Table 1.
Weighting factors of animals contributing to the approximation of rhinoceros tissue dialectric properties.
Table 2.
Tissue permittivity and conductivity approximations for rhinoceros tissue.
Fig 1.
Numerical anatomical layered rhinoceros model.
Anatomical layered model of the rhinoceros including a blood layer as a simplified representation of the internal organs. The dielectric properties of each layer are indicated in Table 2.
Fig 2.
Numerical skeleton and layered anatomical rhinoceros model.
Combination of the skeletal and anatomical layered rhinoceros models. The dielectric properties of bone cancellous and bone cortical are indicated in Table 2.
Fig 3.
Numerical organ and layered rhinoceros model.
Combination of the organ and anatomical layered rhinoceros models. The dielectric properties are as indicated in Table 2.
Fig 4.
Printed Inverted-F Antenna (PIFA).
Typical design and layout of the Printed Inverted-F Antenna (PIFA) which is regularly used in implantation devices.
Fig 5.
The three considered implantation locations and the location of the ex vivo receiver.
Fig 6.
Numerical rhinoceros flank model.
Configuration of the rhinoceros flank simulation model with dielectric properties as indicated in Table 2 and a MFPEMA positioned within the fat layer.
Table 3.
Measured permittivities of the 2.4 GHz phantom material recipes.
Fig 7.
Kidney phantom permittivity measurements.
Permittivity and loss tangent measurements of the four 100 ml 2.4 GHz kidney agar phantom recipe samples.
Fig 8.
Kidney phantom average permittivity measurements.
Average permittivity and loss tangent of the four 100 ml 2.4 GHz kidney agar phantom recipe samples.
Fig 9.
Practical rhinoceros flank phantom incision.
T-incision on the side of the 2.4 GHz rhinoceros phantom flank model used to insert the antenna for practical measurement.
Fig 10.
Practical rhinoceros flank phantom power measurement.
The configuration of the power loss measurement of the 2.4 GHz rhinoceros flank model.
Table 4.
Received power through the 2.4 GHz rhinoceros flank phantom.
Fig 11.
Electric field of the MFPEMA implanted in the back with the Shadwick dermis approximation.
The electric field of an MFPEMA transmitting and receiving pair, when the implantation is located in the back and the Shadwick dermis approximation is applied.
Fig 12.
Electric field of the MFPEMA implanted in the neck.
The electric field of the MFPEMA transmitting and receiving pair, when the implantation is located in the neck and the Shadwick [left] and weighted average [right] dermis approximations are applied.
Fig 13.
Specific absorption rate of the MFPEMA using the Shadwick dermis approximation.
Fig 14.
Electric field of the PIFA implanted in the back.
The electric field of a PIFA transmitting and receiving pair, when the implantation is located in the back and the Shadwick dermis approximation is applied.
Fig 15.
Electric field of the PIFA implanted in the neck.
The electric field of a PIFA transmitting and receiving pair, when the implantation is located in the neck and the Shadwick [left] and weighted average [right] dermis approximations are applied.
Fig 16.
Specific absorption rate of the PIFA using the Shadwick dermis approximation.
SAR of the PIFA propagating lengthwise through the rhinoceros for back, chest and neck implantation locationswhen using the Shadwick dermis approximation.
Table 5.
Simulated specific absorption rate and power loss of the individual phantom layers (PIFA).