New search

GSM-900 mobile phone

Belongs to:
GSM mobile phone
Description:

The commercial start of GSM 900 with the aim to replace the analog first generation of mobile communications systems was in 1992. Short time thereafter, the technology and the standardization of GSM 1800 began. Due to the lesser knife-edge diffraction and the higher output power of GSM 900 terminals, greater ranges are feasible with the GSM 900 technology. Frequencies from 890 - 915 MHz are used for the uplink and frequencies from 925 - 960 MHz for the downlink.

Frequency ranges:
  • 890–915 MHz (uplink in the P-GSM frequency band)
  • 935–960 MHz (downlink in the P-GSM frequency band)
Type of field:
electromagnetic

Measurements (acc. to literature)

underground
Measurand Value Remarks
electric field strength 0.05–0.09 V/m on the platform; during off-peak hours [1]
electric field strength 0.05–0.2 V/m (measured) on the platform; during peak hours [1]
electric field strength 0.05–0.3 V/m while the underground was moving between two stations; during off-peak hours [1]
electric field strength 0.05–0.4 V/m (measured) while the underground was moving between two stations; during peak hours [1]
indoors
Measurand Value Remarks
electric field strength 0.065 V/m (mean, measured) mean exposure of 40 different loactions within various buildings in Greece; per location 11 measurements were performed: three in the center of the room at different heights (1.1 m, 1.5 m, 1.7 m), four in the corners of the room at a distance of 1 m from the center and a height of 1 m, three next to the window and one at the position of the maximum electric field. [2]
power density 0.048 mW/m² (calculated) in a theater, cinema or restaurant (urban area) [6]
power density 0.096 mW/m² (calculated) for white collar workers (urban area) [6]
power density 0.106 mW/m² (calculated) during shopping [6]
power density 0.26 W/m² (calculated) after an exposure duration of 5, 10 or 20 min [7]
SAR 70–76 mW/kg (calculated) as regards peripheral blood mononuclear cells [9]
SAR 715.5 mW/kg (calculated) averaged over 10 g of tissue in the total head; position of the mobile phone: at the right ear [14]
SAR 1,007.8 mW/kg (calculated) averaged over 10 g of tissue in the total head; position of the mobile phone: at the left ear [14]
SAR 1.4 W/kg (mean, calculated) mobile phone held on head, averaging mass 10 g [16]
power 0.25 W (mean, measured) mean power output [20]
power 2 W (maximum, measured) - [20]
laboratory
Measurand Value Remarks
electric field strength 0.4 V/m (measured) after an exposure duration of 15 min [3]
power density 26 W/m² (calculated) caused by an electric field of 10 V/m [7]
SAR 37 mW/kg (calculated) after an exposure duration of 2 h / day over 3 days [8]
SAR 0.141–0.307 W/kg (measured) range of values results from measuring three different terminal models [11]
SAR 0.45 W/kg (mean, calculated) mobile phone (Motorola) on left cheek, averaging mass 10 g [13]
SAR 0.93 W/kg (measured) averaged over 10 g of tissue in the homogeneous SAM phantom; distance between antenna and phantom: 65 mm; normalized to 1 W antenna input power [10]
SAR 1 W/kg (measured) each one mobile phone at the left and right ear of a SAM mannequin; measurement was performed at the right ear, averaging over 10 g of tissue [15]
SAR 1.1 W/kg (measured) each one mobile phone at the left and right ear of a SAM mannequin; measurement was performed at the left ear, averaging over 10 g of tissue [15]
SAR 1.4 W/kg (measured) each one mobile phone at the left and right ear of a SAM mannequin; measurement was performed at the right ear, averaging over 1 g of tissue [15]
SAR 1.5 W/kg (measured) each one mobile phone at the left and right ear of a SAM mannequin; measurement was performed at the left ear, averaging over 1 g of tissue [15]
Show more measurements
independent from location
Measurand Value Remarks
electric field strength 400 V/m (measured) at a distance of 2.2 cm from 2 W phone [4]
magnetic field strength 0.8 A/m (measured) at a distance of 2.2 cm from 2 W phone [4]
power 240 mW (mean, measured) average power [4]
power 1–2 W (measured) - [21]
outdoor
Measurand Value Remarks
power density 0.23 µW/m² (measured) in rural areas of Sweden; measurements comprise both GSM (900 and 1800) and UMTS [5]
power density 0.78 µW/m² (measured) in urban areas of Sweden; measuremnts comprise both GSM (900 and 1800) and UMTS [5]
power density 1.1 µW/m² (measured) in the capital of Sweden (Stockholm); measurements comprise both GSM (900 and 1800) and UMTS [5]
power density 0.094 mW/m² (calculated) for blue collar workers (urban area) [6]
power density 0.123 mW/m² (calculated) during outdoor walks [6]
power density 0.233 mW/m² (calculated) on a train (rural area) [6]
computer model
Measurand Value Remarks
SAR 0.12 W/kg (maximum, measured) averaged over 1 g of tissue of the eye; distance between antenna and phantom: 65 mm; normalized to 1 W antenna input power [10]
SAR 0.3256 W/kg (simulated) averaged over 10g [11]
SAR 0.42 W/kg (simulated) mobile phone positioned at the ear; averaged over 1 g of tissue of the whole head of the non-exposed hemisphere [12]
SAR 0.42 W/kg (simulated) mobile phone positioned at the ear; averaged over 1 g of tissue of the brain of the non-exposed hemisphere [12]
SAR 0.83 W/kg (maximum, calculated) averaged over 1 g of brain tissue; distance between antenna and phantom: 65 mm; normalized to 1 W antenna input power [10]
SAR 1.02 W/kg (simulated) averaged over 10 g of tissue in the homogeneous SAM phantom; distance between antenna and phantom: 65 mm; normalized to 1 W antenna input power [10]
SAR 1.22 W/kg (maximum, calculated) averaged over 1 g of tissue of the ear; distance between antenna and phantom: 65 mm; normalized to 1 W antenna input power [10]
SAR 1.42 W/kg (simulated) mobile phone positioned at the ear; averaged over 1 g of tissue of the brain of the exposed hemisphere [12]
SAR 1.55 W/kg (simulated) mobile phone positioned at the ear; averaged over 1 g of tissue of the whole head of the exposed hemisphere [12]
SAR 2 W/kg (maximum, simulated) interaction between tissue and passive implant, here braces: averaged over 1g; for comparison_:the simulated SAR without implant is equally 2 W/kg [17]
SAR 2.55 W/kg (maximum, measured) averaged over 1 g of skin tissue; distance between antenna and phantom: 65 mm; normalized to 1 W antenna input power [10]
SAR 4.88 W/kg (maximum, calculated) mobile phone in right cheek position of head model, averaging mass 10 g [18]
SAR 7 W/kg (measured) at the right ear; mobile phone horizontally positioned at the left ear [19]
SAR 16 W/kg (maximum, simulated) interaction between tissue and passive implant, here ear rings: averaged over 1g; for comparison: the simulated SAR without implant is only 10 W/kg [17]
SAR 19 W/kg (maximum, simulated) interaction between tissue and passive implant, here ear tubes of an ear implant: averaged over 1g; for comparison: the simulated SAR without implant is equally 19 W/kg [17]
SAR 24 W/kg (mean, simulated) interaction between tissue and passive implant, here bone plates: averaged over 1g; for comparison: the simulated SAR without implant is only 21 W/kg [17]
SAR 26 W/kg (maximum, calculated) interaction between tissue and passive implant, here artificial skull plate: averaged over 1g; for comparison: the simulated SAR without implant is only 16 W/kg [17]
SAR 123 W/kg (calculated) at the brain; mobile phone horizontally positioned at the left ear [19]
SAR 1,000 W/kg (calculated) at the left ear; mobile phone horizontally positioned at the left ear [19]
Show more measurements

References

  1. Gryz K et al. (2015): Radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation exposure inside the metro tube infrastructure in Warszawa
  2. Markakis I et al. (2013): Radiofrequency exposure in Greek indoor environments
  3. Aly AA et al. (2008): Effects of 900-MHz Radio Frequencies on the Chemotaxis of Human Neutrophils in Vitro
  4. Swerdlow AJ et al. (2012): Health Effects from Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields - RCE 20
  5. Estenberg J et al. (2014): Extensive frequency selective measurements of radiofrequency fields in outdoor environments performed with a novel mobile monitoring system
  6. Bolte JF et al. (2012): Personal radiofrequency electromagnetic field measurements in The Netherlands: exposure level and variability for everyday activities, times of day and types of area
  7. Campisi A et al. (2010): Reactive oxygen species levels and DNA fragmentation on astrocytes in primary culture after acute exposure to low intensity microwave electromagnetic field
  8. Markova E et al. (2005): Microwaves from GSM mobile telephones affect 53BP1 and gamma-H2AX foci in human lymphocytes from hypersensitive and healthy persons
  9. Capri M et al. (2004): In vitro exposure of human lymphocytes to 900 MHz CW and GSM modulated radiofrequency: studies of proliferation, apoptosis and mitochondrial membrane potential
  10. Schmid G et al. (2007): New head exposure system for use in human provocation studies with EEG recording during GSM900- and UMTS-like exposure
  11. Shi D et al. (2012): The SAR value analysis of LTE terminals
  12. Murbach M et al. (2012): Exposure system to study hypotheses of ELF and RF electromagnetic field interactions of mobile phones with the central nervous system
  13. Davis CC et al. (2009): The International Intercomparison of SAR Measurements on Cellular Telephones
  14. Kwon MS et al. (2012): No effects of short-term GSM mobile phone radiation on cerebral blood flow measured using positron emission tomography
  15. Kwon MS et al. (2011): GSM mobile phone radiation suppresses brain glucose metabolism
  16. Lowden A et al. (2011): Sleep after mobile phone exposure in subjects with mobile phone-related symptoms
  17. Virtanen H et al. (2007): The effect of authentic metallic implants on the SAR distribution of the head exposed to 900, 1800 and 2450 MHz dipole near field
  18. Yu D et al. (2012): Influence of dentures on SAR in the visible Chinese human head voxel phantom exposed to a mobile phone at 900 and 1800 MHz
  19. Dimbylow PJ et al. (1999): Characterisation of Energy Deposition in the Head from Cellular Phones
  20. Loughran SP et al. (2012): Individual differences in the effects of mobile phone exposure on human sleep: Rethinking the problem
  21. Otto M et al. (2007): Electromagnetic fields (EMF): Do they play a role in children's environmental health (CEH)?