Laser induced damage and irradiation time

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the thermal effects of laser irradiation on materials, particularly focusing on whether decreasing laser power while increasing irradiation time by the same factor results in equivalent thermal damage. Participants explore the relationship between energy density (fluence) and power density (intensity) in the context of different materials, including homogeneous and diffusive turbid materials like biological tissues.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Technical explanation, Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that energy density (fluence) is calculated as the product of power and time divided by area, raising the question of whether thermal damage is more dependent on intensity rather than fluence.
  • Another participant challenges the claim that a low power laser can cause the same damage as a high power laser over different time scales, citing the importance of thermal conduction and heat transport processes.
  • A different participant notes that the specifics of the material, such as wavelength and tissue type, significantly affect the penetration depth and thermal damage, indicating that energy deposition may vary between 2-D surfaces and volumetric absorption.
  • One participant mentions that thermal energy can diffuse away from the irradiated area, which could mitigate thermal damage, especially in moving fluids like blood.
  • There is a suggestion that the discussion could be limited to turbid materials, which exhibit exponential attenuation of light intensity as described by Beer's Law, complicating the relationship between fluence and thermal damage.
  • Another participant raises the need for a modified equation that accounts for energy loss from the material, indicating that existing models may not fully capture the dynamics of heat transfer during irradiation.
  • One participant highlights that determining damage thresholds for various tissues is a complex research project, implying that the question posed is not easily resolved.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the relationship between power, time, and thermal damage, with no consensus reached on whether equivalent damage can be achieved through varying these parameters. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the specific conditions under which fluence or intensity is more critical.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the discussion is complicated by factors such as the wavelength of the laser, the absorption coefficient of the material, and the time scales involved in the irradiation process. There are also mentions of limitations in existing analytical models to fully account for heat dissipation and energy loss.

Who May Find This Useful

Researchers and practitioners in fields related to laser applications in biology, materials science, and thermal dynamics may find this discussion relevant, particularly those interested in the effects of laser irradiation on various tissues and materials.

roam
Messages
1,265
Reaction score
12
We want to examine the thermal effects of irradiating a given material with a laser. The material under consideration can either be homogeneous and isotropic or a diffusive turbid material (e.g. biological tissues). Suppose we decrease the power by a certain factor. Will we still get the same amount of thermal damage if we increase the duration of irradiation by the same factor?

So, the energy density incident on the material (also known as the fluence, ##\psi##) is the energy per unit area. Since optical power (##W##) is energy per unit time, i.e., ##P=E/t \ (J/s)##, therefore, I believe we can write:

$$\psi = \frac{P \ t}{A} \ \text{(typically } J/cm^2) \tag{1}$$

where ##A## is the cross-sectional area of the incident beam.

One reference states that ##\psi## is obtained by integrating the power density ##I## (aka intensity or irradiance, which is the average energy per unit area per unit time, ##W/m^2##) over the irradiation period:

$$\psi = \int I \ dt.$$

where at a radial distance ##r##, ##I## can be expressed in terms of radiance ##L## (power density per unit solid angle)

$$I (r) = \int_{4 \pi} L(r, \hat{s}) \ d \omega.$$

According to this, for a Gaussian beam at normal incidence, the relavant effective beam area is ##A_{\text{eff}}=\pi r^2 /2## and therefore ##I=\frac{2P}{\pi r^{2}}##.

Clearly (1) implies that, for instance, if you let a 2mW laser run for ~28 hours, it is capable of causing the same degree of damage as a 20W laser does in 10 seconds. But is this true? :confused:

Is the resulting damage dependent more on the intensity (power density) rather than fluence (energy density)? If so, why? And is it possible to confirm this using equations/analytic expressions?

Any explanation would be greatly appreciated.
 
Science news on Phys.org
roam said:
Will we still get the same amount of thermal damage if we increase the duration of irradiation by the same factor?
Humans can survive years of sunlight without overheating, but will die quickly when exposed to 10 (or 100, or 1000) times the solar radiation.

Using the total energy only makes sense if the time is so short that thermal conduction and other heat transport processes are negligible.
roam said:
Clearly (1) implies that, for instance, if you let a 2mW laser run for ~28 hours, it is capable of causing the same degree of damage as a 20W laser does in 10 seconds.
I don't see where this claim would come from.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: roam
roam said:
We want to examine the thermal effects of irradiating a given material with a laser. The material under consideration can either be homogeneous and isotropic or a diffusive turbid material (e.g. biological tissues). Suppose we decrease the power by a certain factor. Will we still get the same amount of thermal damage if we increase the duration of irradiation by the same factor?

This is a tricky question to answer in general, because you didn't specify the wavelength or what tissue is being irradiated. One example why this matters is the penetration depth and where the thermal damage occurs- if the energy is deposited in a volume or confined to a nearly 2-D surface.

Also, don't forget that thermal energy diffuses away from the irradiated spot; a low power laser could be depositing energy at a certain rate but that energy also diffuses away from the spot preventing (or mitigating) thermal damage. Irradiating a moving fluid (blood, CSF, etc.) results in the absorbed energy being advected away.

I'm not sure how much relevant information is available- there's lots of data about damage to skin and the retina, but if you are irradiating (say) an explanted organ, it's unlikely that you will find much that is useful. Similarly, information about phototoxicity using cultured cells is out there, but that's primarily in the near UV through near IR band. Most likely, you will have to determine phototoxicity levels yourself.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: roam
Thank you mfb and Andy Resnick for the responses.

Andy Resnick said:
This is a tricky question to answer in general, because you didn't specify the wavelength or what tissue is being irradiated. One example why this matters is the penetration depth and where the thermal damage occurs- if the energy is deposited in a volume or confined to a nearly 2-D surface.

Also, don't forget that thermal energy diffuses away from the irradiated spot; a low power laser could be depositing energy at a certain rate but that energy also diffuses away from the spot preventing (or mitigating) thermal damage. Irradiating a moving fluid (blood, CSF, etc.) results in the absorbed energy being advected away.

It was a general question, but we can limit the discussion to turbid material like plant and animal tissue.

Apparently, in these types of media, you will get an exponential attenuation. Incident light intensity diffuses away as it goes deeper (Beer's Law). The rate of attenuation (and therefore penetration depth) depends on the absorption coefficient of the material (for biological samples you often can only have an approximate estimate of this quantity due to the many variables involved).

mfb pointed out that if the time scales are too short, there is not enough time for conduction and convective processes to get rid of the heat, and as a result, we will get overheating and damage. The problem is that (1) only gives the energy/heat deposited in the material over the irradiation period. I wonder if there is a modified version of this equation that takes into account the energy/heat that has left it.

So, given all the parameters (e.g. the wavelength, the absorption coefficient of the media), how do you decide if a given irradiation duration is long enough to cause damage? How do you know when it is appropriate to consider the fluence (energy density) rather than the instantaneous powers?

As a side note, I know that there is an imaging technique called Second Harmonic Generation Microscopy. It uses narrow pulses (a few femtoseconds in duration) with high instantaneous powers ##(\lesssim 100 \ \text{mW})## to cause SHG. But they say it doesn't harm the biological tissue because it has a low total power averaged over pulse period ##T##:

$$P_{avg}=\frac{1}{T}\int_{t_{0}}^{t_{0}+T}P\ dt=\frac{E}{T} \tag{2}$$
 
roam said:
I wonder if there is a modified version of this equation that takes into account the energy/heat that has left it.
That depends on the environment, and in general it will be difficult to find analytical formulas for it. You can simulate it.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: roam
roam said:
So, given all the parameters (e.g. the wavelength, the absorption coefficient of the media), how do you decide if a given irradiation duration is long enough to cause damage? How do you know when it is appropriate to consider the fluence (energy density) rather than the instantaneous powers?

This is a major research project, not a question that can be quickly answered on a discussion board. For example, simply determining the damage threshold for different tissues (or say, a particular species of bacteria) is a project in itself.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: roam

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
5K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 128 ·
5
Replies
128
Views
7K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
9K