Infrared and Laser Engineering, Volume. 52, Issue 8, 20230394(2023)

Grapefruit-type three-core fiber sensor for trace water based on silver-silk protein-silver structure

Yongpeng Xie1, Shuo Liu1, Linwan Zhao2, and Qun Zu3
Author Affiliations
  • 1Advanced Laser Technology Research Center, School of Electronic Information Engineering, Hebei University of Technology, Tianjin 300401, China
  • 2China Telecom Xiong'an Branch, Xiong'an 071000, China
  • 3College of Mechanical Engineering, Hebei University of Technology, Tianjin 300130, China
  • show less
    Figures & Tables(14)
    Cross-section of grapefruit type optical fiber
    Loss peak curves of different silk protein thicknesses
    When the thickness of silk protein is (a) 60 nm, (b) 90 nm, the loss peak varying curves with the height of air cores
    When the thickness of silk protein is (a) 60 nm, (b) 90 nm, the loss peak changing curves with the height of silver grating
    When the thickness of silk protein is (a) 60 nm, (c) 90 nm, the loss peak changing curves with the number of the silver gratings; (b) Local magnification at the peak of Fig.5(a)
    When the thickness of silk protein is (a) 60 nm, (b) 90 nm, the loss peak variesying curves with the spacing of the silver gratings
    Optimal structural loss diagram
    Variation of resonance wavelength with water content
    • Table 1. Comparison of sensor parameters of different silk protein thicknesses

      View table
      View in Article

      Table 1. Comparison of sensor parameters of different silk protein thicknesses

      Thickness of silk protein/nm Resonance wavelength/nm Peak value of loss/dB·m−1FWHM/ nm
      403716021668.4
      6038811404040.5
      9041928043027.6
      10043036184024.6
    • Table 2. When the thickness of silk protein is 60 nm and 90 nm, comparison of sensor parameters under different silver grating heights

      View table
      View in Article

      Table 2. When the thickness of silk protein is 60 nm and 90 nm, comparison of sensor parameters under different silver grating heights

      h1/nm Resonance wavelength/nm Peak value of loss/dB·m−1FWHM/nm
      60 nm90 nm60 nm90 nm60 nm90 nm
      0383.3-87217-45.8-
      7390.2422.510638024390041.329.8
      8391.5423.910949024256041.431.2
      9392.6425.511277023601041.638.3
      10394428.111633023319041.639.7
    • Table 3. When the thickness of silk protein is 60 nm and 90 nm, comparison of sensor parameters under different amount of silver grating

      View table
      View in Article

      Table 3. When the thickness of silk protein is 60 nm and 90 nm, comparison of sensor parameters under different amount of silver grating

      nResonance wavelength/nm Peak value of loss/dB·m−1FWHM/ nm
      60 nm90 nm60 nm90 nm60 nm90 nm
      28394.0428.111633023319041.639.7
      38394.943112420024363040.140
      48395.6432.412791024760039.440.2
      58395.9433.312965024766039.140.4
    • Table 4. When the thickness of silk protein is 60 nm and 90 nm, comparison of sensor parameters under different silver grating spacing

      View table
      View in Article

      Table 4. When the thickness of silk protein is 60 nm and 90 nm, comparison of sensor parameters under different silver grating spacing

      d1/nm Resonance wavelength/nm Peak value of loss/dB·m−1FWHM/ nm
      60 nm90 nm60 nm90 nm60 nm90 nm
      20395.942912965024766039.140.4
      30398.443214273030030036.229.7
      40400.643415179034376035.524.1
      50402.1436.215918038274034.621.9
    • Table 5. When the thickness of silk protein is 60 nm and 90 nm, comparison of sensor parameters of different underlayer silver film thicknesses

      View table
      View in Article

      Table 5. When the thickness of silk protein is 60 nm and 90 nm, comparison of sensor parameters of different underlayer silver film thicknesses

      A1/nm Resonance wavelength/nm Peak value of loss/dB·m−1FWHM/ nm
      60 nm90 nm60 nm90 nm60 nm90 nm
      25402.1436.215918038274034.721.9
      27404.5439.21410003166403523.4
      29406.9442.312424026381035.225.3
      31408.4444.910927022134035.826.5
    • Table 6. Detection sensitivity of sensors of different designs

      View table
      View in Article

      Table 6. Detection sensitivity of sensors of different designs

      SensorTimeSensitivityRef.
      D-shaped fiber covered with molecularly imprinted polymer20181.25 nm/ppb[32]
      Fiber together with gold functionalized by biological receptors20180.10 nm/ppb[33]
      Coated fibres based on Fabry-Perot interference2020178 nm/ppb[34]
      D-shaped fiber covered with Ag-Silk Fibroin-Ag structure20231.39 nm/ppt-
    Tools

    Get Citation

    Copy Citation Text

    Yongpeng Xie, Shuo Liu, Linwan Zhao, Qun Zu. Grapefruit-type three-core fiber sensor for trace water based on silver-silk protein-silver structure[J]. Infrared and Laser Engineering, 2023, 52(8): 20230394

    Download Citation

    EndNote(RIS)BibTexPlain Text
    Save article for my favorites
    Paper Information

    Category: Photoelectric measurement

    Received: Jul. 2, 2023

    Accepted: Jul. 24, 2023

    Published Online: Oct. 19, 2023

    The Author Email:

    DOI:10.3788/IRLA20230394

    Topics