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

E. C. Barbano; K. Harrington; S. C. Zilio; L. Misoguti

doi:10.1364/AO.55.000595

Applied Optics
Vol. 55,
Issue 3,
pp. 595-602
(2016)
•https://doi.org/10.1364/AO.55.000595

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

Not Accessible

Your library or personal account may give you access

Get PDF
Email
Share
Get Citation
Copy Citation Text
E. C. Barbano, K. Harrington, S. C. Zilio, and L. Misoguti, "Third-harmonic generation at the interfaces of a cuvette filled with selected organic solvents," Appl. Opt. 55, 595-602 (2016)

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

Abstract

We report on the third-harmonic generation (THG) of tightly focused femtosecond laser pulses at the interfaces of a cuvette filled with organic solvents. Such a system presents four interfaces separating two materials of different refractive indices and third-order nonlinear susceptibilities where the THG takes place because the symmetry around the focus is broken. We selected two cuvettes (silica and B270 crown glass) filled with different organic solvents (acetone, chloroform, and dimethyl sulfoxide) in order to have a variety of interfaces with different linear and nonlinear optical properties. For some of the peaks, the self-focusing modifies the expected cubic power law dependence for THG and as a consequence the four peak profiles may be quite uneven. Although the THG is due to the electronic part of the nonlinear susceptibility, it can suffer from the influence of the self-focusing effect, a Kerr nonlinearity that can have both instantaneous electronic and slow nuclear contributions. This mixture of two distinct third-order nonlinear processes was never considered for such interfaces. All the THG signals could be understood by taking into account the self-focusing effect. Furthermore, the nonlinear refractive indices, $n_{2}$ , and third-order nonlinear susceptibilities of the solvents, $χ^{(3)}$ , could be determined simultaneously by the THG signals using the cuvette walls as a reference.

Full Article | PDF Article

More Like This

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
J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 25(10) 1738-1747 (2008)

Spectroscopy of third-harmonic generation: evidence for resonances in model compounds and ligated hemoglobin

G. Omar Clay, Andrew C. Millard, Chris B. Schaffer, Juerg Aus-der-Au, Philbert S. Tsai, Jeffrey A. Squier, and David Kleinfeld
J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 23(5) 932-950 (2006)

Numerical second- and third-harmonic generation microscopy

Daaf Sandkuijl, Adam E. Tuer, Danielle Tokarz, J. E. Sipe, and Virginijus Barzda
J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 30(2) 382-395 (2013)

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 (7)

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 (5)

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 (9)

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

	$n_{0}$ (0.43 μm)	$n_{0}$ (1.3 μm)	$\| Δ k \|$ ( ${μm}^{- 1}$ )	$\| b Δ k \|$
Silica	1.467	1.447	0.290	87
B270	1.534	1.510	0.348	104
Acetone	1.368	1.352	0.232	70
Chloroform	1.458	1.434	0.348	104
DMSO	1.492	1.464	0.406	122

Sample	$χ_{2}^{(3)} / χ_{silica}^{(3)}$	$J / b$	$χ_{2}^{(3)} / χ_{silica}^{(3)}$ AVG	$χ_{2}^{(3)} / χ_{B 270}^{(3)}$ AVG
Silica	1	0.0209	—	—
B270		0.0195	—	—
Acetone	1.5 [28]	0.0252	$1.7 \pm 0.1$	$1.1 \pm 0.1$
Chloroform	2.3 [28]	0.0195	$2.4 \pm 0.3$	$1.6 \pm 0.1$
DMSO	2.4 [29]	0.0200	$2.7 \pm 0.6$	$1.8 \pm 0.2$

Sample	(b)	(c)
Acetone	$A = 4.95 \pm 0.06$	$A = 4.95 \pm 0.06$
	$B = 0.15 \pm 0.01$	$B = 0.25 \pm 0.01$
Chloroform	$A = 5.6 \pm 0.1$	$A = 5.6 \pm 0.1$
	$B = 0.15 \pm 0.01$	$B = 0.41 \pm 0.02$
DMSO	$A = 8.5 \pm 0.1$	$A = 8.5 \pm 0.1$
	$B = 0.15 \pm 0.01$	$B = 0.55 \pm 0.02$

Sample	(b)	(c)
Acetone	$A = 1.62 \pm 0.02$	$A = 1.62 \pm 0.02$
	$B = 0.28 \pm 0.02$	$B = 0.24 \pm 0.01$
Chloroform	$A = 2.38 \pm 0.04$	$A = 2.38 \pm 0.04$
	$B = 0.28 \pm 0.02$	$B = 0.39 \pm 0.02$
DMSO	$A = 3.55 \pm 0.05$	$A = 3.55 \pm 0.05$
	$B = 0.28 \pm 0.02$	$B = 0.55 \pm 0.02$

Sample		$B$ (silica)	$A$ (silica)	AVG (silica)	$B$ (B270)	$A$ (B270)	AVG (B270)
Acetone	1.7 [28]	$1.7 \pm 0.1$	$1.6 \pm 0.1$	$1.7 \pm 0.1$	$0.9 \pm 0.1$	$1.1 \pm 0.1$	$1.0 \pm 0.1$
Chloroform	2.3 [28]	$2.7 \pm 0.2$	$2.1 \pm 0.2$	$2.4 \pm 0.3$	$1.4 \pm 0.1$	$1.5 \pm 0.1$	$1.5 \pm 0.1$
DMSO	2.4 [29]	$3.7 \pm 0.3$	$2.3 \pm 0.2$	$3.0 \pm 0.7$	$2.0 \pm 0.2$	$1.6 \pm 0.1$	$1.8 \pm 0.8$

Abstract

Cited By

Figures (7)

Tables (5)

Equations (9)

Applied Optics