Comparative Analysis and Mitigation of Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) Magnetic Field Exposure from Smartphone Internal
Abstract
While public concern regarding smartphone electromagnetic field (EMF) exposure is largely focused on radio frequency (RF) emissions, this study investigates the overlooked extremely low frequency (ELF) magnetic fields originating from internal hardware circuits, such as the Power Management Integrated Circuit (PMIC). This research employs a quantitative experimental methodology to characterize and compare the near-field emissions of two smartphone models with distinct internal architectures: the Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro (12nm mid-range chipset) and the Samsung Galaxy S23 (4nm premium chipset). Magnetic field intensity measurements were conducted using a Hall-effect Gaussmeter, both in free space and with a 3D-printed cubic head phantom fabricated from PETG and filled with a conductive saline-based tissue-simulating liquid (TSL). The primary findings reveal unique ELF emission "fingerprints," where the premium-engineered device exhibits a peak exposure of 0.269 mT—nearly three times lower than its mid-range counterpart at 0.799 mT. Theoretical analysis utilizing the Biot-Savart Law attributes this reduction to the minimized current loop areas inherent in advanced 4nm process nodes compared to older 12nm architectures. Quantitative analysis of mitigation strategies demonstrates that spatial separation (a 15 cm distance) is the most dominant factor, achieving up to 90.7% attenuation, which surpasses the material shielding provided by the phantom (82.0%). Although peak contact exposure can exceed the ICNIRP reference level, the rapid near-field decay ensures compliance at minimal practical distances. This study concludes that ELF exposure is a function of engineering quality rather than network technology, and mitigation is most effectively achieved through physical distance.
Keywords
References
L. Falcioni et al., “Report of final results regarding brain and heart tumors in sprague-dawley rats exposed from prenatal life until natural death to mobile phone radiofrequency field representative of a 1.8 ghz gsm base station environmental emission,” Environ. Res., vol. 165, no. October 2017, pp. 496–503, 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2018.01.037. Crossref
M. Feychting et al., “Mobile phone use and brain tumour risk – cosmos, a prospective cohort study,” Environ. Int., vol. 185, no. January, p. 108552, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2024.108552. Crossref
J. Misek et al., “Extremely low frequency magnetic fields emitted by cell phones,” Front. Phys., vol. 11, no. January, 2023, doi: 10.3389/fphy.2023.1094921. Crossref
S. Miclaus, D. B. Deaconescu, D. Vatamanu, and A. M. Buda, “An exposimetric electromagnetic comparison of mobile phone emissions: 5g versus 4g signals analyses by means of statistics and convolutional neural networks classification,” Technologies, vol. 11, no. 5, 2023, doi: 10.3390/technologies11050113. Crossref
International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), “Guidelines for limiting exposure to electromagnetic fields (100 kHz to 300 GHz),” Health. Phys., vol. 118, no. 5, pp. 483–524, May 2020, doi: 10.1097/HP.0000000000001210. Crossref
Y. Akinay, U. Gunes, B. Çolak, and T. Cetin, “Recent progress of electromagnetic wave absorbers: a systematic review and bibliometric approach,” ChemPhysMater, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 197–206, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.chphma.2022.10.002. Crossref
C. Ianniello et al., “Synthesized tissue-equivalent dielectric phantoms using salt and polyvinylpyrrolidone solutions,” Magn. Reson. Med., vol. 80, no. 1, pp. 413–419, 2018, doi: 10.1002/mrm.27005. Crossref
L. Yuan, J. Zhang, Z. Liang, M. Hu, G. Chen, and W. Lu, “EMI challenges in modern power electronic-based converters: Recent advances and mitigation techniques,” Front. Electron., vol. 4, Nov. 2023, Art. no. 1274258, doi: 10.3389/felec.2023.1274258. Crossref
Y. Shi, X. Bai, J. Yang, X. Wu, and L. Wang, “Optimized measurement methods and systems for the dielectric properties of active biological tissues in the 10 Hz–100 MHz frequency range,” Front. Physiol., vol. 16, Jan. 2025, Art. no. 1537537, doi: 10.3389/fphys.2025.1537537. Crossref
A. Peyman, C. Gabriel, and E. H. Grant, “Complex permittivity of sodium chloride solutions at microwave frequencies,” Bioelectromagnetics, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 264–274, 2007, doi: 10.1002/bem.20271. Crossref
G. Schmid, G. Neubauer, and P. R. Mazal, “Dielectric properties of human brain tissue measured less than 10 h postmortem at frequencies from 800 to 2450 mhz,” Bioelectromagnetics, vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 423–430, 2003, doi: 10.1002/bem.10123. Crossref
S. Marmin et al., “Linking dielectric dispersion and age in brain tissues via water content-based electric properties tomography,” Neuroimage, vol. 322, no. June, p. 121559, 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2025.121559. Crossref
E. Y. Shchuchkin, “Pre-layout DC–DC converter conductive EMI level estimation,” AIP Conf. Proc., Dec. 2022, doi: 10.1063/5.0128374. Crossref
B. J. Lee, R. D. Watkins, C. M. Chang, and C. S. Levin, “Low eddy current rf shielding enclosure designs for 3t mr applications,” Magn. Reson. Med., vol. 79, no. 3, pp. 1745–1752, 2018, doi: 10.1002/mrm.26766. Crossref
Article Metrics
Metrics powered by PLOS ALM
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2025 National Research and Innovation Agency

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.




















