Discrepancies of Measured SAR between Traditional and Fast Measuring Systems

Reply to "Comment on Liu et al. 'Discrepancies of Measured SAR between Traditional and Fast Measuring Systems' Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, 2020, 17, 2111"

The authors of this reply published an article in International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health and received comments from Douglas and Kuster. Responses are made to these comments with complementary explanations and numerical results.

Comment on Liu et al. "Discrepancies of Measured SAR between Traditional and Fast Measuring Systems." Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, 2020, 17, 2111

An article published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health compares two types of specific absorption rate measurement systems—a fast system using a time-domain array and a traditional system using probe scanning. While the time-domain array system is analyzed in detail under idealized conditions, the probe-scanning system evaluation used a fixed set of scanning and evaluation parameters that are not fully compliant with the requirements of the published standards. This leads to a false comparison and the incorrect conclusion that time-domain array systems can be theoretically more accurate than probe-scanning systems. We have repeated the analysis applied in the paper using the same raw data but with state-of-the art scanning and evaluation parameters. The results confirm the high accuracy of probe-scanning systems for any field distribution. Due to the high precision, robustness, and reliability of probe-scanning systems, the results of these systems are often referred to as reference results.