HEV: fuel cells, batteries, ultracapacitors, flywheels and engine-generators, Journal of Power Sources vol. 128, pp. 76-89, 2004.
 Y. Hu, H. Yurkovich, Y. Guezennec, and B.J. Yurkovich, Electrothermal battery model identification for automotive applications, Journal of Power Sources vol. 196, pp. 449-457, 2001.
 Punys P, Baublys R, Kasiulis E, Vaisvila A, Pelikan B, Steller J. Assessment of renewable electricity generation by pumped storage power plants in EU Member States. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2013; 26: 190–200. 10.1016/j.rser.2013.05.072
 ISPH and ISPH Project Development documentation, www.isph.ro .
 Rumann J. Optimization of the Operation of a Classic Weekly Cycle Pumped Storage Power Plant. Slovak Journal of Civil Engineering, 2008.
 Popa R, Popa F, Popa B, Zachia-Zlatea D. Optimization of the weekly
C. Cepisca, G.C. Seritan, S.D. Grigorescu, Sabina Potlog and S. Ganatsios
. Omar, P. Van Den Bossche, J. Van Mierlo, Internal resistance of cells of lithium battery modules with FreedomCAR model, in Proc. EVS24, Stavanger, Norway, May 13-16, 2009.
 V. Cimpoeru, C. Cepisca, Analysis of the state of charge of rechargeable dc sources to optimize their embedded control systems”, U.P.B. Sci. Bull., Series C, Vol. 76, Iss.1, 2014.
 Lithium Ion Rechargeable Batteries - Technical Handbook, Sony Corporation. [Online] Available at: www.esupport.sony.com .
 M. Kultgen, J. Munson, Battery Stack Monitor Extends Life of Li
V. A. Budu, Tatiana Decuseară, Andreea Nicoleta Costache, I. Bulescu, Alexandra Guliga, A. Panfiloiu and M. Tusaliu
Otorrinolaringol Esp. 2013;64: 389–395 10.1016/j.otorri.2013.05.001
 J J Ballenger, J B Snow Jr Ballenger’s Otorhinolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, 16th edition, BC Decker, Ontario, 2003;46: 1079-1080
 R Wetmore, H Muntz T McGill, Pediatric Otolaryngology Principles and Practice Pathways, Second Edition, Thieme Medical Publishers, New York, 2012;25: 411, 412
 F J Stucker, C de Souza, G S Kenyon, T S Lian, W Draf, B Shick Rhinology and Facial plastic surgery, Springer, Leipzig, 2009;11:133, 134
 K M Kwong Current Updates on Choanal Atresia
measurements, either bipolar with direct contact [ 13 ] or capacitive electrodes [ 16 ], or tetrapolar [ 10 ] warrant the interest of its measurement.
In a scenario where bipolar impedances are measured on the human body, we propose to estimate the capacitance from the body to ground by connecting a known capacitor between each electrode and the impedance analyzer. Figure 2 shows the resulting equivalent circuit. If the capacitance of the added capacitors C is small enough for its impedance to be much larger than that of the body and the
three times for different frequencies (0.005 Hz, 0.05 Hz and 0.5 Hz) in randomized order. The time between runs during which no voltage was applied was 4 seconds.
A custom-built measurement system (see Fig. 1c top) was used for the recordings. A data acquisition card (DAQ) (type USB-6356 from National instruments) enabled the application of two constant voltages and simultaneous reading (both was performed with 500 samples per period). The DAQ was connected to a personal computer and controlled by a custom-made software, which was written in NI
frequencies (0.05, 2, 20, 60 and 100 kHz) for the 2-inner electrodes system.
Calculated values of admittance and measured conductivity for different frequencies by the two-inner electrode system
f = 0.05 kHz
f = 2 kHz
f = 20 kHz
f = 60 kHz
f = 100 kHz
, the permittivity spectra present a clear dependency of α dispersion on the membrane potential. However, for cells with radius ~2 μm, the spectra of impedance magnitude relative to the value at 1 kHz (impedance level prior to β dispersion) reveal ( fig. 1B) very small decrements related to α dispersion, ΔZr ≤ 5×10 -3 % raising tough experimental constraints. The same challenge is related to phase variations in the α dispersion ( fig 1C) where changes Δθ ≤ 2×10 -3 degrees are emphasized.
When considering suspensions of larger cells ( R 1 ~ 0.5 mm), impedance
Natália T. Bellafronte, Marina R. Batistuti, Nathália Z. dos Santos, Héric Holland, Elen A. Romão and Paula G. Chiarello
.5 (-29 to -20)
7.2 to 10 (15 to 147)
Normal weight subjects (n=120)
95% limits of agreement
Bias a (%) b
95%CI Bias c (%) d
71 to 122 (11 to 18)
16 to 21 (23 to 29)
PA ( ₒ )