Full text loading...
(a) Diagram of upper skin layers, with relative shapes and sizes of scatterers present in each. (b) Schematic of the experimental setup. The mirror was placed on a flip mount. When the QC laser was used, the mirror was positioned upright, and when the FTIR was used, the mirror was flipped down.
Scattering profiles for porcine skin samples with respect to wavenumber and detector collection angle θ, with the sample angle ϕ kept constant at 30°. (a) Results of a typical experiment using the FTIR. (b) Results of a typical experiment using the QC laser. Note that the QC laser input power was approximately 100 mW at 1120 cm−1, while the FTIR’s was 7 mW integrated, so the normalized values in (b) represent larger absolute values compared to those in (a). (c) Slice of FTIR (blue) and QC laser (red) scattering pattern versus θ for 1120 cm−1 and ϕ = 30°.
Effect of input beam power at 1120 cm−1 on detected scattered light from a porcine skin sample (different from the sample used to obtain the results shown in Fig. 2) kept constant at ϕ = 30°. (a) Detected power versus input power and θ. (b) Detected power normalized to the respective input power, for purposes of quantifying absorption. Note that the angles of strong scattering differ from those in Fig. 2(b). (c) Detected power versus input power at 1120 cm−1 and ϕ = 30° for θ = 80°, 87°, 73°, and 48°. These specific angles were chosen to highlight the increased influence of directional scatterers at larger skin depths.
Comparison of scattering patterns versus wavenumber and θ for QC laser peak input powers of 100 mW (top) and 30 mW (bottom).
Article metrics loading...