## 6 Results
### The Effect of Heat Convection Coefficient
At T9 depth, the heat convection coefficient rates ranged from 0.4 W/m\({}^{2}\)K to 11 W/m\({}^{2}\)K. As breast size increased, the heat convection coefficient rates showed a  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**(a)**} \\ \hline  & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Surface temperatures on the skin**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Surface temperatures on the skin**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Temperature variations with and**} \\  & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**of the breast without tumor \({}^{\circ}\)C**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**of the breast with tumor \({}^{\circ}\)C**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**without tumor \({}^{\circ}\)C**} \\ \hline  & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Breast size**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Breast size**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Breast size**} \\ \hline Q fat mm & 7.5 cm & 10 cm & 17 cm & 7.5 cm & 10 cm & 17 cm & 7.5 cm & 10 cm & 17 cm \\ \hline
3 & 34 & 34 & 34 & 34.38 & 34.38 & 34.38 & 0.38 & 0.38 & 0.38 \\  & 33.35 & 33.35 & 33.35 & 34.33 & 34.33 & 34.33 & 0.98 & 0.98 & 0.98 \\  & 33.35 & 33.35 & 33.35 & 34.33 & 34.33 & 34.33 & 0.98 & 0.98 & (2.94\%) & (2.94\%) \\  & 33.35 & 33.35 & 33.35 & 34.33 & 34.33 & 34.33 & 0.98 & 0.98 & 0.98 \\  & 33.35 & 33.35 & 33.35 & 34.33 & 34.33 & 34.33 & 0.94\% & (2.94\%) & (2.94\%) \\ \hline
9 & 32.8 & 32.8 & 32.8 & 34 & 34 & 34 & 1.2 & 1.2 & 1.2 \\  & & & & & & & & (3.6\%) & (3.6\%) \\ \hline  & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**(b)**} \\ \hline  & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Surface temperatures on the skin**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Surface temperatures on the skin**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Temperature variations with and**} \\  & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**of the breast without tumor \({}^{\circ}\)C**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**of the breast with tumor \({}^{\circ}\)C**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**without tumor \({}^{\circ}\)C**} \\ \hline  & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Breast size**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Breast size**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Breast size**} \\ \hline Q fat mm & 7.5 cm & 10 cm & 17 cm & 7.5 cm & 10 cm & 17 cm & 7.5 cm & 10 cm & 17 cm \\ \hline
3 & 34 & 34 & 34 & 34.24 & 34.24 & 34.24 & 0.24 & 0.24 & 0.24 \\  & 33.35 & 33.35 & 33.35 & 34.17 & 34.17 & 34.17 & 0.82 & 0.82 & 0.82 \\  & 33.35 & 33.35 & 33.35 & 34.17 & 34.17 & 34.17 & 0.82 & (2.46\%) & (2.46\%) \\  & 33.35 & 33.35 & 33.35 & 33.35 & 33.9 & 33.9 & 1.1 & 1.1 & 1.1 \\  & 33.35 & 33.35 & 33.35 & 33.35 & 33.9 & 1.0 & (3.3\%) & (3.3\%) \\ \hline  & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**(c)**} \\ \hline  & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Surface temperatures on the skin**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Surface temperatures on the skin**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Temperature variations with and**} \\  & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**of the breast without tumor \({}^{\circ}\)C**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**without tumor \({}^{\circ}\)C**} \\ \hline  & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Breast size**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Breast size**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Breast size**} \\ \hline Q fat mm & 7.5 cm & 10 cm & 17 cm & 7.5 cm & 10 cm & 17 cm & 7.5 cm & 10 cm & 17 cm \\ \hline
3 & NA & 34 & 34 & NA & 34.02 & 34.01 & NA & 0.02 & 0.01 \\  & 33.35 & 33.35 & NA & 33.37 & 33.37 & NA & 0.02 & 0.02 \\  & 33.35 & 33.35 & NA & 33.35 & 33.3 consistent increase. For a breast size of 11, the rates were 1.1 W/m\({}^{2}\)K, 1.09 W/m\({}^{2}\)K, and 1.08 W/m\({}^{2}\)K for 7.5 cm, 10 cm, and 17 cm depths, respectively. The findings suggest that larger breast sizes tend to exhibit higher heat convection coefficient rates, indicating a potentially higher heat dissipation capacity. However, because the breast surface area is increased by increasing breast size, temperature variations on the skin decrease. This trend has been consistent throughout the different simulation studies conducted.