By Topic

Biological Tissue Complex Permittivity Measured From S_{21} —Error Analysis and Error Reduction by Reference Measurements

Sign In

Cookies must be enabled to login.After enabling cookies , please use refresh or reload or ctrl+f5 on the browser for the login options.

Formats Non-Member Member
$31 $13
Learn how you can qualify for the best price for this item!
Become an IEEE Member or Subscribe to
IEEE Xplore for exclusive pricing!
close button

puzzle piece

IEEE membership options for an individual and IEEE Xplore subscriptions for an organization offer the most affordable access to essential journal articles, conference papers, standards, eBooks, and eLearning courses.

Learn more about:

IEEE membership

IEEE Xplore subscriptions

2 Author(s)
Tofighi, M.-R. ; Capital Coll., Pennsylvania State Univ., Middletown, PA ; Daryoush, A.S.

Our analysis and measurements of a custom-designed two-port microstrip test fixture for biological tissue characterization at microwave and millimeter-wave frequencies demonstrated that the transmission parameter S 21 would provide a better sensitivity to the complex permittivity change than the reflection coefficient S 11. However, the standard through-reflect-line (TRL) calibration method employed for the extraction of the tissue complex permittivity did not fully remove the coaxial-to-microstrip adaptors' induced errors, which were manifested by ripple artifacts on the measured two-port S parameters. A simple deconvolution method was demonstrated wherein these errors were removed by postcalibration correction of the measured S 21 of the tissue under test (TUT) by using water as a reference material. This paper provides a theoretical analysis of this method based on a model presented for postcalibration adaptors. Our detailed analysis shows that the error for S 21 using the deconvolution method linearly depends on the difference between the S 11 of the TUT and the reference material. Measurement and error estimation are also provided for various biological tissues and are consistent with analytical expectations. Our analysis provides support that systematic errors of numerically modeled S 21 utilized for complex permittivity extraction can significantly be reduced by the deconvolution method. On the other hand, the analysis also shows that the S 21 numerical modeling errors and the postcalibration adaptors' error terms have a similar impact on the extracted complex permittivity using the standard time-gating technique and are irreducible, unless the deconvolution method is used. Our analysis also identifies water as a better reference sample than methanol for accurate extraction of the complex permittivity of tissues in the range of epsiv- - ' > 9 and epsiv" > 7 at 30 GHz.

Published in:

Instrumentation and Measurement, IEEE Transactions on  (Volume:58 ,  Issue: 7 )