Skip to main content
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2013 Dec 15.
Published in final edited form as: Opt Lett. 2012 Dec 15;37(24):5220–5222. doi: 10.1364/OL.37.005220

Structural length-scale sensitivities of diffuse reflectance in continuous random media under the Born approximation

Andrew J Radosevich 1,*, Ji Yi 1, Jeremy D Rogers 1, Vadim Backman 1
PMCID: PMC3655697  NIHMSID: NIHMS460887  PMID: 23258058

Abstract

Which range of structures contribute to light scattering in a continuous random media such as biological tissue? In this Letter, we present a model to study the structural length-scale sensitivity of scattering in continuous random media under the Born approximation. The scattering coefficient μs, backscattering coefficient μb, anisotropy factor g, and reduced scattering coefficient μs∗ as well as the shape of the diffuse reflectance profile are calculated under this model. For media with a biologically relevant Henyey-Greenstein phase function with g ~ 0.93 at wavelength λ = 633 nm, we report that μs∗ is sensitive to length-scales from 46.9 nm to 2.07 μm (i.e. λ/13 to 3λ), μb is sensitive from 26.7 nm to 320 nm (i.e. λ/24 to λ/2), and the diffuse reflectance profile is sensitive from 30.8 nm to 2.71 μm (i.e. λ/21 to 4λ).


Elastic light scattering provides a valuable tool to detect and quantify sub-diffractional structures even if they cannot be resolved by a conventional imaging system. However, the limits of the sensitivity of light scattering to different structural length-scales in a continuous random media (e.g. biological tissue) have not yet been fully studied. In this Letter, we present the methodologies used to study the length-scale sensitivities of the scattering parameters μs, μb, g, and μs∗ as well as the diffuse reflectance profile in continuous random media.

Consider a statistically homogeneous random medium composed of a continuous distribution of fluctuating refractive index, n(r⃗). We define the excess refractive index which contributes to scattering as nΔ(r⃗) = n(r⃗)/no − 1, where no is the mean refractive index. Since nΔ(r⃗) is a random process, it is mathematically useful to describe the distribution of refractive index through its statistical autocorrelation function Bn(rd) = ∫nΔ(r⃗)nΔ(r⃗ − rd) dr⃗.

One versatile model for Bn(rd) employs the Whittle-Matérn family of correlation functions [1, 2]:

Bn(rd)=An·(rdlc)D-32·KD-32(rdlc), (1)

where Kν (·) is the modified Bessel function of the second kind with order ν, lc is the characteristic length of heterogeneity, An is the fluctuation strength, and D determines the shape of the distribution (e.g. Gaussian as D → ∞, decaying exponential for D = 4, and power law for D < 3). Importantly, when D = 3 this model predicts a scattering phase function which is identical to the commonly used Henyey-Greenstein model.

All light scattering characteristics can be expressed through the power spectral density Φs. Under the Born approximation, Φs is the Fourier transform of Bn [2,3]:

Φs(ks)=Anlc3Γ(D2)π3/22(5-D)/2·(1+ks2lc2)-D/2, (2)

where ks=2ksinθ2 and k is the wavenumber.

In order to study the sensitivity of scattering to short length-scales (lower length-scale analysis), we perturb nΔ(r⃗) by convolving with a three dimensional Gaussian:

G(r→)=(16πln(2)W2)3/2·exp(-4ln(2)W2r→2), (3)

where W is the full width at half maximum. Conceptually, G(r⃗) represents a process which modifies the original medium by removing ‘particles’ smaller than W. Using the convolution theorem, this modified medium can be expressed as nΔl(r→)=F-1[F[nΔ(r→)]·F[G(r→)]], where Inline graphic indicates the Fourier transform operation and the superscript l indicates that lower frequencies are retained.

The autocorrelation of nΔl(r→) can then be found as:

Bnl(rd)=F-1[∣F[nΔ(r→)]∣2·∣F[G(r→)]∣2]=4π∫0∞Φsl(ks)kssin(ksr)rdks, (4)

where Φsl(ks) is the power spectral density for nΔl(r→) and can be computed as:

Φsl(ks)=Anlc3Γ(D2)π3/22(5-D)/2·exp(-ks2Wl28ln(2))(1+ks2lc2)D/2. (5)

We note that Eq. 4 has no closed form solution, but can be evaluated numerically.

Figure 1 demonstrates the functions described by Eqs. 4 and 5 for varying values of Wl using a Bnl(rd) with D = 3, lc = 1 μm, and wavelength λ = 633 nm. This corresponds to a biologically relevant Henyey-Greenstein function with anisotropy factor g ~ 0.93. For increasing Wl, Bnl(rd) shows a decreasing value at short length-scales (Fig. 1a). The point at which Bnl(rd) deviates from the original Bn(rd) corresponds roughly to the value of Wl. The lower value of Bnl(rd) at short length-scales corresponds to decreased intensity of Φsl(ks) at higher spatial frequencies after Fourier transformation (Fig. 1b). To study the sensitivity of scattering to large length-scales (upper length-scale analysis), we employ the same model as above but filter larger particles by evaluating nΔh(r→)=F-1[F[nΔ(r→)]·(1-F[G(r→)])], where the superscript h indicates that higher frequencies are retained. The autocorrelation of nΔh(r→) can then be found as:

Bnh(rd)=F-1[∣F[nΔ(r¯)]∣2·∣1-F[G(r→)]∣2]=4π∫0∞Φsh(ks)kssin(ksr)rdks, (6)

where

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Lower length-scale analysis for Wl = 0, 10, 50, and 100 nm with D = 3, lc = 1 μm, and λ = 633 nm. The normalized (a) Bnl(rd) and (b) Φsl(ks). In each panel the arrow indicates increasing Wl.

Φsh(ks)=Anlc3Γ(D2)π3/22(5-D)/2·(1-exp(-ks2Wh216ln(2)))2(1+ks2lc2)D/2. (7)

Figure 2 shows the functions described by Eqs. 6 and 7. For decreasing Wh, Bnh(rd) exhibits a decrease at larger length-scales (Fig. 2a). These alterations lead to a decreased intensity of Φsh(ks) at lower spatial frequencies (Fig. 2b). As a way to visualize the continuous media represented by the above equations, Fig. 3 provides example cross sectional slices through nΔ(r⃗), nΔl(r→), and nΔh(r→) for D = 3, lc =1μm, and Wl = Wh = 100 nm.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

Upper length-scale analysis for Wh = ∞, 10, 5, and 1 μm with D = 3, lc = 1 μm, and λ = 633 nm. (a) Bnh(rd) where the dashed lines indicate locations in which the curve is negative. (b) Φsh(ks). In each panel the arrow indicates decreasing Wh.

Fig. 3.

Fig. 3

Example media with D = 3 and lc = 1 μm. (a) nΔ(r⃗). (b) nΔl(r→) and (c) nΔh(r→) for Wl = Wh = 100 nm.

Implementing the above methods, we now define a number of measurable scattering quantities. First, the differential scattering cross section per unit volume for unpolarized light σ(θ), can be found by incorporating the dipole scattering pattern into Φs(ks):

σ(θ)=2πk4(1+cos2θ)Φs(ks). (8)

The shape of σ(θ) can be parameterized by the scattering coefficient μs, the backscattering coefficient μb, and g [4]:

μs=2π∫-11σ(cosθ)dcosθ, (9)
μb=4π·σ(θ=π), (10)
g=2πμs∫-11cosθ·σ(cosθ)dcosθ (11)

Conceptually, μs is the total scattered power per unit volume, μb represents the power scattered in the back-ward direction per unit volume, and g describes how forward directed the scattering is. Finally, the effective transport in a multiple scattering medium is expressed by the reduced scattering coefficient μs∗=μs·(1-g).

Figure 4a shows percent changes in the above scattering parameters under the lower length-scale analysis for a Bnl(rd) with D = 3, lc = 1 μm, and λ = 633 nm. With increasing Wl, each parameter decreases from its original value. For μs, the decrease occurs because scattering material is removed from the medium. For 1 − g and μb, the decrease occurs as a result of reduced backscattering (see Fig. 1b). For μs∗, the decrease is a combination of the previous two effects.

Fig. 4.

Fig. 4

Percent change in scattering parameters with varying values of Wl and Wh for D = 3, lc = 1 μm, and λ = 633 nm. (a) Lower and (b) upper length-scale percent changes. The dotted line indicates the ± 5 % threshold.

To provide specific length-scale sensitivity quantification, we focus on the parameters most relevant to reflectance measurements: μs∗ for samples within the multiple scattering regime and μb for samples within the single scattering regime. Defining a 5% threshold (a common significance level in statistics) the minimum length-scale sensitivity (rmin) of μs∗ and μb equals 46.9 nm (~λ/13) and 26.7 nm (~λ/24), respectively. Thus, measurements of μs∗ and μb provide sensitivity to structures much smaller than the diffraction limit. Interestingly, rmin is smaller for μb than μs∗. This can be understood by noting that ks is maximized in the backscattering direction (i.e. θ = π) and so provides the most sensitivity to alterations of Bn(rd) at small length-scales (see Fig. 1).

Figure 4b shows percent changes in the scattering parameters under the upper length-scale analysis. With decreasing Wh, μs decreases because scattering material is removed from the medium. For 1 − g, an increase occurs due to a reduction in the forward scattering component. Combining these two opposing effects, the maximum length-scale sensitivity (rmax) for μs∗ equals 2.07 μm (~ 3λ). For μb, a very small value of Wh is needed in order to alter backscattering. As a result, rmax for μb is only 320 nm (~λ/2).

In order to study the length-scale sensitivity of the diffuse reflectance profile we performed electric field Monte Carlo simulations of continuous random medium as described in Ref. [5]. Here, we display the distribution measured with unpolarized illumination and collection, Poo(r). Poo(r) is the distribution of light that exits a semi-infinite medium anti-parallel to the incident beam and within an annulus of radius r from the entrance point. It is normalized such that ∫0∞Poo(r)dr=1.

Figure 5a shows Poo under the lower length-scale analysis for a Bn(rd) with D = 3, lc = 1 μm, and λ = 633 nm. With increasing Wl, the value of Poo is decreased within the subdiffusion regime (i.e. r·μs∗<1). This decrease can be attributed in part to the decreased intensity of the phase function in the backscattering direction (see Fig. 1b). For r·μs∗>1, a range which is essentially insensitive to the shape of the phase function, Poo remains largely unchanged. Figure 5b shows similar results for the upper length-scale analysis. In order to perform a sensitivity analysis, we calculate the maximum percent error at any position on Poo relative to the original case. Applying a 5% threshold once again, we find that rmin = 30.8 nm (~λ/21) and rmax = 2.71 μm (~ 4λ).

Fig. 5.

Fig. 5

Monte Carlo simulations of Poo with D = 3, lc = 1 μm, and λ = 633 nm. (a) Lower length-scale analysis for Wl = 0, 30, 60, and 90 nmm. Arrow indicates increasing Wl. (b) Upper length-scale analysis for Wh = ∞, 10, 2, 0.5 μm. Arrows indicate decreasing Wh.

Finally, we note that the exact values of rmin and rmax depend on the shape of Bn(rd). The values given above provide an estimate assuming a correlation function shape which is widely used and accepted for modeling of biological tissue (Henyey-Greenstein). Figure 6 illustrates the dependence of rmin and rmax on the shape of Bn(rd), assuming the Whittle-Matérn model and using μs∗ as an example. As either D or lc increases, Bn(rd) shifts relatively more weight to larger length-scales and away from smaller length-scales. As a result, both rmin and rmax increase monotonically with D and lc.

Fig. 6.

Fig. 6

(a) rmin and (b) rmax for μs∗ with different shapes of Bn(rd) and λ = 633 nm.

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by National Institute of Health grant numbers RO1CA128641 and R01EB003682. A.J. Radosevich is supported by a National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship under Grant No. DGE-0824162.

References

  • 1.Guttorp P, Gneiting T. National Research Center for Statistics and the Environment-Technical Report Series. 2005. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Rogers JD, Çapoğlu İR, Backman V. Opt Lett. 2009;34:1891. doi: 10.1364/ol.34.001891. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Ishimaru A. Wave Propagation and Scattering in Random Media. IEEE press; 1997. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Bohren CF, Huffman DR. Absorption and Scattering of Light by Small Particles. Wiley; New York: 1983. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Radosevich AJ, Rogers JD, Çapoğlu İR, Mutyal NN, Pradhan P, Backman V. J Biomed Opt. 2012 doi: 10.1117/1.JBO.17.11.115001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Long Form Bibliography

  • 1.Guttorp P, Gneiting T. National Research Center for Statistics and the Environment-Technical Report Series. 2005. On the Whittle-Matérn correlation family. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Rogers JD, Çapoğlu İR, Backman V. Non-scalar elastic light scattering from continuous random media in the Born approximation. Opt Lett. 2009;34:1891. doi: 10.1364/ol.34.001891. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Ishimaru A. Wave Propagation and Scattering in Random Media. IEEE press; 1997. Chapter 16: Scattering of waves from random continuum and turbulent media. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Bohren CF, Huffman DR. Absorption and Scattering of Light by Small Particles. Wiley; New York: 1983. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Radosevich AJ, Rogers JD, Çapoğlu İR, Mutyal NN, Pradhan P, Backman V. Open source software for electric field Monte Carlo simulation of coherent backscattering in biological media containing birefringence. J Biomed Opt. 2012;17(11) doi: 10.1117/1.JBO.17.11.115001. [Accepted: 2012-10-02 18:45:19, Manuscript ID: JBO 12448] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES