Author Affiliations
1Université Paris-Saclay, Institut d’Optique Graduate School, CNRS, Laboratoire Charles Fabry, Palaiseau 91127, France2DAMAE Medical, Paris 75013, Franceshow less
Fig. 1. LC-OCT vertical image (i.e., cross-sectional view) of a bilayered phantom. The LC-OCT image is displayed in a logarithmic intensity scale (arbitrary unit).
Fig. 2. (a) 3D LC-OCT image (horizontal or en face view and vertical or cross-sectional view) of a phantom made of PDMS and TiO2 particles, in logarithmic intensity scale and (b) averaged intensity profile I(z) in the 3D LCOCT image as a function of depth, in logarithmic scale. A linear regression (red line) is applied on the intensity profile to obtain the measurement of the pair of observables μeff and ρ.
Fig. 3. Ratio of μeff/ρ as a function of g, calculated for λ = 800 nm, NA = 0.5 and Δz = 1.2 μm.
Fig. 4. Averaged intensity profile R(z) in the 3D LC-OCT image of a bilayered phantom as a function of depth (in logarithmic scale). For each layer, a linear regression (red line) is applied on the intensity profile to obtain the measurement of the pair of observables (ρtop, μtop) and (ρbottom, μbottom). The value of ρbottom is retrieved from the intercept with the interface between the two layers (z = 110 μm) corrected from attenuation in the top layer.
Fig. 5. Comparison of μs values obtained by LC-OCT and combined integrating spheres and collimated transmission measurements on monolayered phantoms. Mean values and error bars were determined as explained in detail in Section 2.4.
Fig. 6. Comparison of g values obtained by LC-OCT and combined integrating spheres and collimated transmission measurements on monolayered phantoms. Mean values and error bars were determined as explained in detail in Section 2.4.
Fig. 7. High-resolution microscopic images of phantom 9 acquired with a 1.35 NA objective. (a) Image acquired in a homogeneous region without aggregates and (b) image acquired in a region with particle aggregates.
Fig. 8. Comparison of μs and g values (mean ± standard deviation) obtained by LC-OCT and combined integrating spheres and collimated transmission measurements on two different bilayered phantoms.
Bilayered | phantom Layer | Corresponding monolayered phantom | Particle material | Size | Density (% weight of PDMS) |
---|
No. 1 | Top layer | Phantom no. 5 | ZnO | 800 nm | 1.19% | Bottom layer | Phantom no. 2 | TiO2 | <5 μm | 0.30% | No. 2 | Top layer | Phantom no. 2 | TiO2 | <5 μm | 0.30% | Bottom layer | Phantom no. 5 | ZnO | 800 nm | 1.19% |
|
Table 0. Summary of bilayered phantoms composition, given by the material, size and weight concentration of the scattering particles embedded in PDMS.
Phantom | Particle material | Refractive index | Size | Density (% weight of PDMS) | μs target | g target |
---|
No. 0 | TiO2 | 2.29 | <5 μm | 0.40% | | | No. 1 | TiO2 | 2.29 | 800 nm | 0.13% | 1.8 mm−1 | 0.6 | No. 2 | TiO2 | 2.29 | <5 μm | 0.30% | | | No. 3 | TiO2 | 2.29 | 800 nm | 1.34% | 18 mm−1 | 0.6 | No. 4 | ZnO | 1.96 | 800 nm | 0.12% | 1.4 mm−1 | 0.8 | No. 5 | ZnO | 1.96 | 800 nm | 1.19% | 14 mm−1 | 0.8 | No. 6 | SiO2 | 1.54 | 400 nm | 1.27% | 1 mm−1 | 0.7 | No. 7 | SiO2 | 1.54 | 400 nm | 12.7% | 10 mm−1 | 0.7 | No. 8 | SiO2 | 1.54 | 1 μm | 0.38% | 1 mm−1 | 0.9 | No. 9 | SiO2 | 1.54 | 1 μm | 3.81% | 10 mm−1 | 0.9 |
|
Table 0. Summary of monolayered phantoms composition. All phantoms are made of a PDMS matrix including scattering particles of different materials, sizes and concentrations.