| Literature DB >> 33584927 |
Douglas Dutra1, Pedro Bertemes-Filho1.
Abstract
The objective of this work is to develop a technique for filtering parasitic effects from the impedance spectra (IS) measured in biological material phantoms. IS data are contaminated with unexpected capacitive and inductive effects from cable, input/output amplifiers capacitances, electrode polarization, temperature and contact pressure when collecting data. It is proposed a model which contains an RLC-network in series with the Cole model (RSC), then called RLC-Cole. It was built four circuits composed by resistors, capacitors and inductors. An impedance analyzer (HF2IS) was used to perform the measurements in the frequency range of 1 to 3000 kHz. Data were fitted into the model and comparisons to the nominal values were made. In order to validate the proposed model, a gelatin phantom and a chicken breast muscle impedance spectra were also collected and analyzed. After filtering, Cole fitting was performed. Results showed a maximum root-mean-square error of 1% for the circuits, 2.63% for the gelatin phantom, whereas 2.01% for the chicken breast. The RLC-Cole model could significantly remove parasitic effects out of a tissue impedance spectrum measured by a 4-point electrode probe. This may be highly important in EIS systems whose objective is to discriminate a normal tissue from a cancerous one.Entities:
Keywords: Bioimpedance; Cole model; filtering algorithm; parasitic impedance
Year: 2018 PMID: 33584927 PMCID: PMC7852010 DOI: 10.2478/joeb-2018-0016
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Electr Bioimpedance ISSN: 1891-5469
Fig.1Schematic diagram of the model and measuring system. (a) Measuring system. (b) Parasitic impedances. (c) First proposed RLC-Cole-RLC model. (d) Final proposed RLC-Cole model. (e) Phantom measurements.
Measured and fitted values for circuits 1 to 4, where NA means that the resonance frequency was not measured.
| Circuit 1 | Circuit 2 | Circuit 3 | Circuit 4 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.00 | 1.01 | 1.00 | 1.15 | 4.70 | 4.81 | 0.82 | 0.87 | |
| 56.8 | 55.8 | 50.5 | 50.4 | 73.3 | 80.5 | 65.2 | 67.5 | |
| 1.2 | 1.9 | 1.2 | 1.5 | 1.2 | 2.0 | 1.2 | 1.3 | |
| 1.1 | 1.5 | 1.1 | 0.7 | 242.0 | 294.0 | 61.9 | 61.0 | |
| 100.0 | 101.0 | 2.7 | 2.5 | 80.0 | 109.0 | 15.0 | 17.3 | |
| 0.0 | 0.001 | 15.0 | 18.0 | 271.0 | 221.0 | 271.0 | 350.0 | |
| 1.2 | 1.3 | 1.2 | 1.1 | 1.2 | 2.0 | 1.2 | 1.3 | |
| 2.74 | 2.25 | 3.08 | 2.58 | 0.45 | 0.40 | 2.87 | 2.66 | |
| NA | 9.60 | 25.00 | 22.80 | 0.34 | 1.03 | 2.50 | 2.02 | |
Fig.2a) Mean impedance spectra of one of the electrical phantom; (b) gelatin phantom; (c) chicken breast muscle; (d) nominal and fitted values of the electrical phantom 3 (see table 1); e) fitted values for gelatin phantom; f) fitted values for chicken breast muscle.