OSA's Digital Library

Optics Express

Optics Express

  • Editor: C. Martijn de Sterke
  • Vol. 17, Iss. 6 — Mar. 16, 2009
  • pp: 4295–4305
« Show journal navigation

Multimode waveguide-cavity sensor based on fringe visibility detection

Alexander C. Ruege and Ronald M. Reano  »View Author Affiliations


Optics Express, Vol. 17, Issue 6, pp. 4295-4305 (2009)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1364/OE.17.004295


View Full Text Article

Acrobat PDF (501 KB)





Browse Journals / Lookup Meetings

Browse by Journal and Year


   


Lookup Conference Papers

Close Browse Journals / Lookup Meetings

Article Tools

Share
Citations

Abstract

Fringe visibility detection of the interaction of two bus spatial eigenmodes with a resonant cavity is investigated for the purpose of achieving a sensor platform with high sensitivity. The power distribution between the bus waveguide eigenmodes is modulated by the interaction with the cavity and is detected via fringe visibility lineshapes produced by twin-fiber interferometry. A test device is fabricated in a polymer-silica material system by a photolithographic process and is characterized by measuring the fringe visibility change as a function of analyte refractive index. Fringe visibility modulation from a straight two-mode waveguide coupled to a single mode ring resonator exposed to an aqueous glucose solution demonstrates a visibility change of 1.57 per weight percent, compared to a transmission change of 0.19 per weight percent for a single mode waveguide critically coupled to a ring with similar intrinsic quality factor. The demonstrated change in fringe visibility is 8.2 times larger.

© 2009 Optical Society of America

1. Introduction

Optical resonant cavities have been an integral factor in the development of highly sensitive refractive index sensors in biological and chemical applications. Refractive index biosensing based on rings [1–6

1. A. Ksendzov and Y. Lin, “Integrated optics ring-resonator sensors for protein detection,” Opt. Lett. 30, 3344–3346 (2005). [CrossRef]

], disks [7–9

7. R. W. Boyd and J. E. Heebner, “Sensitive disk resonator photonic biosensor,” Appl. Opt. 40, 5742–5747 (2001). [CrossRef]

], spheres [10

10. S. Arnold, M. Khoshsima, I. Teraoka, S. Holler, and F. Vollmer, “Shift of whispering-gallery modes in microspheres by protein adsorption,” Opt. Lett. 28, 272–274 (2003). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

, 11

11. N. M. Hanumegowda, C. J. Stica, B. C. Patel, I. M. White, and X. Fan, “Refractometric sensors based on microsphere resonators,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 87, 201107 (2005). [CrossRef]

], photonic crystal cavities [12–15

12. E. Chow, A. Grot, L. W. Mirkarimi, M. Sigalas, and G. Girolami, “Ultracompact biochemical sensor built with two-dimensional photonic crystal microcavity,” Opt. Lett. 29, 1093–1095 (2004). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

], cylindrical capillary cavities [16–18

16. I. M. White, H. Oveys, and X. Fan, “Liquid-core optical ring-resonator sensors,” Opt. Lett. 31, 1319–1321 (2006). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

], fiber coils [19

19. F. Xu and G. Brambilla, “Demonstration of a refractometric sensor based on optical microfiber coil resonator,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 92, 101126 (2008). [CrossRef]

], and microtoroids [20

20. A. M. Armani, R. P. Kulkarni, S. E. Fraser, R. C. Flagan, and K. J. Vahala, “Label-free, single-molecule detection with optical microcavities,” Science 317, 783–787 (2007). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

] have been investigated. In many designs, the resonant cavity mode is excited by the coupling of light from a single mode waveguide. The output transmission spectrum is a Lorentzian with a lineshape slope that depends on the coupling and quality factor of the resonator. Asymmetrical Fano lineshapes have been demonstrated for cases incorporating partially reflecting elements on the bus waveguide [21

21. S. Fan, “Sharp asymmetric line shapes in side-coupled waveguide-cavity systems,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 80, 908–910 (2002). [CrossRef]

, 22

22. C.-Y. Chao and L. J. Guo, “Biochemical sensors based on polymer microrings with sharp asymmetrical resonance,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 83, 1527–1529 (2003). [CrossRef]

] or for multiple coupled resonators [23

23. Y. Xiao, V. Gaddam, and L. Yang, “Coupled optical microcavities: an enhanced refractometric sensing configuration,” Opt. Express 16, 12538–12543 (2008). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

] and have shown enhanced lineshape slopes. Sharp lineshapes are desirable in a sensor application because they allow the resonance wavelength to be pinpointed to a greater degree of accuracy and give a larger change in intensity at a fixed wavelength for a shift in resonance due to a change in analyte refractive index.

In this paper, fringe visibility detection of the interaction of two bus spatial eigenmodes with a resonant cavity is investigated for the purpose of achieving a sensor platform with high sensitivity. The power distribution between the bus waveguide eigenmodes is modulated by the interaction with the ring cavity and is detected via fringe visibility lineshapes produced by twin-fiber interferometry. Fringe visibility modulation from the two-mode waveguide coupled to the single mode ring resonator exposed to an analyte sample is then measured as a function of the analyte refractive index.

The sensing mechanism is due to both the response from the ring and the response from the twin fiber interferometer. Experimental results are compared to a single mode resonator, with similar intrinsic quality factor, that is critically coupled to a single mode bus waveguide. Comparison of the multimode waveguide cavity system to a single mode waveguide cavity system allows consistency of the intrinsic quality factor of the resonator in both cases. While the slope of the transmission curve of single mode resonators coupled by single mode waveguides has been shown to be steeper by approximately a factor of 1.2 when not at critical coupling [24

24. M. Sumetsky, “Optimization of optical ring resonator devices for sensing applications,” Opt. Lett. 32, 2577–2579 (2007). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

], the choice of critical coupling is advantageous in single mode systems when considering other factors such as on/off contrast [4

4. C.-Y. Chao and L. J. Guo, “Design and optimization of microring resonators in biochemical sensing applications,” J. Lightwave Technol. 24, 1395–1402 (2006). [CrossRef]

]. It is found that the fringe visibility lineshapes with respect to wavelength for the multimode waveguide-cavity system produce a larger change in visibility, compared to the change in normalized intensity for the single mode waveguide-cavity system, for a given change in analyte refractive index.

The paper is organized as follows. First, multimode bus waveguide interaction with a single mode ring resonator is theoretically analyzed and fringe visibility measurements via twin-fiber interferometry are discussed. Section three discusses optical characterization for the laboratory device. Experimental results are given in section four, followed by concluding remarks in section five.

2. Theory

2.1 Device overview

Fig. 1. Schematic of the multimode waveguide-cavity visibility based biosensor.

2.2 Multimode waveguide / single-mode ring coupling

Coupling between TE0,0 and TE1,0 of the two-mode waveguide and the single eigenmode of the ring waveguide is analyzed by scattering matrix theory, assuming a reciprocal 6-port network and unidirectional propagation. The electric field profiles of TE0,0 and TE1,0 are shown in Fig. 2(a). The ports are realized by mode orthogonality and the physical separation of the waveguides [27

27. K. R. Hiremath, R. Stoffer, and M. Hammer, “Modeling of circular integrated optical microresonators by 2D frequency domain coupled mode theory,” Opt. Commun. 257, 277–297 (2006). [CrossRef]

]. Under these conditions, the full 6×6 scattering matrix is reduced to the following system of equations describing the coupling region shown in Fig. 2(b)

[b0b1br]=[t00κ01κ0rκ10t11κ1rκr0κr1trr][a0a1ar],
(1)

Fig. 2. (a) Electric field profiles of TE0,0 and TE1,0 of multimode waveguide calculated by beam propagation method. (b) Coupling region of the straight two-mode waveguide and single mode ring waveguide with the following dimensions: waveguide height, h, multimode width, wmm, single mode width, wsm, and gap, g. The refractive indices are n 1 for the core, n 2 for the bottom cladding, and n 0 for the top cladding.

The coupling between eigenmodes is affected by differences in mode confinement and the phase mismatch. In general, the TE0,0 field of a two-mode waveguide is more confined than the field of TE1,0. Therefore, less field of TE0,0 extends into the ring waveguide compared to that of TE1,0. From coupled mode theory, the greater overlap into the coupled waveguide results in greater coupling between the two coupled eigenmodes [28

28. A. Hardy and W. Streifer, “Coupled mode theory of parallel waveguides,” J. Lightwave Technol. 3, 1135–1146 (1985). [CrossRef]

]. For the coupling structure under consideration, the propagation constants of all three eigenmodes are different, resulting in phase mismatch between the eigenmodes. Therefore, the differences in mode confinement have a greater effect on coupling than the phase mismatch. The total power coupled into the ring waveguide from Eq. (1), with ar = 0, results from the interference of the two coupled fields into the ring waveguide as follows:

br2=κr02a02+κr12a12+2κr0κr1a0a1cos(κr0κr1+δi),
(2)

where δi = ∠a 0 - ∠a 1. Equation (2) demonstrates that the power coupled into the ring waveguide depends on the relative phase difference, δi, between the two input eigenmodes at the input of the coupling region. Maximum power coupling into the ring waveguide, for a fixed input power distribution, occurs for δi = δi max = ∠κ r1 - ∠κ r0 + 2, for n integer. Minimum power coupling occurs for δi = δi min = δi max + π.

2.3 Multimode waveguide-cavity interaction

The matrix elements of Eq. (1) are calculated by the effective index method and the finite difference time domain (FDTD) technique in two dimensions (FullWAVE, RSoft, Inc.). Multimode waveguide-cavity outputs are determined by incorporating the ring feedback with Eq. (1), as done for all-single mode waveguide resonators [29

29. A. Yariv, “Universal relations for coupling of optical power between microresonators and dielectric waveguides,” Electron. Lett. 36, 321–322 (2000). [CrossRef]

]. The feedback due to the ring waveguide relates ar and br as

ar=brtr
(3a)
trexp(Lrρ2jβLr),
(3b)

where the length of the ring from the output of the coupling region to the input of the coupling region is Lr, the power attenuation coefficient is ρ and the propagation constant of the ring mode is β. All optical losses including material losses, bending losses, and surface scattering losses are incorporated in ρ. The loss of the ring may be neglected in the coupling region because the ring circumference is much larger than the coupling region length. By combining the feedback of Eq. (3) with the system of Eq. (1), the output mode field amplitudes of the multimode waveguide coupled to the single mode ring are

b0=t00a0+κ01a1+κ0rbrtr
(4a)
b1=κ10a0+t11a1+κ1rbrtr,
(4b)

where the field amplitude inside the ring, br, is

br=(κr0a0+κr1a1)(1trtrr).
(5)

Ring resonances occur when the sum of the phase shift due to the ring outside of the coupling region and the phase shift at the ring-coupling section, ∠trr, is an integer multiple of 2π

trrβLr=2πn.
(6)

Fig. 3. (a) Output power mode response for δi = δi max normalized to the total input power (ρ = 13 dB/cm). (b) Output power mode response for δi = δi max + π/2 normalized to the total input power. The magnitudes and phases of the coefficients obtained at 1.55 μm are |t 00| = 0.988, |t 11| = 0.914, |trr| = 0.895, |κ 01| ≈ |κ 10| ≈ 0.032, |κ 0r| ≈ |κ r0| ≈ 0.145, and |κ 1r| ≈ |κ r1| ≈ 0.400, ∠t 00 = =1.02, ∠t 11 = -0.10, ∠trr = -3.09, ∠κ 01 = -0.02, ∠κ 10 = -1.85, ∠κ 0r = -1.58, ∠κ r0 = 0.65, ∠κ 1r = 1.09, and ∠κ r1 = -1.12 for dimensions h = 1.5 μm, wmm = 2.5 μm, wsm, = 1.4 μm, g = 1.0 μm, and ring radius of 150 μm with a straight coupling section of 10 μm. The refractive indices are n 1 = 1.57, n 2 = 1.44, and n 0 = 1.33. The lengths of the ring waveguide and the two-mode waveguide in the simulation window were both 140 μm.

2.4 Fringe visibility

V=(ImaxImin)(Imax+Imin),
(7)

where I max is the maximum intensity of the fringes and I min is the minimum intensity of the fringes over φ = [0, 2π].

The visibility as a function of θ depends on the output relative phase difference between bus waveguide eigenmodes, δo, and the mode power ratio, P 0/P 1, where P 0 ≡ |b 0|2 and P 1 ≡ |b 1|2. The far-field radiation patterns of the waveguide field at the output of the beam spreader are evaluated by applying the Fourier transform approximation of the Fresnel-Kirchhoff diffraction formula [31

31. K. Okamoto, Fundamentals of Optical Waveguides (Academic Press, 2006).

]. P 0/P 1 and δo are calculated from Eq. (4) for δi = δi max and equal input mode power distribution corresponding to the lineshapes of Fig. 3(a). As shown in Fig. 4(a), both P 0/P 1 and δo change rapidly at the ring resonance wavelength of 1550.18 nm. Therefore the depth and the angular location of the visibility minimum will quickly change at resonance. The resulting visibility is shown in Fig. 4(b) for three different far-field angles of 7.92°, 13.39° and 18.85°. The central peaks in visibility of the three lineshapes correspond to the ring resonance, where P 0/P 1 is very large. These visibility lineshapes demonstrate lineshape slopes that may be exploited in biological sensing.

Fig. 4. (a) Output mode power ratio, P 0/P 1, and output relative phase difference δo, for the lineshape of Fig. 3(a) where δi = δi max and equal input power distribution. (b) Visibility lineshapes calculated from Fig. 3(a) at three far-field angles: 7.92°, 13.39° and 18.85°.

2.5 Refractive index sensing

Resonant-cavity sensors may be based on the resonance wavelength shift caused by a change in effective index of the ring mode, neff. This change may be due to a change in refractive index of the analyte sample which composes a portion of the ring waveguide structure. The change in resonant wavelength due to a change in analyte refractive index, na, depends on the fraction of optical intensity that exists in the analyte, η, as [32

32. I. M. White and X. Fan, “On the performance quantification of resonant refractive index sensors,” Opt. Express 16, 1020–1028 (2008). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

]:

λna=ηλneff.
(8)

The resonance shift depends on the waveguide design of the resonator and the location of the analyte sample and is independent of the type of coupling. In two-mode bus waveguide coupling, the output mode amplitude lineshapes, b 0 and b 1, shift equally in wavelength because they have equal dependence on the ring transmission which is affected by the change in na. Thus, the visibility lineshape shifts in wavelength by the same amount as b 0 and b 1. At a fixed wavelength, the visibility will change due to a change in na. The visibility sensitivity to the change in na is

S=sVλna,
(9)

where the visibility lineshape slope with respect to wavelength is denoted sV. Equation (9) is applicable when the change in wavelength is small so that the visibility lineshape is approximately linear at the bias wavelength. To obtain high sensitivity, sV should be as large as possible.

The result of Eq. (9) is similar to the intensity variation sensing scheme for all single mode resonator sensors [4

4. C.-Y. Chao and L. J. Guo, “Design and optimization of microring resonators in biochemical sensing applications,” J. Lightwave Technol. 24, 1395–1402 (2006). [CrossRef]

]. For an identical ring cavity, the sensitivity in this case depends on sI, the intensity lineshape slope with respect to wavelength. The shift in resonance wavelength is the same as in the visibility detection scheme. From coupled mode theory, the output intensity, I, of the single mode bus waveguide coupled to a single mode resonator is, assuming lossless coupling [31

31. K. Okamoto, Fundamentals of Optical Waveguides (Academic Press, 2006).

],

I=1(1x2)(1y2)(1xy)2+4xysin2(2πLneffλ),
(10)

where x the field transmission through the ring, given by x = exp(-L ρ/2), y is the bus waveguide field transmission coefficient at the coupling, L is the ring length, and ρ is the power attenuation coefficient. At critical coupling, x = y, the maximum sI is determined from Eq. (10) to be approximately

SI|max338Qiλ,
(11)

where Qi is the intrinsic quality factor, given by [6

6. D. X. Xu, A. Densmore, A. Delâge, P. Waldron, R. McKinnon, S. Janz, J. Lapointe, G. Lopinski, T. Mischki, E. Post, P. Cheben, and J. H. Schmid, “Folded cavity SOI microring sensors for high sensitivity and real time measurement of biomolecular binding,” Opt. Express 16, 15137–15148 (2008). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

]

Qi=πxLng(1x)λ,
(12)

where ng is the group index of the ring mode. The maximum sI is located at the wavelength corresponding to 0.25 of the maximum transmission.

3. Fabrication and optical characterization

Laboratory test structures were fabricated on a silicon substrate with polystyrene cores and silicon dioxide cladding by a photolithographic process. The dimensions of the ring waveguide and multimode waveguide are nominally the same as discussed in section two. An optical micrograph of the fabricated device is shown in Fig. 5.

Light from a continuous wave tunable infrared laser source is coupled into the single mode input waveguide of the mode converter through a tapered optical fiber. At the end of the beam spreader, sampling waveguides are equally spaced by 0.54° from a far-field angle of -27° to + 27°. The input fibers of a 50/50 single mode fused fiber coupler are positioned at the output of two of the sampling waveguides. Light exiting from the cleaved output surface of a sampling waveguide is coupled into one input fiber of the coupler. One fiber is wrapped around a piezoelectric stretcher to produce a time varying phase difference between the two input arms. To match the state of polarization in the two arms, a polarization controller is used in conjunction with the other input fiber. The light in the two fibers is interfered at the coupler, the output of which is directed into a photodetector where the interference fringes are measured with a power meter.

Fig. 5. Optical micrograph of fabricated test device showing mode converter, single mode ring, two-mode waveguide, beam spreader and the sampling waveguide inputs at the end of the beam spreader.

For comparison, on the same chip, the transmission spectrum of a similar single mode ring coupled via a single mode waveguide was characterized, yielding a Qi of 27,138 with air top-cladding. The same resonator was characterized with water top-cladding, yielding a Qi of 21,670. The transmission data of both measurements are shown in Fig. 6. For both cases, the x and y parameters were determined by curve fitting Eq. (10) to the measured data.

Fig. 6. The transmission spectrum for a single-mode waveguide coupled to a single mode ring. The fitting parameters for air top-cladding are x = 0.910 (ρ = -8.5 dB/cm), y = 0.925. The fitting parameters for water top-cladding are x = 0.8656 (ρ = -13.0 dB/cm), y = 0.8953. The single mode waveguide coupled to the single mode ring was fabricated on the same chip as the two-mode waveguide coupled to a similar single mode ring for the purpose of comparison.

4. Biosensing experiment

Refractive index sensing was performed with varying concentrations of glucose in de-ionized (DI) water. The aqueous glucose solution served as the top cladding of the ring resonator. Different concentrations were detected by measuring the change in fringe visibility at a fixed wavelength.

Fig. 7. Location of glucose droplet on the device chip showing complete coverage of the two-mode waveguide.

Fringes in intensity at the photodetector were produced by driving the piezoelectric stretcher with a saw-wave voltage. Two cycles of a fringe measurement as a function of time are shown in Fig. 8(a). The low frequency sinusoidal signal is the fringe created by the drive voltage. The higher frequency fringes at times 0.2 s and 0.4 s were created when the drive voltage returned to the beginning of a new cycle. The maximum and minimum power is recorded from the measurement of the fringes and the visibility is calculated using Eq. (7) during the data acquisition. Figure 8(b) shows the maximum and minimum intensities measured as the wavelength was swept for water top-cladding.

After the 10 μL DI water was first dispensed onto the chip, the visibility was measured as a function of wavelength. The visibility measured for water top-cladding and two glucose concentrations is shown in Fig. 9(a). Theoretical fitting curves calculated using the theory presented in section two are also shown. The visibility measured with DI water corresponds to the measured I max and I min of Fig. 8(b). Immediately after the visibility was characterized for DI water top-cladding, the wavelength was biased on the steep slope of the visibility lineshape (near 1568.265 nm). As the glucose solution was added, the visibility at this wavelength was measured as a function of time, as shown for two trials in Fig. 9(b). The solution was added at time 0 s. Transient behavior, likely due to diffusion, was observed immediately after the glucose solution was added. The visibility was found to quickly increase to a maximum value then slowly decrease to a constant value. This data indicates that the refractive index sensed by the ring resonator was highest immediately after the glucose solution was added and slowly decreased thereafter to steady state. Visibility as a function of wavelength was measured after steady state was reached. The visibility lineshapes measured with water top-cladding and with glucose solution top-cladding are observed to have the same shape. The shift in wavelength due to the effective index change of the ring waveguide is therefore more significant than coupling changes or propagation changes in the two-mode waveguide due to a change in top-cladding index over the two-mode waveguide.

Fig. 8. (a) Fringes in measured power for a saw-wave drive. The visibility is 0.51. (b) The maximum and minimum powers measured for water top-cladding.
Fig. 9. (a) Visibility experimentally measured at θ = ±22.6° for DI water, 0.167 wt% and 0.285 wt% glucose in DI water with theoretical fittings. (b) Change in visibility as the glucose solution was added to change the concentration of the drop on the chip surface.

The largest change in visibility between the DI water visibility data and glucose solution visibility data was recorded for four trials for six different glucose concentrations. The average visibility change for the six concentrations and best-fit line is shown in Fig. 10. The measurements demonstrate a visibility change of 1.57 per wt% glucose in water. Assuming 1.4×10-3 RIU/wt% for glucose concentration in water [33

33. Y. Liu, P. Hering J., and M. O. Scully, “An Integrated Optical Sensor for Measuring Glucose Concentration,” Appl. Phys. B 54, 18–23, (1992). [CrossRef]

], the visibility will change by 1,120 per RIU.

Fig. 10. Change in detected visibility measured experimentally as a function of glucose concentration in water, with theoretical change in normalized transmission intensity of a single mode coupled resonator at critical coupling.

From Eq. (11), the maximum slope in intensity for the all single mode device with a Qi of 21,670 at critical coupling is 9 nm-1. Coupled mode theory predicts a change of 0.19 per wt%, as shown in Fig. 10. The intensity will therefore change by 136 per RIU. The change in visibility is 8.2 times larger. To obtain an intensity change of 1.57 per wt%, a resonator with a Qi of 177,000 is required for the all single mode system at critical coupling.

The performance of the device is achieved with an increase in complexity in the system. Complexity arises from the need to generate and control two eigenmodes, and the need to detect via twin-fiber interferometry. The design process must account for multiple distinct spatial modes in the ring waveguide-bus waveguide coupling region. In the current prototype, the interferometry is accomplished off-chip thereby requiring simultaneous alignment of two external fibers. Driving electronics for the time varying phase delay are also needed for the twin-fiber interferometer. The interferometer may be placed on-chip in future designs by employing electro-optic control, thus eliminating the drawbacks associated with the off-chip interferometer.

5. Conclusion

In this paper, fringe visibility detection of the interaction of two bus spatial eigenmodes with a resonant cavity is investigated for the purpose of achieving a sensor platform with high sensitivity. A theoretical analysis is conducted and an experimental demonstration is performed in a biosensor application. The output mode power distribution is found to be a strong function of the relative phase difference between modes. Individual mode responses may exhibit Lorentzian or asymmetrical lineshapes due to the multimode interference at the coupling region. By using the twin-fiber interferometry technique, the output visibility is measured as the optical wavelength is swept through a ring resonance. A test device with a polystyrene core and silicon dioxide cladding is fabricated and its performance as a biosensor is characterized. The measurements of different aqueous glucose concentrations, presented to the device as the ring resonator top-cladding, demonstrate a visibility change of 1.57 per wt% (1,220 per RIU). Coupled mode theory predicts a change of 0.19 per wt% (136 per RIU) at critical coupling for an all-single mode device with an intrinsic quality factor of 21,670. The measured change in visibility is 8.2 times larger than the theoretical change in intensity for a critically coupled all-single mode resonator.

References and links

1.

A. Ksendzov and Y. Lin, “Integrated optics ring-resonator sensors for protein detection,” Opt. Lett. 30, 3344–3346 (2005). [CrossRef]

2.

C-Y. Chao, W. Fung, and L. J. Guo, “Polymer microring resonators for biochemical sensing applications,” IEEE J. Sel. Top. Quantum Electron. 12, 134–142 (2006). [CrossRef]

3.

A. Yalcin, K. C. Popat, O. C. Aldridge, T. A. Desai, J. Hryniewicz, N. Chbouki, B. E. Little, O. King, V. Van, S. Chu, D. Gill, M. Anthes-Washburn, M. S. Unlu, and B. B. Goldberg, “Optical Sensing of Biomolecules Using Microring Resonators,” IEEE J. Sel. Top. Quantum Electron. 12, 148–155 (2006). [CrossRef]

4.

C.-Y. Chao and L. J. Guo, “Design and optimization of microring resonators in biochemical sensing applications,” J. Lightwave Technol. 24, 1395–1402 (2006). [CrossRef]

5.

K. De Vos, I. Bartolozzi, E. Schacht, P. Bienstman, and R. Baets, “Silicon-on-Insulator microring resonator for sensitive and label-free biosensing,” Opt. Express 15, 7610–7615 (2007). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

6.

D. X. Xu, A. Densmore, A. Delâge, P. Waldron, R. McKinnon, S. Janz, J. Lapointe, G. Lopinski, T. Mischki, E. Post, P. Cheben, and J. H. Schmid, “Folded cavity SOI microring sensors for high sensitivity and real time measurement of biomolecular binding,” Opt. Express 16, 15137–15148 (2008). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

7.

R. W. Boyd and J. E. Heebner, “Sensitive disk resonator photonic biosensor,” Appl. Opt. 40, 5742–5747 (2001). [CrossRef]

8.

E. Krioukov, D. J. W. Klunder, A. Driessen, J. Greve, and C. Otto, “Sensor based on an integrated optical microcavity,” Opt. Lett. 27, 512–514 (2002). [CrossRef]

9.

E. Krioukov, J. Greve, and C. Otto, “Performance of integrated optical microcavities for refractive index and fluorescence sensing,” Sens. Actuators B 90, 58–67 (2003). [CrossRef]

10.

S. Arnold, M. Khoshsima, I. Teraoka, S. Holler, and F. Vollmer, “Shift of whispering-gallery modes in microspheres by protein adsorption,” Opt. Lett. 28, 272–274 (2003). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

11.

N. M. Hanumegowda, C. J. Stica, B. C. Patel, I. M. White, and X. Fan, “Refractometric sensors based on microsphere resonators,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 87, 201107 (2005). [CrossRef]

12.

E. Chow, A. Grot, L. W. Mirkarimi, M. Sigalas, and G. Girolami, “Ultracompact biochemical sensor built with two-dimensional photonic crystal microcavity,” Opt. Lett. 29, 1093–1095 (2004). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

13.

N. Skivesen, A. Têtu, M. Kristensen, J. Kjems, L. H. Frandsen, and P. I. Borel, “Photonic-crystal waveguide biosensor,” Opt. Express 15, 3169–3176 (2007). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

14.

M. R. Lee and P. M. Fauchet, “Two-dimensional silicon photonic crystal based biosensing platform for protein detection,” Opt. Express 15, 4530–4535 (2007). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

15.

S. Mandal and D. Erickson, “Nanoscale optofluidic sensor arrays,” Opt. Express 16, 1623–1631 (2008). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

16.

I. M. White, H. Oveys, and X. Fan, “Liquid-core optical ring-resonator sensors,” Opt. Lett. 31, 1319–1321 (2006). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

17.

T. Ling and L. J. Guo, “A unique resonance mode observed in a prism-coupled micro-tube resonator sensor with superior index sensitivity,” Opt. Express 15, 17424–17432 (2007). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

18.

V. Zamora, A. Díez, M. V. Andrés, and B. Gimeno, “Refractometric sensor based on whispering-gallery modes of thin capillarie,” Opt. Express 15, 12011–12016 (2007). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

19.

F. Xu and G. Brambilla, “Demonstration of a refractometric sensor based on optical microfiber coil resonator,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 92, 101126 (2008). [CrossRef]

20.

A. M. Armani, R. P. Kulkarni, S. E. Fraser, R. C. Flagan, and K. J. Vahala, “Label-free, single-molecule detection with optical microcavities,” Science 317, 783–787 (2007). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

21.

S. Fan, “Sharp asymmetric line shapes in side-coupled waveguide-cavity systems,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 80, 908–910 (2002). [CrossRef]

22.

C.-Y. Chao and L. J. Guo, “Biochemical sensors based on polymer microrings with sharp asymmetrical resonance,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 83, 1527–1529 (2003). [CrossRef]

23.

Y. Xiao, V. Gaddam, and L. Yang, “Coupled optical microcavities: an enhanced refractometric sensing configuration,” Opt. Express 16, 12538–12543 (2008). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

24.

M. Sumetsky, “Optimization of optical ring resonator devices for sensing applications,” Opt. Lett. 32, 2577–2579 (2007). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

25.

B. T. Lee and S. Y. Shin, “Mode-order converter in a multimode waveguide,” Opt. Lett. 28, 1660–1662 (2003). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

26.

L. J. Pelz and B. L. Anderson, “Practical use of the spatial coherence function for determining laser transverse mode structure,” Opt. Eng. 34, 3323–3328 (1995). [CrossRef]

27.

K. R. Hiremath, R. Stoffer, and M. Hammer, “Modeling of circular integrated optical microresonators by 2D frequency domain coupled mode theory,” Opt. Commun. 257, 277–297 (2006). [CrossRef]

28.

A. Hardy and W. Streifer, “Coupled mode theory of parallel waveguides,” J. Lightwave Technol. 3, 1135–1146 (1985). [CrossRef]

29.

A. Yariv, “Universal relations for coupling of optical power between microresonators and dielectric waveguides,” Electron. Lett. 36, 321–322 (2000). [CrossRef]

30.

U. Fano, “Effects of Configuration Interaction on Intensities and Phase Shifts,” Phys. Rev. 124, 1866–1878 (1961). [CrossRef]

31.

K. Okamoto, Fundamentals of Optical Waveguides (Academic Press, 2006).

32.

I. M. White and X. Fan, “On the performance quantification of resonant refractive index sensors,” Opt. Express 16, 1020–1028 (2008). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

33.

Y. Liu, P. Hering J., and M. O. Scully, “An Integrated Optical Sensor for Measuring Glucose Concentration,” Appl. Phys. B 54, 18–23, (1992). [CrossRef]

OCIS Codes
(130.3120) Integrated optics : Integrated optics devices
(130.6010) Integrated optics : Sensors
(230.5750) Optical devices : Resonators
(130.5460) Integrated optics : Polymer waveguides

ToC Category:
Integrated Optics

History
Original Manuscript: January 5, 2009
Revised Manuscript: February 28, 2009
Manuscript Accepted: March 1, 2009
Published: March 3, 2009

Virtual Issues
Vol. 4, Iss. 5 Virtual Journal for Biomedical Optics

Citation
Alexander C. Ruege and Ronald M. Reano, "Multimode waveguide-cavity sensor based on fringe visibility detection," Opt. Express 17, 4295-4305 (2009)
http://www.opticsinfobase.org/oe/abstract.cfm?URI=oe-17-6-4295


Sort:  Author  |  Year  |  Journal  |  Reset  

References

  1. A. Ksendzov and Y. Lin, "Integrated optics ring-resonator sensors for protein detection," Opt. Lett. 30, 3344-3346 (2005). [CrossRef]
  2. C-Y.  Chao, W.  Fung, and L. J.  Guo, "Polymer microring resonators for biochemical sensing applications," IEEE J. Sel. Top. Quantum Electron.  12, 134-142 (2006). [CrossRef]
  3. A.  Yalcin, K. C.  Popat, O. C.  Aldridge, T. A.  Desai, J.  Hryniewicz, N.  Chbouki, B. E.  Little, O.  King, V.  Van, S.  Chu, D.  Gill, M.  Anthes-Washburn, M. S.  Unlu, and B. B.  Goldberg, "Optical Sensing of Biomolecules Using Microring Resonators," IEEE J. Sel. Top. Quantum Electron.  12, 148-155 (2006). [CrossRef]
  4. C.-Y. Chao and L. J. Guo, "Design and optimization of microring resonators in biochemical sensing applications," J. Lightwave Technol. 24, 1395-1402 (2006). [CrossRef]
  5. K. De Vos, I. Bartolozzi, E. Schacht, P. Bienstman, and R. Baets, "Silicon-on-Insulator microring resonator for sensitive and label-free biosensing," Opt. Express 15, 7610-7615 (2007). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. D. X. Xu, A. Densmore, A. Delâge, P. Waldron, R. McKinnon, S. Janz, J. Lapointe, G. Lopinski, T. Mischki, E. Post, P. Cheben, and J. H. Schmid, "Folded cavity SOI microring sensors for high sensitivity and real time measurement of biomolecular binding," Opt. Express 16, 15137-15148 (2008). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. R. W. Boyd and J. E. Heebner, "Sensitive disk resonator photonic biosensor," Appl. Opt. 40, 5742-5747 (2001). [CrossRef]
  8. E. Krioukov, D. J. W. Klunder, A. Driessen, J. Greve, and C. Otto, "Sensor based on an integrated optical microcavity," Opt. Lett. 27, 512-514 (2002). [CrossRef]
  9. E.  Krioukov, J.  Greve, and C.  Otto, "Performance of integrated optical microcavities for refractive index and fluorescence sensing," Sens. Actuators B  90, 58-67 (2003). [CrossRef]
  10. S. Arnold, M. Khoshsima, I. Teraoka, S. Holler, and F. Vollmer, "Shift of whispering-gallery modes in microspheres by protein adsorption," Opt. Lett. 28, 272-274 (2003). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. N. M. Hanumegowda, C. J. Stica, B. C. Patel, I. M. White, and X. Fan, "Refractometric sensors based on microsphere resonators," Appl. Phys. Lett. 87, 201107 (2005). [CrossRef]
  12. E.  Chow, A.  Grot, L. W.  Mirkarimi, M.  Sigalas, and G.  Girolami, "Ultracompact biochemical sensor built with two-dimensional photonic crystal microcavity," Opt. Lett.  29, 1093-1095 (2004). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. N. Skivesen, A. Têtu, M. Kristensen, J. Kjems, L. H. Frandsen, and P. I. Borel, "Photonic-crystal waveguide biosensor," Opt. Express 15, 3169-3176 (2007). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. M. R. Lee and P. M. Fauchet, "Two-dimensional silicon photonic crystal based biosensing platform for protein detection," Opt. Express 15, 4530-4535 (2007). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. S. Mandal and D. Erickson, "Nanoscale optofluidic sensor arrays," Opt. Express 16, 1623-1631 (2008). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. I. M. White, H. Oveys, and X. Fan, "Liquid-core optical ring-resonator sensors," Opt. Lett. 31, 1319-1321 (2006). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. T. Ling and L. J. Guo, "A unique resonance mode observed in a prism-coupled micro-tube resonator sensor with superior index sensitivity," Opt. Express 15, 17424-17432 (2007). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. V. Zamora, A. Díez, M. V. Andrés, and B. Gimeno, "Refractometric sensor based on whispering-gallery modes of thin capillarie," Opt. Express 15, 12011-12016 (2007). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. F. Xu, and G. Brambilla, "Demonstration of a refractometric sensor based on optical microfiber coil resonator," Appl. Phys. Lett. 92,101126 (2008). [CrossRef]
  20. A. M.  Armani, R. P.  Kulkarni, S. E.  Fraser, R. C.  Flagan, and K. J.  Vahala, "Label-free, single-molecule detection with optical microcavities," Science  317, 783-787 (2007). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. S. Fan, "Sharp asymmetric line shapes in side-coupled waveguide-cavity systems," Appl. Phys. Lett. 80, 908-910 (2002). [CrossRef]
  22. C.-Y. Chao and L. J. Guo, "Biochemical sensors based on polymer microrings with sharp asymmetrical resonance," Appl. Phys. Lett. 83, 1527-1529 (2003). [CrossRef]
  23. Y. Xiao, V. Gaddam, and L. Yang, "Coupled optical microcavities: an enhanced refractometric sensing configuration," Opt. Express 16, 12538-12543 (2008). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. M. Sumetsky, "Optimization of optical ring resonator devices for sensing applications," Opt. Lett. 32, 2577-2579 (2007). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. B. T. Lee and S. Y. Shin, "Mode-order converter in a multimode waveguide," Opt. Lett. 28, 1660-1662 (2003). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. L. J. Pelz and B. L. Anderson, "Practical use of the spatial coherence function for determining laser transverse mode structure," Opt. Eng. 34, 3323-3328 (1995). [CrossRef]
  27. K. R. Hiremath, R. Stoffer, and M. Hammer, "Modeling of circular integrated optical microresonators by 2-D frequency domain coupled mode theory," Opt. Commun. 257, 277-297 (2006). [CrossRef]
  28. A. Hardy and W. Streifer, "Coupled mode theory of parallel waveguides," J. Lightwave Technol. 3, 1135-1146 (1985). [CrossRef]
  29. A. Yariv, "Universal relations for coupling of optical power between microresonators and dielectric waveguides," Electron. Lett. 36, 321-322 (2000). [CrossRef]
  30. U. Fano, "Effects of Configuration Interaction on Intensities and Phase Shifts," Phys. Rev. 124, 1866-1878 (1961). [CrossRef]
  31. K. Okamoto, Fundamentals of Optical Waveguides (Academic Press, 2006).
  32. I. M. White and X. Fan, "On the performance quantification of resonant refractive index sensors," Opt. Express 16, 1020-1028 (2008). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Y. Liu, P. Hering, J., and M. O. Scully, "An Integrated Optical Sensor for Measuring Glucose Concentration," Appl. Phys. B 54, 18-23 (1992). [CrossRef]

Cited By

Alert me when this paper is cited

OSA is able to provide readers links to articles that cite this paper by participating in CrossRef's Cited-By Linking service. CrossRef includes content from more than 3000 publishers and societies. In addition to listing OSA journal articles that cite this paper, citing articles from other participating publishers will also be listed.


« Previous Article  |  Next Article »

OSA is a member of CrossRef.

CrossCheck Deposited