Comparative review of interferometric detection of plasmonic nanoparticles Adam Wax*, Amihai Meiri, Siddarth Arumugam, and Matthew T. Rinehart Department of Biomedical Engineering and Fitzpatrick Institute for Photonics, Duke University, Durham NC 27708, USA * [email protected]
Abstract: Noble metal nanoparticles exhibit enhanced scattering and absorption at specific wavelengths due to a localized surface plamson resonance. This unique property can be exploited to enable the use of plasmonic nanoparticles as contrast agents in optical imaging. A range of optical techniques have been developed to detect nanoparticles in order to implement imaging schemes. Here we review several different approaches for using optical interferometry to detect the presence and concentration of nanoparticles. The strengths and weaknesses of the various approaches are discussed and quantitative comparisons of the achievable signal to noise ratios are presented. The benefits of each approach are outlined as they relate to specific application goals. ©2013 Optical Society of America OCIS codes: (160.4236) Nanomaterials; (120.3180) Interferometry; (170.1650) Coherence imaging.
References and links 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.
K. Seekell, H. Price, S. Marinakos, and A. Wax, “Optimization of immunolabeled plasmonic nanoparticles for cell surface receptor analysis,” Methods 56(2), 310–316 (2012). M. Grzelczak, J. Pérez-Juste, P. Mulvaney, and L. M. Liz-Marzán, “Shape control in gold nanoparticle synthesis,” Chem. Soc. Rev. 37(9), 1783–1791 (2008). P. Alexandridis, “Gold nanoparticle synthesis, morphology control, and stabilization facilitated by functional polymers,” Chem. Eng. Technol. 34(1), 15–28 (2011). P. P. Joshi, S. J. Yoon, W. G. Hardin, S. Emelianov, and K. V. Sokolov, “Conjugation of Antibodies to Gold Nanorods through Fc Portion: Synthesis and Molecular Specific Imaging,” Bioconj. Chem. (2013). K. S. Lee and M. A. El-Sayed, “Gold and silver nanoparticles in sensing and imaging: Sensitivity of plasmon response to size, shape, and metal composition,” J. Phys. Chem. B 110(39), 19220–19225 (2006). A. Wax and K. Sokolov, “Molecular imaging and darkfield microspectroscopy of live cells using gold plasmonic nanoparticles,” Laser Photon. Rev. 3(1-2), 146–158 (2009). K. Seekell, M. J. Crow, S. Marinakos, J. Ostrander, A. Chilkoti, and A. Wax, “Hyperspectral molecular imaging of multiple receptors using immunolabeled plasmonic nanoparticles,” J. Biomed. Opt. 16(11), 116003 (2011). I. H. El-Sayed, X. H. Huang, and M. A. El-Sayed, “Surface plasmon resonance scattering and absorption of antiEGFR antibody conjugated gold nanoparticles in cancer diagnostics: Applications in oral cancer,” Nano Lett. 5(5), 829–834 (2005). X. H. Huang, I. H. El-Sayed, W. Qian, and M. A. El-Sayed, “Cancer cell imaging and photothermal therapy in the near-infrared region by using gold nanorods,” J. Am. Chem. Soc. 128(6), 2115–2120 (2006). K. Sokolov, M. Follen, J. Aaron, I. Pavlova, A. Malpica, R. Lotan, and R. Richards-Kortum, “Real-time vital optical imaging of precancer using anti-epidermal growth factor receptor antibodies conjugated to gold nanoparticles,” Cancer Res. 63(9), 1999–2004 (2003). S. W. Tsai, Y. Y. Chen, and J. W. Liaw, “Compound cellular imaging of laser scanning confocal microscopy by using gold nanoparticles and dyes,” Sensors (Basel Switzerland) 8(4), 2306–2316 (2008). T. Collier, A. Lacy, R. Richards-Kortum, A. Malpica, and M. Follen, “Near real-time confocal microscopy of amelanotic tissue: detection of dysplasia in ex vivo cervical tissue,” Acad. Radiol. 9(5), 504–512 (2002). N. J. Durr, T. Larson, D. K. Smith, B. A. Korgel, K. Sokolov, and A. Ben-Yakar, “Two-photon luminescence imaging of cancer cells using molecularly targeted gold nanorods,” Nano Lett. 7(4), 941–945 (2007). J. R. Cook, W. Frey, and S. Emelianov, “Quantitative Photoacoustic Imaging of Nanoparticles in Cells and Tissues,” ACS Nano 7(2), 1272–1280 (2013). M. C. Skala, M. J. Crow, A. Wax, and J. A. Izatt, “Photothermal Optical Coherence Tomography of Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor in Live Cells Using Immunotargeted Gold Nanospheres,” Nano Lett. 8(10), 3461–3467 (2008).
#192396 - $15.00 USD (C) 2013 OSA
Received 17 Jun 2013; revised 4 Sep 2013; accepted 5 Sep 2013; published 16 Sep 2013
1 October 2013 | Vol. 4, No. 10 | DOI:10.1364/BOE.4.002166 | BIOMEDICAL OPTICS EXPRESS 2166
16. J.A. Izatt, M.D. Kulkarni, K. Kobayashi, J.K. Barton, and A.J. Welch, “Optical coherence tomography for biodiagnostics,” Opt. Photon. News. 8, 41-47, 65 (1997). 17. I. Yamaguchi and T. Zhang, “Phase-shifting digital holography,” Opt. Lett. 22(16), 1268–1270 (1997). 18. C. Mann, L. Yu, C.-M. Lo, and M. Kim, “High-resolution quantitative phase-contrast microscopy by digital holography,” Opt. Express 13(22), 8693–8698 (2005). 19. A. Curry, W. L. Hwang, and A. Wax, “Epi-illumination through the microscope objective applied to darkfield imaging and microspectroscopy of nanoparticle interaction with cells in culture,” Opt. Express 14(14), 6535– 6542 (2006). 20. A. Wax, M. G. Giacomelli, T. E. Matthews, M. T. Rinehart, F. E. Robles, and Y. Zhu, “Optical Spectroscopy of Biological Cells,” Adv. Opt. Photon. 4(3), 322–378 (2012). 21. C. Loo, L. Hirsch, M. H. Lee, E. Chang, J. West, N. Halas, and R. Drezek, “Gold nanoshell bioconjugates for molecular imaging in living cells,” Opt. Lett. 30(9), 1012–1014 (2005). 22. M. J. Crow, G. Grant, J. M. Provenzale, and A. Wax, “Molecular Imaging and Quantitative Measurement of Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Expression in Live Cancer Cells Using Immunolabeled Gold Nanoparticles,” AJR Am. J. Roentgenol. 192(4), 1021–1028 (2009). 23. J. Gao, X. Huang, H. Liu, F. Zan, and J. Ren, “Colloidal Stability of Gold Nanoparticles Modified with Thiol Compounds: Bioconjugation and Application in Cancer Cell Imaging,” Langmuir 28(9), 4464–4471 (2012). 24. G. Rong, H. Wang, L. R. Skewis, and B. M. Reinhard, “Resolving Sub-Diffraction Limit Encounters in Nanoparticle Tracking Using Live Cell Plasmon Coupling Microscopy,” Nano Lett. 8(10), 3386–3393 (2008). 25. M. J. Crow, K. Seekell, J. H. Ostrander, and A. Wax, “Monitoring of Receptor Dimerization Using Plasmonic Coupling of Gold Nanoparticles,” ACS Nano 5(11), 8532–8540 (2011). 26. J. Aaron, K. Travis, N. Harrison, and K. Sokolov, “Dynamic Imaging of Molecular Assemblies in Live Cells Based on Nanoparticle Plasmon Resonance Coupling,” Nano Lett. 9(10), 3612–3618 (2009). 27. D. Boyer, P. Tamarat, A. Maali, B. Lounis, and M. Orrit, “Photothermal Imaging of Nanometer-Sized Metal Particles Among Scatterers,” Science 297(5584), 1160–1163 (2002). 28. L. Cognet, C. Tardin, D. Boyer, D. Choquet, P. Tamarat, and B. Lounis, “Single metallic nanoparticle imaging for protein detection in cells,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 100(20), 11350–11355 (2003). 29. V. P. Zharov and D. O. Lapotko, “Photothermal imaging of nanoparticles and cells,” IEEE J. Sel. Top. Quantum Electron. 11(4), 733–751 (2005). 30. G. Popescu, Chapter 5 Quantitative Phase Imaging of Nanoscale Cell Structure and Dynamics, in Methods in Cell Biology, P.J. Bhanu, Editor. 2008, Academic Press. p. 87–115. 31. G. Baffou, P. Bon, J. Savatier, J. Polleux, M. Zhu, M. Merlin, H. Rigneault, and S. Monneret, “Thermal Imaging of Nanostructures by Quantitative Optical Phase Analysis,” ACS Nano 6(3), 2452–2458 (2012). 32. S. Berciaud, L. Cognet, G. A. Blab, and B. Lounis, “Photothermal Heterodyne Imaging of Individual Nonfluorescent Nanoclusters and Nanocrystals,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 93(25), 257402 (2004). 33. A. Gaiduk, P. V. Ruijgrok, M. Yorulmaz, and M. Orrit, “Detection limits in photothermal microscopy,” Chem. Sci. 1(3), 343–350 (2010). 34. C. Yang, “Molecular Contrast Optical Coherence Tomography: A Review,” Photochem. Photobiol. 81(2), 215– 237 (2005). 35. B. E. Applegate and J. A. Izatt, “Molecular imaging of endogenous and exogenous chromophores using ground state recovery pump-probe optical coherence tomography,” Opt. Express 14(20), 9142–9155 (2006). 36. F. E. Robles, C. Wilson, G. Grant, and A. Wax, “Molecular imaging true-colour spectroscopic optical coherence tomography,” Nat. Photonics 5(12), 744–747 (2011). 37. A. L. Oldenburg, M. N. Hansen, D. A. Zweifel, A. Wei, and S. A. Boppart, “Plasmon-resonant gold nanorods as low backscattering albedo contrast agents for optical coherence tomography,” Opt. Express 14(15), 6724–6738 (2006). 38. A. L. Oldenburg, M. N. Hansen, T. S. Ralston, A. Wei, and S. A. Boppart, “Imaging gold nanorods in excised human breast carcinoma by spectroscopic optical coherence tomography,” J. Mater. Chem. 19(35), 6407–6411 (2009). 39. Y. L. Li, K. Seekell, H. Yuan, F. E. Robles, and A. Wax, “Multispectral nanoparticle contrast agents for truecolor spectroscopic optical coherence tomography,” Biomed. Opt. Express 3(8), 1914–1923 (2012). 40. F. Robles, R. N. Graf, and A. Wax, “Dual window method for processing spectroscopic optical coherence tomography signals with simultaneously high spectral and temporal resolution,” Opt. Express 17(8), 6799–6812 (2009). 41. J. M. Tucker-Schwartz, T. A. Meyer, C. A. Patil, C. L. Duvall, and M. C. Skala, “In vivo photothermal optical coherence tomography of gold nanorod contrast agents,” Biomed. Opt. Express 3(11), 2881–2895 (2012). 42. S. Kim, M. T. Rinehart, H. Park, Y. Zhu, and A. Wax, “Phase-sensitive OCT imaging of multiple nanoparticle species using spectrally multiplexed single pulse photothermal excitation,” Biomed. Opt. Express 3(10), 2579– 2586 (2012). 43. D. C. Adler, S.-W. Huang, R. Huber, and J. G. Fujimoto, “Photothermal detection of gold nanoparticles using phase-sensitive optical coherence tomography,” Opt. Express 16(7), 4376–4393 (2008). 44. C. Pache, N. L. Bocchio, A. Bouwens, M. Villiger, C. Berclaz, J. Goulley, M. I. Gibson, C. Santschi, and T. Lasser, “Fast three-dimensional imaging of gold nanoparticles in living cells with photothermal optical lock-in Optical Coherence Microscopy,” Opt. Express 20(19), 21385–21399 (2012).
#192396 - $15.00 USD (C) 2013 OSA
Received 17 Jun 2013; revised 4 Sep 2013; accepted 5 Sep 2013; published 16 Sep 2013
1 October 2013 | Vol. 4, No. 10 | DOI:10.1364/BOE.4.002166 | BIOMEDICAL OPTICS EXPRESS 2167
45. M. Atlan, M. Gross, P. Desbiolles, É. Absil, G. Tessier, and M. Coppey-Moisan, “Heterodyne holographic microscopy of gold particles,” Opt. Lett. 33(5), 500–502 (2008). 46. K. J. Chalut, W. J. Brown, and A. Wax, “Quantitative phase microscopy with asynchronous digital holography,” Opt. Express 15(6), 3047–3052 (2007). 47. E. Absil, G. Tessier, M. Gross, M. Atlan, N. Warnasooriya, S. Suck, M. Coppey-Moisan, and D. Fournier, “Photothermal heterodyne holography of gold nanoparticles,” Opt. Express 18(2), 780–786 (2010). 48. N. Warnasooriya, F. Joud, P. Bun, G. Tessier, M. Coppey-Moisan, P. Desbiolles, M. Atlan, M. Abboud, and M. Gross, “Imaging gold nanoparticles in living cell environments using heterodyne digital holographic microscopy,” Opt. Express 18(4), 3264–3273 (2010). 49. F. Verpillat, F. Joud, P. Desbiolles, and M. Gross, “Dark-field digital holographic microscopy for 3D-tracking of gold nanoparticles,” Opt. Express 19(27), 26044–26055 (2011). 50. G. Popescu, Quantitative phase imaging of cells and tissues (McGraw-Hill New York 2011).
1. Introduction Plasmonic nanoparticles have received much recent attention as contrast agents for optical imaging due to their unique optical properties. Noble metal nanoparticles have the distinctive property of an increase in optical scattering and absorption at a plasmon resonant frequency, which depends on the nanoparticle geometry, material and dielectric surroundings. When used as contrast agents, the plasmon resonance increases the optical signal returning from a selected target such as a molecule or structure of interest. There have been a number of reviews that focus on development and synthesis of nanoparticle structures [1–5], as well specific applications for optical imaging [6]. However, there has been little attention paid to determining optimal methods for discriminating the presence and concentration of nanoparticles as optical contrast agents. Darkfield microspectroscopy has served as the de facto gold standard for imaging of plasmonic nanoparticles [7–10] and has been applied in a number of experiments. Other approaches have been exploited, including reflectance confocal imaging [10–12], two photon luminescence [13] and photoacoustic imaging [14] to name a few. Of particular interest here is the use of interferometric techniques for detecting nanoparticles. Interferometry offers high sensitivity for optical imaging by providing information about the complex electric field. Using interferometry allows for measurements in changes of field amplitude which can reveal the presence of nanoparticles via their absorptive or scattering properties. However, the complex field can also be measured to determine a phase shift due to the presence of nanoparticles. The inherent phase shift due to the plasmon resonance can thus be used to detect nanoparticles. Additionally, the phase shift can be further enhanced by using a localized heating to intentionally vary the local phase as is done in the photothermal approach. Indeed photothermal excitation of nanoparticles has become a widely explored mechanism [15]. In this review we will compare these various methods of generating contrast by measuring the optical field. The methods for detecting changes in the optical field are also discussed with the aim of connecting the capabilities of methods such as optical coherence tomography [16] and digital holography [17, 18] with specific biomedical imaging applications ranging from widefield imaging of tissues to detailed high resolution imaging of cell features. 2. Darkfield microspectroscopy Darkfield microscopy is an imaging modality based on using light incident on a sample of interest at a high angle relative to the optical axis. In this approach high contrast is generated as any light transmitted or reflected by the sample is not received by the collection optics. Instead, any light that is scattered will be collected as the optical signal against a dark background. Since plasmonic nanoparticles exhibit strong scattering near the plasmon resonance wavelength, darkfield microscopy can be an ideal method for detecting their presence, especially when combined with a spectrally selective detection method (Fig. 1).
#192396 - $15.00 USD (C) 2013 OSA
Received 17 Jun 2013; revised 4 Sep 2013; accepted 5 Sep 2013; published 16 Sep 2013
1 October 2013 | Vol. 4, No. 10 | DOI:10.1364/BOE.4.002166 | BIOMEDICAL OPTICS EXPRESS 2168
Fig. 1. (a) Typical darkfield image of cell lablelled with anti-EGFR gold nanoparticles (b) Scattering spectrum for cell shown in (a). General scheme for darkfield microspectroscopy includes a light source, detector, darkfield optics and wavelength selection at either the illumination or detection section.
There have been a range of darkfield microspectroscopy schemes that have been developed for detecting nanoparticle signals. While they all share the common feature of delivering light at an oblique angle and collecting the scattered light, they can vary on whether spectral selection is implemented on the illumination or detection end [7]. For example, broadband white light can be used for excitation and the entrance aperture of a spectrometer provides discrimination upon detection. In contrast, hyperspectral imaging will tune the wavelength of illumination and an ordinary CCD can provide detection. In addition, while most schemes use transmission geometries, epi-illumination schemes have also been developed [19]. To analyze the signal to noise ratio in dark field illumiation, we must consider the origin of the signal, its collection and spectral discrimination and compare it with the sources of noise. The optical power scattered by a single nanoparticle depends on the incident power P and can be written as S = P σ (λ ) ϕ η
(1)
The scattering cross section σ (λ ) of nanoparticles is very small such that there is not much scattered power away from the plasmon resonance. However, at resonance, this value can become much more appreciable. The collection aperture ϕ describes how much of the scattered light is collected and can be written as a fraction of the total 4π solid angle into which light is scattered. The wavelength discrimination η can be interpreted as an efficiency, either as the amount of light available in a chosen spectral band for illumination or how much light is passed by a filter or spectrometer at a selected wavelength for detection. The noise that this signal is measured against depends on several factors. If the darkfield scheme is not perfect, there will be a hazy background intensity H which will set the noise floor. This can arise from stray light or from other sample structures such as when trying to measure nanoparticle in the presence of cells. The signal from the cells can reduce SNR but
#192396 - $15.00 USD (C) 2013 OSA
Received 17 Jun 2013; revised 4 Sep 2013; accepted 5 Sep 2013; published 16 Sep 2013
1 October 2013 | Vol. 4, No. 10 | DOI:10.1364/BOE.4.002166 | BIOMEDICAL OPTICS EXPRESS 2169
can be mitigated by using epi-illumination [19], since it is mostly forward peaked. In addition the noise will include the shot noise associated with the signal given by S t the shot noise associated with any dark counts
D t and the read noise Nr2 of the sensor. N = S t + D t + N r2 + H t
(2)
For a sufficiently low noise sensor that can produce a shot noise limited measurement, the noise signal reduces to S t and the SNR can be written as SNR =
St = S t ( Shot noise lim ited ) N
(3)
As an example calculation, if we consider a sensor with 65,000 maximum well depth, the SNR would be 48 dB when a shot noise limited measurement is realized. With this high SNR, darkfield imaging has been applied widely to study the interaction of cells and nanoparticles as noted in recent reviews [6, 20]. Examples from these reviews include cell imaging using nanorods [9] and nanoshells [21]. Instruments based on hyperspectral darkfield have enabled quantitative molecular imaging [22] and spectral multiplexing [7], using functionalized nanoparticles where an antibody conjugate provides molecular specificity [4, 23]. These instruments are even capable of detecting plamonic shifts due to coupling which can then be used to provide additional spatial information [24–26]. However, a key limitation of this approach is that the detailed structure of the cells is not imaged directly using the nanoparticle tagging and instead must be inferred. The outlined shapes of cells due to coverage by nanoparticles can provide some baseline structural information, but may not provide reliable or useful information on internal structures. Likewise, the darkfield scattering due to cellular structures may provide incomplete information while also diminishing SNR of the nanoparticle labels. Several different approaches are now considered to address this shortcoming. 3. Photothermal imaging The enhanced absorption of plasmonic nanoparticles was first exploited to generate imaging contrast by Boyer et al. [27] In this work, gold nanoparticles are heated by optical absorption which in turn generates a change in refractive index in the surrounding medium (Fig. 2). The refractive index changes cause a phase shift in light traversing the local region which can be measured with a phase sensitive method, such as the adapted differential interference contrast method used in this study. In this approach, two orthogonally polarized laser beams at 633 nm with a power of 2.5 mW each are laterally displaced and scanned across the sample in reflection geometry enabling detection of the phase shift associated due to the refractive index change. The heating beam at 514 nm with an incident power of 20 mW at the sample was modulated between 100 kHz and 10 MHz using an acousto-optic modulation and a lock-in detector used to detect the signal with a 10 ms integration time. Although quantitative phase shifts are not given, the lock in signal is seen to vary by a factor of 10 over the range of modulation frequencies and temperature changes of 3-15 K are reported. Significantly, particles as small as 2.5 nm were detected at an SNR listed as ~2 with an SNR >10 reported for the larger particles.
#192396 - $15.00 USD (C) 2013 OSA
Received 17 Jun 2013; revised 4 Sep 2013; accepted 5 Sep 2013; published 16 Sep 2013
1 October 2013 | Vol. 4, No. 10 | DOI:10.1364/BOE.4.002166 | BIOMEDICAL OPTICS EXPRESS 2170
Fig. 2. Illustration of photothermal absorption by nanoparticles. A heating beam matched to the nanoparticle resonance wavelength deposits thermal energy, which in turn creates a local refractive index change as the heat dissipates into the surrounding medium. The local refractive index change can be measured with an imaging scheme sensitive to optical phase. Sinusoidal modulation of the heating beam allows lock-in detection and a subsequent improvement in SNR. Because heat deposition is potentially damaging for biological samples, photothermal detection methods that achieve high SNR while minimizing the amount of heating power required are attractive options for functional imaging.
Further studies with this approach by Cognet et al. [28] studied labeled proteins. The imaging approach was converted to a transmission geometry and a fixed modulation frequency of 900 kHz was used for the heating beam. This study included an analysis of the phase shift that is expected for a given heating power and modulation frequency. Here the heating power is focused on the same point as the probe beam, enabling lower powers. For 300 nW focused heating beam, an SNR>30 is reported for 10 nm particles. Phase shifts on the order of 0.1 mrad are reported in qualitative agreement with the proposed model. In both of these works, the gold nanoparticle is modeled as a point source of heat and sinusoidal modulation is considered. A detailed examination of the relationship between particle heating and observed phase change, as well as the influence of particle size and optical excitation can be found in Zharov and Lapotko [29], where predictions are tested using a phase contrast type imaging system. This approach avoids the need for scanning across the sample; however, further advances may be gained by utilizing some of the more advanced phase imaging approaches that have been recently developed [30]. For example, a recent study by Baffou et al. [31] used a Hartmann grating to measure wide field photothermal images using a regular CCD. Detailed signal to noise ratio information was not provided but an increase in data acquisition speed to 1-3 sec was cited. The photothermal imaging approach was further advanced by employing a heterodyne scheme [32]. In this scheme a single probe beam and a pump beam are modulated at the same frequency and the detected signal is demodulated using a lock-in amplifier set to the same frequency. This approach enabled detection of 5 nm gold nanoparticles with an SNR>100 for a heating power of 1 mW. The local temperature change was estimated to be 4 K in an aqueous solution. A systematic analysis conducted by Gaiduk et al. [33], points to paths that can improve SNR in this approach. These include, using a surrounding medium which exhibits large changes in refractive index for a given temperature change, and avoiding the thermal sink caused by placing nanoparticles on glass. The reflection geometry considered in this work models the signal as scattering due to the change in refractive index rather than directly measuring phase changes. However, 5 nm particles were detected with SNR of 12 using 10 ms integration and a 740 kHz modulation frequency. The acquisition time was long due to the point measurement nature of the approach.
#192396 - $15.00 USD (C) 2013 OSA
Received 17 Jun 2013; revised 4 Sep 2013; accepted 5 Sep 2013; published 16 Sep 2013
1 October 2013 | Vol. 4, No. 10 | DOI:10.1364/BOE.4.002166 | BIOMEDICAL OPTICS EXPRESS 2171
3. Optical coherence tomography Optical coherence tomography (OCT) is a biomedical imaging modality that permits optical sectioning with micron scale resolution [16]. One limitation is that typical implementations of OCT do not provide molecular specificity. While several approaches have been proposed [34–36], of particular interest here is the use of plasmonic nanoparticles in OCT. The most direct way to measure the presence and concentration of nanoparticles with OCT is through their scattering properties, which can be made to coincide with the near infrared spectral window commonly used in OCT. Among the initial attempts, Oldenberg et al. distinguished the presence of gold nanorods based on differences in backscattering albedo [37], providing a threshold of detection of 30 ppm in a 210 μm thick sample, corresponding to ~20 picomolar concentration. Further studies from this group with imaging of nanorods injected into human tissue samples, were able to detect smaller volumes of nanorods, listed as several microliters, at concentrations of 3-5 nanomolar [38]. Typical data acquisition in these experiments required averaging of multiple images and required several seconds. More recent studies from our group by Li et al. [39] used dual window processing of spectroscopic OCT signals [40] to recover detailed spectra from multiple nanoparticle species bound to cell receptors. The dual window method uses a bilinear distribution to enable better sensitivity and signal fidelity than other methods like the short time Fourier transform. In this study, concentrations of 80 ppm, corresponding to ~60 picomolar, in 100 μm thick layers were detected using a single data acquisition of 20 ms. An alternative method for detecting plasmonic nanoparticles with OCT is to excite them photothermally and then use phase sensitive detection to observe the signal. The first efforts in this area by Skala et al [15] used a low frequency modulation to detect functionalized nanospheres which targeted epidermal growth factor receptor in three dimensional cell cultures. This study obtained a sensitivity threshold of 14 ppm in a 100 μm thick sample, corresponding to a concentration of ~10 picomolar. Significantly, this study included a calculation of the expected phase shift due to a single nanosphere of 0.4 mrad and compared with the system sensitivity of 1 mrad. However, the low modulation frequency used (25 Hz) required long acquisition time to realize this sensitivity and 10 second averages were needed. Further studies [41] with this approach showed a sensitivity threshold of 7.5 picomolar in a 150 μm thick sample and a 100 msec integration time. Powers of 30-40 mW were used for both of these experiments and focused into spots of 10-20 μm in diameter.
#192396 - $15.00 USD (C) 2013 OSA
Received 17 Jun 2013; revised 4 Sep 2013; accepted 5 Sep 2013; published 16 Sep 2013
1 October 2013 | Vol. 4, No. 10 | DOI:10.1364/BOE.4.002166 | BIOMEDICAL OPTICS EXPRESS 2172
Fig. 3. (A) Photothermal OCT system used by Kim, et al. The photothermal excitation lasers (405nm and 532nm) are matched to the excitation peaks of silver and gold nanoparticles, respectively. The OCT system uses illumination from a superluminescent diode with a bandwidth of 50nm, centered at 830nm. (B) Experimental sample geometry. Two coverslips sandwich a 140μm-thick agar matrix with embedded nanoparticles. A-scans are captured at 35kHz. Amplitude peaks arising from surfaces 1 and 2 are identified, and the phase difference between them is computed. (C) Transient photothermal phase response to single excitation pulses. (D) Photothermal phase response to square-wave periodic excitation. Note that the exponential rise corresponds to heat buildup that is not fully dissipated after each excitation period, while the high-frequency modulation corresponds to the periodic heating induced by the periodic excitation. (E) Multiplexed nanoparticle detection. The 405nm and 532nm lasers are modulated at 200Hz and 1 kHz, respectively. The phase profile seen in the inset is Fourier transformed to yield distinct peaks corresponding to the heating responses of each nanoparticle species. Figure adapted from Kim, et al. [42]
Follow up studies using photothermal excitation and OCT detection were conducted by Adler et al. [43] and Kim et al. [42]. The Adler study [43] used gold nanoshells which exhibit a resonance peak in the near infrared, which was excited using an 808 nm pump laser with 300mW output power. This study explored the influence of modulation frequency on SNR, describing an optimal frequency of 15 kHz for their setup. Detection of high modulation rates were enabled by the use of a swept source operating at 240 kHz. At this modulation frequency, the relationship between the SNR and integration time was also characterized and found to be linear. SNR’s in the 5-20 range were obtained for integration times of 2-5 ms for 1010 nanoshells/mL in a 400 mm thick sample, corresponding to a concentration of ~16 picomolar. One significant finding in these studies was that continued modulation of the high power photothermal beam caused sample heating which placed the few milliradian oscillating signal arising from the nanoparticles atop a rising trend that increased 4-6 radians over the observation period. Such a phase change corresponds to a temperature increase of up to 9 K, which can be damaging to biological samples. To address this concern, our group conducted studies using single pulse photothermal excitation [42]. Here nanoparticles at a concentration of 2.3 x 1010/mL corresponding to 38 picomolar were observed in a 140 μm thick layer using single pulse excitation (Fig. 3). For pulses in the range of 20-400 μsec at powers of 20mW, SNR’s were recorded in the 10-60 range for integration times of 3 msec. The higher sensitivity was achieved by using the more gentile excitation of the individual pulses where the phase was observed to return to baseline after each pulse. A recent publication by Pache et al. [44] demonstrated the potential utility of combining OCT with photothermal lock-in methods. Rather than use the phase sensitive detection as previous photothermal OCT experiments, they instead use a lock-in approach by modulating the heating beam and the reference field. A non-modulated probe beam is also delivered to the sample in a dark-field configuration, providing dark field optical coherence microscopy data when the returned beam is mixed with the same reference field by simply tuning its
#192396 - $15.00 USD (C) 2013 OSA
Received 17 Jun 2013; revised 4 Sep 2013; accepted 5 Sep 2013; published 16 Sep 2013
1 October 2013 | Vol. 4, No. 10 | DOI:10.1364/BOE.4.002166 | BIOMEDICAL OPTICS EXPRESS 2173
modulation to zero frequency. The spectral domain OCT setup had a line rate of 3.9 kHz and required 5 to 20 minutes per image depending on the lock-in integration time (0.25 – 1 ms). This approach allows imaging of individual nanoparticles with SNR of 25-34 dB for heating beam powers of 10-12 mW. 4. Digital holography Digital holography is an approach that records holographic data using digital sensors such that information can be extracted and processed using a computer [17, 18].The sensitivity of digital holography to phase makes the combination with photothermal excitation of nanoparticles potentially very useful. Among the first efforts to exploit this approach was in a work by Atlan, et al. [45] who identified that widefield imaging of photothermal excitation of nanoparticles would alleviate issues with point scanning schemes. This work employed a heterodyne imaging scheme which used acousto-optic modulators to set the photothermal excitation frequency modulation with a close frequency of the reference beam. The camera exposure would then capture adjacent frames, each with different phase shifts, in a similar approach to asynchronous digital holography [46]. In this work photothermal excitation was implemented using an evanescent wave with nanoparticles localized on the face of a prism. Excitation was 10 mW and acquisition of the two frames took 100 ms. The noise floor arises from the shot noise of the reference beam but coherent noise in this setup reduces SNR to an apparent value of ~10, although a theoretical SNR of >90dB is identified if limited by the shot noise of the reference field. While this approach showed the potential of the combination of photothermal excitation and digital holography, the evanescent field excitation limited the amount of information that could be recovered about the rest of the sample, such as the presence and structure of cells. A more detailed study from this group [47] characterized the approach in more detailed and identified that using larger particles enabled improvement of SNR to 90 and again confirmed the 90dB potential SNR when coherent noise could be avoided. This latter study identified that this approach would trail single particle photothermal interferometry by an order of magnitude or greater in SNR and that the need for a widely distributed reference field might cause sample damage when imaging cells. This limitation was explored further by this group [48], where they imaged nanoparticles in the presence of cells using a similar scheme. The interface of the cell with the evanescent field showed the cell structure in contact with the prism. The need for lower power (80 mW) resulted in a longer data acquisition time of 100 ms and 32 frames were averaged to enable visualization of an individual 40 nm gold particle. This study also identified the combination of focused illumination and wide field imaging. Another study using digital holography showed that using dark field excitation could enable visualization of gold nanoparticles without the need for photothermal excitation [49]. Here the nanoparticles were excited with darkfield illumination and the scattered light was imaged with on axis holography. Although no SNR analysis was conducted, the study showed localization of 100 nm gold particles with exposure times of 1 ms and within a 0.25 mm thick sample.
#192396 - $15.00 USD (C) 2013 OSA
Received 17 Jun 2013; revised 4 Sep 2013; accepted 5 Sep 2013; published 16 Sep 2013
1 October 2013 | Vol. 4, No. 10 | DOI:10.1364/BOE.4.002166 | BIOMEDICAL OPTICS EXPRESS 2174
Fig. 4. Experimental Setup for combination darkfield and photothermal imaging. Light from a HeNe 633nm source is split into a reference and probe arms. The probe arm illuminates the sample and interferes with the reference arm which is incident at an angle onto the camera to form an off axis hologram. Both arms pass through identical objective lenses. A second, 532nm Nd:Yag laser is used as a heating beam. A beam expander is used to control the heating beam diameter in order to selectively illuminate the sample. A 532nm notch filter is placed in front of the camera to filter out the 532nm green beam. The LED ring was used for dark field illumination.
As a final illustration of the combination of nanoparticle imaging and digital holography, we conducted studies of an experimental system that used darkfield illumination to image nanoparticle location with high sensitivity with digital holographic imaging of phase changes due to photothermal excitation (Fig. 4). Darkfield imaging was accomplished by illuminating the sample with an LED ring (RL1360m, Advanced Illuminations) which causes light to be incident on the sample such that any reflected light will fall outside of the NA of the imaging objective. The digital holography scheme was a standard off axis holography scheme and phase images were obtained via standard methods [50]. As an initial examination, we characterized the measured phase change as a function of nanoparticle concentration. Figure 5 shows the measured phase change versus concentration of nanoparticles. For this experiment, a 10x objective (0.25 NA) was used which focused the photothermal excitation of 37 mW to a 6 μm wide beam across the 120 micron thick sample. Thus for a concentration of 1 x 1011 nanoparticles/ml, approximately 340 nanoparticles were detected. For the first arrangement, a slope of 0.004 radians/nanoparticle was achieved for nanoparticles in water. The noise floor of these measurements was 0.0413 radians. Thus for this arrangement, individual nanoparticles could not be visualized.
#192396 - $15.00 USD (C) 2013 OSA
Received 17 Jun 2013; revised 4 Sep 2013; accepted 5 Sep 2013; published 16 Sep 2013
1 October 2013 | Vol. 4, No. 10 | DOI:10.1364/BOE.4.002166 | BIOMEDICAL OPTICS EXPRESS 2175
Fig. 5. The phase change as a function of nanoparticle concentration for three different photothermal media: Water, Glycerol and Glycerol Ethanol 50%. The slopes of the linear fit particles
curves are 1.32 radians/1011
mL
particles
, 3.4 radians/1011
mL
particles
, 9.76 radians/1011
mL
for Water, Glycerol and Glucerol Ethanol 50% respectively.
To enable single particle detection, several modifications were made. First different media surrounding the nanoparticles were employed. For all photothermal media the phase change depends linearly on the nanoparticle concentration (Fig. 5). Using glycerol increased the slope by a factor of 3 to 0.01 radians/nanoparticle (green line) and a combination of glycerol and ethanol (50:50) further increased the slope to 0.03 radians/nanoparticle (blue line) but still did not enable single particle detection. Instead, we further focused the beam by switching to a 40x objective, producing a 2.3 μm diameter beam. With this approach the noise floor was reduced to 7.8 mrad RMS which should enable single particle imaging. Upon using the more tightly focused beam however, the incident intensity striking the nanoparticle increases and individual particles could be visualized with an SNR of 26dB (Fig. 6), with a phase change of 0.16 radians observed for a single 5 ms exposure. Note that the use of the glycerol/ethanol mix causes some unusual features. In addition to the clear nanoparticle signature, there is also a pluming effect in the medium which might reduce effective SNR in more complex imaging situations.
#192396 - $15.00 USD (C) 2013 OSA
Received 17 Jun 2013; revised 4 Sep 2013; accepted 5 Sep 2013; published 16 Sep 2013
1 October 2013 | Vol. 4, No. 10 | DOI:10.1364/BOE.4.002166 | BIOMEDICAL OPTICS EXPRESS 2176
Fig. 6. Comparative images of a single nanoparticle. (Main) Dark field image of a field of 60 nm gold nanoparticles adhered to a glass coverglass using silane and immersed in glycerol/ethanol mixture. (Top inset) A crop of the dark field image centered on the heating beam location. The circle indicates the full width half maximum of the heating beam with nanoparticle present. (Bottom inset) Phase change where the heating beam is incident on the sample, arrow indicates nanoparticle signature.
5. Summary We have reviewed several different methods for observing plasmonic metal nanoparticles using interferometric detection. These are summarized in Table 1. Darkfield microscopy offers the highest SNR but does not permit imaging of other sample structures. In contrast, Optical Coherence Tomography enables excellent sample visualization but has limited sensitivity to nanoparticles, via either enhanced scattering and absorption or spectroscopic contrast. Use of photothermal excitation can improve sensitivity but on its own will not allow visualization of transparent samples, such as cells. Advanced photothermal schemes employ heterodyne detection and can greatly extend sensitivity but have limited ability to visualize cell features without incorporating an additional modality. Digital holography allows quantitative phase images of cell features and by using a focused photothermal excitation source, individual plasmonic nanoparticles can be visualized. Multimodal approaches have shown the ability to provide good sensitivity to nanoparticles, even individual particles, and then visualize other structures as well. However, incorporation of additional imaging modalities within a single platform increases complexity and can require careful coregistration efforts. Thus, sensitivity of digital holography to nanoparticles can be further improved compared to the results here by inclusion of heterodyne photothermal detection, for example; however, the additional complexity may not be warranted as sufficient SNR for nanoparticle localization can be realized.
#192396 - $15.00 USD (C) 2013 OSA
Received 17 Jun 2013; revised 4 Sep 2013; accepted 5 Sep 2013; published 16 Sep 2013
1 October 2013 | Vol. 4, No. 10 | DOI:10.1364/BOE.4.002166 | BIOMEDICAL OPTICS EXPRESS 2177
Table 1. Comparison of detection schemes for plasmonic metal nanoparticles. Modality
Single particle
LOD
Structural information
Depth Imaging
None
Surface
-
None
Surface
-
None
Surface
Dark field microscopy Photothermal
Yes SNR: 60 dB Yes SNR: 30 dB
-
Heterodyne photothermal
Yes SNR: 100dB
Photothermal OCT
No
1 ppm For 100 μm thick layer
3D micron scale but not for NP signal
Up to 500 microns
Spectroscopic OCT
No
50 ppm For 100 μm thick layer
3D with spectroscopic contrast
Up to 500 microns
Digital Holography
Yes SNR: 26 dB
-
Integrated phase profile
Limited to optically thin samples
Digital Holography w/Het- PT
Yes SNR: 26-34 dB
-
3D micron scale with depth sensitivity given by depth of field
Limited to optically thin samples
Acknowledgment This work was supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation (CBET-1039562).
#192396 - $15.00 USD (C) 2013 OSA
Received 17 Jun 2013; revised 4 Sep 2013; accepted 5 Sep 2013; published 16 Sep 2013
1 October 2013 | Vol. 4, No. 10 | DOI:10.1364/BOE.4.002166 | BIOMEDICAL OPTICS EXPRESS 2178
Abstract: Noble metal nanoparticles exhibit enhanced scattering and absorption at specific wavelengths due to a localized surface plamson resonance. This unique property can be exploited to enable the use of plasmonic nanoparticles as contrast agents in optical imaging. A range of optical techniques have been developed to detect nanoparticles in order to implement imaging schemes. Here we review several different approaches for using optical interferometry to detect the presence and concentration of nanoparticles. The strengths and weaknesses of the various approaches are discussed and quantitative comparisons of the achievable signal to noise ratios are presented. The benefits of each approach are outlined as they relate to specific application goals. ©2013 Optical Society of America OCIS codes: (160.4236) Nanomaterials; (120.3180) Interferometry; (170.1650) Coherence imaging.
References and links 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.
K. Seekell, H. Price, S. Marinakos, and A. Wax, “Optimization of immunolabeled plasmonic nanoparticles for cell surface receptor analysis,” Methods 56(2), 310–316 (2012). M. Grzelczak, J. Pérez-Juste, P. Mulvaney, and L. M. Liz-Marzán, “Shape control in gold nanoparticle synthesis,” Chem. Soc. Rev. 37(9), 1783–1791 (2008). P. Alexandridis, “Gold nanoparticle synthesis, morphology control, and stabilization facilitated by functional polymers,” Chem. Eng. Technol. 34(1), 15–28 (2011). P. P. Joshi, S. J. Yoon, W. G. Hardin, S. Emelianov, and K. V. Sokolov, “Conjugation of Antibodies to Gold Nanorods through Fc Portion: Synthesis and Molecular Specific Imaging,” Bioconj. Chem. (2013). K. S. Lee and M. A. El-Sayed, “Gold and silver nanoparticles in sensing and imaging: Sensitivity of plasmon response to size, shape, and metal composition,” J. Phys. Chem. B 110(39), 19220–19225 (2006). A. Wax and K. Sokolov, “Molecular imaging and darkfield microspectroscopy of live cells using gold plasmonic nanoparticles,” Laser Photon. Rev. 3(1-2), 146–158 (2009). K. Seekell, M. J. Crow, S. Marinakos, J. Ostrander, A. Chilkoti, and A. Wax, “Hyperspectral molecular imaging of multiple receptors using immunolabeled plasmonic nanoparticles,” J. Biomed. Opt. 16(11), 116003 (2011). I. H. El-Sayed, X. H. Huang, and M. A. El-Sayed, “Surface plasmon resonance scattering and absorption of antiEGFR antibody conjugated gold nanoparticles in cancer diagnostics: Applications in oral cancer,” Nano Lett. 5(5), 829–834 (2005). X. H. Huang, I. H. El-Sayed, W. Qian, and M. A. El-Sayed, “Cancer cell imaging and photothermal therapy in the near-infrared region by using gold nanorods,” J. Am. Chem. Soc. 128(6), 2115–2120 (2006). K. Sokolov, M. Follen, J. Aaron, I. Pavlova, A. Malpica, R. Lotan, and R. Richards-Kortum, “Real-time vital optical imaging of precancer using anti-epidermal growth factor receptor antibodies conjugated to gold nanoparticles,” Cancer Res. 63(9), 1999–2004 (2003). S. W. Tsai, Y. Y. Chen, and J. W. Liaw, “Compound cellular imaging of laser scanning confocal microscopy by using gold nanoparticles and dyes,” Sensors (Basel Switzerland) 8(4), 2306–2316 (2008). T. Collier, A. Lacy, R. Richards-Kortum, A. Malpica, and M. Follen, “Near real-time confocal microscopy of amelanotic tissue: detection of dysplasia in ex vivo cervical tissue,” Acad. Radiol. 9(5), 504–512 (2002). N. J. Durr, T. Larson, D. K. Smith, B. A. Korgel, K. Sokolov, and A. Ben-Yakar, “Two-photon luminescence imaging of cancer cells using molecularly targeted gold nanorods,” Nano Lett. 7(4), 941–945 (2007). J. R. Cook, W. Frey, and S. Emelianov, “Quantitative Photoacoustic Imaging of Nanoparticles in Cells and Tissues,” ACS Nano 7(2), 1272–1280 (2013). M. C. Skala, M. J. Crow, A. Wax, and J. A. Izatt, “Photothermal Optical Coherence Tomography of Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor in Live Cells Using Immunotargeted Gold Nanospheres,” Nano Lett. 8(10), 3461–3467 (2008).
#192396 - $15.00 USD (C) 2013 OSA
Received 17 Jun 2013; revised 4 Sep 2013; accepted 5 Sep 2013; published 16 Sep 2013
1 October 2013 | Vol. 4, No. 10 | DOI:10.1364/BOE.4.002166 | BIOMEDICAL OPTICS EXPRESS 2166
16. J.A. Izatt, M.D. Kulkarni, K. Kobayashi, J.K. Barton, and A.J. Welch, “Optical coherence tomography for biodiagnostics,” Opt. Photon. News. 8, 41-47, 65 (1997). 17. I. Yamaguchi and T. Zhang, “Phase-shifting digital holography,” Opt. Lett. 22(16), 1268–1270 (1997). 18. C. Mann, L. Yu, C.-M. Lo, and M. Kim, “High-resolution quantitative phase-contrast microscopy by digital holography,” Opt. Express 13(22), 8693–8698 (2005). 19. A. Curry, W. L. Hwang, and A. Wax, “Epi-illumination through the microscope objective applied to darkfield imaging and microspectroscopy of nanoparticle interaction with cells in culture,” Opt. Express 14(14), 6535– 6542 (2006). 20. A. Wax, M. G. Giacomelli, T. E. Matthews, M. T. Rinehart, F. E. Robles, and Y. Zhu, “Optical Spectroscopy of Biological Cells,” Adv. Opt. Photon. 4(3), 322–378 (2012). 21. C. Loo, L. Hirsch, M. H. Lee, E. Chang, J. West, N. Halas, and R. Drezek, “Gold nanoshell bioconjugates for molecular imaging in living cells,” Opt. Lett. 30(9), 1012–1014 (2005). 22. M. J. Crow, G. Grant, J. M. Provenzale, and A. Wax, “Molecular Imaging and Quantitative Measurement of Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Expression in Live Cancer Cells Using Immunolabeled Gold Nanoparticles,” AJR Am. J. Roentgenol. 192(4), 1021–1028 (2009). 23. J. Gao, X. Huang, H. Liu, F. Zan, and J. Ren, “Colloidal Stability of Gold Nanoparticles Modified with Thiol Compounds: Bioconjugation and Application in Cancer Cell Imaging,” Langmuir 28(9), 4464–4471 (2012). 24. G. Rong, H. Wang, L. R. Skewis, and B. M. Reinhard, “Resolving Sub-Diffraction Limit Encounters in Nanoparticle Tracking Using Live Cell Plasmon Coupling Microscopy,” Nano Lett. 8(10), 3386–3393 (2008). 25. M. J. Crow, K. Seekell, J. H. Ostrander, and A. Wax, “Monitoring of Receptor Dimerization Using Plasmonic Coupling of Gold Nanoparticles,” ACS Nano 5(11), 8532–8540 (2011). 26. J. Aaron, K. Travis, N. Harrison, and K. Sokolov, “Dynamic Imaging of Molecular Assemblies in Live Cells Based on Nanoparticle Plasmon Resonance Coupling,” Nano Lett. 9(10), 3612–3618 (2009). 27. D. Boyer, P. Tamarat, A. Maali, B. Lounis, and M. Orrit, “Photothermal Imaging of Nanometer-Sized Metal Particles Among Scatterers,” Science 297(5584), 1160–1163 (2002). 28. L. Cognet, C. Tardin, D. Boyer, D. Choquet, P. Tamarat, and B. Lounis, “Single metallic nanoparticle imaging for protein detection in cells,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 100(20), 11350–11355 (2003). 29. V. P. Zharov and D. O. Lapotko, “Photothermal imaging of nanoparticles and cells,” IEEE J. Sel. Top. Quantum Electron. 11(4), 733–751 (2005). 30. G. Popescu, Chapter 5 Quantitative Phase Imaging of Nanoscale Cell Structure and Dynamics, in Methods in Cell Biology, P.J. Bhanu, Editor. 2008, Academic Press. p. 87–115. 31. G. Baffou, P. Bon, J. Savatier, J. Polleux, M. Zhu, M. Merlin, H. Rigneault, and S. Monneret, “Thermal Imaging of Nanostructures by Quantitative Optical Phase Analysis,” ACS Nano 6(3), 2452–2458 (2012). 32. S. Berciaud, L. Cognet, G. A. Blab, and B. Lounis, “Photothermal Heterodyne Imaging of Individual Nonfluorescent Nanoclusters and Nanocrystals,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 93(25), 257402 (2004). 33. A. Gaiduk, P. V. Ruijgrok, M. Yorulmaz, and M. Orrit, “Detection limits in photothermal microscopy,” Chem. Sci. 1(3), 343–350 (2010). 34. C. Yang, “Molecular Contrast Optical Coherence Tomography: A Review,” Photochem. Photobiol. 81(2), 215– 237 (2005). 35. B. E. Applegate and J. A. Izatt, “Molecular imaging of endogenous and exogenous chromophores using ground state recovery pump-probe optical coherence tomography,” Opt. Express 14(20), 9142–9155 (2006). 36. F. E. Robles, C. Wilson, G. Grant, and A. Wax, “Molecular imaging true-colour spectroscopic optical coherence tomography,” Nat. Photonics 5(12), 744–747 (2011). 37. A. L. Oldenburg, M. N. Hansen, D. A. Zweifel, A. Wei, and S. A. Boppart, “Plasmon-resonant gold nanorods as low backscattering albedo contrast agents for optical coherence tomography,” Opt. Express 14(15), 6724–6738 (2006). 38. A. L. Oldenburg, M. N. Hansen, T. S. Ralston, A. Wei, and S. A. Boppart, “Imaging gold nanorods in excised human breast carcinoma by spectroscopic optical coherence tomography,” J. Mater. Chem. 19(35), 6407–6411 (2009). 39. Y. L. Li, K. Seekell, H. Yuan, F. E. Robles, and A. Wax, “Multispectral nanoparticle contrast agents for truecolor spectroscopic optical coherence tomography,” Biomed. Opt. Express 3(8), 1914–1923 (2012). 40. F. Robles, R. N. Graf, and A. Wax, “Dual window method for processing spectroscopic optical coherence tomography signals with simultaneously high spectral and temporal resolution,” Opt. Express 17(8), 6799–6812 (2009). 41. J. M. Tucker-Schwartz, T. A. Meyer, C. A. Patil, C. L. Duvall, and M. C. Skala, “In vivo photothermal optical coherence tomography of gold nanorod contrast agents,” Biomed. Opt. Express 3(11), 2881–2895 (2012). 42. S. Kim, M. T. Rinehart, H. Park, Y. Zhu, and A. Wax, “Phase-sensitive OCT imaging of multiple nanoparticle species using spectrally multiplexed single pulse photothermal excitation,” Biomed. Opt. Express 3(10), 2579– 2586 (2012). 43. D. C. Adler, S.-W. Huang, R. Huber, and J. G. Fujimoto, “Photothermal detection of gold nanoparticles using phase-sensitive optical coherence tomography,” Opt. Express 16(7), 4376–4393 (2008). 44. C. Pache, N. L. Bocchio, A. Bouwens, M. Villiger, C. Berclaz, J. Goulley, M. I. Gibson, C. Santschi, and T. Lasser, “Fast three-dimensional imaging of gold nanoparticles in living cells with photothermal optical lock-in Optical Coherence Microscopy,” Opt. Express 20(19), 21385–21399 (2012).
#192396 - $15.00 USD (C) 2013 OSA
Received 17 Jun 2013; revised 4 Sep 2013; accepted 5 Sep 2013; published 16 Sep 2013
1 October 2013 | Vol. 4, No. 10 | DOI:10.1364/BOE.4.002166 | BIOMEDICAL OPTICS EXPRESS 2167
45. M. Atlan, M. Gross, P. Desbiolles, É. Absil, G. Tessier, and M. Coppey-Moisan, “Heterodyne holographic microscopy of gold particles,” Opt. Lett. 33(5), 500–502 (2008). 46. K. J. Chalut, W. J. Brown, and A. Wax, “Quantitative phase microscopy with asynchronous digital holography,” Opt. Express 15(6), 3047–3052 (2007). 47. E. Absil, G. Tessier, M. Gross, M. Atlan, N. Warnasooriya, S. Suck, M. Coppey-Moisan, and D. Fournier, “Photothermal heterodyne holography of gold nanoparticles,” Opt. Express 18(2), 780–786 (2010). 48. N. Warnasooriya, F. Joud, P. Bun, G. Tessier, M. Coppey-Moisan, P. Desbiolles, M. Atlan, M. Abboud, and M. Gross, “Imaging gold nanoparticles in living cell environments using heterodyne digital holographic microscopy,” Opt. Express 18(4), 3264–3273 (2010). 49. F. Verpillat, F. Joud, P. Desbiolles, and M. Gross, “Dark-field digital holographic microscopy for 3D-tracking of gold nanoparticles,” Opt. Express 19(27), 26044–26055 (2011). 50. G. Popescu, Quantitative phase imaging of cells and tissues (McGraw-Hill New York 2011).
1. Introduction Plasmonic nanoparticles have received much recent attention as contrast agents for optical imaging due to their unique optical properties. Noble metal nanoparticles have the distinctive property of an increase in optical scattering and absorption at a plasmon resonant frequency, which depends on the nanoparticle geometry, material and dielectric surroundings. When used as contrast agents, the plasmon resonance increases the optical signal returning from a selected target such as a molecule or structure of interest. There have been a number of reviews that focus on development and synthesis of nanoparticle structures [1–5], as well specific applications for optical imaging [6]. However, there has been little attention paid to determining optimal methods for discriminating the presence and concentration of nanoparticles as optical contrast agents. Darkfield microspectroscopy has served as the de facto gold standard for imaging of plasmonic nanoparticles [7–10] and has been applied in a number of experiments. Other approaches have been exploited, including reflectance confocal imaging [10–12], two photon luminescence [13] and photoacoustic imaging [14] to name a few. Of particular interest here is the use of interferometric techniques for detecting nanoparticles. Interferometry offers high sensitivity for optical imaging by providing information about the complex electric field. Using interferometry allows for measurements in changes of field amplitude which can reveal the presence of nanoparticles via their absorptive or scattering properties. However, the complex field can also be measured to determine a phase shift due to the presence of nanoparticles. The inherent phase shift due to the plasmon resonance can thus be used to detect nanoparticles. Additionally, the phase shift can be further enhanced by using a localized heating to intentionally vary the local phase as is done in the photothermal approach. Indeed photothermal excitation of nanoparticles has become a widely explored mechanism [15]. In this review we will compare these various methods of generating contrast by measuring the optical field. The methods for detecting changes in the optical field are also discussed with the aim of connecting the capabilities of methods such as optical coherence tomography [16] and digital holography [17, 18] with specific biomedical imaging applications ranging from widefield imaging of tissues to detailed high resolution imaging of cell features. 2. Darkfield microspectroscopy Darkfield microscopy is an imaging modality based on using light incident on a sample of interest at a high angle relative to the optical axis. In this approach high contrast is generated as any light transmitted or reflected by the sample is not received by the collection optics. Instead, any light that is scattered will be collected as the optical signal against a dark background. Since plasmonic nanoparticles exhibit strong scattering near the plasmon resonance wavelength, darkfield microscopy can be an ideal method for detecting their presence, especially when combined with a spectrally selective detection method (Fig. 1).
#192396 - $15.00 USD (C) 2013 OSA
Received 17 Jun 2013; revised 4 Sep 2013; accepted 5 Sep 2013; published 16 Sep 2013
1 October 2013 | Vol. 4, No. 10 | DOI:10.1364/BOE.4.002166 | BIOMEDICAL OPTICS EXPRESS 2168
Fig. 1. (a) Typical darkfield image of cell lablelled with anti-EGFR gold nanoparticles (b) Scattering spectrum for cell shown in (a). General scheme for darkfield microspectroscopy includes a light source, detector, darkfield optics and wavelength selection at either the illumination or detection section.
There have been a range of darkfield microspectroscopy schemes that have been developed for detecting nanoparticle signals. While they all share the common feature of delivering light at an oblique angle and collecting the scattered light, they can vary on whether spectral selection is implemented on the illumination or detection end [7]. For example, broadband white light can be used for excitation and the entrance aperture of a spectrometer provides discrimination upon detection. In contrast, hyperspectral imaging will tune the wavelength of illumination and an ordinary CCD can provide detection. In addition, while most schemes use transmission geometries, epi-illumination schemes have also been developed [19]. To analyze the signal to noise ratio in dark field illumiation, we must consider the origin of the signal, its collection and spectral discrimination and compare it with the sources of noise. The optical power scattered by a single nanoparticle depends on the incident power P and can be written as S = P σ (λ ) ϕ η
(1)
The scattering cross section σ (λ ) of nanoparticles is very small such that there is not much scattered power away from the plasmon resonance. However, at resonance, this value can become much more appreciable. The collection aperture ϕ describes how much of the scattered light is collected and can be written as a fraction of the total 4π solid angle into which light is scattered. The wavelength discrimination η can be interpreted as an efficiency, either as the amount of light available in a chosen spectral band for illumination or how much light is passed by a filter or spectrometer at a selected wavelength for detection. The noise that this signal is measured against depends on several factors. If the darkfield scheme is not perfect, there will be a hazy background intensity H which will set the noise floor. This can arise from stray light or from other sample structures such as when trying to measure nanoparticle in the presence of cells. The signal from the cells can reduce SNR but
#192396 - $15.00 USD (C) 2013 OSA
Received 17 Jun 2013; revised 4 Sep 2013; accepted 5 Sep 2013; published 16 Sep 2013
1 October 2013 | Vol. 4, No. 10 | DOI:10.1364/BOE.4.002166 | BIOMEDICAL OPTICS EXPRESS 2169
can be mitigated by using epi-illumination [19], since it is mostly forward peaked. In addition the noise will include the shot noise associated with the signal given by S t the shot noise associated with any dark counts
D t and the read noise Nr2 of the sensor. N = S t + D t + N r2 + H t
(2)
For a sufficiently low noise sensor that can produce a shot noise limited measurement, the noise signal reduces to S t and the SNR can be written as SNR =
St = S t ( Shot noise lim ited ) N
(3)
As an example calculation, if we consider a sensor with 65,000 maximum well depth, the SNR would be 48 dB when a shot noise limited measurement is realized. With this high SNR, darkfield imaging has been applied widely to study the interaction of cells and nanoparticles as noted in recent reviews [6, 20]. Examples from these reviews include cell imaging using nanorods [9] and nanoshells [21]. Instruments based on hyperspectral darkfield have enabled quantitative molecular imaging [22] and spectral multiplexing [7], using functionalized nanoparticles where an antibody conjugate provides molecular specificity [4, 23]. These instruments are even capable of detecting plamonic shifts due to coupling which can then be used to provide additional spatial information [24–26]. However, a key limitation of this approach is that the detailed structure of the cells is not imaged directly using the nanoparticle tagging and instead must be inferred. The outlined shapes of cells due to coverage by nanoparticles can provide some baseline structural information, but may not provide reliable or useful information on internal structures. Likewise, the darkfield scattering due to cellular structures may provide incomplete information while also diminishing SNR of the nanoparticle labels. Several different approaches are now considered to address this shortcoming. 3. Photothermal imaging The enhanced absorption of plasmonic nanoparticles was first exploited to generate imaging contrast by Boyer et al. [27] In this work, gold nanoparticles are heated by optical absorption which in turn generates a change in refractive index in the surrounding medium (Fig. 2). The refractive index changes cause a phase shift in light traversing the local region which can be measured with a phase sensitive method, such as the adapted differential interference contrast method used in this study. In this approach, two orthogonally polarized laser beams at 633 nm with a power of 2.5 mW each are laterally displaced and scanned across the sample in reflection geometry enabling detection of the phase shift associated due to the refractive index change. The heating beam at 514 nm with an incident power of 20 mW at the sample was modulated between 100 kHz and 10 MHz using an acousto-optic modulation and a lock-in detector used to detect the signal with a 10 ms integration time. Although quantitative phase shifts are not given, the lock in signal is seen to vary by a factor of 10 over the range of modulation frequencies and temperature changes of 3-15 K are reported. Significantly, particles as small as 2.5 nm were detected at an SNR listed as ~2 with an SNR >10 reported for the larger particles.
#192396 - $15.00 USD (C) 2013 OSA
Received 17 Jun 2013; revised 4 Sep 2013; accepted 5 Sep 2013; published 16 Sep 2013
1 October 2013 | Vol. 4, No. 10 | DOI:10.1364/BOE.4.002166 | BIOMEDICAL OPTICS EXPRESS 2170
Fig. 2. Illustration of photothermal absorption by nanoparticles. A heating beam matched to the nanoparticle resonance wavelength deposits thermal energy, which in turn creates a local refractive index change as the heat dissipates into the surrounding medium. The local refractive index change can be measured with an imaging scheme sensitive to optical phase. Sinusoidal modulation of the heating beam allows lock-in detection and a subsequent improvement in SNR. Because heat deposition is potentially damaging for biological samples, photothermal detection methods that achieve high SNR while minimizing the amount of heating power required are attractive options for functional imaging.
Further studies with this approach by Cognet et al. [28] studied labeled proteins. The imaging approach was converted to a transmission geometry and a fixed modulation frequency of 900 kHz was used for the heating beam. This study included an analysis of the phase shift that is expected for a given heating power and modulation frequency. Here the heating power is focused on the same point as the probe beam, enabling lower powers. For 300 nW focused heating beam, an SNR>30 is reported for 10 nm particles. Phase shifts on the order of 0.1 mrad are reported in qualitative agreement with the proposed model. In both of these works, the gold nanoparticle is modeled as a point source of heat and sinusoidal modulation is considered. A detailed examination of the relationship between particle heating and observed phase change, as well as the influence of particle size and optical excitation can be found in Zharov and Lapotko [29], where predictions are tested using a phase contrast type imaging system. This approach avoids the need for scanning across the sample; however, further advances may be gained by utilizing some of the more advanced phase imaging approaches that have been recently developed [30]. For example, a recent study by Baffou et al. [31] used a Hartmann grating to measure wide field photothermal images using a regular CCD. Detailed signal to noise ratio information was not provided but an increase in data acquisition speed to 1-3 sec was cited. The photothermal imaging approach was further advanced by employing a heterodyne scheme [32]. In this scheme a single probe beam and a pump beam are modulated at the same frequency and the detected signal is demodulated using a lock-in amplifier set to the same frequency. This approach enabled detection of 5 nm gold nanoparticles with an SNR>100 for a heating power of 1 mW. The local temperature change was estimated to be 4 K in an aqueous solution. A systematic analysis conducted by Gaiduk et al. [33], points to paths that can improve SNR in this approach. These include, using a surrounding medium which exhibits large changes in refractive index for a given temperature change, and avoiding the thermal sink caused by placing nanoparticles on glass. The reflection geometry considered in this work models the signal as scattering due to the change in refractive index rather than directly measuring phase changes. However, 5 nm particles were detected with SNR of 12 using 10 ms integration and a 740 kHz modulation frequency. The acquisition time was long due to the point measurement nature of the approach.
#192396 - $15.00 USD (C) 2013 OSA
Received 17 Jun 2013; revised 4 Sep 2013; accepted 5 Sep 2013; published 16 Sep 2013
1 October 2013 | Vol. 4, No. 10 | DOI:10.1364/BOE.4.002166 | BIOMEDICAL OPTICS EXPRESS 2171
3. Optical coherence tomography Optical coherence tomography (OCT) is a biomedical imaging modality that permits optical sectioning with micron scale resolution [16]. One limitation is that typical implementations of OCT do not provide molecular specificity. While several approaches have been proposed [34–36], of particular interest here is the use of plasmonic nanoparticles in OCT. The most direct way to measure the presence and concentration of nanoparticles with OCT is through their scattering properties, which can be made to coincide with the near infrared spectral window commonly used in OCT. Among the initial attempts, Oldenberg et al. distinguished the presence of gold nanorods based on differences in backscattering albedo [37], providing a threshold of detection of 30 ppm in a 210 μm thick sample, corresponding to ~20 picomolar concentration. Further studies from this group with imaging of nanorods injected into human tissue samples, were able to detect smaller volumes of nanorods, listed as several microliters, at concentrations of 3-5 nanomolar [38]. Typical data acquisition in these experiments required averaging of multiple images and required several seconds. More recent studies from our group by Li et al. [39] used dual window processing of spectroscopic OCT signals [40] to recover detailed spectra from multiple nanoparticle species bound to cell receptors. The dual window method uses a bilinear distribution to enable better sensitivity and signal fidelity than other methods like the short time Fourier transform. In this study, concentrations of 80 ppm, corresponding to ~60 picomolar, in 100 μm thick layers were detected using a single data acquisition of 20 ms. An alternative method for detecting plasmonic nanoparticles with OCT is to excite them photothermally and then use phase sensitive detection to observe the signal. The first efforts in this area by Skala et al [15] used a low frequency modulation to detect functionalized nanospheres which targeted epidermal growth factor receptor in three dimensional cell cultures. This study obtained a sensitivity threshold of 14 ppm in a 100 μm thick sample, corresponding to a concentration of ~10 picomolar. Significantly, this study included a calculation of the expected phase shift due to a single nanosphere of 0.4 mrad and compared with the system sensitivity of 1 mrad. However, the low modulation frequency used (25 Hz) required long acquisition time to realize this sensitivity and 10 second averages were needed. Further studies [41] with this approach showed a sensitivity threshold of 7.5 picomolar in a 150 μm thick sample and a 100 msec integration time. Powers of 30-40 mW were used for both of these experiments and focused into spots of 10-20 μm in diameter.
#192396 - $15.00 USD (C) 2013 OSA
Received 17 Jun 2013; revised 4 Sep 2013; accepted 5 Sep 2013; published 16 Sep 2013
1 October 2013 | Vol. 4, No. 10 | DOI:10.1364/BOE.4.002166 | BIOMEDICAL OPTICS EXPRESS 2172
Fig. 3. (A) Photothermal OCT system used by Kim, et al. The photothermal excitation lasers (405nm and 532nm) are matched to the excitation peaks of silver and gold nanoparticles, respectively. The OCT system uses illumination from a superluminescent diode with a bandwidth of 50nm, centered at 830nm. (B) Experimental sample geometry. Two coverslips sandwich a 140μm-thick agar matrix with embedded nanoparticles. A-scans are captured at 35kHz. Amplitude peaks arising from surfaces 1 and 2 are identified, and the phase difference between them is computed. (C) Transient photothermal phase response to single excitation pulses. (D) Photothermal phase response to square-wave periodic excitation. Note that the exponential rise corresponds to heat buildup that is not fully dissipated after each excitation period, while the high-frequency modulation corresponds to the periodic heating induced by the periodic excitation. (E) Multiplexed nanoparticle detection. The 405nm and 532nm lasers are modulated at 200Hz and 1 kHz, respectively. The phase profile seen in the inset is Fourier transformed to yield distinct peaks corresponding to the heating responses of each nanoparticle species. Figure adapted from Kim, et al. [42]
Follow up studies using photothermal excitation and OCT detection were conducted by Adler et al. [43] and Kim et al. [42]. The Adler study [43] used gold nanoshells which exhibit a resonance peak in the near infrared, which was excited using an 808 nm pump laser with 300mW output power. This study explored the influence of modulation frequency on SNR, describing an optimal frequency of 15 kHz for their setup. Detection of high modulation rates were enabled by the use of a swept source operating at 240 kHz. At this modulation frequency, the relationship between the SNR and integration time was also characterized and found to be linear. SNR’s in the 5-20 range were obtained for integration times of 2-5 ms for 1010 nanoshells/mL in a 400 mm thick sample, corresponding to a concentration of ~16 picomolar. One significant finding in these studies was that continued modulation of the high power photothermal beam caused sample heating which placed the few milliradian oscillating signal arising from the nanoparticles atop a rising trend that increased 4-6 radians over the observation period. Such a phase change corresponds to a temperature increase of up to 9 K, which can be damaging to biological samples. To address this concern, our group conducted studies using single pulse photothermal excitation [42]. Here nanoparticles at a concentration of 2.3 x 1010/mL corresponding to 38 picomolar were observed in a 140 μm thick layer using single pulse excitation (Fig. 3). For pulses in the range of 20-400 μsec at powers of 20mW, SNR’s were recorded in the 10-60 range for integration times of 3 msec. The higher sensitivity was achieved by using the more gentile excitation of the individual pulses where the phase was observed to return to baseline after each pulse. A recent publication by Pache et al. [44] demonstrated the potential utility of combining OCT with photothermal lock-in methods. Rather than use the phase sensitive detection as previous photothermal OCT experiments, they instead use a lock-in approach by modulating the heating beam and the reference field. A non-modulated probe beam is also delivered to the sample in a dark-field configuration, providing dark field optical coherence microscopy data when the returned beam is mixed with the same reference field by simply tuning its
#192396 - $15.00 USD (C) 2013 OSA
Received 17 Jun 2013; revised 4 Sep 2013; accepted 5 Sep 2013; published 16 Sep 2013
1 October 2013 | Vol. 4, No. 10 | DOI:10.1364/BOE.4.002166 | BIOMEDICAL OPTICS EXPRESS 2173
modulation to zero frequency. The spectral domain OCT setup had a line rate of 3.9 kHz and required 5 to 20 minutes per image depending on the lock-in integration time (0.25 – 1 ms). This approach allows imaging of individual nanoparticles with SNR of 25-34 dB for heating beam powers of 10-12 mW. 4. Digital holography Digital holography is an approach that records holographic data using digital sensors such that information can be extracted and processed using a computer [17, 18].The sensitivity of digital holography to phase makes the combination with photothermal excitation of nanoparticles potentially very useful. Among the first efforts to exploit this approach was in a work by Atlan, et al. [45] who identified that widefield imaging of photothermal excitation of nanoparticles would alleviate issues with point scanning schemes. This work employed a heterodyne imaging scheme which used acousto-optic modulators to set the photothermal excitation frequency modulation with a close frequency of the reference beam. The camera exposure would then capture adjacent frames, each with different phase shifts, in a similar approach to asynchronous digital holography [46]. In this work photothermal excitation was implemented using an evanescent wave with nanoparticles localized on the face of a prism. Excitation was 10 mW and acquisition of the two frames took 100 ms. The noise floor arises from the shot noise of the reference beam but coherent noise in this setup reduces SNR to an apparent value of ~10, although a theoretical SNR of >90dB is identified if limited by the shot noise of the reference field. While this approach showed the potential of the combination of photothermal excitation and digital holography, the evanescent field excitation limited the amount of information that could be recovered about the rest of the sample, such as the presence and structure of cells. A more detailed study from this group [47] characterized the approach in more detailed and identified that using larger particles enabled improvement of SNR to 90 and again confirmed the 90dB potential SNR when coherent noise could be avoided. This latter study identified that this approach would trail single particle photothermal interferometry by an order of magnitude or greater in SNR and that the need for a widely distributed reference field might cause sample damage when imaging cells. This limitation was explored further by this group [48], where they imaged nanoparticles in the presence of cells using a similar scheme. The interface of the cell with the evanescent field showed the cell structure in contact with the prism. The need for lower power (80 mW) resulted in a longer data acquisition time of 100 ms and 32 frames were averaged to enable visualization of an individual 40 nm gold particle. This study also identified the combination of focused illumination and wide field imaging. Another study using digital holography showed that using dark field excitation could enable visualization of gold nanoparticles without the need for photothermal excitation [49]. Here the nanoparticles were excited with darkfield illumination and the scattered light was imaged with on axis holography. Although no SNR analysis was conducted, the study showed localization of 100 nm gold particles with exposure times of 1 ms and within a 0.25 mm thick sample.
#192396 - $15.00 USD (C) 2013 OSA
Received 17 Jun 2013; revised 4 Sep 2013; accepted 5 Sep 2013; published 16 Sep 2013
1 October 2013 | Vol. 4, No. 10 | DOI:10.1364/BOE.4.002166 | BIOMEDICAL OPTICS EXPRESS 2174
Fig. 4. Experimental Setup for combination darkfield and photothermal imaging. Light from a HeNe 633nm source is split into a reference and probe arms. The probe arm illuminates the sample and interferes with the reference arm which is incident at an angle onto the camera to form an off axis hologram. Both arms pass through identical objective lenses. A second, 532nm Nd:Yag laser is used as a heating beam. A beam expander is used to control the heating beam diameter in order to selectively illuminate the sample. A 532nm notch filter is placed in front of the camera to filter out the 532nm green beam. The LED ring was used for dark field illumination.
As a final illustration of the combination of nanoparticle imaging and digital holography, we conducted studies of an experimental system that used darkfield illumination to image nanoparticle location with high sensitivity with digital holographic imaging of phase changes due to photothermal excitation (Fig. 4). Darkfield imaging was accomplished by illuminating the sample with an LED ring (RL1360m, Advanced Illuminations) which causes light to be incident on the sample such that any reflected light will fall outside of the NA of the imaging objective. The digital holography scheme was a standard off axis holography scheme and phase images were obtained via standard methods [50]. As an initial examination, we characterized the measured phase change as a function of nanoparticle concentration. Figure 5 shows the measured phase change versus concentration of nanoparticles. For this experiment, a 10x objective (0.25 NA) was used which focused the photothermal excitation of 37 mW to a 6 μm wide beam across the 120 micron thick sample. Thus for a concentration of 1 x 1011 nanoparticles/ml, approximately 340 nanoparticles were detected. For the first arrangement, a slope of 0.004 radians/nanoparticle was achieved for nanoparticles in water. The noise floor of these measurements was 0.0413 radians. Thus for this arrangement, individual nanoparticles could not be visualized.
#192396 - $15.00 USD (C) 2013 OSA
Received 17 Jun 2013; revised 4 Sep 2013; accepted 5 Sep 2013; published 16 Sep 2013
1 October 2013 | Vol. 4, No. 10 | DOI:10.1364/BOE.4.002166 | BIOMEDICAL OPTICS EXPRESS 2175
Fig. 5. The phase change as a function of nanoparticle concentration for three different photothermal media: Water, Glycerol and Glycerol Ethanol 50%. The slopes of the linear fit particles
curves are 1.32 radians/1011
mL
particles
, 3.4 radians/1011
mL
particles
, 9.76 radians/1011
mL
for Water, Glycerol and Glucerol Ethanol 50% respectively.
To enable single particle detection, several modifications were made. First different media surrounding the nanoparticles were employed. For all photothermal media the phase change depends linearly on the nanoparticle concentration (Fig. 5). Using glycerol increased the slope by a factor of 3 to 0.01 radians/nanoparticle (green line) and a combination of glycerol and ethanol (50:50) further increased the slope to 0.03 radians/nanoparticle (blue line) but still did not enable single particle detection. Instead, we further focused the beam by switching to a 40x objective, producing a 2.3 μm diameter beam. With this approach the noise floor was reduced to 7.8 mrad RMS which should enable single particle imaging. Upon using the more tightly focused beam however, the incident intensity striking the nanoparticle increases and individual particles could be visualized with an SNR of 26dB (Fig. 6), with a phase change of 0.16 radians observed for a single 5 ms exposure. Note that the use of the glycerol/ethanol mix causes some unusual features. In addition to the clear nanoparticle signature, there is also a pluming effect in the medium which might reduce effective SNR in more complex imaging situations.
#192396 - $15.00 USD (C) 2013 OSA
Received 17 Jun 2013; revised 4 Sep 2013; accepted 5 Sep 2013; published 16 Sep 2013
1 October 2013 | Vol. 4, No. 10 | DOI:10.1364/BOE.4.002166 | BIOMEDICAL OPTICS EXPRESS 2176
Fig. 6. Comparative images of a single nanoparticle. (Main) Dark field image of a field of 60 nm gold nanoparticles adhered to a glass coverglass using silane and immersed in glycerol/ethanol mixture. (Top inset) A crop of the dark field image centered on the heating beam location. The circle indicates the full width half maximum of the heating beam with nanoparticle present. (Bottom inset) Phase change where the heating beam is incident on the sample, arrow indicates nanoparticle signature.
5. Summary We have reviewed several different methods for observing plasmonic metal nanoparticles using interferometric detection. These are summarized in Table 1. Darkfield microscopy offers the highest SNR but does not permit imaging of other sample structures. In contrast, Optical Coherence Tomography enables excellent sample visualization but has limited sensitivity to nanoparticles, via either enhanced scattering and absorption or spectroscopic contrast. Use of photothermal excitation can improve sensitivity but on its own will not allow visualization of transparent samples, such as cells. Advanced photothermal schemes employ heterodyne detection and can greatly extend sensitivity but have limited ability to visualize cell features without incorporating an additional modality. Digital holography allows quantitative phase images of cell features and by using a focused photothermal excitation source, individual plasmonic nanoparticles can be visualized. Multimodal approaches have shown the ability to provide good sensitivity to nanoparticles, even individual particles, and then visualize other structures as well. However, incorporation of additional imaging modalities within a single platform increases complexity and can require careful coregistration efforts. Thus, sensitivity of digital holography to nanoparticles can be further improved compared to the results here by inclusion of heterodyne photothermal detection, for example; however, the additional complexity may not be warranted as sufficient SNR for nanoparticle localization can be realized.
#192396 - $15.00 USD (C) 2013 OSA
Received 17 Jun 2013; revised 4 Sep 2013; accepted 5 Sep 2013; published 16 Sep 2013
1 October 2013 | Vol. 4, No. 10 | DOI:10.1364/BOE.4.002166 | BIOMEDICAL OPTICS EXPRESS 2177
Table 1. Comparison of detection schemes for plasmonic metal nanoparticles. Modality
Single particle
LOD
Structural information
Depth Imaging
None
Surface
-
None
Surface
-
None
Surface
Dark field microscopy Photothermal
Yes SNR: 60 dB Yes SNR: 30 dB
-
Heterodyne photothermal
Yes SNR: 100dB
Photothermal OCT
No
1 ppm For 100 μm thick layer
3D micron scale but not for NP signal
Up to 500 microns
Spectroscopic OCT
No
50 ppm For 100 μm thick layer
3D with spectroscopic contrast
Up to 500 microns
Digital Holography
Yes SNR: 26 dB
-
Integrated phase profile
Limited to optically thin samples
Digital Holography w/Het- PT
Yes SNR: 26-34 dB
-
3D micron scale with depth sensitivity given by depth of field
Limited to optically thin samples
Acknowledgment This work was supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation (CBET-1039562).
#192396 - $15.00 USD (C) 2013 OSA
Received 17 Jun 2013; revised 4 Sep 2013; accepted 5 Sep 2013; published 16 Sep 2013
1 October 2013 | Vol. 4, No. 10 | DOI:10.1364/BOE.4.002166 | BIOMEDICAL OPTICS EXPRESS 2178
