| Literature DB >> 28930158 |
Omnia Hamdy1, Jala El-Azab2, Tarek A Al-Saeed3, Mahmoud F Hassan4, Nahed H Solouma5,6.
Abstract
Optical differentiation is a promising tool in biomedical diagnosis mainly because of its safety. The optical parameters' values of biological tissues differ according to the histopathology of the tissue and hence could be used for differentiation. The optical fluence rate distribution on tissue boundaries depends on the optical parameters. So, providing image displays of such distributions can provide a visual means of biomedical diagnosis. In this work, an experimental setup was implemented to measure the spatially-resolved steady state diffuse reflectance and transmittance of native and coagulated chicken liver and native and boiled breast chicken skin at 635 and 808 nm wavelengths laser irradiation. With the measured values, the optical parameters of the samples were calculated in vitro using a combination of modified Kubelka-Munk model and Bouguer-Beer-Lambert law. The estimated optical parameters values were substituted in the diffusion equation to simulate the fluence rate at the tissue surface using the finite element method. Results were verified with Monte-Carlo simulation. The results obtained showed that the diffuse reflectance curves and fluence rate distribution images can provide discrimination tools between different tissue types and hence can be used for biomedical diagnosis.Entities:
Keywords: Kubelika-Munk model; diffuse reflection; diffusion equation; finite element method; optical fluence rate; tissue optical parameters
Year: 2017 PMID: 28930158 PMCID: PMC5615757 DOI: 10.3390/ma10091104
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.623
Figure 1The schematic diagram of the proposed setup: (a) collimated transmission measurement; (b) diffuse reflection and transmission measurement.
Figure 2The Geometry of two fluxes in Kubelka-Munk theory.
Figure 3Spatially resolved steady state of: (a) diffuse reflectance of normal chicken liver; (b) diffuse transmittance of normal chicken liver; (c) diffuse reflectance of normal chicken skin; (d) diffuse transmittance of normal skin.
Figure 4Spatially resolved steady state diffuse reflectance of normal and coagulated chicken liver: (a) at 635 nm; (b) at 808 nm laser irradiation.
The calculated optical parameters.
| Sample | Wavelength | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Normal chicken liver | 635 nm | 1.4129 | 24.7830 | 0.6794 |
| 808 nm | 8.5873 | 21.3700 | 0.7762 | |
| Coagulated chicken liver | 635 nm | 24.015 | 46.3455 | 0.3985 |
| 808 nm | 23.250 | 42.1177 | 0.5527 | |
| Normal chicken skin | 635 nm | 2.5433 | 16.4246 | 0.6117 |
| 808 nm | 2.3215 | 34.8758 | 0.6117 | |
| Boiled chicken skin | 635 nm | 4.9963 | 14.6141 | 0.8729 |
| 808 nm | 7.3333 | 54.3248 | 0.8371 |
Monte-Carlo Validation.
| Sample | Wavelength | Measured Values of Rd | Monte-Carlo Simulation Values of Rd |
|---|---|---|---|
| Normal Chicken liver | 635 nm | 0.0396 | 0.0469 |
| 808 nm | 0.0339 | 0.0422 | |
| Coagulated chicken liver | 635 nm | 0.1220 | 0.10713 |
| 808 nm | 0.0763 | 0.07244 | |
| Normal Chicken skin | 635 nm | 0.0343 | 0.0433 |
| 808 nm | 0.0072 | 0.0297 | |
| Boiled Chicken skin | 635 nm | 0.0071 | 0.0262 |
| 808 nm | 0.1225 | 0.0892 |
Figure 5Spatially resolved steady state diffuse reflectance of normal and boiled breast chicken skin: (a) at 635 nm; (b) at 808 nm laser irradiation.
Figure 6Fluence rate at tissue samples surface: (a) normal chicken liver at 635 nm; (b) coagulated chicken liver at 635 nm; (c) normal chicken liver at 808 nm; (d) coagulated chicken liver at 808 nm laser irradiation.
Figure 7Fluence rate at tissue samples surface: (a) normal chicken skin at 635 nm; (b) boiled chicken skin at 635 nm; (c) normal chicken skin at 808 nm; (d) boiled chicken skin at 808 nm laser irradiation.