VaporISAC: Integrated Sensing and Communication via Molecular Signals

Falko Dressler; Frank H. P. Fitzek; Juan A. Cabrera; Mart\'in Schottlender; Pit Hofmann; Sunasheer Bhattacharjee

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 15 references

VaporISAC claims that chemical vapor pulses can simultaneously transmit information and infer environmental properties such as airflow, turbulence, and smoke, extending ISAC to the molecular domain and demonstrating the concept with analyti

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 21:52 UTC pith:VOWZQAKQ

load-bearing objection A well-scoped vision paper that overstates the experimental validation for its central sensing claim. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.15930 v1 pith:VOWZQAKQ submitted 2026-07-17 cs.ET

VaporISAC: Integrated Sensing and Communication via Molecular Signals

Sunasheer Bhattacharjee , Mart\'in Schottlender , Pit Hofmann , Juan A. Cabrera , Frank H. P. Fitzek , Falko Dressler This is my paper

classification cs.ET

keywords molecular communicationintegrated sensing and communicationchemical vapordiffusion-advection channelairflow sensingturbulence estimationon-off keyingMQ-3 sensor

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper introduces VaporISAC, a framework that brings integrated sensing and communication (ISAC) into the chemical domain: controlled vapor pulses simultaneously carry data and probe the environment, so that one received waveform yields two outputs—the transmitted message and estimates of airflow, turbulence, smoke, and chemical conditions. The authors argue this matters because EM-based ISAC degrades in smoke-filled, cluttered, enclosed, and infrastructure-denied environments, where molecular propagation through cracks and gaps remains naturally robust. They support the concept with analytical waveforms from a one-dimensional diffusion-advection model and with an experimental ethanol/MQ-3 testbed in which peak shifts and amplitude changes were used to estimate airflow. The paper positions VaporISAC as a complement to, not a replacement for, EM-ISAC, and identifies realistic 3D turbulent channel modeling, chemical multiple access, hardware safety, and validation as open challenges.

Core claim

VaporISAC's central claim is that a chemical vapor pulse can be both a communication symbol and an environmental probe: the same received concentration waveform is jointly processed to recover the transmitted bits and to estimate properties of the propagation environment. The paper argues this extends the ISAC paradigm from electromagnetic signals to molecular signals, where advection and diffusion make the waveform inherently depend on airflow, turbulence, and obstructions. Evidence comes from a one-dimensional diffusion-advection model of an OOK sequence ('101101'), where a fixed detection threshold recovers the bits while peak arrival time indicates airflow velocity and peak amplitude ind

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the molecular waveform itself, shaped by diffusion and advection: each emitted vapor burst becomes a time-varying concentration profile whose peak arrival time, amplitude, and temporal spreading encode both the transmitted symbol and the environment. The paper calls this a 'one signal, two outputs' paradigm. The analytical demonstrations rely on the one-dimensional diffusion-advection channel model with OOK modulation, a fixed detection threshold for bit recovery, and waveform-feature analysis (peak shift, peak amplitude, spreading/ISI) for sensing. The experimental demonstration uses a spray-based ethanol transmitter and an MQ-3 metal-oxide semiconductor sensor, who

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a one-dimensional diffusion-advection model with constant diffusion and uniform airflow accurately describes real vapor propagation, and that the MQ-3/eNose sensor output tracks normalized concentration; the paper itself lists 3D turbulent propagation, buoyancy, obstacles, thermal gradients, sensor drift, and nonlinearity as open challenges.

What would settle it

In a controlled wind tunnel, release identical OOK vapor pulses at two known airflow velocities while an independent anemometer measures the actual flow; if peak arrival times or amplitudes do not vary in the monotonic way the 1D diffusion-advection model predicts, or if velocities inferred from peak shifts systematically disagree with anemometer readings, the central sensing claim fails.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

In environments where RF and LiDAR degrade—smoke, debris, enclosed spaces—molecular waveforms can still carry low-rate messages and infer environmental state from the same received signal.
Sensing requires no dedicated pilot transmissions: every vapor pulse doubles as a probe, and the communication-sensing tradeoff is controlled through symbol rate and observation window.
Peak arrival time can be used to estimate airflow velocity and peak amplitude to estimate propagation losses; the reported experiment yields roughly 0.314 m/s effective drift velocity from a 1 m Tx-Rx separation.
VaporISAC is positioned as a complement to EM-ISAC, motivating hybrid EM-molecular architectures in which each modality handles what the other cannot.
The framework opens applications in GNSS-denied indoor robotics, airflow/duct monitoring, search and rescue in collapsed structures, and coordination of chemical-environment swarms.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If the waveform-to-environment mapping holds beyond the 1D model, the same infrastructure-free vapor channel could double as a distributed airflow and gas sensor network in buildings and ducts; that extension is not in the paper and depends on the 3D turbulence modeling it lists as open.
The paper's reactive-probe idea—vapor molecules that react with ambient chemicals and produce secondary signatures—points toward chemical composition sensing, but it is presented only as a possibility; a concrete test would release a tracer that reacts with a target gas and check whether the secondary signal tracks concentration.
A practical immediate validation would run the same OOK sequence in a wind tunnel with smoke and an independent anemometer: if inferred airflow from peak shifts disagrees with the anemometer under turbulence, the sensing claim needs revision.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

A well-scoped vision paper that overstates the experimental validation for its central sensing claim.

read the letter

Dear colleague,

This paper frames molecular communication (MC) as integrated sensing and communication (ISAC) at macroscale. That framing is the main novelty – using the same received vapor waveform to both decode data and infer airflow, turbulence, or other environmental properties. The authors correctly position it as a complement to EM ISAC in smoke-filled or GNSS-denied environments, and they keep the scope modest (low-rate coordination, ad hoc infrastructure).

What’s good: The paper is clearly written and honest. It lays out a system architecture (transmitter, propagation, receiver, joint processing) and lists the obvious open issues – sensor drift, nonlinear response, 3D turbulence, multiple access – in Section VII. The analytical example in Fig. 3 is internally consistent: a fixed detection threshold recovers the OOK bits under two different airflow/attenuation conditions, and the peak shifts would plausibly indicate those conditions. That part works as a simple demonstration of principle.

The soft spot is the experimental “proof of concept.” Section V reuses data from a prior testbed [14] without running a new controlled experiment. There is no ground-truth airflow measurement for the estimated 0.314 m/s, no control for released ethanol mass or sensor baseline drift, and the MQ-3 sensor’s response time is on the order of seconds – comparable to the observed peak shifts. The 44% earlier / 66% stronger peaks could be explained by a different fan setting, a different spray amount, or humidity. So the statement that environmental parameters are “demonstrated” to be inferred is too strong. The paper’s own Section VII acknowledges exactly these confounds, which makes the overclaim in the abstract and conclusion hard to defend.

The analytical section is also somewhat self-referential: the same diffusion–advection model generates the waveforms and is used to interpret them. That’s fine for illustration, but it doesn’t show that an independent estimator would work in a real 3D environment.

The core idea is still sound. Molecular waveforms do contain environmental signatures – that’s not in dispute. The paper’s contribution is framing and a research agenda, not a validated sensing system. Readers interested in MC or ISAC will find the framing useful, but they should read the experimental section skeptically.

I’d send this to peer review, but I’d tell the editors that the experimental claims need substantial revision: either tone them down to “preliminary illustration” or actually run the controlled testbed with ground truth and error bars. The paper is coherent and the authors are not misrepresenting the field; it just overstates its evidence.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces VaporISAC, a framework for integrated sensing and communication (ISAC) based on macroscopic molecular communication. The central proposal is that a single chemical vapor pulse can serve simultaneously as a communication symbol and as an environmental probe, so that the received concentration waveform is jointly processed to recover data and to infer properties such as airflow velocity, turbulence, propagation losses, and chemical conditions. The paper motivates the approach by EM-ISAC limitations, describes a transmitter–channel–receiver architecture, presents a 1D diffusion–advection analytical example with OOK waveform '101101', re-uses a previously reported MQ-3 testbed measurement as an experimental illustration, discusses applications in robotics, industrial monitoring, and search-and-rescue, and ends with an open-challenges section.

Significance. The conceptual contribution is genuinely novel and timely: applying the ISAC principle to the chemical/molecular domain is an underexplored direction, and the paper provides a clear architectural picture, a useful comparison table, and an honest statement of open problems in Section VII. The analytical OOK example is transparent and uses standard diffusion–advection formulas with explicit parameters, which is a strength. However, the sensing inference is not yet validated: the analytical curves are generated from the same model used to interpret them, and the experimental part lacks ground-truth airflow and controlled conditions. If the claims are appropriately softened and the experimental evidence is reframed as illustrative rather than validating, the paper would make a worthwhile contribution to the molecular communication and ISAC communities.

major comments (3)

[Section V, Fig. 5] The experimental sensing claim is not supported by the presented data. The reported estimate of 0.314 m/s for 'effective drift velocity' is not compared to any independent ground-truth airflow measurement, and the testbed was originally built for communication, not sensing. The observed changes in peak arrival time and amplitude could be caused by uncontrolled factors such as release volume, sensor response dynamics, humidity, or baseline drift, especially since MQ-3 response times are on the order of seconds. No repeated trials or error bars are reported. Given that the Conclusion states that environmental properties were 'demonstrated' from the same molecular waveform, this is a load-bearing overclaim. The authors should either provide controlled experiments with independent airflow measurement and multiple repetitions, or explicitly relabel Fig. 5 as a qualitative illustration.
[Section V, Fig. 3] The analytical proof-of-concept is internally consistent but does not establish the identifiability of environmental parameters. The waveforms are generated from the same 1D diffusion–advection model used to interpret them, and the parameters v1, v2, D, A1, A2, and the emitted mass are all preset. In practice, peak arrival time depends on v, D, and release timing, while peak amplitude depends on v, D, emitted mass, and attenuation; the figure's claim that peak times 'reveal airflow velocity' and peak amplitudes 'indicate propagation losses' assumes that the other parameters are known. No estimation, sensitivity, or identifiability analysis is provided. Please add an explicit uncertainty/identifiability discussion, or formulate the claim more modestly as 'under known D and emission conditions, these waveform features carry information about v and losses.'
[Sections V and VII] There is a direct internal inconsistency about the status of the experimental evidence. Section V says 'To experimentally validate this concept,' and the Conclusion states that the paper 'demonstrated through analytical and experimental proof-of-concept demonstrations' that a single waveform can reveal airflow and losses. Yet Section VII, under 'Hardware, Safety, and Validation,' identifies 'the lack of experimental validation' as a major barrier to VaporISAC maturation. These statements cannot both stand. The manuscript should be revised so that the experimental part is described consistently—either as preliminary, uncontrolled data that motivated the framework, or as a full validation with ground truth.

minor comments (5)

[Fig. 3] The caption and text use A1 and A2 but A1 is never defined. Please specify that A1 is the reference attenuation (1.0) and justify the choice of A2 = 0.55.
[Fig. 5] The x-axis is 'Time [s]' and the y-axis is 'Concentration [a.u.]', but the y-axis extends to 3 with no explanation of the normalization. Also, 'approximately44%' is missing a space and the estimated velocity of 0.314 m/s is given without a confidence interval or measurement uncertainty.
[Table I] The entries for VaporISAC communication range (0.5–5 m) and data rate (bps) appear to be assumed rather than derived from theory or measurements. Please provide a source or a clarifying sentence that these are target orders of magnitude.
[Section V] The paper does not describe the exact signal processing that would jointly recover bits and estimate environmental parameters beyond 'fixed threshold' and 'peak picking.' A more explicit description of the claimed joint decoder would strengthen the presentation.
[Reference [12]] Reference [12] is a two-page NANOCOM abstract; the sentence citing it says it demonstrates simultaneous binary decoding and source localization. Please verify that this source indeed supports that claim and briefly describe how the sensing is performed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the framework is a proposal with illustrative self-consistent simulations; real validation is explicitly deferred.

full rationale

The paper's core derivation is conceptual: molecular propagation depends on environmental parameters (an externally cited physical fact), so a received molecular waveform can, in principle, be used for both data decoding and environmental inference. The analytical 'demonstration' in Fig. 3 generates waveforms from a standard 1D diffusion-advection model with chosen airflow velocities and attenuation, then reads those same chosen values back off the peaks. This is a self-consistency illustration rather than an independent estimator validation, but it is not presented as a fitted-parameter prediction; the text carefully says 'in principle.' The experimental portion (Fig. 5) uses real measured data from the authors' prior testbed [14] and computes an effective drift velocity from a peak shift and a known distance; this is an actual measurement-based calculation, not a circular reduction, although the absence of ground-truth airflow makes it a correctness/validity risk. The paper's own Section VII explicitly lists 'lack of experimental validation,' 'sensor drift, nonlinear sensor response, and strong temperature dependence,' and simplified channel models as open challenges, which further indicates that the authors are not claiming a validated sensing result. The self-citation [14] supplies a testbed and dataset, but the paper's central claims do not rest on an unverified self-cited theorem. Thus no prediction or equation reduces by construction to its inputs, and the circularity score is low.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

Most of the physics is imported from standard MC literature [15] and the experimental traces from the authors' prior testbed [14]. The only genuinely paper-specific elements are the joint decoding/sensing architecture and the hand-chosen demonstration parameters; the central feasibility therefore rests on the 1D model and sensor linearity assumptions itemized above.

free parameters (3)

Detection threshold θ = Not specified in text
Chosen by hand so a single threshold recovers OOK '101101' under both propagation conditions in Fig. 3; the scheme's success depends on its placement.
Attenuation factor A2 = 0.55
Assigned by hand to emulate propagation losses for the blue waveform in Fig. 3; used to show amplitude encodes attenuation.
Simulation inputs (Ts=2 s, x=1 m, D=0.01 m^2/s, v1=1 m/s, v2=0.75 m/s) = Stated in Fig. 3 caption
Chosen for the demonstration; not fitted to data but arbitrary, so the exact waveform shapes and peak delays are illustrative.

axioms (5)

domain assumption Molecular transport is described by the 1D diffusion–advection model with constant D and uniform airflow.
Used in Section V to generate Fig. 3 and to interpret the experimental peaks; Section VII acknowledges 3D turbulence, buoyancy, obstacles, and thermal gradients are not captured.
domain assumption MQ-3 / eNose sensor output is proportional to received concentration with negligible memory/saturation in the operating range.
Section IV.C and the experimental comparison in Fig. 5 treat normalized concentration as the true waveform; sensor response time, drift, and nonlinearity are listed as open challenges in Section VII.
domain assumption Fingerprinting of airflow via peak shift and amplitude works under simultaneous data transmission, i.e., a fixed threshold can decode symbols without knowing the environmental state.
The Fig. 3 demo shows this for two hand-picked conditions; whether it holds across a continuum of airflow/turbulence states is not established.
domain assumption Vapor can pass through cracks/gaps in debris and bypass boulders via fluid dynamics.
Figure 1 and Section I advertise this as an advantage, but it requires an open advective path; molecular diffusion through narrow sealed gaps is slow, and smoke/obstacles can also block flow.
standard math Superposition and peak detection of OOK pulses follow from the linear diffusion equation.
Implicit in the use of the standard diffusion–advection channel model [15] for Fig. 3.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 7257 in / 11488 out tokens · 122284 ms · 2026-08-01T21:52:34.209593+00:00 · methodology

0 comments

read the original abstract

Conventional electromagnetic (EM)-based integrated sensing and communication (ISAC) systems degrade in cluttered, obstructed, and radio-frequency-hostile environments, while macroscopic molecular communication (MC) remains largely unexplored as an ISAC medium. This article introduces VaporISAC, a molecular ISAC framework in which chemical vapor pulses simultaneously convey information and probe the propagation environment, enabling a one signal, two outputs paradigm. The same received waveform is jointly processed to recover transmitted information and infer environmental properties such as airflow, turbulence, smoke, and chemical conditions. Rather than replacing conventional EM-based ISAC, VaporISAC complements existing approaches in chemically dynamic, infrastructure-limited, and EM-challenged environments. The sensing principles, system architecture, proof-of-concept demonstrations, emerging applications, and open research challenges of VaporISAC are presented, positioning it as a promising new paradigm for resilient communication and environmental sensing.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.15930 by Falko Dressler, Frank H. P. Fitzek, Juan A. Cabrera, Mart\'in Schottlender, Pit Hofmann, Sunasheer Bhattacharjee.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Proof-of-concept idea of chemical vapor-based integrated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: On-off keying modulated analytical molecular waveform [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Experimental setup of the macroscopic molecular communi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Received concentration response for the transmitted bitstream [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

15 extracted references

[1]

Opportunities and Challenges of Native Sensing in 6G: A Survey on Research and Standardization,

M. Nabati, T. Mahmoodi, S. Pal, and S. Sarkar, “Opportunities and Challenges of Native Sensing in 6G: A Survey on Research and Standardization,”IEEE Internet of Things Journal, vol. 12, no. 24, pp. 52 042–52 066, Dec. 2025

2025
[2]

Microwave attenuation of two-way radio according to building material and smoke in disaster environments,

I. Yeom and T. D. Kim, “Microwave attenuation of two-way radio according to building material and smoke in disaster environments,”Science Progress, vol. 108, no. 1, Jan. 2025

2025
[3]

Experimental Evaluation of 79 and 300 GHz Radar Performance in Fire Environments,

A. Bystrov, L. Daniel, E. Hoare, F. Norouzian, M. Cherni- akov, and M. Gashinova, “Experimental Evaluation of 79 and 300 GHz Radar Performance in Fire Environments,”Sensors, vol. 21, no. 2, 2021

2021
[4]

A Review on Non-RF Underground Positioning Techniques for Mining Applications,

M. Zeeshan, M. Chavda, K. M. Ehshan, R. Nayek, and S. Malik, “A Review on Non-RF Underground Positioning Techniques for Mining Applications,”IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, vol. 72, pp. 1–17, Jul. 2023

2023
[5]

Millimeter-wave over fiber integrated sensing and commu- nication system using self-coherent OFDM,

F. Liu, P. Li, N. Zhong, X. Deng, L. Yan, W. Pan, and X. Zou, “Millimeter-wave over fiber integrated sensing and commu- nication system using self-coherent OFDM,”Optics Express, vol. 32, no. 9, Apr. 2024

2024
[6]

Integrated Sensing and Communications Over the Years: An Evolution Perspective,

D. Zhang, Y . Cui, X. Cao, N. Su, Y . Gong, F. Liu, W. Yuan, X. Jing, J. A. Zhang, J. Xu, C. Masouros, D. Niyato, and M. Di Renzo, “Integrated Sensing and Communications Over the Years: An Evolution Perspective,”IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 28, pp. 5014–5048, Jan. 2026

2026
[7]

Demonstration of Millimeter Wave Radar Sensing in Fire and Smoky Envi- ronments,

A. Batra, A. Prokscha, T. Schultze, R. Farhoud, M. Wiemeler, D. G ¨ohringer, J. C. Balzer, and T. Kaiser, “Demonstration of Millimeter Wave Radar Sensing in Fire and Smoky Envi- ronments,” in2025 International Conference on Mobile and Miniaturized Terahertz Systems (ICMMTS 2025). Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates: IEEE, Feb. 2025, pp. 1–5

2025
[8]

The research on infrared radiation affected by smoke or fog in different environmental temperatures,

H. Li, S. Wen, S. Li, H. Wang, X. Geng, S. Wang, J. Zhai, and W. Zhang, “The research on infrared radiation affected by smoke or fog in different environmental temperatures,” Scientific Reports, vol. 14, no. 1, Jun. 2024

2024
[9]

Experimental Molecular Communi- cations in Obstacle Rich Fluids,

I. Atthanayake, S. Esfahani, P. Denissenko, I. Guymer, P. J. Thomas, and W. Guo, “Experimental Molecular Communi- cations in Obstacle Rich Fluids,” in5th ACM International Conference on Nanoscale Computing and Communication (NANOCOM 2018). Reykjav ´ık, Iceland: ACM, Sep. 2018

2018
[10]

Nanonetworks: A New Communication Paradigm,

I. F. Akyildiz, F. Brunetti, and C. Bl ´azquez, “Nanonetworks: A New Communication Paradigm,”Elsevier Computer Networks, vol. 52, pp. 2260–2279, 2008

2008
[11]

Smell of Source: Learning-Based Odor Source Localization with Molecular Communication,

A. S. Okcu and O. B. Akan, “Smell of Source: Learning-Based Odor Source Localization with Molecular Communication,” arXiv, eess.SP, Feb. 2025

2025
[12]

Integrated Sensing and Communication via Molecular Signaling,

H. Yao, Y . Huang, X. Chen, and M. Wen, “Integrated Sensing and Communication via Molecular Signaling,” in12th ACM International Conference on Nanoscale Computing and Com- munication (NANOCOM 2025). Chengdu, China: ACM, Oct. 2025, pp. 151–152

2025
[13]

Digital Communication Techniques in Macro- scopic Air-Based Molecular Communication,

S. Bhattacharjee, M. Damrath, L. Stratmann, P. A. Hoeher, and F. Dressler, “Digital Communication Techniques in Macro- scopic Air-Based Molecular Communication,”IEEE Transac- tions on Molecular, Biological and Multi-Scale Communica- tions, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 276–291, Dec. 2022

2022
[14]

Testbed-based Receiver Optimization for SISO Molec- ular Communication Channels,

P. Hofmann, J. Torres G ´omez, F. Dressler, and F. H. P. Fitzek, “Testbed-based Receiver Optimization for SISO Molec- ular Communication Channels,” in5th IEEE International Balkan Conference Communications and Networking (Balka- nCom 2022). Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina: IEEE, Aug. 2022, pp. 120–125

2022
[15]

A Comprehensive Survey of Recent Advancements in Molecular Communication,

N. Farsad, H. B. Yilmaz, A. W. Eckford, C.-B. Chae, and W. Guo, “A Comprehensive Survey of Recent Advancements in Molecular Communication,”IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 1887–1919, 2016

1919

[1] [1]

Opportunities and Challenges of Native Sensing in 6G: A Survey on Research and Standardization,

M. Nabati, T. Mahmoodi, S. Pal, and S. Sarkar, “Opportunities and Challenges of Native Sensing in 6G: A Survey on Research and Standardization,”IEEE Internet of Things Journal, vol. 12, no. 24, pp. 52 042–52 066, Dec. 2025

2025

[2] [2]

Microwave attenuation of two-way radio according to building material and smoke in disaster environments,

I. Yeom and T. D. Kim, “Microwave attenuation of two-way radio according to building material and smoke in disaster environments,”Science Progress, vol. 108, no. 1, Jan. 2025

2025

[3] [3]

Experimental Evaluation of 79 and 300 GHz Radar Performance in Fire Environments,

A. Bystrov, L. Daniel, E. Hoare, F. Norouzian, M. Cherni- akov, and M. Gashinova, “Experimental Evaluation of 79 and 300 GHz Radar Performance in Fire Environments,”Sensors, vol. 21, no. 2, 2021

2021

[4] [4]

A Review on Non-RF Underground Positioning Techniques for Mining Applications,

M. Zeeshan, M. Chavda, K. M. Ehshan, R. Nayek, and S. Malik, “A Review on Non-RF Underground Positioning Techniques for Mining Applications,”IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, vol. 72, pp. 1–17, Jul. 2023

2023

[5] [5]

Millimeter-wave over fiber integrated sensing and commu- nication system using self-coherent OFDM,

F. Liu, P. Li, N. Zhong, X. Deng, L. Yan, W. Pan, and X. Zou, “Millimeter-wave over fiber integrated sensing and commu- nication system using self-coherent OFDM,”Optics Express, vol. 32, no. 9, Apr. 2024

2024

[6] [6]

Integrated Sensing and Communications Over the Years: An Evolution Perspective,

D. Zhang, Y . Cui, X. Cao, N. Su, Y . Gong, F. Liu, W. Yuan, X. Jing, J. A. Zhang, J. Xu, C. Masouros, D. Niyato, and M. Di Renzo, “Integrated Sensing and Communications Over the Years: An Evolution Perspective,”IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 28, pp. 5014–5048, Jan. 2026

2026

[7] [7]

Demonstration of Millimeter Wave Radar Sensing in Fire and Smoky Envi- ronments,

A. Batra, A. Prokscha, T. Schultze, R. Farhoud, M. Wiemeler, D. G ¨ohringer, J. C. Balzer, and T. Kaiser, “Demonstration of Millimeter Wave Radar Sensing in Fire and Smoky Envi- ronments,” in2025 International Conference on Mobile and Miniaturized Terahertz Systems (ICMMTS 2025). Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates: IEEE, Feb. 2025, pp. 1–5

2025

[8] [8]

The research on infrared radiation affected by smoke or fog in different environmental temperatures,

H. Li, S. Wen, S. Li, H. Wang, X. Geng, S. Wang, J. Zhai, and W. Zhang, “The research on infrared radiation affected by smoke or fog in different environmental temperatures,” Scientific Reports, vol. 14, no. 1, Jun. 2024

2024

[9] [9]

Experimental Molecular Communi- cations in Obstacle Rich Fluids,

I. Atthanayake, S. Esfahani, P. Denissenko, I. Guymer, P. J. Thomas, and W. Guo, “Experimental Molecular Communi- cations in Obstacle Rich Fluids,” in5th ACM International Conference on Nanoscale Computing and Communication (NANOCOM 2018). Reykjav ´ık, Iceland: ACM, Sep. 2018

2018

[10] [10]

Nanonetworks: A New Communication Paradigm,

I. F. Akyildiz, F. Brunetti, and C. Bl ´azquez, “Nanonetworks: A New Communication Paradigm,”Elsevier Computer Networks, vol. 52, pp. 2260–2279, 2008

2008

[11] [11]

Smell of Source: Learning-Based Odor Source Localization with Molecular Communication,

A. S. Okcu and O. B. Akan, “Smell of Source: Learning-Based Odor Source Localization with Molecular Communication,” arXiv, eess.SP, Feb. 2025

2025

[12] [12]

Integrated Sensing and Communication via Molecular Signaling,

H. Yao, Y . Huang, X. Chen, and M. Wen, “Integrated Sensing and Communication via Molecular Signaling,” in12th ACM International Conference on Nanoscale Computing and Com- munication (NANOCOM 2025). Chengdu, China: ACM, Oct. 2025, pp. 151–152

2025

[13] [13]

Digital Communication Techniques in Macro- scopic Air-Based Molecular Communication,

S. Bhattacharjee, M. Damrath, L. Stratmann, P. A. Hoeher, and F. Dressler, “Digital Communication Techniques in Macro- scopic Air-Based Molecular Communication,”IEEE Transac- tions on Molecular, Biological and Multi-Scale Communica- tions, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 276–291, Dec. 2022

2022

[14] [14]

Testbed-based Receiver Optimization for SISO Molec- ular Communication Channels,

P. Hofmann, J. Torres G ´omez, F. Dressler, and F. H. P. Fitzek, “Testbed-based Receiver Optimization for SISO Molec- ular Communication Channels,” in5th IEEE International Balkan Conference Communications and Networking (Balka- nCom 2022). Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina: IEEE, Aug. 2022, pp. 120–125

2022

[15] [15]

A Comprehensive Survey of Recent Advancements in Molecular Communication,

N. Farsad, H. B. Yilmaz, A. W. Eckford, C.-B. Chae, and W. Guo, “A Comprehensive Survey of Recent Advancements in Molecular Communication,”IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 1887–1919, 2016

1919