Broadband spectroscopy for characterization of tissue-like phantom optical properties

Open access

Abstract

Optical phantoms are widely used for evaluating the performance of biomedical optical modalities, and hence, absorbing and scattering materials are required for the construction of optical phantoms. Towards that aim, new readily available and inexpensive black Ink (Parker) as a simulating absorber as well as Intralipid 20% as a simulating scatterer are thoroughly investigated. Broadband Transmittance and Diffuse reflectance spectroscopic measurements were performed in the visible range 400 – 700 nm. Optical properties of the phantom materials are determined. Analytical expressions for absorption and scattering coefficient related to the concentrations and wavelength of the Parker ink and Intralipid are also presented and discussed. The results show nonlinear trend in the absorption coefficient of Parker ink over the examined visible spectral range. Furthermore, Intralipid scattering coefficient variation across the mentioned spectral range shows a tissue-like scattering trend. The findings demonstrate the capability of the broadband transmission and diffuse reflectance for characterizing tissue-like phantom materials in the examined spectral range.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • [1] Tromberg BJ Anderson RR Birngruber RR et al. Biomedical optics centers: forty years of multidisciplinary clinical translation for improving human health. J Biomed Opt. 2016;21(12):pp. 23-35.

  • [2] Pogue BW Patterson MS. Review of tissue simulating phantoms for optical spectroscopy imaging and dosimetry. J Biomed Opt. 2006;11(4):041102-16.

  • [3] Hwang J Ramella-Roman CJ Nordstrom R. Introduction: Feature Issue on Phantoms for the Performance Evaluation and Validation of Optical Medical Imaging Devices. Biomed Opt Express. 2012;3(6):1399-1403.

  • [4] Flock ST Jacques LS Wilson CB et al. Optical properties of Intralipid: a phantom medium for light propagation studies. Lasers Surg Med. 1992;12(5):510-519.

  • [5] Moffitt T Chen CY Prahl AS. Preparation and characterization of polyurethane optical phantoms. J Biomed Opt. 2006;11(4): 041103-10.

  • [6] Lamouche G Kennedy FB Kennedy MK et al. Review of tissue simulating phantoms with controllable optical mechanical and structural properties for use in optical coherence tomography. Biomed Opt Express. 2012;3(6):1381-1398.

  • [7] Chang RC Johnson P Stafford CM Hwang J. Fabrication and characterization of a multilayered optical tissue model with embedded scattering microspheres in polymeric materials. Biomed Opt Express. 2012;3(6):1326-1339.

  • [8] Ninni DP Martelli F Zaccanti G. The use of India ink in tissue-simulating phantoms. Opt Express. 2010;18(26):26854-65.

  • [9] Madsen SJ Patterson MS Wilson BC. The use of India ink as an optical absorber in tissue-simulating phantoms. Phys Med Biol. 1992;37(4):985-993.

  • [10] Michels R Foschum F Kienle A. Optical properties of fat emulsions. Opt Express. 2008;16(8):5907-5925.

  • [11] van Staveren HJ Moes CJ van Marle J et al. Light scattering in Intralipid-10% in the wavelength range of 400-1100 nm. Appl Opt. 1991:30(31): 4507-4514.

  • [12] Ninni PD Martelli F Zaccanti G. Intralipid: towards a diffusive reference standard for optical tissue phantoms. Phys Med Biol. 2011;56(2):N21-N28.

  • [13] Spinelli. Martelli F Farina A et al. Calibration of scattering and absorption properties of a liquid diffusive medium at NIR wavelengths. Time-resolved method. Opt Express. 2007;15(11): 6589-6604.

  • [14] Welch AJ van Gemert MJC. Optical-Thermal Response of Laser-Irradiated Tissue. Springer 2011 pp. 279-286.

  • [15] Jacques SL. Optical properties of biological tissues: a review. Phys Med Biol. 2013;58(11):R37-R61.

  • [16] Hafez R Hamadah O Bachir W. Mapping of healthy oral mucosal tissue using diffuse reflectance spectroscopy: ratiometric-based total hemoglobin comparative study. Lasers Med Sci. 2015;30(8):2135-2141.

Search
Journal information
Impact Factor


CiteScore 2018: 0.38

ICV 2017 = 103.49

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.132
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.303

Cited By
Metrics
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 300 139 10
PDF Downloads 181 99 4