₄-PEG400, and (<b>D</b>) AFM image of @Fe₃O₄-PEG400 single nanosphere.</p> Full article ">Figure 2
<p>TEM images of: (<b>A</b>) @Fe₃O₄-PEG400-Pro, (<b>B</b>) @Fe₃O₄-PEG400-N₃, (<b>C</b>) @Fe₃O₄-βCD, and (<b>D</b>) @Fe₃O₄-PEG6000.</p> Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Representative XRD diffractogram of Fe₃O₄ nanoparticles coated with PEG (@Fe₃O₄-PEG6000).</p> Full article ">Figure 4
<p>FT-IR Spectra of: (<b>A</b>) @Fe₃O₄-PEG400-Pro, (<b>B</b>) @Fe₃O₄-PEG400-N₃, (<b>C</b>) @Fe₃O₄-βCD, and (<b>D</b>) @Fe₃O₄-PEG6000 samples.</p> Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Magnetization curves of @Fe₃O₄ coated with βCD, PEG400, or PEG6000.</p> Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Hyperthermia and in vitro proliferation analyses: (<b>A</b>) Temperature rise obtained after application of an alternating magnetic field (385 kHz; 28 kA/m) during 25 min for MNPs coated with PEG400, PEG6000, and βCD at a concentration of 0.5 mg/mL of Fe. The data were represented as the mean of 3 measurements ± standard deviation; (<b>B</b>) In vitro proliferation assay of MNPs coated with PEG400, PEG6000, and βCD at 72 h of exposition. Graphs show the percentage of proliferation of T84 at doses ranging from 1–100 µg/mL of Fe₃O₄. Results were expressed as mean ± SD of triplicate cultures.</p> Full article ">Scheme 1
<p>Two-step synthesis of PEG400-N₃ and synthesis of PEG400-Pro.</p> Full article ">Scheme 2
<p>Synthesis of propargyl derivatives of CBD and preparation of @Fe₃O₄-PEG400-CBD.</p> Full article ">

Figure 1
<p>A uniform linear array antenna arranged along the x-axis.</p> Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Schematic of a rectangular planar array.</p> Full article ">Figure 3
<p>(<b>a</b>) Antenna top view and (<b>b</b>) antenna side view.</p> Full article ">Figure 4
<p>The influence of dielectric substrate thickness on S parameters.</p> Full article ">Figure 5
<p>The impact of antenna element width W on S parameters.</p> Full article ">Figure 6
<p>The influence of antenna unit length ‘L’ on S parameters.</p> Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Antenna unit model diagram.</p> Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Antenna units with embedded feeding.</p> Full article ">Figure 9
<p>The curve in the graph demonstrates how the S11 parameter of the embedded feed antenna unit changes with varying Y0.</p> Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Standing wave ratio (VSWR) chart.</p> Full article ">Figure 11
<p>The gain pattern of the microstrip antenna unit at a frequency of 3.5 GHz. (<b>a</b>) Three-dimensional gain pattern of the antenna unit and (<b>b</b>) polar gain pattern of the antenna unit.</p> Full article ">Figure 12
<p>The simulated radiation pattern in the xoz plane at 3.5 GHz.</p> Full article ">Figure 13
<p>Impedance matching principal diagram.</p> Full article ">Figure 14
<p>Schematic diagram of T-type power divider structure principles.</p> Full article ">Figure 15
<p>T microstrip T-junction structure diagram.</p> Full article ">Figure 16
<p>A 4 × 4 microstrip array antenna.</p> Full article ">Figure 17
<p>Coaxial feeding point of the array antenna.</p> Full article ">Figure 18
<p>S parameters of the 4 × 4 array antenna.</p> Full article ">Figure 19
<p>Gain pattern of the 4 × 4 array antenna at 3.5 GHz. (<b>a</b>) Three-dimensional gain pattern and (<b>b</b>) polar gain pattern.</p> Full article ">Figure 20
<p>Laboratory fabrication environment image.</p> Full article ">Figure 21
<p>Array antenna physical fabrication diagram. (<b>a</b>) Front view of physical fabrication and (<b>b</b>) rear view of physical fabrication.</p> Full article ">Figure 22
<p>Measured VSWR plot of the array antenna.</p> Full article ">Figure 23
<p>Measured S parameters of the array antenna.</p> Full article ">Figure 24
<p>Microwave anechoic chamber measurement environment image.</p> Full article ">Figure 25
<p>The measured radiation pattern of the antenna at a frequency of 3.5 GHz.</p> Full article ">Figure 26
<p>Signal strength of the bare smartphone.</p> Full article ">Figure 27
<p>Signal strength with the installation of a metal phone case.</p> Full article ">Figure 28
<p>Schematic diagram of the loop antenna structure.</p> Full article ">Figure 29
<p>Comparison chart of loop antenna S parameters with varying gap widths in the metal frame.</p> Full article ">Figure 30
<p>Schematic diagram of the slot antenna structure. (<b>a</b>) Slot antenna front view and (<b>b</b>) slot antenna back view.</p> Full article ">Figure 31
<p>The impact of variations in feed branch width (W1) on the S parameters of slotted antennas.</p> Full article ">Figure 32
<p>Horizontal placement of the ring antenna and slot antenna.</p> Full article ">Figure 33
<p>Co-located placement of the ring antenna and slot antenna.</p> Full article ">Figure 34
<p>Schematic diagram of the dual-element “ring-slot” antenna structure.</p> Full article ">Figure 35
<p>The impact of metal frame height (h) variations on the reflection coefficient of the ring antenna.</p> Full article ">Figure 36
<p>The influence of ground slot length (L) on the reflection coefficient of the slot antenna.</p> Full article ">Figure 37
<p>The impact of the chip inductor on the transmission coefficient of the “ring-slot” structure.</p> Full article ">Figure 38
<p>Current distribution diagram of the dual-element “ring-slot” MIMO antenna structure.</p> Full article ">Figure 39
<p>S parameter curves of the dual-element “ring-slot” structure.</p> Full article ">Figure 40
<p>The radiation patterns of the dual-element “ring-slot” antenna at a frequency of 3.5 GHz in the E-plane and H-plane. (<b>a</b>) E-plane radiation pattern and (<b>b</b>) H-plane radiation pattern.</p> Full article ">Figure 41
<p>The schematic diagram of the eight-element MIMO array antenna structure. (<b>a</b>) Front view, (<b>b</b>) back view and (<b>c</b>) side view.</p> Full article ">Figure 42
<p>Current distribution comparison before and after adding the T-type decoupling structure. (<b>a</b>) Before loading and (<b>b</b>) after loading.</p> Full article ">Figure 43
<p>Three layout options for the “ring-slot” antenna modules. (<b>a</b>) Layout 1: L-shaped feed branches placed in the same direction; (<b>b</b>) Layout 2: L-shaped feed branches all directed inward; and (<b>c</b>) Layout 3: L-shaped feed branches all directed outward.</p> Full article ">Figure 44
<p>Simulated S parameters for the three different layouts of the “ring-slot” antenna structure. (<b>a</b>) Layout 1, (<b>b</b>) Layout 1, and (<b>c</b>) Layout 3.</p> Full article ">Figure 45
<p>The impact of the spacing (d) between the “ring-slot” unit modules on the S parameters.</p> Full article ">Figure 46
<p>An illustration of the processing model for an eight-element array antenna.</p> Full article ">Figure 47
<p>A Physical diagram of an eight-element array antenna processing model. (<b>a</b>) Physical front view, (<b>b</b>) physical rear view, and (<b>c</b>) physical side view.</p> Full article ">Figure 48
<p>Measured S parameters of the eight-element array antenna.</p> Full article ">Figure 49
<p>Anechoic chamber environment diagram.</p> Full article ">Figure 50
<p>The measured radiation pattern of the eight-element array antenna at a frequency of 3.5 GHz.</p> Full article ">Figure 51
<p>The measured radiation efficiency diagram of the eight-element array antenna.</p> Full article ">Figure 52
<p>The measured envelope correlation coefficient (ECC) diagram of the eight-element array antenna.</p> Full article ">

Figure 1
<p>Workflow overview for the proposed method. This figure presents a detailed workflow for evaluating antenna performance, encompassing dataset generation, model training and validation, and inference during the R&amp;D phase.</p> Full article ">Figure 2
<p>RTEEMF-PhoneAnts architecture.</p> Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Digital models and operating frequencies of the six antennas developed in the study. (<b>a</b>) Ant. 1: Dual-band planar inverted-F(PlFA) with parasitic element. (<b>b</b>) Ant. 2: T-Branch gap Coupled Antenna. (<b>c</b>) Ant. 3: Folded Monopole Dipole Loop Antenna. (<b>d</b>) Ant. 4: Printed inverted-F antenna. (<b>e</b>) Ant. 5: loop antenna. (<b>f</b>) Ant. 6: dual-monopole slots antenna.</p> Full article ">Figure 4
<p>The simplified mobile phone model and the antenna placement regions. The antenna, battery, and USB Type-C are represented as perfect electric conductors. The relative permittivity (<span class="html-italic">ε_r</span>) for the frame, screen, substrate, back cover, and camera are given as 3.8, 1.9, 4.2, 3.8, and 1.9, respectively.</p> Full article ">Figure 5
<p>The effects of varying model depths, spatial resolutions, and NEMF types on the RMSE of the predicted outcomes.</p> Full article ">Figure 6
<p>A filled contour plot of EIRP prediction using complex and RMS NEMF at various resolutions and different depths of ResNet3D networks. (<b>a</b>) Reference from SEMCAD. (<b>b</b>) ResNet3D-10 0.5 × 0.5 × 0.1 mm³ Complex vector field. (<b>c</b>) ResNet3D-18 0.5 × 0.5 × 0.1 mm³ Complex vector field. (<b>d</b>) ResNet3D-34 0.5 × 0.5 × 0.1 mm³ Complex vector field. (<b>e</b>) ResNet3D-10 0.5 × 0.5 × 0.1 mm³ RMS vector field. (<b>f</b>) ResNet3D-10 1 × 1 × 0.2 mm³ Complex vector field. (<b>g</b>) ResNet3D-10 2 × 2 × 0.5 mm³ Complex vector field. <b><span class="html-italic">ϕ</span></b> represents the azimuth angle, <b><span class="html-italic">θ</span></b> represents the elevation angle.</p> Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Histogram illustrating the confidence levels of FSV, ADM, FDM, and GDM results in model predictions as compared to SEMCAD.</p> Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Comparison of computational time between RTEEMF-PhoneAnts and full-wave simulation as the number of frequency bands increases.</p> Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Confidence histogram of FSV, ADM, FDM, and GDM results for the model prediction with respect to the SEMCAD when Ant.6 is used as a test set.</p> Full article ">

Figure 1
<p>Geometries of basic HMSIC antenna (Ant I).</p> Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Simulated |S₁₁| curve of Ant I.</p> Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Geometries of textile bandwidth-enhanced HMSIC antenna based on embroidered shorting vias (Ant II).</p> Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Simulated |S₁₁| curves of Ant II with different values of <span class="html-italic">a</span>.</p> Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Geometry of the three-layer phantom model.</p> Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Simulated and measured return loss (|S₁₁|) curves of Ant II in flat condition.</p> Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Simulated patterns of coplanar-polarized gain of Ant II in flat condition: (<b>a</b>) in free space; (<b>b</b>) on the phantom model.</p> Full article ">Figure 7 Cont.
<p>Simulated patterns of coplanar-polarized gain of Ant II in flat condition: (<b>a</b>) in free space; (<b>b</b>) on the phantom model.</p> Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Simulated curves of (<b>a</b>) <span class="html-italic">η</span>_rad and (<b>b</b>) <span class="html-italic">Gain</span>_max with respect to frequency of Ant II in flat condition.</p> Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Simulated SAR distributions on the phantom model for Ant II.</p> Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Photos of fabricated prototype of Ant II.</p> Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Comparison between measured free-space |S₁₁| curves of Ant II in flat and cylindrical bending conditions.</p> Full article ">Figure 12
<p>Measured coplanar-polarized gain patterns of Ant II in free space.</p> Full article ">

Figure 1
<p>Experimental design. From gestational day (GD) 8 until postnatal day (PND) 17, the rats were daily exposed to 900 MHz radiofrequency (RF) from 11:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. of 0 (sham-exposed group), 30.2 V/m electric field and 0.08 W/kg (PuM: whole-body limits of the general public applied to mother rats), or 67.5 V/m electric field and 0.4 W/kg (OcM: whole-body occupational limits applied to mother rats). The dam’s body weight was assessed from GD 8 until PND 22, and food consumption was assessed from GD 9 until PND 20.</p> Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Estimate of the wbSAR in the pups and mothers showed linear growth before a peak at 100 g body weight (around PND 27) followed by a linear decrease with 0.4 W/kg and 0.08 W/kg attained for 330 g body weight. The wbSAR was calculated for the pups (<b>a</b>) and mothers (<b>b</b>) on a “coupling factor” dependent on the animal’s body weight.</p> Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Effects of pre- and postnatal 900 MHz exposure on the mothers’ body weight (<b>a</b>) and on the litter food intake (<b>b</b>). * <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.05 between the OcM and sham group, ° <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.05 between the PuM and sham group. n = 8–9/group. wbSAR was calculated numerically with an approximation formula. Left Y axis indicates the weight in grams for the sham, PuM, and OcM groups. Right Y axis indicates the wbSAR evolution in W/kg.</p> Full article ">Figure 4
<p>No effects of exposures on litter parameters at birth. Proportion of males and females per litters (<b>a</b>), death pups at birth (percentage of pups born alive) (<b>b</b>), and total number of pups per litter (litter size) (<b>c</b>). n = 8–9/group.</p> Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Effect of perinatal exposure to 900 MHz on pup weight. There was a significant difference between the exposed and sham groups in male pup body weight from PND 6 to PND 43 (<b>a</b>). There was no difference between the groups regarding the body weight in females (<b>b</b>) and the body length in males (<b>c</b>) and females (<b>d</b>). n = 8–9/group. * <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.05; ** <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.01. SAR was calculated numerically with an approximation formula.</p> Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Precocious phenotype exhibited by developmental landmarks. There was a significant difference between the exposed groups and the sham-exposed group regarding the start of ear detachment for males (<b>a</b>) and females (<b>b</b>) (<span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.05). The end of pinna ear detachment was significantly early for the exposed groups in males (<b>c</b>) and in females (<b>d</b>) compared to the sham group. Incisor eruption (gum break) was significantly early in the PuM group compared to sham in males (<b>e</b>), but equivalent between sham and exposed in females (<b>f</b>). Eye opening was significantly early in both exposed groups in males (<b>g</b>) and in both SAR groups for females (<b>h</b>). n = 8–9/group. *: sham vs 0.4 W/kg <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.05, ** <span class="html-italic">p</span>&lt; 0.01. °: sham vs. 0.08 W/kg <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.05, °° <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.01.</p> Full article ">

Figure 1
<p>(<b>a</b>) Flowchart depicting the implementation of the truncated HDMR expansion applied in this study, with <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi>N</mi> <mo>=</mo> <mn>12</mn> </mrow> </semantics></math>. (<b>b</b>) Flowchart of HDMR-assisted MC method.</p> Full article ">Figure 2
<p>The MRI-derived head model in an MRI birdcage coil with the locations of activated ports highlighted. (<b>a</b>) Front view; (<b>b</b>) right side view; (<b>c</b>) top view; (<b>d</b>) port locations: port 1 (red), port 5 (green), port 9 (black), and port 13 (yellow).</p> Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Relative error distributions for 889,850 tissue voxels. Derived from the second scenario where the total order for component functions is 2, with 3 GL quadrature points along each dimension.</p> Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Comparison of the SAR on slices. The ground truth (<b>Left</b>), approximation via proposed framework (<b>Mid</b>), and the logarithm of the relative error between the ground truth and approximation (<b>Right</b>). (<b>a</b>) Ground truth of the axial slice. (<b>b</b>) Approximate SAR of the axial slice. (<b>c</b>) Logarithm of relative error between (<b>a</b>,<b>b</b>). (<b>d</b>) Ground truth of the sagittal slice. (<b>e</b>) Approximate SAR of the sagittal slice. (<b>f</b>) Logarithm of relative error between (<b>d</b>,<b>e</b>). (<b>g</b>) Ground truth of the coronal slice. (<b>h</b>) Approximate SAR of the coronal slice. (<b>i</b>) Logarithm of relative error between (<b>g</b>,<b>h</b>).</p> Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Convergence of mean (<b>top</b>) and variance (<b>bottom</b>) values for two different voxels, both computed using the 5000 point traditional MC method with increments of 50 random points/simulations. The black line represents the mean/variance values obtained via the HDMR-assisted MC method requiring 289 collocation points/simulations.</p> Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Comparison between maximum and nominal 1g-SAR and 10g-SAR distributions. For sub-figures (<b>a</b>–<b>d</b>), only the top <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mn>5</mn> <mo>%</mo> </mrow> </semantics></math> of voxels with highest SAR values are plotted. (<b>a</b>) Maximum 1g-SAR distributions. (<b>b</b>) Nominal 1g-SAR distributions. (<b>c</b>) Maximum 10g-SAR distributions. (<b>d</b>) Nominal 10g-SAR distributions. (<b>e</b>) Activation port location (circled in red).</p> Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Comparison of sagittal slices between maximum and nominal SAR distributions, along with their differences. (<b>a</b>) Maximum 1g-SAR. (<b>b</b>) Nominal 1g-SAR. (<b>c</b>) Difference between (<b>a</b>,<b>b</b>). (<b>d</b>) Maximum 10g-SAR. (<b>e</b>) Nominal 10g-SAR. (<b>f</b>) Difference between (<b>d</b>,<b>e</b>).</p> Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Averaged Sobol indices for each tissue type. The x-axis depicts input dimensions, where <math display="inline"><semantics> <msub> <mi>ε</mi> <mi>r</mi> </msub> </semantics></math> is relative permittivity and <math display="inline"><semantics> <mi>σ</mi> </semantics></math> is conductivity; W, G, C, B, S, E represents white matter, grey matter, CSF, bone, scalp, and eye humor, respectively. Sub-figures show Sobol indices for (<b>a</b>) white matter, (<b>b</b>) grey matter, (<b>c</b>) CSF, (<b>d</b>) bone, (<b>e</b>) scalp, and (<b>f</b>) eye humor.</p> Full article ">

Figure 1
<p>Geometry of proposed button antenna: (<b>a</b>) top view; (<b>b</b>) conductive textile on upper layer; (<b>c</b>) side view.</p> Full article ">Figure 2
<p>The equivalent circuit of the proposed antenna.</p> Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Current distribution: (<b>a</b>) 3.5 GHz; (<b>b</b>) 5.8 GHz, 0°; (<b>c</b>) 5.8 GHz, 90°.</p> Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Simulation results of CMA values without probe: (<b>a</b>) Modal significance. (<b>b</b>) Characteristic angle.</p> Full article ">Figure 5
<p>The modal current distribution and modal radiation pattern of the first six modes at 5 GHz: (<b>a</b>) Mode 1. (<b>b</b>) Mode 2. (<b>c</b>) Mode 3. (<b>d</b>) Mode 4. (<b>e</b>) Mode 5. (<b>f</b>) Mode 6.</p> Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Simulation results of CMA values with probe: (<b>a</b>) Modal significance. (<b>b</b>) Characteristic angle.</p> Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Schematic of multilayer human tissue model.</p> Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Simulated and measured <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mrow> <mo>|</mo> </mrow> <msub> <mi mathvariant="normal">S</mi> <mn>11</mn> </msub> <mrow> <mo>|</mo> </mrow> </mrow> </semantics></math>: (<b>a</b>) in free space; (<b>b</b>) on body.</p> Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Measured and simulated radiation pattern: (<b>a</b>) 3.5 GHz, x-z plane and x-y plane; (<b>b</b>) 5.8 GHz, x-z plane and x-y plane.</p> Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Simulated and measured peak gains.</p> Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Simulated and measured axial ratios.</p> Full article ">Figure 12
<p>Simulated and measured efficiency.</p> Full article ">Figure 13
<p>Rotating about the <span class="html-italic">y</span>-axis.</p> Full article ">Figure 14
<p>The reflection coefficient results at different tilting angles.</p> Full article ">Figure 15
<p>The axial ratio results at different tilting angles.</p> Full article ">Figure 16
<p>Simulated SAR values: (<b>a</b>) 3.5 GHz, 1g tissue; (<b>b</b>) 3.5 GHz, 10g tissue; (<b>c</b>) 5.8 GHz, 1g tissue; (<b>d</b>) 5.8 GHz, 10g tissue.</p> Full article ">

Figure 1
<p>Proposed SWIPT scheme with data transfer and harmonic powering feedback.</p> Full article ">Figure 2
<p>IoT device electronics for wireless powering and data readout.</p> Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Block diagram and photograph of the developed system to provide wireless feedback of the power transferred.</p> Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Proposed system for SWIPT and wireless IoT module feedback readout.</p> Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Developed WPT system, with the control electronics, power amplifiers, and feedback and WPT antennas.</p> Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Diagram with the two main phases of the implemented algorithm, where the brute force is shown on the left and the active tracking is shown on the right to have located the target. The dashed and the dotted lines represent the two directions adjacent to the current one (solid line) where the algorithm searches for the target.</p> Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Power level and excitation phase difference throughout the stability test with the receiver being stationary.</p> Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Representation of the movement testing area, where the target device started and finished in position A, moving in alphabetical order through the marked locations (<b>A</b>), and the obtained power and phase results (<b>B</b>).</p> Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Setup of the HFSS simulation; (<b>A</b>) shows the simulation area and the location of the antenna array, and in (<b>B</b>) the dimensions are disclosed.</p> Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Mapping of the power delivered to the wireless device in each position of the test area. (<b>A</b>) Single transmitter; (<b>B</b>) two transmitters without tracking; (<b>C</b>) two transmitters with tracking; (<b>D</b>) power transfer histograms.</p> Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Results of the maximum SAR10g value for each position in W/kg. (<b>A</b>) The case of 1 antenna; (<b>B</b>) the case of 2 antennas without tracking; (<b>C</b>) the case of 2 antennas with tracking.</p> Full article ">Figure 12
<p>Moving subject in front of the WPT system with the feedback turned on (<b>top</b>) and turned off (<b>bottom</b>).</p> Full article ">

Graphical abstract
Full article ">Figure 1
<p>Schematic representation of the nanocomposite synthesis process.</p> Full article ">Figure 2
<p>(<b>a</b>) Conductivity vs. frequency for different concentrations of the CWP solutions. The different concentrations are represented in the graph in the form of [CWP] = “concentration of the solution” mol·dm⁻³. (<b>b</b>) CMC vs. CWP concentration; f = <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msup> <mrow> <mn>10</mn> </mrow> <mrow> <mn>5</mn> </mrow> </msup> </mrow> </semantics></math> Hz.</p> Full article ">Figure 3
<p>DTA and TG of (<b>a</b>) Gd₃Fe₅O₁₂ and (<b>b</b>) ZnFe₂O₄ samples.</p> Full article ">Figure 4
<p>XRD diffractograms of the Gd₃Fe₅O₁₂ samples heat-treated at 1200 °C for 24 h (red line) and at 1400 °C for 4 h (blue line).</p> Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Rietveld refinement of the Gd₃Fe₅O₁₂ sample heat-treated at 1200 °C for 24 h.</p> Full article ">Figure 6
<p>XRD of the ZnFe₂O₄ samples heat-treated at 500, 700, 850, 1000, and 1200 °C for 4 h.</p> Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Rietveld refinement of the sample of ZnFe₂O₄ heat-treated at 1200 °C for 4 h.</p> Full article ">Figure 8
<p>XRD diffractograms of the ZnFe₂O₄ (red line) and Gd₃Fe₅O₁₂ (blue line) samples after one cycle of ball milling.</p> Full article ">Figure 9
<p>XRD diffractograms of the produced composite.</p> Full article ">Figure 10
<p>SEM analysis performed on the (<b>a</b>) Gd₃Fe₅O₁₂ (HT 1200 °C 24 h) and (<b>b</b>) ZnFe₂O₄ (HT 1200 °C 4 h) samples after heat treatment. These samples were used for the synthesis of the nanocomposite. (<b>c</b>) Gd₃Fe₅O_12, and (<b>d</b>) ZnFe₂O₄, represent the samples after the first ball-milling cycle performed. These images were used to evaluate if it was necessary to execute another cycle of ball milling. In the end, after the total ball-milling procedure, (<b>e</b>) Gd₃Fe₅O₁₂ and (<b>f</b>) ZnFe₂O₄ were obtained.</p> Full article ">Figure 11
<p>SEM analysis performed on the synthesized composite.</p> Full article ">Figure 12
<p>(<b>a</b>) Hysteresis loop and the dependence of the inverse with temperature (top inset) for Gd₃Fe₅O₁₂ and (<b>b</b>) hysteresis loop of ZnFe₂O₄ samples tested at different temperatures.</p> Full article ">Figure 13
<p>Hysteresis loop for composite samples tested at different temperatures.</p> Full article ">Figure 14
<p>The cell viability of synthesized powders as a function of concentration. The composite is a mixture of Gd₃Fe₅O₁₂ and ZnFe₂O₄. C− and C+ is the negative and positive control, respectively. The results were statistically compared for each concentration between each sample, using ANOVA with a significance level of <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.05 (represented by an asterisk).</p> Full article ">

Figure 1
<p>Antenna Geometry.</p> Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Antenna evolution.</p> Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Reflection coefficient analysis of antenna evolution.</p> Full article ">Figure 4
<p>The effect of the antenna dimensions on the reflection coefficient (<b>a</b>) LG (<b>b</b>) L1.</p> Full article ">Figure 5
<p>The effect of the antenna dimensions on the reflection coefficient (<b>a</b>) L2 (<b>b</b>) L3.</p> Full article ">Figure 6
<p>The effect of the antenna dimensions on the reflection coefficient (<b>a</b>) W1 (<b>b</b>) W2 (<b>c</b>) WP.</p> Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Fabricated prototype.</p> Full article ">Figure 8
<p>S₁₁ of the wearable antenna.</p> Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Current distribution.</p> Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Radiation pattern measurement. (<b>a</b>) Test setup. (<b>b</b>) Inside the chamber.</p> Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Normalized radiation pattern.</p> Full article ">Figure 12
<p>Simulated co/cross pol results.</p> Full article ">Figure 13
<p>The antenna gains in normal conditions (simulated and tested).</p> Full article ">Figure 14
<p>S₁₁ results of the wearable antenna under bending.</p> Full article ">Figure 15
<p>The antenna gains under bending conditions.</p> Full article ">Figure 16
<p>Integration scenario on the human voxel model (<b>a</b>) left head, (<b>b</b>) right head, and (<b>c</b>) stomach.</p> Full article ">Figure 17
<p>The simulated S₁₁ of the integrated radiator on the human voxel model.</p> Full article ">Figure 18
<p>The simulated antenna efficiency. (<b>a</b>) Radiation. (<b>b</b>) Total.</p> Full article ">Figure 19
<p>The SAR distribution of the human head (left and right) and stomach at (<b>a</b>) 2.45 GHz, (<b>b</b>) 3.5 GHz, and (<b>c</b>) 5.8 GHz.</p> Full article ">Figure 20
<p>The SAR measuring cSAR3D system.</p> Full article ">Figure 21
<p>SAR testing setup of the wearable antenna.</p> Full article ">Figure 22
<p>The measured SAR levels on the human head and stomach at (<b>a</b>) 2.45 GHz, (<b>b</b>) 3.5 GHz, and (<b>c</b>) 5.8 GHz.</p> Full article ">

Figure 1
<p>(<b>a</b>) Room temperature excitation spectra of a series of amphiphilic copolymers P1–P5 performed in water; (<b>b</b>) Room temperature emission spectra of a series of amphiphilic copolymers P1–P5 performed in water.</p> Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Emission spectra of Coum-C₁₁-PPhOx₂₇-PMOx₅₉ amphiphilic copolymer recorded in the 20–60 °C temperature range before (P1) (λ_exc = 351 nm) (<b>a</b>) and after dimerization (P2) (λ_exc = 336 nm) (<b>b</b>).</p> Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Temperature dependence of the main intensity, I₃₈₅ (integrated area 370–500 nm) in the 20–60 °C temperature range in water for amphiphilic copolymers P1 (<b>a</b>) and P2 (<b>b</b>). The solid lines represent linear fits. Inset: Temperature dependence of their relative sensitivity S_r.</p> Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Transmission Electronic Microscopy images of: (<b>a</b>) IONP/OA/OAm, (<b>b</b>) IONP@Coum-C₁₁-PPhOx₂₇-PMOx₅₉ nano-objects.</p> Full article ">Figure 5
<p>(<b>a</b>) Magnetothermal properties represented as ΔT vs. time curve measured for aqueous colloidal solution of IONP@Coum-C₁₁-PPhOx₂₇-PMOx₅₉ nanoparticles at the concentration of 0.637 mg_Fe·mL⁻¹ (blue circles) under an applied AMF of 20 mT/342 kHz; (<b>b</b>) Photothermal properties presented as ΔT vs. time curve measured for aqueous colloidal solution of IONP@Coum-C₁₁-PPhOx₂₇-PMOx₅₉ nanoparticles at the concentrations of 0.637 (blue circles) and 0.478 mg_Fe.mL⁻¹ (green circles) under irradiation at 808 nm (2.58 W cm⁻²). ΔT represents the difference between the temperatures of colloidal solutions of IONP@Coum-C₁₁-PPhOx₂₇-PMOx₅₉ nanoparticles and T₀ (around 20 °C). Reference is aqueous P2 solution (free of IONPs). The solid red lines represent the best fits with the second-order Taylor series model.</p> Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Excitation (green) and emission spectra (red) of aqueous colloidal solution of IONP@Coum-C₁₁-PPhOx₂₇-PMOx₅₉ nanoparticles (λ_exc = 323 nm, λ_em = 383 nm) recorded at room temperature.</p> Full article ">Figure 7
<p>(<b>a</b>) Emission spectra of IONP@Coum-C₁₁-PPhOx₂₇-PMOx₅₉ nanoparticles (λ_exc = 323 nm) recorded between 20 and 60 °C; (<b>b</b>) Temperature dependence of the luminescent intensity with the integrated area 370–500 nm for IONP@Coum-C₁₁-PPhOx₂₇-PMOx₅₉ nanoparticles. The solid line represents a linear fitting. Inset: temperature dependence of S_r. The error bars correspond to standard error of mean determined from three consecutive temperature cycles.</p> Full article ">Scheme 1
<p>Representation of the approach used in this work for (<b>a</b>) the preparation of micelles from amphiphilic copolymers, (<b>b</b>) the encapsulation of IONPs with amphiphilic copolymers in order to design multifunctional nano-objects able to provide magnetothermal or photothermal heating associated with the luminescent thermometry. CMC is the critical micellar concentration; US is the ultrasound sonication.</p> Full article ">Scheme 2
<p>Scheme for IONP encapsulation with representative photographs of products obtained at each step of the procedures.</p> Full article ">

Figure 1
<p>Measurement environments and electronic devices in the environment.</p> Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Measurement place and measuring instruments.</p> Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Electric field limit values determined by ICNIRP and ICTA for humans [<a href="#B29-applsci-14-04169" class="html-bibr">29</a>].</p> Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Head model created for SAR calculation [<a href="#B30-applsci-14-04169" class="html-bibr">30</a>].</p> Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Variation of 5 (<b>a</b>) bedroom, 5 (<b>b</b>) livingroom, 5 (<b>c</b>) entrance and 5 (<b>d</b>) kitchen 50 Hz electric field measurement values according to the number of measurements in the home environment.</p> Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Variation of 6 (<b>a</b>) bedroom, 6 (<b>b</b>) livingroom, 6 (<b>c</b>) entrance and 6 (<b>d</b>) kitchen broadband electric field measurement values in the home environment over time.</p> Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Density changes of 50 Hz 7 (<b>a</b>) bedroom, 7 (<b>b</b>) livingroom, 7 (<b>c</b>) entrance and 7 (<b>d</b>) kitchen source electric field measurements made in four different environments and curves fitted to these changes.</p> Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Density changes of broadband 8 (<b>a</b>) bedroom, 8 (<b>b</b>) livingroom, 8 (<b>c</b>) entrance and 8 (<b>d</b>) kitchen -induced electric field measurements made in four different environments and curves fitted to these changes.</p> Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Cumulative probability changes of 50 Hz 9 (<b>a</b>) bedroom, 9 (<b>b</b>) livingroom, 9 (<b>c</b>) entrance and 9 (<b>d</b>) kitchen source electric field measurements in four different environments and curves fitted to these changes.</p> Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Cumulative changes of 10 (<b>a</b>) bedroom, 10 (<b>b</b>) livingroom, 10 (<b>c</b>) entrance and 10 (<b>d</b>) kitchen 50 Hz broadband-induced electric field measurements in four different environments and curves fitted to these changes.</p> Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Variation of the statistical values of the effective electric field values obtained in (<b>a</b>) low-frequency, and (<b>b</b>) broadband electrical measurement according to the environments.</p> Full article ">Figure 12
<p>Change of 12 (<b>a</b>) bedroom, 12 (<b>b</b>) livingroom, 12 (<b>c</b>) entrance and 12 (<b>d</b>) kitchen SAR values in the head and brain in four environments over time, taking into account the limit values of FCC and EC.</p> Full article ">