CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 16Optical Imaging and Spectroscopy TechniquesWater Quality Monitoring and AnalysisSpectroscopy and Laser Applications

Absorbance spectroscopy of light scattering samples placed inside an integrating sphere for wide dynamic range absorbance measurement

Open access
Mori, Ayaka, Yamashita, Kyohei, Tabata, Yunosuke, Seto, Keisuke, Tokunaga, Eiji·2021·Review of Scientific Instruments
DOI 10.1063/5.0066412
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

In the absorbance measurement of a sample that scatters light significantly, it is necessary to consider the effect of the attenuation of incident light due to scattering on the measured absorbance. Since the usual absorbance measurement with an integrating sphere (IS) cannot remove the influence of backscattering, we performed the absorbance measurement considering the light scattered to almost all solid angles by placing the sample inside the IS. Ni(NO3)2 and Co(NO3)2 aqueous solutions were used as non-scattering samples, and Ni(NO3)2 solutions mixed with submicrometer polystyrene spheres as scatterers were used as scattering samples. The sample-concentration dependence of the measured absorbance was investigated for the cell containing the sample placed at the entrance of or inside the IS. It was found that even inside the IS, the measured absorbance does not match the true absorbance because light is partially multiply transmitted through the sample or detected without being transmitted through the sample. Due to the latter reason, the saturated absorbance inside the IS was lower than that at the entrance. We derived the formula with three fitting parameters relating the measured and true absorbance taking these factors into account, which quantitatively reproduced the concentration dependence of the absorbance in the non-scattering sample. When the scattering samples were placed at the entrance and inside of the IS, the measured absorbance increased and decreased, respectively, compared to those without scatterers. This decrease in absorbance for the scattering samples inside the IS was also explained by the proposed formula slightly modified.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1063/5.0066412

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Samples with an absorbance greater than 3.0 may be more prone to error for accurate quantitative measurements.

    “Therefore, it is not advised to measure samples with an absorbance greater than 3.0 for accurate quantitative measurements since they may be more prone to error”

    From Quantitative Prediction of Spirulina platensis Biomass Using UV-Vis Spectrophotometry (2026) · cites this paper as Mori et al., 2021

    The paper’s discussion of Eq. (9) says stray light is a major error factor at high absorbance and that measured absorbance approaches an instrument-dependent maximum. Its Conclusion also says high absorbance becomes difficult to measure for highly scattering samples. Neither passage establishes 3.0 as a cutoff or advises against measuring all samples above it; page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 41 · Cited by 16

Research works printed but not linked: 42

  1. A. K. Gaigalas, H.-J. He, and L. Wang, J. Res. Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol. 114, 215 (2009). · DOI
  2. M. Kishino, M. Takahashi, N. Okami, and S. Ichimura, Bull. Mar. Sci. 37, 634 (1985).
  3. Y. Numata, S. V. Nair, K. Nakagawa, H. Ishino, T. Kobayashi, and E. Tokunaga, Chem. Phys. Lett. 601, 128 (2014). · DOI
  4. E. G. Wrigglesworth and J. H. Johnston, Nanoscale Adv. 3, 3530 (2021). · DOI
  5. A. Dazzi, A. Deniset-Besseau, and P. Lasch, Analyst 138, 4191 (2013). · DOI
  6. M. N. Merzlyak and K. Razi Naqvi, J. Photochem. Photobiol., B 58, 123 (2000). · DOI
  7. R. Röttgers and S. Gehnke, Appl. Opt. 51, 1336 (2012). · DOI
  8. J. W. Pickering, S. A. Prahl, N. van Wieringen, J. F. Beek, H. J. C. M. Sterenborg, and M. J. C. van Gemert, Appl. Opt. 32, 399 (1993). · DOI
  9. A. N. Yaroslavsky, I. V. Yaroslavsky, T. Goldbach, and H.-J. Schwarzmaier, J. Biomed. Opt. 4, 47 (1999). · DOI
  10. I. V. Yaroslavsky, A. N. Yaroslavsky, T. Goldbach, and H.-J. Schwarzmaier, Appl. Opt. 35, 6797 (1996). · DOI
  11. E. S. Fry, G. W. Kattawar, and R. M. Pope, Appl. Opt. 31, 2055 (1992). · DOI
  12. N. R. Larson, Y. Wei, and C. R. Middaugh, Anal. Chem. 90, 4982 (2018). · DOI
  13. R. C. I. Blake and M. N. Griff, Front. Microbiol. 3, 136 (2012). · DOI
  14. T. Jávorfi, J. Erostyák, J. Gál, A. Buzády, L. Menczel, G. Garab, and K. Razi Naqvi, J. Photochem. Photobiol., B 82, 127 (2006). · DOI
  15. S. I. Pogosyan, A. M. Durgaryan, I. V. Konyukhov, O. B. Chivkunova, and M. N. Merzlyak, Oceanology 49, 866 (2009). · DOI
  16. C. J.-Y. Lerebourg, D. A. Pilgrim, G. D. Ludbrook, and R. Neal, J. Opt. A: Pure Appl. Opt. 4, S56 (2002). · DOI
  17. R. Röttgers, C. Häse, and R. Doerffer, Limnol. Oceanogr.: Methods 5, 1 (2007). · DOI
  18. J. Wollschläger, M. Grunwald, R. Röttgers, and W. Petersen, Ocean Dyn. 63, 761 (2013). · DOI
  19. I. Lefering, R. Röttgers, R. Weeks, D. Connor, C. Utschig, K. Heymann, and D. McKee, Opt. Express 24, 24805 (2016). · DOI
  20. R. Röttgers, W. Schönfeld, P.-R. Kipp, and R. Doerffer, Appl. Opt. 44, 5549 (2005). · DOI
  21. J. Wollschläger, R. Röttgers, W. Petersen, and O. Zielinski, Front. Mar. Sci. 5, 534 (2019). · DOI
  22. J. T. O. Kirk, Appl. Opt. 34, 4397 (1995). · DOI
  23. S. Leyre, E. Coutino-Gonzalez, J. J. Joos, J. Ryckaert, Y. Meuret, D. Poelman, P. F. Smet, G. Durinck, J. Hofkens, G. Deconinck, and P. Hanselaer, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 85, 123115 (2014). · DOI
  24. R. Hoshi, K. Suzuki, N. Hasebe, T. Yoshihara, and S. Tobita, Anal. Chem. 92, 607 (2020). · DOI
  25. L. Sun and J. R. Bolton, J. Phys. Chem. 100, 4127 (1996). · DOI
  26. A. K. Gaigalas and L. Wang, J. Res. Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol. 113, 17 (2008). · DOI
  27. B. L. Darby, B. Auguié, M. Meyer, A. E. Pantoja, and E. C. Le Ru, Nat. Photonics 10, 40 (2016). · DOI
  28. M. G. Mason, P. Nicholls, and C. E. Cooper, Biochim. Biophys. Acta, Bioenerg. 1837, 1882 (2014). · DOI
  29. M. Babin and D. Stramski, Limnol. Oceanogr. 47, 911 (2002). · DOI
  30. S. A. Mann, B. Sciacca, Y. Zhang, J. Wang, E. Kontoleta, H. Liu, and E. C. Garnett, ACS Nano 11, 1412 (2017). · DOI
  31. Y. Villanueva, C. Veenstra, and W. Steenbergen, Appl. Opt. 55, 3030 (2016). · DOI
  32. I. Fecht and M. Johnson, Meas. Sci. Technol. 10, 612 (1999). · DOI
  33. A. M. K. Nilsson, R. Berg, and S. Andersson-Engels, Appl. Opt. 34, 4609 (1995). · DOI
  34. N. B. Nelson and B. B. Prézelin, Appl. Opt. 32, 6710 (1993). · DOI
  35. S. Tassan and G. M. Ferrari, Appl. Opt. 42, 4802 (2003). · DOI
  36. D. J. Chess, E. Billings, R. Covian, B. Glancy, S. French, J. Taylor, H. de Bari, E. Murphy, and R. S. Balaban, Anal. Biochem. 439, 161 (2013). · DOI
  37. H. Haardt and H. Maske, Limnol. Oceanogr. 32, 608 (1987). · DOI
  38. B. P. Aduev, D. R. Nurmukhametov, G. M. Belokurov, A. A. Zvekov, A. V. Kalenskii, A. P. Nikitin, and I. Y. Liskov, Tech. Phys. 59, 1387 (2014). · DOI
  39. R. Takahashi, S. Sato, T. Sodesawa, and H. Nishida, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 4, 3800 (2002). · DOI
  40. S. Qiu, Q. Zhang, W. Lv, T. Wang, Q. Zhang, and L. Ma, RSC Adv. 7, 24551 (2017). · DOI
  41. L. Bai, F. Wyrwalski, J.-F. Lamonier, A. Y. Khodakov, E. Monflier, and A. Ponchel, Appl. Catal., B 138-139, 381 (2013). · DOI
  42. N. Banić, M. Vraneš, B. Abramović, J. Csanádi, and S. Gadžurić, Dalton Trans. 43, 15515 (2014). · DOI

Authors
Mori, A., Yamashita, K., Tabata, Y., Seto, K., & Tokunaga, E.
Affiliations
  • Tokyo University of Science (JP)
  • Department of Physics, Faculty of Science, Tokyo University of Science , 1-3 Kagurazaka, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo 162-8601, Japan
Corresponding author
Tokunaga, Eiji
ORCID
Venue
Review of Scientific Instruments
Publisher
AIP Publishing
Published
2021-12-01
Volume
92
Issue
12
Pages
123103-123103
ISSN
  • 0034-6748 (ISSN-L)
  • 1089-7623
DOI
10.1063/5.0066412
OpenAlex
W4200511898
Cited by
16
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 2
FWCI
1.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Review of Scientific Instruments (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Optical Imaging and Spectroscopy Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Waste Management and Disposal › Water Quality Monitoring and Analysis
  • Physical Sciences › Chemistry › Spectroscopy › Spectroscopy and Laser Applications
Keywords
absorbance measurement, integrating sphere, light scattering, backscattering, multiple scattering, polystyrene microspheres, wide dynamic range, correction formula

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review