Comparison of Z-scan and THG derived nonlinear index of refraction in selected organic solvents

Ileana Rau; François Kajzar; Jérôme Luc; Bouchta Sahraoui; Georges Boudebs

doi:10.1364/JOSAB.25.001738

Journal of the Optical Society of America B
Vol. 25,
Issue 10,
pp. 1738-1747
(2008)
•https://doi.org/10.1364/JOSAB.25.001738

Comparison of Z-scan and THG derived nonlinear index of refraction in selected organic solvents

Ileana Rau, François Kajzar, Jérôme Luc, Bouchta Sahraoui, and Georges Boudebs

Not Accessible

Your library or personal account may give you access

Get PDF
Email
Share
Get Citation
Copy Citation Text
Ileana Rau, François Kajzar, Jérôme Luc, Bouchta Sahraoui, and Georges Boudebs, "Comparison of Z-scan and THG derived nonlinear index of refraction in selected organic solvents," J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 25, 1738-1747 (2008)

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

Related Topics
Table of Contents Category
- Nonlinear Optics
Optics & Photonics Topics
?

The topics in this list come from the Optics and Photonics Topics applied to this article.
Previously assigned OCIS codes
- Nonlinear optics, materials (190.4400)
- Optical nonlinearities in organic materials (190.4710)

About this Article
History
- Original Manuscript: February 19, 2008
- Revised Manuscript: July 9, 2008
- Manuscript Accepted: July 28, 2008
- Published: September 26, 2008

Abstract

Nonlinear index of refraction of a series of organic solvents, measured by the nonlinear imaging (z-scan) technique, is compared with the same values derived from optical third-harmonic generation (THG). The systematic differences in the values obtained from the z-scan measurements and from THG are attributed to three factors: the value of the standard used in THG measurements, important rotational contribution in z-scan measurements, and the difference in dispersion for $n_{2}$ derived from Kerr susceptibility and those derived from THG measurements. Using the recently proposed standard silica susceptibility value, one obtains a very good agreement for silica and significant differences for the solvents, particularly for $C S_{2}$ and chlorobenzene. A correction based on a three-level model for centrosymmetric media is applied for dispersion.

Full Article | PDF Article

More Like This

Third-harmonic generation at the interfaces of a cuvette filled with selected organic solvents

E. C. Barbano, K. Harrington, S. C. Zilio, and L. Misoguti
Appl. Opt. 55(3) 595-602 (2016)

Ultrafast third order nonlinearities of organic solvents

K. Iliopoulos, D. Potamianos, E. Kakkava, P. Aloukos, I. Orfanos, and S. Couris
Opt. Express 23(19) 24171-24176 (2015)

Dispersion measurements of electric-field-induced second-harmonic generation and third-harmonic generation in conjugated linear chains

J. R. Heflin, Y. M. Cai, and A. F. Garito
J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 8(10) 2132-2147 (1991)

Previous Article Next Article

References

You do not have subscription access to this journal. Citation lists with outbound citation 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

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 (6)

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 (3)

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 (17)

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

Solvent	$n_{0}$	$χ_{THG}^{(3)}$ $\times 10^{- 14} esu$	$χ_{THG}^{(3)}$ $\times 10^{- 22}$ ${(m ∕ V)}^{2}$	$n_{2}$ $\times 10^{- 20} m^{2} ∕ W$ (calculated from $χ_{THG}^{(3)}$ )	$n_{2}$ $\times 10^{- 20} m^{2} ∕$ $W @ 1064 nm$ measured by z-scan	$χ_{Kerr}^{(3)}$ $\times 10^{- 22}$ ${(m ∕ V)}^{2}$	$χ_{Kerr}^{(3)} ∕ χ_{THG}^{(3)}$	$χ_{Kerr}^{(3)} ∕ χ_{THG}^{(3)}$ corrected for new silica value
Carbon tetrachloride	1.44678	7.96^a	11.1	15.0	28	$20.8 \pm 3.5$	$1.87 \pm 0.32$	$2.91 \pm 0.50$
Chloroform	1.43783	7.00^a	9.77	13.3	38	$27.8 \pm 5$	$2.85 \pm 0.51$	$4.43 \pm 0.79$
Dichloromethane	1.42862	6.13^a	8.56	11.8	37	$26.8 \pm 5$	$3.13 \pm 0.57$	$4.87 \pm 0.89$
Cyclohexane	1.44318	6.47^a	9.03	12.2	19	$14.0 \pm 3$	$1.55 \pm 0.32$	$2.41 \pm 0.50$
N-hexane	1.36500	4.42^a	6.17	9.35	17	$11.2 \pm 2.5$	$1.82 \pm 0.40$	$2.83 \pm 0.62$
Acetone	1.35347	4.69^a	6.55	10.1	23	$14.9 \pm 2.8$	$2.28 \pm 0.43$	$3.55 \pm 0.67$
Methanol	1.32000	2.98^a	4.16	6.74	18	$11.1 \pm 2.3$	$2.67 \pm 0.56$	$4.15 \pm 0.87$
Ethanol	1.33989	3.45^a	4.82	7.57	18	$11.5 \pm 3$	$2.38 \pm 0.63$	$3.70 \pm 0.98$
Dimetylformamide	1.41500	5.57^a	7.78	11.0	42	$29.8 \pm 5.1$	$3.83 \pm 0.66$	$5.96 \pm 1.00$
Water	1.32612	2.80^a	3.91	6.28	14	$8.7 \pm 2.1$	$2.23 \pm 0.54$	$3.47 \pm 0.84$
Chlorobenzene	1.52140	10.6^a	14.8	18.1	117	$95.9 \pm 12.0$	$6.48 \pm 0.81$	$10.07 \pm 1.26$
Toluene	1.49260	9.81^a	13.7	17.4	93	$73.4 \pm 10.5$	$5.36 \pm 0.77$	$8.33 \pm 1.19$
$C S_{2}$	1.62110	23^b	32.1	34.5	310	$288.9 \pm 56.8$	$9.00 \pm 1.77$	$14.00 \pm 2.75$
Silica	1.44967	3.11^a	4.34	5.83	3.7	$2.73 \pm 0.52$	$0.63 \pm 0.12$	$0.98 \pm 0.10$
Silica	1.44967	2.79^c	3.89	5.23	—	—	—	—
Silica	1.44967	$2.0 \pm 0.2$ ^d	2.79	3.75	—	—	—	—
Silica	1.44967	$1.6 \pm 0.2$ ^e	2.23	3.00	—	—	—	—

Damping factor Γ $({cm}^{- 1})$	Silica	Benzene
10	0.847	0.514
200	0.847	0.514
300	0.847	0.514
400	0.847	0.514
500	0.847	0.515
1000	0.847	0.517
2000	0.847	0.527
3000	0.850	0.543
4000	0.856	0.565
5000	0.861	0.592
8000	0.882	0.670
10000	0.904	0.791
15000	1.000	1.114
20000	1.091	1.817
50000	0.241	0.299

Solvent	Chemical formula	$n_{355}$	$n_{1064}$	$χ^{(3)}$ (355)/ $χ^{(3)}$ (1064)	$n_{2} (355) ∕ n_{2} (1064)$	$n_{1907}$	$χ^{(3)}$ (355)/ $χ^{(3)}$ (1907)	$n_{2} (355) ∕ n_{2} (1064)$
Benzene	$C_{6} H_{6}$	1.54976	1.48258	1.874	1.793	1.48008	1.921	1.835
Carbon tetrachloride	$C {Cl}_{4}$	1.48335	1.44678	1.454	1.418	1.44380	1.5	1.460
Chloroform	$C H {Cl}_{3}$	1.47194	1.43783	1.427	1.394	1.43492	1.473	1.436
Dichloromethane	$C H_{2} {Cl}_{2}$	1.45482	1.42862	1.323	1.300	1.42320	1.405	1.375
Dimethylformamide	$H C O N {(C H_{3})}_{2}$	1.45504	1.41500	1.543	1.501	1.41452	1.552	1.509
Cyclohexane	$C_{6} H_{12}$	1.47254	1.44318	1.356	1.329	1.44268	1.363	1.335
N-hexane	$C H_{3} {(C H_{2})}_{4} C H_{3}$	1.38957	1.36500	1.352	1.329	1.36450	1.361	1.336
Acetone	CH3COCH3	1.37933	1.35347	1.386	1.360	1.35056	1.439	1.409
Methanol	CH30H	1.34109	1.3200	1.338	1.317	1.31558	1.426	1.399
Ethanol	$C_{2} H_{5} O H$	1.36281	1.33989	1.317	1.297	1.33431	1.456	1.426
Silica	$Si O_{2}$	1.47642	1.44967	1.316	1.292	1.43953	1.466	1.429

Solvent	$n_{0}$	$χ_{THG}^{(3)}$ $\times 10^{- 14} esu$	$χ_{THG}^{(3)}$ $\times 10^{- 22}$ ${(m ∕ V)}^{2}$	$n_{2}$ $\times 10^{- 20} m^{2} ∕ W$ (calculated from $χ_{THG}^{(3)}$ )	$n_{2}$ $\times 10^{- 20} m^{2} ∕$ $W @ 1064 nm$ measured by z-scan	$χ_{Kerr}^{(3)}$ $\times 10^{- 22}$ ${(m ∕ V)}^{2}$	$χ_{Kerr}^{(3)} ∕ χ_{THG}^{(3)}$	$χ_{Kerr}^{(3)} ∕ χ_{THG}^{(3)}$ corrected for new silica value
Carbon tetrachloride	1.44678	7.96^a	11.1	15.0	28	$20.8 \pm 3.5$	$1.87 \pm 0.32$	$2.91 \pm 0.50$
Chloroform	1.43783	7.00^a	9.77	13.3	38	$27.8 \pm 5$	$2.85 \pm 0.51$	$4.43 \pm 0.79$
Dichloromethane	1.42862	6.13^a	8.56	11.8	37	$26.8 \pm 5$	$3.13 \pm 0.57$	$4.87 \pm 0.89$
Cyclohexane	1.44318	6.47^a	9.03	12.2	19	$14.0 \pm 3$	$1.55 \pm 0.32$	$2.41 \pm 0.50$
N-hexane	1.36500	4.42^a	6.17	9.35	17	$11.2 \pm 2.5$	$1.82 \pm 0.40$	$2.83 \pm 0.62$
Acetone	1.35347	4.69^a	6.55	10.1	23	$14.9 \pm 2.8$	$2.28 \pm 0.43$	$3.55 \pm 0.67$
Methanol	1.32000	2.98^a	4.16	6.74	18	$11.1 \pm 2.3$	$2.67 \pm 0.56$	$4.15 \pm 0.87$
Ethanol	1.33989	3.45^a	4.82	7.57	18	$11.5 \pm 3$	$2.38 \pm 0.63$	$3.70 \pm 0.98$
Dimetylformamide	1.41500	5.57^a	7.78	11.0	42	$29.8 \pm 5.1$	$3.83 \pm 0.66$	$5.96 \pm 1.00$
Water	1.32612	2.80^a	3.91	6.28	14	$8.7 \pm 2.1$	$2.23 \pm 0.54$	$3.47 \pm 0.84$
Chlorobenzene	1.52140	10.6^a	14.8	18.1	117	$95.9 \pm 12.0$	$6.48 \pm 0.81$	$10.07 \pm 1.26$
Toluene	1.49260	9.81^a	13.7	17.4	93	$73.4 \pm 10.5$	$5.36 \pm 0.77$	$8.33 \pm 1.19$
$C S_{2}$	1.62110	23^b	32.1	34.5	310	$288.9 \pm 56.8$	$9.00 \pm 1.77$	$14.00 \pm 2.75$
Silica	1.44967	3.11^a	4.34	5.83	3.7	$2.73 \pm 0.52$	$0.63 \pm 0.12$	$0.98 \pm 0.10$
Silica	1.44967	2.79^c	3.89	5.23	—	—	—	—
Silica	1.44967	$2.0 \pm 0.2$ ^d	2.79	3.75	—	—	—	—
Silica	1.44967	$1.6 \pm 0.2$ ^e	2.23	3.00	—	—	—	—

Damping factor Γ $({cm}^{- 1})$	Silica	Benzene
10	0.847	0.514
200	0.847	0.514
300	0.847	0.514
400	0.847	0.514
500	0.847	0.515
1000	0.847	0.517
2000	0.847	0.527
3000	0.850	0.543
4000	0.856	0.565
5000	0.861	0.592
8000	0.882	0.670
10000	0.904	0.791
15000	1.000	1.114
20000	1.091	1.817
50000	0.241	0.299

Abstract

References

Cited By

Figures (6)

Tables (3)

Equations (17)

Metrics

Journal of the Optical Society of America B

Login or Create Account