A Photo-degradation of a biological sample

  • A
  • Thread starter Thread starter alemns
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Biological
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the appropriate measurement for studying photo-induced degradation of a biological sample exposed to 520 nm monochromatic light. Participants suggest that total dose (mJ/cm2) is more relevant than irradiance (mW/cm2) since damage accumulates over time. The geometry of the sample, particularly whether it is concave or convex, may influence the results. Additionally, considerations about thermal effects and the material's properties are highlighted, as they could impact the damage from light exposure. Ultimately, both total and peak energy may need to be examined to determine their significance in the degradation process.
alemns
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
What the group thoughts are in relation to an experiment in which 520 nm monochromatic light will strike a biological sample, which it is not flat (most like resembling an arc) and can photo-bleach over time. Would irradiance (mW/cm2) or dose (mJ/cm2) be more appropriate to carry on studies on photo-induced degradation of the sample over time?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
We see 520 nm as green, (at the blue end), daylight, near the peak of our vision.

The geometry of the source of 520 nm radiation, and whether the “arc” is a concave or a convex surface, may make a difference.

Total dose would be more relevant, since the sample accumulates joules and damage over time.
One watt is one joule per second.
 
thank you.

light source it is going to be incoherent, from LED(s). Target surface receiving illumination is approximately concave in shape.

any references by chance, discussing the physics (papers or textbook)...

irradiance integrated over time isn't dose?
 
alemns said:
irradiance integrated over time isn't dose?
The damage will be proportional to the dose, which is the integral of the irradiance, over time.
Dose (mJ/cm2) = exposure_time (seconds) * irradiance (mW/cm2);
 
alemns said:
Would irradiance (mW/cm2) or dose (mJ/cm2) be more appropriate to carry on studies on photo-induced degradation of the sample over time?
I guess there have been assumptions about the actual experimental conditions and the chemistry of the surface.

The information in the OP is a bit sparse. the thermal effect would depend on the Mean Power over a period that's dependent on the actual nature of the surface.

If the potential damage relates to peaks of temperature then you'd need to know what temperature the surface could reach. What is the thermal Conductivity of the material? If the 'material' is 'alive' then we can't make any reliable predictions. Some living cells are very dependent on peaks of incident energy. (Consider the damage from exposure to sunlight.) This may or may not be relevant, of course but it would affect which of the quantities should be measured.

If the whole exercise is about damage related to illumination in general then perhaps both total (or medium term mean) and peak (short term) Energy should be studied. The experiment would reveal which is the important one.
 
I think it's easist first to watch a short vidio clip I find these videos very relaxing to watch .. I got to thinking is this being done in the most efficient way? The sand has to be suspended in the water to move it to the outlet ... The faster the water , the more turbulance and the sand stays suspended, so it seems to me the rule of thumb is the hose be aimed towards the outlet at all times .. Many times the workers hit the sand directly which will greatly reduce the water...
Back
Top