| Literature DB >> 33804224 |
Mohamed Amine Zidane1, Hichem Amar2, Amar Rouane1.
Abstract
The measurement of glycemia is impacted by several constraints; those constraints have to be identified and quantified when designing an electromagnetic noninvasive sensor. The second phase concerns the level of the influence of these constraints. In this work, we investigated the impact of vein radius located in the forearm on a resonant microwave sensor to measure glycemia. We performed a numerical simulation using COMSOL Multiphysics of a proposed tissue model that was in contact with a microwave resonator. Some other factors affect the measurement, such as temperature, perfusion, sensor positioning and motion, tissue heterogeneity, and other biological activity. The sensor must be robust to the above-mentioned constraints. Because vein size changes from one person to another, the dielectric properties seen by the sensor will be different. This has been demonstrated by the change created in the resonance frequency of the simulated sensor for different vein sizes. The second constraint that was assessed is the dosimetry. The specific absorption rate (SAR) of any electromagnetic device should be evaluated and compared with SAR limits in the safety standards to ensure the safety of the user. Simulation results are in good agreement with SAR limits in the safety standards.Entities:
Keywords: SAR; diabetics; glycemia; microwave sensor; tissue properties; vein
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33804224 PMCID: PMC8000743 DOI: 10.3390/bios11030083
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biosensors (Basel) ISSN: 2079-6374
Figure 1Permittivity and conductivity vs. frequency for different biological tissues [26].
Figure 2Part of the biological phantom on COMSOL.
Figure 3(a) S21 vs. frequency, (b) resonance frequency shift vs. permittivity change in the blood.
Figure 4Simulated model of the forearm of an overweight person in contact with the sensor.
Figure 5(a) S21 vs. frequency, (b) resonance frequency shift vs. permittivity change in the blood.
Figure 6The calculated SAR. vs. Z.
Figure 7SAR distributions in the modeled phantom.
Figure 8The calculated SAR vs. Z for the proposed model of a thin person.