J Biomed Opt. 2021 Dec;27(7). doi: 10.1117/1.JBO.27.7.074708.
Spectral characterization of liquid hemoglobin phantoms with varying oxygenation states.
Journal of biomedical optics
Motasam Majedy, Rolf B Saager, Tomas Strömberg, Marcus Larsson, E Göran Salerud
Affiliations
Affiliations
- Linköping University, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Linköping, Sweden.
PMID: 34850613
PMCID: PMC8632618 DOI: 10.1117/1.JBO.27.7.074708
Abstract
SIGNIFICANCE: For optical methods to accurately assess hemoglobin oxygen saturation in vivo, an independently verifiable tissue-like standard is required for validation. For this purpose, we propose three hemoglobin preparations and evaluate methods to characterize them.
AIM: To spectrally characterize three different hemoglobin preparations using multiple spectroscopic methods and to compare their absorption spectra to commonly used reference spectra.
APPROACH: Absorption spectra of three hemoglobin preparations in solution were characterized using spectroscopic collimated transmission: whole blood, lysed blood, and ferrous-stabilized hemoglobin. Tissue-mimicking phantoms composed of Intralipid, and the hemoglobin solutions were characterized using spatial frequency-domain spectroscopy (SFDS) and enhanced perfusion and oxygen saturation (EPOS) techniques while using yeast to deplete oxygen.
RESULTS: All hemoglobin preparations exhibited similar absorption spectra when accounting for methemoglobin and scattering in their oxyhemoglobin and deoxyhemoglobin forms, respectively. However, systematic differences were observed in the fitting depending on the reference spectra used. For the tissue-mimicking phantoms, SFDS measurements at the surface of the phantom were affected by oxygen diffusion at the interface with air, associated with higher values than for the EPOS system.
CONCLUSIONS: We show the validity of different blood phantoms and what considerations need to be addressed in each case to utilize them equivalently.
Keywords: hemoglobin; oxygen saturation; tissue simulating phantom
References
- J Biomed Opt. 2018 Mar;23(3):1-12 - PubMed
- J Biomed Opt. 2010 Jan-Feb;15(1):017012 - PubMed
- Biomed Opt Express. 2016 Jul 11;7(8):2973-92 - PubMed
- ACS Biomater Sci Eng. 2018 Sep 10;4(9):3177-3184 - PubMed
- Phys Med Biol. 2007 Oct 21;52(20):6295-322 - PubMed
- Appl Opt. 2006 Feb 10;45(5):1072-8 - PubMed
- J Biomed Opt. 2017 Nov;22(11):1-9 - PubMed
- Phys Med Biol. 1998 Nov;43(11):3381-404 - PubMed
- J Biomed Opt. 2009 Mar-Apr;14(2):024012 - PubMed
- Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol. 2020 Apr 1;318(4):H908-H915 - PubMed
- Phys Med Biol. 2011 Jul 7;56(13):4013-21 - PubMed
- Adv Exp Med Biol. 2018;1072:381-385 - PubMed
- Opt Lett. 2009 May 15;34(10):1525-7 - PubMed
- Lasers Med Sci. 2014 Mar;29(2):453-79 - PubMed
- Biophys J. 2013 Jan 8;104(1):258-67 - PubMed
- Phys Med Biol. 2013 Jun 7;58(11):R37-61 - PubMed
- Sci Rep. 2017 Nov 10;7(1):15259 - PubMed
- J Biomed Opt. 2013 Dec;18(12):127004 - PubMed
- J Biophotonics. 2011 Apr;4(4):268-76 - PubMed
- Proc K Ned Akad Wet C. 1970;73(1):104-12 - PubMed
- Microvasc Res. 2015 Nov;102:70-7 - PubMed
- Clin Physiol Funct Imaging. 2011 Nov;31(6):445-51 - PubMed
- Opt Lett. 2015 Sep 15;40(18):4321-4 - PubMed
- J Biomed Opt. 2008 Sep-Oct;13(5):054044 - PubMed
- J Biomed Opt. 2020 Nov;25(11): - PubMed
- IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 1979 Dec;26(12):656-64 - PubMed
- Biomed Opt Express. 2017 Dec 05;9(1):86-101 - PubMed
Publication Types