Magnetic induction tomography has been under consideration for imaging electrical conductivity distributions within the human body. Multi-coil systems are most commonly employed for this task, requiring a numerical solution of Maxwell's equations at each position of the coil array. An alternative uses a single coil placed near the conductive target while measuring coil self-impedance changes (``coil loss'') at a number of unique locations. Recently, a closed-form solution of Maxwell's equations, in the form of a 3D convolution integral, was found for a single coil consisting of concentric circular loops that relates impedance change to an arbitrary conductivity. Its development required spatially uniform permittivity and permeability, yet showed quantitative agreement with experiment. Here, we provide a much more critical test of the convolution integral in experiments that allow large permittivity changes over coil dimensions. Loss is measured while the coil is placed at known positions relative to plastic columns of variable diameter which are filled with salt solutions of varying conductivity. In all cases, coil loss varies linearly with conductivity and with zero intercept. Quantitative agreement is observed only when column diameter is greater than or equal to coil diameter. Because of linearity, the convolution integral is useful for image reconstruction, though contrast could be either reduced or enhanced in those circumstances when relative permittivity change exceeds ~70.
2. Sikora, J., Boundary Element Method for Impedance and Optical Tomography, OficynaWydawnicza Politechniki Warszawskiej, ISBN: 978-83-7207-728-8, 2007.
3. Sikora, J. and S. W`ojtowicz, Industrial and Biological Tomography: Theoretical Basis and Applications, Wydawnictwo Ksi¸a˙zkowe Instytutu Elektrotechniki, ISBN: 978-83-61956-04-4, 2010.
4. Wei, H. Y. and M. Soleimani, "Electromagnetic tomography for medical and industrial applications: Challenges and opportunities," Proc. IEEE, Vol. 101, 559-564, 2013.
doi:10.1109/JPROC.2012.2237072
5. Harpen, M. D., "Influence of skin depth on NMR coil impedance," Phys. Med. Biol., Vol. 33, No. 3, 329-337, 1988.
doi:10.1088/0031-9155/33/3/002
6. Zaman, A. J. M., S. A. Long, and C. G. Gardner, "The impedance of a single-turn coil near a conducting half space," J. Nondestructive Eval., Vol. 1, No. 3, 183-189, 1980.
doi:10.1007/BF00567090
7. Harpen, M. D., "Influence of skin depth on NMR coil impedance. Part II," Phys. Med. Biol., Vol. 33, No. 5, 597-605, 1988.
doi:10.1088/0031-9155/33/5/007
8. Hoult, D. I. and P. C. Lauterbur, "The sensitivity of the zeugmatographic experiment involving human samples," J. Magnetic Resonance, Vol. 34, No. 2, 425-433, 1979.
9. Feldkamp, J. R., "Single-coil magnetic induction tomographic three-dimensional imaging," J. Medical Imaging, Vol. 2, No. 1, 013502, 2015.
doi:10.1117/1.JMI.2.1.013502
10. Sankowski, D. and J. Sikora, Electrical Capacitance Tomography: Theoretical Basis and Applications, Wydawnictwo Ksi¸a˙zkowe Instytutu Elektrotechniki, ISBN: 978-83-61956-00-6, 2010.
11. Stawicki, K. and S. Gratkowski, "Optimization of signal coils in the magnetic induction tomography system," Przeglad Elektrotechniczny, Vol. 86, No. 5, 74-77, 2010.
12. Gradshteyn, I. S. and Ryzhik, Table of Integrals, Series and Products, Corrected and Enlarged Edition, A. Jeffrey, Academic Press, New York, NY, 1980.
13. Lapidus, L. and G. F. Pinder, Numerical Solution of Partial Differential Equations in Science and Engineering, Wiley-Interscience, J. Wiley & Sons, NY, 1982.
14. Feldkamp, J. R. and S. Quirk, "Effects of tissue heterogeneity on single-coil, scanning MIT imaging," Proc. SPIE 9783, Medical Imaging: Physics of Medical Imaging, 978359, 2016.
Submit
