Abstract

Measurements are made for a number of dual fiber optic configurations to determine their relative sensitivity using bare fibers and graded-refractive-index lenses. An analysis of the background fiber emission for a typical silica-on-silica fiber (Diaguide, 200-μm core) is presented, and the origin (core or cladding) for several prominent Raman peaks is determined. Also, a forward-scattering fiber geometry is introduced, and the dependence of sensitivity on the type of optical termination and fiber separation is determined.

© 1990 Optical Society of America

Full Article  |  PDF Article

References

  • View by:
  • |
  • |
  • |

  1. W. Seitz, “Chemical Sensors Based on Fiber Optics,” Anal. Chem. 58, 16A–22A (1984).
  2. S. Angel, “Optrodes: Chemically Selective Fiber-Optic Sensors,” Spectrosc. 2, 38–47 (1986).
  3. J. Louch, J. Ingle, “Experimental Comparison of Single- and Dual-Fiber Configurations for Remote Fiber-Optic Fluorescence Sensing,” Anal. Chem. 60, 2537–2540 (1988).
    [CrossRef]
  4. S. Luo, D. Walt, “Fiber-Optic Sensors Based on Reagent Delivery with Controlled-Release Polymers,” Anal. Chem. 61, 174–177 (1989).
    [CrossRef]
  5. K. Newby, W. M. Reichert, J. D. Andrade, R. E. Brenner, “Remote Spectroscopic Sensing of Chemical Adsorption Using a Single Multimode Optical Fiber,” Appl. Opt. 23, 1812–1815 (1984).
    [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. F. Milanovich, D. Garvis, S. Angel, “Remote Detection of Organochlorides with a Fiber-Optic Based Sensor,” Anal. Instrum. 15, 137–147 (1986).
    [CrossRef]
  7. T. J. Cowles, J. N. Moum, R. A. Desiderio, S. M. Angel, “In Situ Monitoring of Ocean Chlorophyll Via Laser-Induced Fluorescence Backscattering Through an Optical Fiber,” Appl. Opt. 28, 595–600 (1989).
    [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. T. Deaton, Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Davis, 1983.
  9. J. Dakin, A. King, “Limitations of a Single Optical Fiber Fluorimeter System Due to Background Fluorescence,” in Proceedings, First International Conference on Optical Fiber Sensors (Optical Society of America, Washington, DC, 1983) p. 195.
  10. W. Reichert, C. Bruckner, S. Wan, “Fiber Optic Sensing of Fluorescent Emission from Compressed Cyanine-Dye-Impregnated Fatty Acid Monolayers at the Air/Water Interface,” Appl. Spectrosc. 41, 605–608 (1988).
    [CrossRef]
  11. T. Lund, “A Fiber Optics Fluorimeter for Algae Detection and Mapping,” in Proceedings, First International Conference on Optical Fiber Sensors (Optical Society of America, Washington, DC, 1983) p. 190.
  12. S. Schwab, R. McCreery, “Remote, Long-Pathlength Cell for High-Sensitivity Raman Spectroscopy,” Appl. Spectrosc. 41, 126–130 (1987).
    [CrossRef]
  13. S. Schwab, R. McCreery, “Versatile, Efficient Raman Sampling with Fiber Optics,” Anal. Chem. 56, 2199–2204 (1984).
    [CrossRef]
  14. P. Plaza, N. Q. Dao, M. Jouan, H. Fevrier, H. Saisse, “Simulation et optimisation des capteurs a fibres optiques adjacentes,” Appl. Opt. 25, 3448–3454 (1986).
    [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. C. Winkler, J. Love, A. Ghatak, “Loss Calculations in Bent Multimode Optical Fibers,” Opt. Quantum Electron. 11, 173–183 (1979).
    [CrossRef]
  16. J. Snow, B. Paton, A. Herman, “A Fiber Optic Remote Sensing Head for in situ Chlorophyll-a Fluorescence Measurement in Phytoplankton,” Proc. Soc. Photo-Opt. Instrum. Eng. 661, 206–210 (1986).

1989 (2)

1988 (2)

W. Reichert, C. Bruckner, S. Wan, “Fiber Optic Sensing of Fluorescent Emission from Compressed Cyanine-Dye-Impregnated Fatty Acid Monolayers at the Air/Water Interface,” Appl. Spectrosc. 41, 605–608 (1988).
[CrossRef]

J. Louch, J. Ingle, “Experimental Comparison of Single- and Dual-Fiber Configurations for Remote Fiber-Optic Fluorescence Sensing,” Anal. Chem. 60, 2537–2540 (1988).
[CrossRef]

1987 (1)

1986 (4)

P. Plaza, N. Q. Dao, M. Jouan, H. Fevrier, H. Saisse, “Simulation et optimisation des capteurs a fibres optiques adjacentes,” Appl. Opt. 25, 3448–3454 (1986).
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

F. Milanovich, D. Garvis, S. Angel, “Remote Detection of Organochlorides with a Fiber-Optic Based Sensor,” Anal. Instrum. 15, 137–147 (1986).
[CrossRef]

S. Angel, “Optrodes: Chemically Selective Fiber-Optic Sensors,” Spectrosc. 2, 38–47 (1986).

J. Snow, B. Paton, A. Herman, “A Fiber Optic Remote Sensing Head for in situ Chlorophyll-a Fluorescence Measurement in Phytoplankton,” Proc. Soc. Photo-Opt. Instrum. Eng. 661, 206–210 (1986).

1984 (3)

K. Newby, W. M. Reichert, J. D. Andrade, R. E. Brenner, “Remote Spectroscopic Sensing of Chemical Adsorption Using a Single Multimode Optical Fiber,” Appl. Opt. 23, 1812–1815 (1984).
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

W. Seitz, “Chemical Sensors Based on Fiber Optics,” Anal. Chem. 58, 16A–22A (1984).

S. Schwab, R. McCreery, “Versatile, Efficient Raman Sampling with Fiber Optics,” Anal. Chem. 56, 2199–2204 (1984).
[CrossRef]

1979 (1)

C. Winkler, J. Love, A. Ghatak, “Loss Calculations in Bent Multimode Optical Fibers,” Opt. Quantum Electron. 11, 173–183 (1979).
[CrossRef]

Andrade, J. D.

Angel, S.

F. Milanovich, D. Garvis, S. Angel, “Remote Detection of Organochlorides with a Fiber-Optic Based Sensor,” Anal. Instrum. 15, 137–147 (1986).
[CrossRef]

S. Angel, “Optrodes: Chemically Selective Fiber-Optic Sensors,” Spectrosc. 2, 38–47 (1986).

Angel, S. M.

Brenner, R. E.

Bruckner, C.

Cowles, T. J.

Dakin, J.

J. Dakin, A. King, “Limitations of a Single Optical Fiber Fluorimeter System Due to Background Fluorescence,” in Proceedings, First International Conference on Optical Fiber Sensors (Optical Society of America, Washington, DC, 1983) p. 195.

Dao, N. Q.

Deaton, T.

T. Deaton, Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Davis, 1983.

Desiderio, R. A.

Fevrier, H.

Garvis, D.

F. Milanovich, D. Garvis, S. Angel, “Remote Detection of Organochlorides with a Fiber-Optic Based Sensor,” Anal. Instrum. 15, 137–147 (1986).
[CrossRef]

Ghatak, A.

C. Winkler, J. Love, A. Ghatak, “Loss Calculations in Bent Multimode Optical Fibers,” Opt. Quantum Electron. 11, 173–183 (1979).
[CrossRef]

Herman, A.

J. Snow, B. Paton, A. Herman, “A Fiber Optic Remote Sensing Head for in situ Chlorophyll-a Fluorescence Measurement in Phytoplankton,” Proc. Soc. Photo-Opt. Instrum. Eng. 661, 206–210 (1986).

Ingle, J.

J. Louch, J. Ingle, “Experimental Comparison of Single- and Dual-Fiber Configurations for Remote Fiber-Optic Fluorescence Sensing,” Anal. Chem. 60, 2537–2540 (1988).
[CrossRef]

Jouan, M.

King, A.

J. Dakin, A. King, “Limitations of a Single Optical Fiber Fluorimeter System Due to Background Fluorescence,” in Proceedings, First International Conference on Optical Fiber Sensors (Optical Society of America, Washington, DC, 1983) p. 195.

Louch, J.

J. Louch, J. Ingle, “Experimental Comparison of Single- and Dual-Fiber Configurations for Remote Fiber-Optic Fluorescence Sensing,” Anal. Chem. 60, 2537–2540 (1988).
[CrossRef]

Love, J.

C. Winkler, J. Love, A. Ghatak, “Loss Calculations in Bent Multimode Optical Fibers,” Opt. Quantum Electron. 11, 173–183 (1979).
[CrossRef]

Lund, T.

T. Lund, “A Fiber Optics Fluorimeter for Algae Detection and Mapping,” in Proceedings, First International Conference on Optical Fiber Sensors (Optical Society of America, Washington, DC, 1983) p. 190.

Luo, S.

S. Luo, D. Walt, “Fiber-Optic Sensors Based on Reagent Delivery with Controlled-Release Polymers,” Anal. Chem. 61, 174–177 (1989).
[CrossRef]

McCreery, R.

S. Schwab, R. McCreery, “Remote, Long-Pathlength Cell for High-Sensitivity Raman Spectroscopy,” Appl. Spectrosc. 41, 126–130 (1987).
[CrossRef]

S. Schwab, R. McCreery, “Versatile, Efficient Raman Sampling with Fiber Optics,” Anal. Chem. 56, 2199–2204 (1984).
[CrossRef]

Milanovich, F.

F. Milanovich, D. Garvis, S. Angel, “Remote Detection of Organochlorides with a Fiber-Optic Based Sensor,” Anal. Instrum. 15, 137–147 (1986).
[CrossRef]

Moum, J. N.

Newby, K.

Paton, B.

J. Snow, B. Paton, A. Herman, “A Fiber Optic Remote Sensing Head for in situ Chlorophyll-a Fluorescence Measurement in Phytoplankton,” Proc. Soc. Photo-Opt. Instrum. Eng. 661, 206–210 (1986).

Plaza, P.

Reichert, W.

Reichert, W. M.

Saisse, H.

Schwab, S.

S. Schwab, R. McCreery, “Remote, Long-Pathlength Cell for High-Sensitivity Raman Spectroscopy,” Appl. Spectrosc. 41, 126–130 (1987).
[CrossRef]

S. Schwab, R. McCreery, “Versatile, Efficient Raman Sampling with Fiber Optics,” Anal. Chem. 56, 2199–2204 (1984).
[CrossRef]

Seitz, W.

W. Seitz, “Chemical Sensors Based on Fiber Optics,” Anal. Chem. 58, 16A–22A (1984).

Snow, J.

J. Snow, B. Paton, A. Herman, “A Fiber Optic Remote Sensing Head for in situ Chlorophyll-a Fluorescence Measurement in Phytoplankton,” Proc. Soc. Photo-Opt. Instrum. Eng. 661, 206–210 (1986).

Walt, D.

S. Luo, D. Walt, “Fiber-Optic Sensors Based on Reagent Delivery with Controlled-Release Polymers,” Anal. Chem. 61, 174–177 (1989).
[CrossRef]

Wan, S.

Winkler, C.

C. Winkler, J. Love, A. Ghatak, “Loss Calculations in Bent Multimode Optical Fibers,” Opt. Quantum Electron. 11, 173–183 (1979).
[CrossRef]

Anal. Chem. (4)

J. Louch, J. Ingle, “Experimental Comparison of Single- and Dual-Fiber Configurations for Remote Fiber-Optic Fluorescence Sensing,” Anal. Chem. 60, 2537–2540 (1988).
[CrossRef]

S. Luo, D. Walt, “Fiber-Optic Sensors Based on Reagent Delivery with Controlled-Release Polymers,” Anal. Chem. 61, 174–177 (1989).
[CrossRef]

W. Seitz, “Chemical Sensors Based on Fiber Optics,” Anal. Chem. 58, 16A–22A (1984).

S. Schwab, R. McCreery, “Versatile, Efficient Raman Sampling with Fiber Optics,” Anal. Chem. 56, 2199–2204 (1984).
[CrossRef]

Anal. Instrum. (1)

F. Milanovich, D. Garvis, S. Angel, “Remote Detection of Organochlorides with a Fiber-Optic Based Sensor,” Anal. Instrum. 15, 137–147 (1986).
[CrossRef]

Appl. Opt. (3)

Appl. Spectrosc. (2)

Opt. Quantum Electron. (1)

C. Winkler, J. Love, A. Ghatak, “Loss Calculations in Bent Multimode Optical Fibers,” Opt. Quantum Electron. 11, 173–183 (1979).
[CrossRef]

Proc. Soc. Photo-Opt. Instrum. Eng. (1)

J. Snow, B. Paton, A. Herman, “A Fiber Optic Remote Sensing Head for in situ Chlorophyll-a Fluorescence Measurement in Phytoplankton,” Proc. Soc. Photo-Opt. Instrum. Eng. 661, 206–210 (1986).

Spectrosc. (1)

S. Angel, “Optrodes: Chemically Selective Fiber-Optic Sensors,” Spectrosc. 2, 38–47 (1986).

Other (3)

T. Deaton, Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Davis, 1983.

J. Dakin, A. King, “Limitations of a Single Optical Fiber Fluorimeter System Due to Background Fluorescence,” in Proceedings, First International Conference on Optical Fiber Sensors (Optical Society of America, Washington, DC, 1983) p. 195.

T. Lund, “A Fiber Optics Fluorimeter for Algae Detection and Mapping,” in Proceedings, First International Conference on Optical Fiber Sensors (Optical Society of America, Washington, DC, 1983) p. 190.

Cited By

OSA participates in CrossRef's Cited-By Linking service. Citing articles from OSA journals and other participating publishers are listed here.

Alert me when this article is cited.


Figures (15)

Fig. 1
Fig. 1

Experimental arrangement for single and dual fiber configurations. (a) Single fiber configurations using a dichroic beam splitter. (b) Dual fiber configurations for both a variable angle and OFF configuration. M designates an f/4 Spex 0.22-m single-grating monochromator with grating blazed at 500 nm and 300 grooves/mm. O is a microscope objective lens, D is a dichroic beam splitter that reflected the 488-nm (20492-cm−1) excitation but passed light beyond ~520 nm (a 1250-cm−1 shift). Ar+ is an air-cooled 35-mW argon-ion laser.

Fig. 2
Fig. 2

(a) Experimental arrangement for dual fibers with a constant radius about a common axis, performed ex situ. (b) Experimental arrangement for dual fibers with a minimum separation, performed in situ. (c) Experimental arrangement for forward-scattering studies. F indicates an interference filter.

Fig. 3
Fig. 3

Raman and luminescence spectra using 19455-cm−1 excitation from (a) core in 200-μm core optical fiber (Diaguide), and (b) same with emission filters to block high energy portion of spectrum. Fiber length is 5 m.

Fig. 4
Fig. 4

Raman and luminescence spectra using 20492-cm−1 excitation for (a) the core in 200-μm core optical fiber (Diaguide), and (b) the cladding/buffer region in optical fiber. Fiber length is 5 m.

Fig. 5
Fig. 5

Raman and luminescence spectra using 20492-cm−1 excitation for (a) the core in a straight 5-m length of 200-μm core optical fiber (Diaguide), (b) the same fiber with a 360° bend 10 cm from distal end of the fiber, and (c) the same fiber with a 360° bend 10 cm from the input end of fiber. In (a)–(c), the decrease in signal at ~16700 cm−1 is due to filter effects.

Fig. 6
Fig. 6

Relative throughput of 200-μm core optical fiber as a function of 1/R, where R is the radius of curvature (in mm) of the fiber in a 90° bend. Curve (a) gives data for a 5-m fiber, while curve (b) gives data for a 100-m fiber.

Fig. 7
Fig. 7

Relative throughput of 200-μm core optical fiber (Diaguide) as a function of the number of complete 360° bends in a coil. (a) R = 7 mm, (b) R = 5 mm, and (c) R = 4 mm.

Fig. 8
Fig. 8

Normalized signal intensity (in counts/mW excitation power) vs angle between fibers in dual fiber configuration for all tested dual fibers with at least one bare fiber as either excitation or collection. The first letter in the name of each curve indicates the nature of the excitation optic at the end of the fiber, while the second indicates the collection optic. A Winston cone is indicated by w; f indicates the focusing GRIN lens, c indicates a collimating GRIN lens, and b indicates a bare fiber. Figures 8, 9, and 10 are normalized by the same factor.

Fig. 9
Fig. 9

Normalized signal intensity (in counts/mW excitation power) vs angle between fibers in dual fiber configuration for all tested dual fibers with only GRIN lenses for excitation and collection. The first letter in the name of each curve indicates the nature of the excitation optic at the end of the fiber, while the second indicates the collection optic. A focusing GRIN lens is indicated by f, and c indicates a collimating GRIN lens.

Fig. 10
Fig. 10

Normalized signal intensity (in counts/mW excitation power) vs angle between fibers in dual fiber configuration for all tested dual fibers with Winston cone optics. The first letter in the name of each curve indicates the type of optic on the excitation fiber, while the second indicates the optic on the collection fiber. A Winston cone is indicated by w; f indicates the focusing GRIN lens, and c indicates the collimating GRIN lens.

Fig. 11
Fig. 11

Normalized signal intensity vs angle between fibers in dual fiber configuration when fiber terminations are kept in contact at their point of closest approach in situ. The first letter in the designation for each curve indicates the nature of the excitation optic, while the second indicates the optic on the collection fiber. A bare fiber termination is indicated by b; c indicates a collimating GRIN lens, and f indicates a focusing GRIN lens.

Fig. 12
Fig. 12

Normalized signal intensity vs distance between optical faces in dual fiber configuration (OFF configuration) for all tested dual fibers with at least one bare fiber for excitation or collection. The first letter in the name of each curve indicates the nature of the excitation optic, while the second indicates the collection optic. A Winston cone is indicated by w; f and c indicate focusing and collimating GRIN lenses, respectively, and b indicates a bare fiber. Figures 12, 13, and 14 are normalized by the same factor.

Fig. 13
Fig. 13

Normalized signal intensity vs distance between optical faces in dual fiber configuration (OFF configuration) for all tested dual fibers with only GRIN lenses for excitation and collection. The first letter in the name of each curve indicates the nature of the excitation optic, while the second indicates the collection optic. Focusing and collimating GRIN lenses are indicated by f and c, respectively.

Fig. 14
Fig. 14

Normalized signal intensity vs distance between optical faces in dual fiber configuration (OFF configuration) for all tested dual fibers with Winston cones for either excitation or collection. The first letter in the name of each curve indicates the nature of the excitation optic, while the second indicates the collection optic. A Winston cone is indicated by w, f indicates a focusing GRIN lens, and c indicates a collimating GRIN lens.

Fig. 15
Fig. 15

(a) Relative sensitivity for a sample at different distances from the excitation and collection fibers in the focused-focused OFF configuration. The sample is in a 1-cm path length cuvette in contact with one stationary fiber, while the second fiber is moved. ex indicates that the collection fiber is stationary and the excitation fiber is mobile, while em indicates the excitation fiber is stationary and the emission fiber is being moved. The x axis gives the separation of the cuvette and the mobile fiber. (b) Relative sensitivity for a sample at different locations between the excitation and collection fibers in the focused–focused OFF configuration. Here, the two fibers are held at a separation of 28 mm, and the 1-cm sample cell is moved between them. The x axis gives the distance from the sample cell to the excitation fiber.

Tables (2)

Tables Icon

Table I Summary of Raman Lines Obtained in Studies of 200-μm Core Optical Fiber (Diaguide)

Tables Icon

Table II Comparison of Relative Sensitivities of Some Single and Dual Fiber Optrodes, Based on Signal intensities of Luminescence from a 30-pM Aqueous Rhodamine 6G Solution

Equations (1)

Equations on this page are rendered with MathJax. Learn more.

f < c < w < b ,

Metrics