Validation of uniformity-optimized irradiance distribution on a well-plate platform from a light-emitting-diode array

Chaiyarerk Homsirikamol; Saroj Suvanasuthi; Kwanchanok Viravaidya-Pasuwat; Kwanchanok Viravaidya-Pasuwat

doi:10.1364/AO.392126

Applied Optics
Vol. 59,
Issue 20,
pp. 6168-6180
(2020)
•https://doi.org/10.1364/AO.392126

Validation of uniformity-optimized irradiance distribution on a well-plate platform from a light-emitting-diode array

Chaiyarerk Homsirikamol, Saroj Suvanasuthi, and Kwanchanok Viravaidya-Pasuwat

Not Accessible

Your library or personal account may give you access

Get PDF
Email
Share
Get Citation
Copy Citation Text
Chaiyarerk Homsirikamol, Saroj Suvanasuthi, and Kwanchanok Viravaidya-Pasuwat, "Validation of uniformity-optimized irradiance distribution on a well-plate platform from a light-emitting-diode array," Appl. Opt. 59, 6168-6180 (2020)

Export Citation
- BibTex
- Endnote (RIS)
- HTML
- Plain Text
Citation alert
Save article

Check for updates

Abstract

The computational optimization of irradiance distribution uniformity has been conducted in several studies to obtain the evenness of photoresponses on an irradiated surface using light-emitting-diode (LED) arrays. However, there has been little discussion on the precision of predictive simulations. This study aims to validate the simulated irradiance predicted by a mathematical model on the working area of a six-well plate and investigate the spatial consistency of the photobleaching of methylene blue and IR-820 photosensitizers on the bottom of the different wells illuminated by using the local-search-optimized LED configurations. The validation signified the negative deviation of both the measured irradiance and irradiance uniformity as compared to the simulated data. Despite the coefficients of variation observed as low as 1.9% and 7.4% for red-light and infrared irradiance, respectively, the photobleaching responses were found to be spatially diverse. The implications of this study are opportunities for further enhancements to the predictability of the simulations for the design of prospective illumination setups.

Full Article | PDF Article

More Like This

Designing light-emitting diode arrays for uniform near-field irradiance

Ivan Moreno, Maximino Avendaño-Alejo, and Rumen I. Tzonchev
Appl. Opt. 45(10) 2265-2272 (2006)

Optimization of LED array for uniform illumination over a target plane by evolutionary programming

Sourav Pal
Appl. Opt. 54(27) 8221-8227 (2015)

Optimization design of irradiance array for LED uniform rectangular illumination

Rengmao Wu, Zhenrong Zheng, Haifeng Li, and Xu Liu
Appl. Opt. 51(13) 2257-2263 (2012)

Previous Article Next Article

Cited By

You do not have subscription access to this journal. Cited by links are available to subscribers only. You may subscribe either as an Optica member, or as an authorized user of your institution.

Contact your librarian or system administrator
or
Login to access Optica Member Subscription

Figures (12)

You do not have subscription access to this journal. Figure files are available to subscribers only. You may subscribe either as an Optica member, or as an authorized user of your institution.

Contact your librarian or system administrator
or
Login to access Optica Member Subscription

Tables (1)

You do not have subscription access to this journal. Article tables are available to subscribers only. You may subscribe either as an Optica member, or as an authorized user of your institution.

Contact your librarian or system administrator
or
Login to access Optica Member Subscription

Equations (14)

You do not have subscription access to this journal. Equations are available to subscribers only. You may subscribe either as an Optica member, or as an authorized user of your institution.

Contact your librarian or system administrator
or
Login to access Optica Member Subscription

	Methylene Blue			IR-820
	Kruskal–Wallis Test		Post hoc Analysis	Kruskal–Wallis Test		Post hoc Analysis
Irradiation Time (min)	$H_{t}$ ^a	$p$	The Pairs of the Well Positions Showing Significant Difference in Peak Absorbance and its Mean Deviation ( $n = 10$ , $p < 0.05$ )	$H_{t}$ ^a	$p$	The Pairs of the Well Positions Showing Significant Difference in Peak Absorbance and its Mean Deviation ( $n = 10$ , $p < 0.05$ )
0	7.1586	0.209	–	7.6734	0.175	–
2	17.2447	0.004	1–2/1–3/1–4/1–5/1–6/2–4	24.8466	$< 0.001$	1–2/1–3/1–4/1–5/2–4/2–6/3–6/4–6/5–6
5	18.1900	0.003	1–3/1–6/2–3/2–6/3–4/3–5/4–6	30.1377	$< 0.001$	1–2/1–3/1–4/2–5/2–6/3–5/3–6/4–5/4–6/5–6
10	19.6170	0.001	1–5/2–5/3–5/4–5/5–6	25.7567	$< 0.001$	1–2/1–6/2–3/2–5/2–6/3–6/4–6/5–6
20	23.1482	$< 0.001$	1–2/1–3/1–4/1–5/1–6/2–4	36.5351	$< 0.001$	1–3/1–4/1–5/1–6/2–4/2–5/2–6/3–5/3–6/4–5/4–6
30	37.1961	$< 0.001$	1–3/1–4/1–5/1–6/2–3/2–4/2–5/2–6/3–6	31.8951	$< 0.001$	1–4/1–5/1–6/2–4/2–5/2–6/3–5/3–6/4–5/4–6/5–6
45	38.0803	$< 0.001$	1–2/1–3/1–4/1–5/1–6/2–3/2–5/2–6/3–4/3–6/4–5/4–6	40.8637	$< 0.001$	1–3/1–4/1–5/2–4/2–5/2–6/3–4/3–5/3–6/4–5/4–6/5–6
60	53.0748	$< 0.001$	1–2/1–3/1–4/1–5/1–6/2–3/2–4/2–5/2–6/3–4/3–5/3–6/4–5/4–6/5–6	36.9134	$< 0.001$	1–4/1–6/2–4/2–6/3–4/3–6/4–5/4–6/5–6

Abstract

Cited By

Figures (12)

Tables (1)

Equations (14)

Applied Optics