## 3 Results  
In this section, the results regarding the assessment of the EMF exposure due to the wearable antenna are collected. In Figure 3, the distributions of the SAR\({}_{10g}\) in two of the simulated antenna positioning are shown as an example. Specifically, panels in the upper part of the figure shown the SAR\({}_{10g}\) distribution over the skin when the wearable antenna tuned at f = 2.45 GHz (Figure 3a) is posed near to the Ella's shoulder, whereas panel in the lower part shown the SAR\({}_{10g}\) distribution over the skin when the wearable antenna tuned at f = 2.45 GHz (Figure 3b) is posed on the ankle's Duke. All the values are normalized with respect to the maximum SAR\({}_{10g}\) value found in each configuration. A qualitative evaluation of the panels in Figure 3 indicated that the regions of higher SAR\({}_{10g}\) were mainly concentrated in the portion of the body closer to the antenna, just below the antenna itself, with values of the SAR\({}_{10g}\) distributions that tends to decrease in the farther regions of the body, as expected. To better characterize the SAR\({}_{10g}\) distributions in the region of interest, Figure 4 shows the descriptive statistics (minimum, 25 th, 50 th, 75 th percentile and maximum) of the SAR\({}_{10g}\) distribution evaluated in the tissues included in the cubical box identified in the anatomical district of interest with respect to the antenna positioning. From the top to the bottom  
Figure 3: The distributions of the SAR\({}_{10g}\) [W/kg/W] in two simulated configurations: **(a)** [PERSON] with the antenna posed on the shoulder, and **(b)** [PERSON] with the antenna placed on his trunk. The values are shown in decibel scale, with the reference value equal to the maximum value of the SAR\({}_{10g}\) obtained in each configuration. of Figure 4, the panels are relative to Duke (Figure 4a) and Ella model (Figure 4b). All the panels clearly show that, for all the configurations, there is a great gap between the maximum value and the 75 percentiles of the distribution. As a general trend, it is therefore reasonable to assume that the large part of the values of the SAR\({}_{10\text{g}}\) distributions obtained are well below their peak values. This aspect was further investigated calculating the percentage of the values of the distribution of SAR\({}_{10\text{g}}\) greater than or equal to the 90% of the peak value of the distribution itself, for each configuration. Table 2 collects these percentage values. Data clearly shows that, on average, only 2% of the SAR\({}_{10\text{g}}\) distribution values exceeds the 90% of the peak value except when the wearable antenna was posed close to the ankle where this value can reach about 5% of the data, specifically for Duke model. This means that these distributions are highly narrowed around their peak values. In order to analyze the effects on the EMF exposure due to the antenna position and interindividual anatomical variability, in Table 3 the peak values of the SAR\({}_{10\text{g}}\) are collected for each configuration. From the table, it is noticeable that the minimum peak SAR\({}_{10\text{g}}\) value was found when the antenna was placed close to the head on the top of a steel helmet, for both the human models. These values are clearly d  
Figure 4: Descriptive statistics (minimum, 25 th, 50 th, 75 th percentile and maximum) of the SAR\({}_{10\text{g}}\) distributions in the tissues included in volume of interest relative to the analyzed anatomical district: (**a**) Duke and (**b**) Ella. helmet between the antenna and the human models. On the other hand, considering all the other configurations, the maximum value was found when the antenna was placed on the [PERSON]'s arm. As to the effect of interindividual anatomical variability, the peak SAR\({}_{10\text{g}}\) were higher in the case of [PERSON] when the antenna was placed close to the arm, leg, and shoulder, whereas they resulted higher in the [PERSON] model when the antenna was place close to the ankle.