1. Introduction
Onboard medical tools for observation, diagnosis, stimulation, assistance, etc., reflect increasing use in recent years. This occupation started with man, followed by animals, birds, sea creatures, plants, etc. and therefore the majority of biodiversity. Biodiversity here refers to the variety of living species on Earth which interact with each other and whose existence is therefore, not self-determined. These health devices are configured as portable, removable or integrated, depending on their assigned functions. Their operation must be rapid and continuous, which implies the incorporation of corresponding technologies allowing the transport of energy and the transmission of data. Today, the most suitable equipment enabling such functions is using wireless means for energy transfer and data transmission, involving low and high frequencies respectively.
The operation of detection and assistance tools and their associated wireless systems is closely linked to their electromagnetic (EM) environment, essentially created artificially by humans. Thus, electromagnetic field (EMF) radiation, resulting from human activities implying EMFs, near these tools, constitutes a serious threat. In an urban context, onboard tools mainly concern humans, animals, birds, plants, and urban biodiversity. Threatening sources of EMF radiation in urban environments are linked to telecommunications, mobility and everyday urban EMF devices. Such radiation can be of a near or distant nature. The first concerns EM devices used daily by humans, such as e.g., mobile phones or wireless chargers used in the tool environment [
1,
2,
3], while the far field corresponds to distant but powerful sources such as, e.g., Antenna relay towers for cell phones or Wi-Fi in general [
4]. The interaction of EM radiation with onboard health tools involving living tissues in urban biodiversity evokes the One Health (OH) concept [
5,
6].
Onboard detection (sensors), e.g., [
7,
8,
9,
10,
11,
12,
13,
14,
15,
16,
17] and support tools (assistance, stimulation, drug delivery, etc.), e.g., [
18,
19,
20,
21,
22], should be insensitive to (or protected from) EM radiation. Ecological manufacturing of these tools can be accomplished through their design and adaptation to meet one of the two mentioned insensitivity and protection criteria. Insensitivity to radiation is related to the properties of construction materials, but protection can be achieved through intelligent shielding. The intelligent and sustainable construction and protection suggest Responsible Attitude (RA). Monitoring the possible effects of radiation and the effectiveness of the remedy used can be carried out by an EM compatibility (EMC) analysis.
This commentary intends to highlight the interaction of EM radiation of human origin with onboard health tools involving most living species of urban biodiversity (OH concept), and the sustainable manufacturing and protection (RA approach) of these tools. The following sections will introduce and review the onboard device framework, likely effects of EM radiation, durable manufacturing and shielding, and EMC integrity control analysis. These different topics are accompanied by examples of literature.
2. Onboard Tools Outline
As mentioned earlier, onboard tools are employed in biodiversity in portable, removable or integrated forms, which can perform inert (inactive) or dynamic (active). Their actions are situated in living tissues in general and mostly in humans, animals, aquatic living organisms, and plants. They can play a sensing role, e.g., diagnosis, forecasting, etc. [
7,
8,
9,
10,
11,
12,
13,
14,
15,
16,
17] or a support function such as e.g., assistance, stimulating, drug deliverance, etc. [
18,
19,
20,
21,
22]. These two duties could be separate or connected and remotely guided or autonomous. Thus, it is necessary to have continuous and real-time internal and external smart communication. Moreover, the necessary functional power of tools could be autonomously integrated or remotely transferred.
2.1. Sensing Tools
These detecting tools are generally non-invasive, working in real-time, permitting unremitting supervision of the concerned tissue and hence delivering suitable health data to conclude its global condition and, in addition, early image of health valuation. Such general sensing is achieved via portable tools [
11,
12,
15]. More personalized cautions allied to physical disturbs concerning vital functions such as respiration rate, fluid circulation pressure, etc. [
16,
17] could be sensed through removable or connectable smart onboard tools. Other types of specific tools correspond to portable sequencing of DNA analyses connected to infectious entities, such as viruses, bacteria, etc. [
6] or tools for species finding through the presence of DNA in the aquatic biodiversity environment [
23,
24,
25].
2.2. Support Tools
These supporting tools are generally integrated (embedded) and fixed within tissue. They could be inactive, allowing recognition and forecast using mini sensors for specific tissue health maintenance. They could also be active and expected to stimulate or actuate a part of the tissue, such as pumps, tissue stimulators, etc. [
18,
19,
20,
21,
22].
Besides the above-stated duties of supervision, forecast, assistance, stimulation, etc., of the different onboard tools, these similarly allow the supervision of thepost-treatment state in cases of preceding disorders. Thus, avoiding displacements, dislocations, and transpositions, while replacing face-to-face maintenance with an integrated, connected assistance approach.
2.3. Wireless Energy and Communication Routines
Wireless, power source and data communication routines are indispensable for smart functioning onboard tools [
26]. This significant aspect related to EM wireless associated with onboard tools displays some weaknesses. Further to the regular safety of transferring private data via wireless communication networks, the feature wireless aspect could undergo EMF radiations. Therefore, added to the damaging consequences of exterior EMF radiation on the onboard tool, such radiation can disturb the wireless transmission network. There are various remote sensing strategies beyond wireless EM, such as satellite remote sensing for the observation, monitoring, and management of biodiversity [
27].
3. EMF Interaction with Onboard Tools
External EMF exposures have different effects on onboard tools depending on their strength and frequency and the nature of the exposed components in such tools. The resulting induced fields in these components could alter tool functions and their corresponding possible dissipated energy could produce heating, which, in addition to disrupting the functioning, could provoke a temperature rise in the supervised organ.
3.1. Functional Perturbations
EMF radiations on onboard tool components could affect the tool function according to the constituted matter and the radiated field frequency. For electrically conductive materials, the induced currents, especially in the low-frequency range, will modify the magnetic field and affect the tool’s behavior. In the case of dielectric matters, the electric field could be modified, particularly in the high-frequency range, and the tool behavior would be altered. In addition, in both cases, the dissipated energy in the matter would reflect a temperature rise that modifies the tool behavior.
3.2. Adverse Effects
The last mentioned onboard tools perturbations due to external field radiations would alter their functioning, causing adverse effects on the supervised living tissues. Moreover, the occasioned tool matter heating would provoke tissue temperature rise. These two categories of adverse effects could be serious depending on the nature of the supervised organ, e.g., its fluid circulation rate, vital role, the tool task in the organ, etc. illustrates the relationship between EMF exposure, the tool’s artificial design (by humans), the tool’s duty and the exposure side effects on biodiversity.
. EMF exposure, design of onboard tool, its projected duty and its unsolicited effects on humans or the environment.
4. Sustainable Tool Design
The last mentioned perturbations of onboard tools could be avoided in two ways: via components sustainable design [
28,
29] or through shielding technologies.
4.1. EMF Insensitivity Optimization
In designing the different components of onboard tools, matter electric conductivity and permittivity play an important role in the EMF radiation perturbs. If possible, the EMF sensitivity could be reduced by choosing matters matching these properties, or even non-conductor and non-dielectric matters.
4.2. Shielding
Shielding technology could be used for the onboard tool constituents that are EMF sensitive. The common shields use electric conducting sheets. These would be efficacy for the tool function, but the induced currents due to external field exposure would heat the shield sheet and the supervised living tissue organ. Moreover, wireless power transfer to onboard tools could be significantly affected due to such induced currents [
30]. Only smart shields can avoid such adverse effects. Actually, shields use components reflecting or absorbing EMF external radiations to prevent their crossing between the two shield boundaries. In addition, as an EMF wave is composed of electric and magnetic fields, which are perpendicularly oriented in space; thus the EM interference (EMI) shielding strategies could be electric, magnetic or both coupled. In addition, as EMF high-frequency radiation waves reflect interconnected magnetic and electric fields; thus, shielding one field is sufficient, thus allowing the simplest choice of electric conductive shield. However, due to the adverse thermal effect of the onboard tools mentioned above, an adjustment of the shielding conductive character is needed. The employment of multifunctional matched constituents permits low-reflectivity shields, thus decreasing the strong field reflection activated by the high material conductivity. Additionally, a specific manufacturing process permits weakening the reflected power coefficient of the material in conjunction with diminished dissipation of heat and improved isolation shielding matters [
31,
32,
33]. Different shield constituents such as adhesives, rubbers, clothing fabrics, coatings, etc., could be used according to the fixing ability, the required elasticity, the easiness of processing, and consistency [
34,
35,
36,
37,
38,
39,
40,
41,
42,
43].
illustrates the impact of Eco-design involving RA and OH approaches through the optimization or shielding of onboard tools counting whole biodiversity by monitoring adverse EMF effects.
. RA and OH approach through the design and use of onboard tools counting the whole biodiversity by monitoring adverse EMF effects.
5. Tool Integrity Control
An important characteristic of such a tool under external field exposure is its ability to operate normally in an emission environment, demonstrating its performance capacity. However, when this tool is exposed to external fields, its key performance may be affected by a reduced signal-to-noise ratio, signal interference, and other factors, potentially weakening its effectiveness.. Conditional on the practice field, a tool has specific concrete requirements and its EMC evaluation correlates to consequent norms [
44,
45]. Such standards are mainly founded on static techniques. Thus, the EMC inspection conducted on the tool is based on a broadly defined waveform, with the evaluation performed according to the results of an experiment. The challenge of accounting for dynamic behavior under complex EMF exposure is addressed by the tool’s functionality. Several studies have been carried out to improve the validation methods for EMC assessment [
46,
47,
48,
49,
50,
51,
52].
The control methods via experiences nominated above are quite intricate and often require dedicated and expensive shielded settings. In such conditions, a substitute response can be confirmed by arithmetical computations via an EMC analysis to check the consistency of different related tools [
53,
54,
55,
56]. Certainly, the legality of a design method or technique for protecting a tool against field exposure could be guaranteed by an EMC inspection confirming the invariance of the tool’s fields due to external exposure.
The EMC assessment mentioned above concerning onboard devices is set up and governed by EMF equations that typeify the field conduct. This authenticates the likely disruption of local induced EMFs distributions in an entity suggesting EMF-sensitivity due to a certain field radiation. In the case of an EMF-insensitive object, the surrounding fields would remain unaffected.
6. Implicated Governing Equations
In the microscopic local behavior based on Maxwell’s formulation, the differential form of the four general EMF equations [
57] is given by:
The EMF harmonic field equations relevant to exposure (radiation) are given as follows:
In (1)–(8),
H and
E are the magnetic and electric field vectors in A/m and V/m,
B and
D are the magnetic and electric induction vectors in T and C/m
2,
A and V are the magnetic vector and electric scalar potentials in W/m and volt.
J and Je are the total and source current density vectors in A/m
2, σ is the electric conductivity in S/m, ρ
e is the volume density of electric charges in C/m
3, and ω is the angular frequency = 2πf, f is the frequency in Hz of the exciting EMF. The symbol
∇ is a vector of partial derivative operators. The symbol ∂
t is the operator of a partial time derivative. The magnetic and electric comportment laws corresponding to the relations
B/H and
D/E are represented respectively by the permeability μ and the permittivity ε in H/m and F/m.
Equations Solution and EMC
Generally, contingent on the geometric complexity and the nonlinearity in the materials, the solution of (5)–(8) needs to be local in the application utilizing discretized 3D methods as finite elements [
58,
59,
60,
61,
62,
63,
64,
65,
66] in the appropriate components of the matter. The 3D discretized elements are volumes delimited by surfaces, each enclosed by edges, each ended by two nodes. Fields could be given at the nodes, edges, faces, or volumes, subject to the field character, such as consistency, continuity constraints, etc.
An EMC assessment targets to check, within the solution of EMF equations, troubles due to exposure of external EMF source in the field distribution of a recipient tool, informing its degree of exposure-reaction. In the present contribution, we are required to confirm the insensitivity of the onboard device to EMF exposures. Such a check may be achieved by contrasting the field distributions in the device counting and free of radiation sources. Also, the field consistency in shielded devices will be verified, deprived of and alongside exposure. For a certain source field
Ee linked to
Je, solving (5)–(8) will provide the induced EMF values,
Ei,
Bi and
Ji in each element (i) of the discretized domain. The resulting distributions of EMFs allow the control of EMC. In this case, the solution domain corresponds to the device’s structure. The verified EMC control due to an EMF exposure involves the constancy confirmation of the field values in the domain. Such an EMC check could be accomplished on the single being checked instrument to ensure its running.
7. Discussion
In the last analyses, we have considered different onboard health tools for humans and their environmental urban biodiversity. These tools could be autonomous or externally connected for energy supply or data communication. The first could be protected by design and/or shielding, while the second needs extended protection restricting routines. The different situations of control and protection through RA and OH approaches are succinctly summarized in the following points:
- In all tool situations, a predictive check could be practiced using EMC analysis control, including perturbations, design, shielding, etc., thus embracing the roles of RA and OH concepts.
- Autonomous tools could include batteries or cells. These could be throwaway or rechargeable. In the last case, wireless charging could only be achieved in restricted biodiversity zones. Such an environment consists of protected spaces or areas free from sources of disturbing EMFs, in particular mobile phones, chargers, tower antennas, etc.
- Externally connected tools also need extended protection routines for restricted biodiversity zone environments.
- Smart shields could be used in the presence of EMF sensitive constituents.
- The restricted biodiversity areas could be located in “curative” parts of public parks, hospitals, nursing homes, zoos, etc., thus involving humans (adults and children), animals (domestic and wild), birds, aquatic creatures, plants (ornamental and wild) and all other members of biodiversity.
- Future progress could consist of introducing radiation presence indicators on onboard tools.
8. Conclusions
In this contribution, we have analyzed and examined the EMF disturbances of onboard health tools for humans and their urban environmental biodiversity. The EMC control by means of EMF analysis of the disorders of the devices has been studied through the mathematical solution of the EMF governing equations. The exploration and analysis included in the contribution have been supported by examples from the literature. Some final remarks are worth mentioning:
The disruptions of onboard health tools for environmental urban biodiversity could be lessened in two ways: via components sustainable design or through shielding technologies. The integrity of these devices could be efficiently managed through numerical EMF analysis tools. Similarly, the protection of these devices can be ensured by avoiding unshielded radiation sources, using smart shielding for onboard tools, and enhancing radiation detection indicators on these devices. Finally, in case of the impossibility of tool shielding, restricted environmental spaces should be preserved for the carriers of onboard health tools, including all those associated with urban biodiversity in the framework of the One Health concept.
Ethics Statement
Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement
Not applicable.
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
References
1.
Petroulakis N, Mattsson MO, Chatziadam P, Simko M, Gavrielides A, Yiorkas AM, et al. NextGEM: Next-Generation Integrated Sensing and Analytical System for Monitoring and Assessing Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Field Exposure and Health.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023,
20, 6085. doi:10.3390/ijerph20126085.
[Google Scholar]
2.
Cirimele V, Freschi F, Giaccone L, Pichon L, Repetto M. Human Exposure Assessment in Dynamic Inductive Power Transfer for Automotive Applications.
IEEE Trans. Magn. 2017,
53, 5000304. doi:10.1109/CEFC.2016.7816121.
[Google Scholar]
3.
Tran NT, Jokic L, Keller J, Geier JU, Kaldenhoff R. Impacts of Radio-Frequency Electromagnetic Field (RF-EMF) on Lettuce (Lactuca sativa)—Evidence for RF-EMF Interference with Plant Stress Responses.
Plants 2023,
12, 1082. doi:10.3390/plants12051082.
[Google Scholar]
4.
Sivani S, Sudarsanam D. Impacts of radio-frequency electromagnetic field (RF-EMF) from cell phone towers and wireless devices on biosystem and ecosystem—A review.
Biol. Med. 2012,
4, 202–216.
[Google Scholar]
5.
World Health Organization (WHO). One Health—Technical Advisory Group First meeting 31 Oct-1 Nov 2022, Concept Note. 2023. Available online: https://www.who.int/europe/initiatives/one-health (accessed on 14 March 2024).
6.
Deiana G, Arghittu A, Dettori M, Castiglia P. One World One Health: Zoonotic Diseases Parasitic Diseases and Infectious Diseases.
Healthcare 2024,
12, 922. doi:10.3390/healthcare12090922.
[Google Scholar]
7.
Guk K, Han G, Lim J, Jeong K, Kang T, Lim EK, et al. Evolution of Wearable Devices with Real-Time Disease Monitoring for Personalized Healthcare.
Nanomaterials 2019,
9, 813. doi:10.3390/nano9060813.
[Google Scholar]
8.
Xin Y, Liu T, Sun H, Xu Y, Zhu J, Qian C, et al. Recent progress on the wearable devices based on piezoelectric sensors.
Ferroelectrics 2018,
531, 102–113. doi:10.1080/00150193.2018.1497411.
[Google Scholar]
9.
Yetisen AK, Martinez-Hurtado JL, Ünal B, Khademhosseini A, Butt H. Wearables in Medicine.
Adv. Mater. 2018,
30, 1706910. doi:10.1002/adma.201706910.
[Google Scholar]
10.
Chakrabarti S, Biswas N, Jones LD, Kesari S, Ashili S. Smart Consumer Wearables as Digital Diagnostic Tools: A Review.
Diagnostics 2022,
12, 2110. doi:10.3390/diagnostics12092110.
[Google Scholar]
11.
Escobar-Linero E, Muñoz-Saavedra L, Luna-Perejón F, Sevillano JL, Domínguez-Morales M. Wearable Health Devices for Diagnosis Support: Evolution and Future Tendencies.
Sensors 2023,
23, 1678. doi:10.3390/s23031678.
[Google Scholar]
12.
Devi DH, Duraisamy K, Armghan A, Alsharari M, Aliqab K, Sorathiya V, et al. 5G Technology in Healthcare and Wearable Devices: A Review.
Sensors 2023,
23, 2519. doi:10.3390/s23052519.
[Google Scholar]
13.
Pantelopoulos A, Bourbakis NG. A survey on wearable sensor-based systems for health monitoring and prognosis.
IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part C 2010,
40, 1–12. doi:10.1109/TSMCC.2009.2032660.
[Google Scholar]
14.
Chan M, Esteve D, Fourniols JY, Escriba C, Campo E. Smart wearable systems: Current status and future challenges.
Artif. Intell. Med. 2012,
56, 137–156. doi:10.1016/j.artmed.2012.09.003.
[Google Scholar]
15.
Kim J, Campbell AS, de Ávila BE, Wang J. Wearable biosensors for healthcare monitoring.
Nat. Biotechnol. 2019,
37, 389–406. doi:10.1038/s41587-019-0045-y.
[Google Scholar]
16.
Moon KS, Lee SQ. A Wearable Multimodal Wireless Sensing System for Respiratory Monitoring and Analysis.
Sensors 2023,
23, 6790. doi:10.3390/s23156790.
[Google Scholar]
17.
Khan Mamun MMR, Sherif A. Advancement in the Cuffless and Noninvasive Measurement of Blood Pressure: A Review of the Literature and Open Challenges.
Bioengineering 2022,
10, 27. doi:10.3390/bioengineering10010027.
[Google Scholar]
18.
Bhuva AN, Moralee R, Brunker T, Lascelles K, Cash L, Patel KP, et al. Evidence to support magnetic resonance conditional labelling of all pacemaker and defibrillator leads in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices.
Eur. Heart J. 2022,
43, 2469–2478. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehab350.
[Google Scholar]
19.
Joo H, Lee Y, Kim J, Yoo JS, Yoo S, Kim S, et al. Soft Implantable Drug Delivery Device Integrated Wirelessly with Wearable Devices to Treat Fatal Seizures.
Sci. Adv. 2021,
7, eabd4639. doi:10.1126/sciadv.abd4639.
[Google Scholar]
20.
Cheng Y, Xie D, Han Y, Guo S, Sun Z, Jing L, et al. Precise management system for chronic intractable pain patients implanted with spinal cord stimulation based on a remote programming platform: Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial (PreMaSy study).
Trials 2023,
24, 580. doi:10.1186/s13063-023-07595-4.
[Google Scholar]
21.
Thotahewa KMS, Redouté J, Yuce MR. Electromagnetic and thermal effects of IR-UWB wireless implant systems on the human head. In Proceedings of the 2013 35th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC), Osaka, Japan, 3–7 July 2013; pp. 5179–5182. doi:10.1109/EMBC.2013.6610715.
22.
Corbett GD, Buttery PC, Pugh PJ, Cameron EAB. Endoscopy and implantable electronic devices.
Frontline Gastroenterol. 2012,
3, 72–75. doi:10.1136/flgastro-2011-100010.
[Google Scholar]
23.
Li Y, Tang M, Lu S, Zhang X, Fang C, Tan L, et al. A Comparative Evaluation of eDNA Metabarcoding Primers in Fish Community Monitoring in the East Lake.
Water 2024,
16, 631. doi:10.3390/w16050631.
[Google Scholar]
24.
Rozanski R, Velez L, Hocdé R, Duhamet A, Waldock C, Mouillot D, et al. Seasonal dynamics of Mediterranean fish communities revealed by eDNA: Contrasting compositions across depths and Marine Fully Protected Area boundaries.
Ecol. Indic. 2024,
166, 112290. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2024.112290.
[Google Scholar]
25.
Lopes-Lima M, Prié V, Camará M, Ceríaco LMP, Fernandes V, Ferreira S, et al. Rapid eDNA survey reveals a unique biodiversity hotspot: The Corubal River, West Africa.
BioScience 2024,
74, 405–412. doi:10.1093/biosci/biae036.
[Google Scholar]
26.
Campi T, Cruciani S, Maradei F, Montalto A, Feliziani M. Wireless Power Transmission for Left Ventricular Assist Devices: Advancements, Challenges, and Future Directions. In Proceedings of the 2024 IEEE Wireless Power Technology Conference and Expo (WPTCE), Kyoto, Japan, 8–11 May 2024; pp. 505–508. doi:10.1109/WPTCE59894.2024.10557316.
27.
Pettorelli N, Safi K, Turner W. Satellite remote sensing, biodiversity research and conservation of the future.
Phil. Trans. R. Soc. 2014,
B369, 20130190. doi:10.1098/rstb.2013.0190.
[Google Scholar]
28.
Davim JP. Sustainable and intelligent manufacturing: Perceptions in line with 2030 agenda of sustainable development.
BioResources 2024,
19, 4–5. doi:10.15376/biores.19.1.4-5.
[Google Scholar]
29.
Davim JP. Sustainable Manufacturing; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2010. Available online: https://www.wiley.com/en-us/Sustainable+Manufacturing-p-9781848212121 (accessed on 17 September 2024).
30.
Peng Y, Ma E, Wang Q, Chen Y, Mai R, Madawala UK. Maximizing Output Power of Inductive Power Transfer Systems under Rebar Array Shielding.
IEEE Trans. Power Electron. 2024,
39, 13934–13945. doi:10.1109/TPEL.2024.3416546.
[Google Scholar]
31.
Ma Z, Deng Z, Zhou X, Li L, Jiao C, Ma H, et al. Multifunctional and magnetic MXene composite aerogels for electromagnetic interference shielding with low reflectivity.
Carbon 2023,
213, 118260. doi:10.1007/s12274-023-6232-y.
[Google Scholar]
32.
Yun J, Zhou C, Guo B, Wang F, Zhou Y, Ma Z, et al. Mechanically strong and multifunctional nano-nickel aerogels based epoxy composites for ultra-high electromagnetic interference shielding and thermal management.
J. Mater. Res. Technol. 2023,
24, 9644–9656. doi:10.1016/j.jmrt.2023.05.193.
[Google Scholar]
33.
Verma R, Thakur P, Chauhan A, Jasrotia R, Thakur A. A review on MXene and its’ composites for electromagnetic interference (EMI) shielding applications.
Carbon 2023,
208, 170–190. doi:10.1016/j.carbon.2023.03.050.
[Google Scholar]
34.
Yang Y, Zeng S, Li X, Hu Z, Zheng J. Ultrahigh and Tunable Electromagnetic Interference Shielding Performance of PVDF Composite Induced by Nano-Micro Cellular Structure.
Polymers 2022,
14, 234. doi:10.3390/polym14020234.
[Google Scholar]
35.
Wang G, Wang L, Mark LH, Shaayegan V, Wang G, Li H, et al. Ultralow-Threshold and Lightweight Biodegradable Porous PLA/MWCNT with Segregated Conductive Networks for High-Performance Thermal Insulation and Electromagnetic Interference Shielding Applications.
ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2018,
10, 1195–1203. doi:10.1021/acsami.7b14111.
[Google Scholar]
36.
Yao B, Hong W, Chen T, Han Z, Xu X, Hu R, et al. Highly Stretchable Polymer Composite with Strain-Enhanced Electromagnetic Interference Shielding Effectiveness.
Adv. Mater. 2020,
32, e1907499. doi:10.1002/adma.201907499.
[Google Scholar]
37.
Yun T, Kim H, Iqbal A, Cho YS, Lee GS, Kim M, et al. Electromagnetic Shielding of Monolayer MXene Assemblies.
Adv. Mater. 2020,
32, e1906769. doi:10.1002/adma.201906769.
[Google Scholar]
38.
Song WL, Cao MS, Lu MM, Bi S, Wang CY, Liu J, et al. Flexible graphene/polymer composite films in sandwich structures for effective electromagnetic interference shielding.
Carbon 2014,
66, 67–76. doi:10.1016/j.carbon.2013.08.043.
[Google Scholar]
39.
Song WL, Guan XT, Fan LZ, Cao WQ, Wang CY, Cao MS. Tuning three-dimensional textures with graphene aerogels for ultra-light flexible graphene/texture composites of effective electromagnetic shielding.
Carbon 2015,
93, 151–160. doi:10.1016/j.carbon.2015.05.033.
[Google Scholar]
40.
Han M, Yin X, Hantanasirisakul K, Li X, Iqbal A, Hatter CB, et al. Anisotropic MXene aerogels with a mechanically tunable ratio of electromagnetic wave reflection to absorption.
Adv. Opt. Mater. 2019,
7, 1900267. doi:10.1002/adom.201900267.
[Google Scholar]
41.
Cheng J, Li C, Xiong Y, Zhang H, Raza H, Ullah S, et al. Recent Advances in Design Strategies and Multifunctionality of Flexible Electromagnetic Interference Shielding Materials.
Nano-Micro Lett. 2022,
14, 80. doi:10.1007/s40820-022-00823-7.
[Google Scholar]
42.
Canova A, Corti F, Laudani A, Lozito GM, Quercio M. Innovative shielding technique for wireless power transfer systems.
IET Power Electron. 2023,
17, 962–969. doi:10.1049/pel2.12580.
[Google Scholar]
43.
Fan Z, Lu L, Sang M, Wu J, Wang X, Xu F, et al. Wearable Safeguarding Leather Composite with Excellent Sensing, Thermal Management, and Electromagnetic Interference Shielding.
Adv. Sci. 2023,
10, 2302412. doi:10.1002/advs.202302412.
[Google Scholar]
44.
IEC/TS 61000-1-2; Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC)—Methodology for the Achievement of the Functional Safety of Electrical and Electronic with Regard to Electromagnetic Phenomena. IEC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2019.
45.
CISPR 16-1-1; Specification for Radio Disturbance and Immunity Measuring Apparatus and Methods—Part 1-1: Radio Disturbance and Immunity Measuring Apparatus—Measuring Apparatus. 2019. Available online: https://webstore.iec.ch/publication/60774 (accessed on 5 October 2023).
46.
Sabath F. A systematic approach for electromagnetic interference risk management.
IEEE Electromagn. Compat. Mag. 2017,
6, 99–106. doi:10.1109/MEMC.0.8272296.
[Google Scholar]
47.
Jang J, Paonni M, Eissfeller B. CW Interference Effects on Tracking Performance of GNSS Receivers.
IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst. 2012,
48, 243–258. doi:10.1109/TAES.2012.6129633.
[Google Scholar]
48.
Su D, Xie S, Chen A, Shang X, Zhu K, Xu H. Basic emission waveform theory: A novel interpretation and source identification method for electromagnetic emission of complex systems.
IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat. 2018,
60, 1330–1339. doi:10.1109/TEMC.2017.2771454.
[Google Scholar]
49.
Hoijer M. Including Directivity in Reverberation Chamber Radiated Susceptibility Testing.
IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat. 2011,
53, 283–287. doi:10.1109/TEMC.2011.2119489.
[Google Scholar]
50.
Spadacini G, Grassi F, Pignari SA, Bisognin P, Piche A. Bulk Current Injection as an Alternative Radiated Susceptibility Test Enforcing a Statistically Quantified Overtesting Margin.
IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat. 2018,
60, 1270–1278. doi:10.1109/TEMC.2018.2810074.
[Google Scholar]
51.
Cai S, Li Y, Zhu H, Wu X, Su D. A Novel Electromagnetic Compatibility Evaluation Method for Receivers Working under Pulsed Signal Interference Environment.
Appl. Sci. 2021,
11, 9454. doi:10.3390/app11209454.
[Google Scholar]
52.
Leferink F, Van der Ven J-K, Bergsma H, Van Leersum B. Risk based EMC for complex systems. In Proceedings of the XXXIInd General Assembly and Scientific Symposium of the International Union of Radio Science (URSI GASS) 2017, Montreal, QC, Canada, 19–26 August 2017; pp. 1–4. doi:10.23919/URSIGASS.2017.8105016.
53.
Khairi R, Razek A, Bernard L, Corcolle R, Bernard Y, Pichon L, et al. EMC analysis of MRI environment in view of Optimized performance and cost of image guided interventions.
Int. J. Appl. Electromagn. Mech. 2018,
51, S67–S74. doi:10.3233/JAE-2018.
[Google Scholar]
54.
Razek A. Towards an image-guided restricted drug release in friendly implanted therapeutics.
Eur. Phys. J. Appl. Phys. 2018,
82, 31401. doi:10.1051/epjap/2018180201.
[Google Scholar]
55.
Razek A. Assessment of Supervised Drug Release in Cordial Embedded Therapeutics.
Athens J. Technol. Eng. 2019,
6, 77–91. doi:10.30958/ajte.6-2-1.
[Google Scholar]
56.
Razek A. Assessment of EMF Troubles of Biological and Instrumental Medical Questions and Analysis of Their Compliance with Standards.
Standards 2023,
3, 227–239. doi:10.3390/standards3020018.
[Google Scholar]
57.
Maxwell JC. VIII. A dynamical theory of the electromagnetic field.
Philos. Trans. R. Soc. 1865,
155, 459–512. doi:10.1098/rstl.1865.0008.
[Google Scholar]
58.
Ren Z, Razek A. A coupled electromagnetic-mechanical model for thin conductive plate deflection analysis.
IEEE Trans. Magn. 1990,
26, 1650–1652. doi:10.1109/20.104477.
[Google Scholar]
59.
Nunes AS, Dular P, Chadebec O, Kuo-Peng P. Subproblems Applied to a 3-D Magnetostatic Facet FEM Formulation.
IEEE Trans. Magn. 2018,
54, 7402209. doi:10.1109/TMAG.2018.2828786.
[Google Scholar]
60.
Cicuttin M, Geuzaine C. Numerical investigation of a 3D hybrid high-order method for the indefinite time-harmonic Maxwell problem.
Finite Elem. Anal. Des. 2024,
233, 104124. doi:10.1016/j.finel.2024.104124.
[Google Scholar]
61.
Piriou F, Razek A. Numerical simulation of a nonconventional alternator connected to a rectifier.
IEEE Trans. Energy Convers. 1990,
5, 512–518. doi:10.1109/60.105275.
[Google Scholar]
62.
Ren Z, Razek A. Force calculation by Maxwell stress tensor in 3D hybrid finite element-boundary integral formulation.
IEEE Trans. Magn. 1990,
26, 2774–2776. doi:10.1109/20.104869.
[Google Scholar]
63.
Li C, Ren Z, Razek A. An approach to adaptive mesh refinement for three-dimensional eddy-current computations.
IEEE Trans. Magn. 1994,
30, 113–117. doi:10.1109/20.272523.
[Google Scholar]
64.
Antunes OJ, Bastos JPA, Sadowski N, Razek A, Santandrea L, Bouillault F, et al. Comparison between nonconforming movement methods.
IEEE Trans. Magn. 2006,
42, 599–602. doi:10.1109/TMAG.2006.871431.
[Google Scholar]
65.
Madani SS, Schaltz E, Kær SK. Thermal Analysis of Cold Plate with Different Configurations for Thermal Management of a Lithium-Ion Battery.
Batteries 2020,
6, 17. doi:10.3390/batteries6010017.
[Google Scholar]
66.
Urdaneta-Calzadilla A, Galopin N, Niyonzima I, Chadebec O, Meunier G, Bannwarth B. FEM-BEM Modeling of Nonlinear Magnetoelectric Effects in Heterogeneous Composite Structures.
IEEE Trans. Magn. 2024,
60, 7401704. doi:10.1109/TMAG.2023.3339088.
[Google Scholar]
