Anemia is a condition in which red blood cells are not able to carry adequate oxygen to the body’s tissues, and is widely found in nearly a quarter of the world population. The typical method to screen for the iron-deficiency anemia, which is the major anemia found in the world, is to implement a blood test called a complete blood count (CBC). However, even though this test gives a highly accurate result, it requires an invasive blood drawing and lab analyzing which could potentially cause physical pain, high risk of infection and take a long time to analyze. Therefore, this research presents an alternative method using an optical technique to measure hemoglobin concentration, which is the common indicator for diagnosing anemia. The light absorbance of the oxyhemoglobin at the wavelength of 660 nm and the deoxyhemoglobin at the wavelength of 880 nm were measured using the MAX30100 sensor. These wavelengths of light are obtained from red and infrared (IR) LEDs. The concept is based on the different absorption coefficients of blood at different electromagnetic wavelengths. This fact is used to indirectly calculate the hemoglobin concentration of blood through the modified Beer–Lambert law. Moreover, the result has been further converted to absolute hemoglobin concentration using a calibration curve derived from the cyanmethemoglobin test, which is the regular method for hemoglobin determination. Besides, the android application was also provided which can wirelessly record or monitor the data. The experiment shows that an accuracy of 90.9% can be achieved by our proposed noninvasive method. Therefore, the noninvasive portable hemoglobin concentration monitoring by the optical sensor has an acceptable result when compared with the invasive method, with less pain and lower risk of infection, as well as shorter processing time.
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited