Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-c52kr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-07T00:45:34.251Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Implantable CPW-fed Z-monopole antennas at 2.45 GHz ISM band for biomedical applications

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 June 2014

Srinivasan Ashok Kumar*
Affiliation:
Department of Electronics Engineering, Pondicherry University, Pondicherry, India. Phone: + 919750140862
Thangavelu Shanmuganantham
Affiliation:
Department of Electronics Engineering, Pondicherry University, Pondicherry, India. Phone: + 919750140862
*
Corresponding author: S. Ashok Kumar Email: ashokape@gmail.com
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A novel coplanar waveguide-fed Z-monopole antennas are proposed for the first time for a industrial, scientific, and medical (ISM) band (2.4–2.48 GHz) applications. To make the designed antenna suitable for implantation, it is embedded in biocompatible Al2O3 ceramic substrate. The antenna operates at resonance frequency of 2.45 GHz to support wide band communication for high data rate implantable neural monitoring application. The size of the antenna is 38.675 mm3 (8.5 mm × 7 mm × 0.65 mm). The antenna was simulated and measured by immersing it in a phantom liquid, imitate the electrical properties of the human body phantom liquid. The simulated and measured bandwidths are 10.2 and 11.4% at the centre frequency. A study of the sensitivity of the antenna performance as a function of its dielectric parameters of the environment in which it is immersed was performed. The demonstration among the design EM characteristics of the antenna is presented by current distributions.

Information

Type
Research Paper
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and the European Microwave Association 2014 
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Proposed Z-shaped monopole antennas (a) L1 = 1.1 mm (b) L2 = 1.2 mm (c) L3 = 1.3 mm (d) L4 = 1.4 mm (all dimensions are in mm).

Figure 1

Fig. 2. Photograph of fabricated proposed antennas.

Figure 2

Fig. 3. Photograph for experimental setup.

Figure 3

Fig. 4. Simulated return loss versus frequency.

Figure 4

Fig. 5. Experimental return loss versus frequency.

Figure 5

Table 1. Comparison of simulated and measurement results.

Figure 6

Fig. 6. Simulation versus measured radiation pattern for H-Plane.

Figure 7

Fig. 7. Simulation versus measured radiation pattern for E-Plane.