Fig 1.
Configuring the suggested antenna for simulation in a single-layer skin phantom.
Fig 2.
(A) Design of patch surface of proposed antenna from top view (B) ground plane of proposed antenna from bottom view (C) Design of Metamaterial on superstrate (D) Side view of proposed antenna.
Table 1.
Details of proposed implantable antenna parameters.
Fig 3.
(A) Design of A/N 1 radiating surface.
(B) Design of A/N 2 radiating surface. (C) Design of metamaterial of A/N 3 on the superstrate surface.
Fig 4.
(A) Reflection coefficient comparison of several antenna designs.
(B) Comparison of axial ratio bandwidth of different antenna designs. (C) Position of sorting pin on patch surface. (D) The axial ratio of different positions of sorting pin on patch surface (A/N 2). (E) Characteristics curve of metamaterial design with effective permittivity and permeability.
Table 2.
Different sorting pin positions on A/N 2 patch surface.
Fig 5.
(A) The suggested antenna’s (A/N 3) reflection coefficient at various penetration depths.
(B) The reflection coefficient of the proposed antenna in several human tissue models. (C) Various dielectric substrate materials and the reflection coefficient of the proposed antenna.
Fig 6.
(A) Reflection Coefficient of different superstrate materials.
(B) SAR of Alumina superstrate material. (C) SAR of FR-4 epoxy superstrate material. (D) SAR of polyethylene superstrate material. (E) SAR values of different superstrate material of proposed antenna. (F) Reflection coefficient of different shaped superstrate of proposed antenna.
Fig 7.
The SAR, Axial ratio bandwidth, and Reflection coefficient (S11) of proposed antenna with biocompatible layer of Roger rt duroid.
Fig 8.
(A) Radiating patch surface of the fabricated implantable antenna.
(B) H-Shaped metamaterial design on the superstrate surface.
Fig 9.
(A) Measurement setup of the proposed implantable antenna with saline solution.
(B) Comparison of the reflection coefficient of simulated and fabricated proposed implantable antenna.
Table 3.
Summary sheet of SAR for different antenna designs with input power for 1 gram of tissue.
Fig 10.
(A) SAR of A/N 1 according to IEEE standard for 1 gram of tissue.
(B) SAR of A/N 2 according to IEEE standard for 1 gram of tissue. (C) SAR, using an IEEE standard, of the suggested antenna (A/N 3) for one gram of tissue.
Table 4.
Comparison of recent published work with proposed implantable antenna.
Fig 11.
(A) Surface current distribution of radiating path (patch) proposed implantable antenna with 00 phase angle at 2.44 GHz.
(B) at 900 (C) at 1800 (D) at 2700.
Fig 12.
(A) Normalized simulated gain of suggested antenna at 2.44 GHz.
(B) Normalized measured gain of the proposed antenna at 2.44 GHz. (C) LHCP and RHCP gain of suggested antenna at 2.44 GHz.
Table 5.
Details of Wireless communication parameters.
Fig 13.
(A) Path loss of Transmitting antenna at a different distance.
(B) Link margin of the proposed implantable antenna at 2.44 GHz frequency for different bit rates at different distances.