Table 1. Uncertainty analysis. The methods used were based on the work of Neufeld et al.⁴². To evaluate the uncertainty of the quantities of interest derived by the simulations (i.e., 10 g-avg. SAR or the magnitude of incident electric field “E_RMS”) Two simulations were run for each parameter by assigning two different values (“Val 1” and “Val 2”) to each parameter studied. The first value (“Val 1”) was the one used for the simulations shown in Fig. 2, whereas the modified value (“Val 2”) was set to a realistic value that could occur due to either design choice or manufacturing tolerance. The results obtained for each value (“Result 1” and “Result 2”, respectively) were used to evaluate sensitivity factor of the quantity evaluated (10 g-avg. SAR or magnitude of incident electric field “E_RMS”). The standard deviation (“Std. Dev. ”) was derived from literature.

Parameter	Quantity	Val 1	Val 2	Result 1	Result 2	Sensitivity Factor [%/mm]	Std. Dev	Uncertainty [%]
Contact Width [mm]	10 g-avg. SAR at electrode [W/kg]	0.381	0.762	6.98	7.22	9.12%	0.1	0.9%
Contact Length [mm]		1.5	3.0	6.98	7.28	2.85%	0.1	0.3%
Contact Thickness [mm]		0.0098	0.0196	6.98	7.00	32.6%	0.1	3.3%
Substrate Thickness [mm]		0.0254	0.0508	6.98	6.9	43.9%	0.1	4.4%
Insulation Thickness [mm]		0.0254	0.0508	6.98	7.07	52.0%	0.1	5.2%
εr (Substrate)		3.4	6.8	6.98	7.11	0.56%	2.00	1.1%
εr (Insulation)		2.5	5.0	6.98	7.00	0.13%	2.00	0.3%
εr (Ink Lead)		5.0	2.5	6.98	6.99	0.04%	2.00	0.1%
σ (Contact) [S/m]		9.3·106	4.0·106	6.98	6.99	0.00%	0.04	0.0%
εr (Phantom)		80	60	6.98	7.40	0.30%	2.00	0.6%
σ (Phantom) [S/m]		0.47	0.60	6.98	7.18	22.3%	0.04	0.9%
Phantom Position X [mm]	ERMS, incident [V/m]	0.0	10.0	300.9	302.2	0.04%	1.15	0.1%
Phantom Position Y [mm]		0.0	10.0	300.9	306.9	0.20%	1.15	0.2%
Phantom Position Z [mm]		0.0	10.0	300.9	307.0	0.20%	1.15	0.2%
Lead Position X [mm]		0.0	1.0	300.9	307.4	2.14%	0.58	1.2%
Lead Position Y [mm]		0.0	1.0	300.9	299.2	0.57%	0.58	0.3%
Lead Position Z [mm]		0.0	1.0	300.9	301.3	0.12%	0.58	0.1%