Electrical Bioimpedance Spectroscopy (EBIS) is a technique to assess passive electrical properties of a biological material [1]. It can be invasive, non-invasive or a combination of both. To measure the bioimpedance, it is injected an electrical signal and acquired the biological material electrical response. There are many applications of EBIS, and a lot of them involve the diagnosis of diseases such as skin cancer [2], pressure ulcer [3] and brain cellular edema [4]. Highly precise instruments for both signal generation and acquisitions are essential to have accurate diagnosis.
In practice, many EBIS systems use a current source to excite the biological material instead of a voltage source. In this case, the voltage across the load is measured and the impedance is calculated. This means that the higher the injected current, the higher the measured voltage, and consequently, the higher the signal to noise ratio. Therefore, it is essential to have a current source that can deliver a fixed amplitude current over all frequency range, assuring maximum resolution [5]. Moreover, the output current amplitude can easily be designed to meet medical safety that is usually adopted by researchers as 1 mA.
On the other hand, practical current sources have shown worse high frequency performance in comparison to voltage excitation systems [6,78]. This can be explained by the decrease in the open loop gain of the amplifier and stray capacitances at the circuit, which degrades the overall output impedance as frequency increases [9]. Researchers are trying to create or modify circuits to develop a current source that can work in a wider frequency range.
In bioimpedance applications most systems use a voltage controlled current source (VCCS), usually the enhanced Howland current source (EHCS), because it has shown to be very simple and robust [10]. A few modifications have been proposed to this circuit such as: Mirrored [11] and Bridge [12] configurations, Load-in-the-loop [13], NIC [14] and GIC [15] output stages, high frequency compensations such as Lead-Lag circuits [10], and by using differential amplifiers as the active components [16]. However, most of these improvements focus in the output impedance and bandwidth flatness, leaving characteristics like swing and load common mode voltage aside.
The total impedance seen by the current source is two times the electrode impedance plus the tissue impedance, which is unknown. Thus, higher load capability leads to broader range of applications. Further, if a common mode voltage is generated across the load, artifacts can be generated in the measurement, leading to errors [17], especially in high frequency, where the CMRR of the instrumentation amplifiers decay significantly.
Another commonly ignored issue is the electrode polarization that happens mainly in inert metallic materials (stainless steel, gold and platinum) but also in graphite and a few organic materials [16, 18]. The electrode polarization is a result of the double layer developed at the electrode-electrolyte interface.
In order to solve or attenuate some of the problems mentioned above researchers used symmetrical output current sources. Pliquett
Swing and load common mode voltage of Howland current sources are analyzed in this work. Comparisons between different topologies are made in simulations. Finally, three new circuits are proposed based on differential amplifiers. Equations, simulations and implementation results are presented to validate the new topologies.
The Howland current sources are split in three groups: non-differential, mirrored and proposed. The Theory Section presents the analytical study of load common mode voltage for each topology.
The three proposed circuits are explained and then modelled. All the equations were obtained using wxMaxima. The equations define the output current, the output impedance and the maximum load as function of the amplifier output saturation voltage.
The circuits are simulated with Orcad Pspice, the simulations are done in the frequency domain (Bode plot) to observe the AC response, and in the time domain to observe the waveform. The AD8132 spice model was obtained from the manufacturer web page and was used in all simulations. The simulated data is plotted and compared to the equations in MATLAB.
All proposed circuits are implemented in a two layer PCB, the operational amplifier used is the AD8132 and all resistors have 1% of tolerance (trough-hole components). The common mode input pin of the AD8132 can be used to reduce the common mode voltage between the outputs, but in this work, it was grounded so it would not influence the circuit performance, hence the proposed circuits can be reproduced with other differential amplifiers that do not have this pin. Furthermore, Pliquett
The signal is generated with a Tektronix function generator (model AFG 3251) and measured with a Tektronix oscilloscope (model MSO 4034).
The input frequency is varied from 100 Hz to 1 MHz. The loads used are four resistors of 100 Ω, 995 Ω, 2492 Ω and 4692 Ω. Although the bioimpedance may vary from a few Ω to hundreds of kΩ depending on the material under test and the electrode used, it is believed that the load range used is enough to demonstrate the objective of this work, whereas other works have used close values [9, 13, 19, 21, 22].
The data of the two voltages across the load and the input voltage are saved from the oscilloscope and exported to MATLAB, where the Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) algorithm is applied to the signals and the output current magnitude, phase and load common mode voltage are calculated.
The conducted research is not related to either human or animal use.
The enhanced Howland current source (EHCS), shown in Fig. 1, is a voltage controlled current source (VCCS), where the output current (
Many modifications have been proposed to this circuit to enhance some of its characteristics, such as output current bandwidth, output impedance, output swing and common mode current.
The voltage across the load has a differential and common mode component. The differential one affects the output swing capability, while the common mode affects the quality of the measurement.
The common mode rejection ratio (CMRR) is the relation between the differential and the common-mode parts of the signal, usually expressed in dB.
To investigate the load voltage on different topologies of Howland current sources, they were split into 3 groups: non-differential, mirrored, and proposed. Each one will be discussed individually in the following subsections.
The non-differential group includes the Howland current sources that have only one current output. One side is called the current side and the other voltage side. It can be single (EHCS), where the voltage side is connected to the ground, or floating (EHCS-BRIDGE1, EHCS-BRIDGE2, EHCS-DIFFERENTIAL).
The EHCS, shown in Fig. 1, has one side of the load grounded, thus completely concentrating load voltage on the node
If the other node of the load is connected to an inverted copy of the voltage
Equation 4 describes the common mode signal in function of the voltage on the negative (
In order to eliminate common mode problems, the circuit must provide a differential output, yielding
The circuit in Fig. 2, based on [12] and called here EHCS-BRIDGE-1, uses a unitary gain inverter to obtain -
The value of
The EHCS-BRIDGE-1 can be simplified using a differential output amplifier to generate
However, Eq. 5 is only an approximation, as the current passing through
The unbalance caused by
However, an additional amplifier acting as a buffer is needed, to isolate the inverter and avoid loading, which increases complexity, noise and parasitic capacitance at the output.
The mirrored group consists of two circuits: the Mirrored Enhanced Howland Current Source (MEHCS) [11] (Fig. 5) and a proposed modification of this same circuit using differential amplifiers (MEHCS-DIF) (Fig. 6).
MEHCS is implemented with two opposite polarity EHCS connected in series. The principle is a symmetrical current generation (source and sink), and consequently inverse voltages at each side of the load.
The problem with the MEHCS is that the output current of each output of this current source is not exactly the same because of circuit mismatches and different input impedances [11]. The output current difference between the source and sink sees the output impedance of the current sources, creating high common mode voltage and reducing output swing.
The use of fully differential amplifiers allows the input voltage to be connected to the same input at both sides, minimizing the difference between input impedances. However, the possibility of circuit mismatches due to component tolerances and temperature drift remains.
It can be seen from the previously analysis that most solutions proposed in the literature to improve common mode and output swing needs multiple active devices and matched resistor networks, which results in increase of complexity and, in practice, unbalance problems.
The proposed group of circuits uses differential amplifiers to create symmetrical current sources using only one active device. Three topologies are proposed: Quad feedback EHCS (QUAD), Crossed EHCS-DIF (DIF_C) and Modified EHCS-DIF (DIF_M). All circuits are inspired by EHCS-DIF and MEHCS.
The Quad-feedback EHCS uses one differential amplifier to create a mirrored EHCS. Comparing to the standard EHCS from Fig. 1, it can be seen that R6 creates a second negative feedback and R3 creates a second positive feedback, while rx2 has the same function as rx1.
To balance the feedbacks, the following considerations were made:
Considering an ideal case where:
Using the software wxMaxima to rearrange the node equations, it was obtained an equation of
Then, an equation independent from the load is obtained.
This equation considers an ideal op-amp, for a more accurate one it can be included the open loop gain (
Now, the output current equation is given by Eq. 15.
The output impedance equation (Eq. 16) is obtained by using the same node equations but grounding the input voltage.
In further analysis, it can be seen that the purpose of the second negative feedback is to create an opposite
To balance the positive feedbacks, their resistors were equaled (Eq.17), while equations 6, 10 and 11 are also valid in this analysis:
Again, using the software wxMaxima, it was obtained an equation of
From Eq. 19 it is assumed that the best case is
The inputs
Considering the practical case of Eq. 14 instead of the ideal one (Eq. 11), the output current equation can be described as a function of
Using the same node equations and grounding both inputs, it was obtained a simplified equation for the output impedance.
The third proposed topology is shown in Fig. 9 and is clearly an adaptation of EHCS-DIF, with only the insertion of R5
To make the circuit independent from the load, the same resistors conditions of the EHCS are assumed, this is:
Then
It can be seen that the output current follows the same equations as the EHCS. To find out the influence of the load on the value of
Considering
If
In order to make the optimal
This resistor (
Another important characteristic of a current source is the loading capability. In bioimpedance applications, the load impedance is unknown; so on the current source must tolerate the biggest range of loads as possible. The maximum load
From Figs. 7 and 8 and Eq. 31 it can easily be observed that
The equation considers an ideal operational amplifier, thus the value of
According to the equations presented in the Theory Section, the value of
The simulated
All circuits showed a peak at high frequencies (> 10 MHz) when a
QUAD and DIF_M showed an increase of output impedance when
In order to evaluate the influence of
Calculated and simulated values of
Circuit | Zloadmax[kΩ] | R3= rx | R3=4.7k | R3=10k |
---|---|---|---|---|
QUAD rx =500 Ω | Simulated | 3.6 | 6.1 | 6.6 |
Calculated | 3.3 | 6.0 | 6.3 | |
DIF_C rx𝑟𝑥=1000 Ω | Simulated | 3.1 | 5.1 | 5.6 |
Calculated | 2.8 | 4.6 | 5.1 | |
DIF_M rx𝑟𝑥=1000 Ω | Simulated | 4.6 | 5.6 | 5.6 |
Calculated | 4.2 | 5.1 | 5.4 |
From Table 1 it can be concluded that Quad topology can drive higher loads without saturating. This can be explained by the fact that rx in the quad topology is half of the value in the DIF_C and DIF_M topology, thus reducing the voltage drop in this resistor. It can be seen that, in this case, the DIF_M source has less dependence on the value of
Finally, in order to choose the value of
To validate
Fig. 12 shows that the simulated and equated values for
Once the proposed circuits are characterized, comparisons of
The results are shown in graphs containing the circuits of the same group (non-differential, mirrored, proposed) and then they are discussed against each other. The frequency response of
In Fig. 14, the EHCS had the highest
It can be seen in Fig. 15 that the AC values match the ones shown in Fig. 14 at 1 MHz, and that the DC component of
Although
In Fig. 16, it can be seen that all circuits showed a large variation of
In Fig. 17, the AC common mode analysis is shown for the other two groups (Mirrored and Proposed group). MEHCS-DIF was excluded because the result was exactly the same as for MEHCS.
In Fig. 17, it is shown that the proposed DIF_C topology has the lowest
In Fig. 18 b) it can be seen that all proposed topologies do not show significant DC component, in contrast with the mirrored circuits, Fig. 18 a) with DC value around ± 800 mV. The DC component of the MEHCS source is a consequence of the offset signal of the two amplifiers used in the configuration, which creates a common mode output current that flows through the output impedance of each EHCS section. The AC amplitudes agree with the values seen in Fig. 17 at 1 MHz.
To analyze the effect of a resistor mismatch, Fig. 19 shows the common mode frequency response of both mirrored and proposed group when a ±1% error is applied to the resistors
In figure 19, DIF_M shows the smallest
It can be seen that even with unmatched sides, the proposed topologies has not shown any significant DC component, while for MEHCS and MEHCS-DIF it is maintained at ± 800 mV. This DC signal is usually not desirable in bioimpedance applications, as it decreases output swing and requires the use of series blocking capacitors to isolate the load.
Fig. 21 shows the common mode response using four different loads (0.1 kΩ, 1.6 kΩ, 3.2 kΩ and 4.6 kΩ) for DIF_C, QUAD and DIF_M.
In Fig. 21 it can be seen that both QUAD and DIF_C showed
In order to analyze the behavior of the common mode voltage when submitted to random variations in the resistors values (due to fabrication tolerance), a Monte Carlo simulation was performed (1000 rounds) in the mirrored and proposed groups, considering all the resistors in the circuits with 1% tolerance (Gaussian distribution of resistor values). The results are shown on the histograms of Fig. 22. The common mode values presented in this case were the maximum absolute value in the range of 100 Hz to 1 MHz. It can be seen that the mean value of the proposed group common-mode voltage is similar to the ones found in Fig. 19, and even the worst case is kept below 30 mV using relatively common resistors. On the other hand, the mirrored circuit showed a significantly larger variation, with 15% of the values outside the linear range of the operational amplifier, which is 5 V. The histograms of Fig. 22 show values above 5 V because the AC simulation of PSPICE does not consider saturation limits of the amplifier. This means that the mirrored group can easily saturate with random resistor variations caused by tolerance.
Once the simulations showed that the proposed circuits are able to reduce the common mode voltage and enhance output swing, experimental data with practical circuits was collected. The proposed group circuits were implemented with resistor values to match the simulations (1% tolerance), using AD8132 differential amplifiers and double-layer boards to accommodate a ground plane. The resistors used as loads were measured previously to the tests, resulting in the values 100, 995, 2492 and 4692 Ω. Due to parasitic components and limitation of the instruments, the experimental data was limited to 1 MHz.
In Fig. 23, the output current of the proposed circuits for four different loads is shown.
The DIF_M showed the smallest dependence on the load, while DIF_C showed the largest. All topologies showed a decrease in the output current at 1 MHz for a load of 4.7 kΩ, evidencing the influence of a high frequency pole dependent on the load value. In Fig. 24, the output current phase can be seen.
The increasing deviation in high frequencies suggests that the pole of the practical circuit is slightly lower that the simulated, which was expected due to parasitic components. The simulated output current phase of QUAD and DIF_M are overlapped, while DIF_C showed a slightly bigger decrease close to 1 MHz.
From the magnitude variation of output current using different loads, the output impedance can be obtained, and the results are shown in Fig. 25. They are obtained by an equation that considers that the output impedance is in parallel with the load, the load voltage and the load impedance are necessary.
Where
The DIF_M topology showed the highest output impedance, near 1 MΩ from 100 Hz to 100 kHz, while DIF_C and QUAD showed values considerably smaller, 300 kΩ and 400 kΩ in the same frequency region.
The output common mode voltage was obtained using Eq. 4, and is shown in Fig. 26. The measurements were divided by the input voltage, to compensate for small variations of the voltage generator in the frequency range.
The common mode voltages of DIF_M and DIF_C are both smaller than 8 mV, while QUAD showed higher maximum value, 23 mV (in 100 Hz). Although the magnitude values are similar to simulations (see Fig. 17 and 19), the behavior of the curves are different from the expected. One possible explanation is the limited precision of the instrumentation, as the common mode value are much lower than the differential signal measured. However, if this signal is treated as undesirable noise in an application, only the maximum range of values that the common mode voltage can assume in the frequency band is important, and not its dependence on the frequency.
A complementary characteristic that can be obtained is the CMRR. This parameter indicates the relation between the differential load voltage, the signal of interest in bioimpedance applications, and the output common mode voltage, undesirable signal that can generate artifacts and noise in a measurement. These results can be seen in Fig. 27.
From the results, one can conclude that the CMRR is highly dependent on the load impedance in all circuits tested. This behavior was expected from the previous results, as the load differential voltage increases linearly with the load, while the load common mode voltage dependence on the load is more complex (see Fig. 26). QUAD showed the smallest CMRR while DIF_C showed the highest.
It is important to notice that the DIF_M circuit showed the highest CMRR using the lowest load, which is desirable considering that common mode problems are significant with small differential signals.
Bioimpedances are usually in the range of 10 to 1000 Ω, depending on the application, so using DIF_C or DIF_M topologies could enhance the CMRR up to 60 dB when compared to EHCS (CMRR ≈ 6 dB)
The other property of the Howland current source that is being investigated is the output swing; the measured ones are shown in Table 2.
Measured values of
QUAD [kΩ] | DIF_C [kΩ] | DIF_M [kΩ] |
6.31 | 5.33 | 5.16 |
QUAD showed the highest
Furthermore, the topologies DIF_C and QUAD have both outputs working in high impedance, while DIF_M have one output at high impedance and the other one in low impedance. It could not be found in the literature whether this characteristic has any practical meaning in bioimpedance measurements.
In this work, it has been found that from the Howland current sources topologies found in literature, the one that showed best common mode rejection was the BRIDGE-2, but this circuit requires three operational amplifiers. Three new circuits are proposed, all able to reach BRIDGE-2 common mode rejection using only one operational amplifier. All three proposed circuits showed close results, the intended application will determine which one is better.