A low-power tunable laser was used to populate the Rb(5P3/2)hyperfine-structure levels in a pure optically thick vapour in the presence of a dissipative surface. The retrofluorescence intensities and spectrum profile for the 780 nm (5P3/2→5S1/2)and 795 nm (5P1/2→5S1/2)lines were measured and analyzed. The glass-vapor interface was considered as two distinct regions, a wavelength-thickness vapor layer adjacent to the surface and a more remote vapor region. The first region was analyzed as a spectral filter that annihilated the absorbed photons and the second one as a rich spectral light source. The authors discussed two possible mechanisms for the 5P1/2 population in the cell［i.e., mechanism(1):collisions Rb(5P3/2)+Rb(5S1/2)→Rb(5P1/2)+Rb(5S1/2); mechanism(2): collisions Rb(5D)+Rb(5S)→Rb(5P)+Rb(5P)］. For each one of the possible mechanisms considered, the authors gave the theoretical formulation of the retrofluorescence integrated signal associated with 795 nm(5P1/2→5S1/2), which was compared with experiment. Two important characteristic aspects of retrofluorescence spectra must be taken into account when dealing with retrofluorescence signals for atomic process investigation: the retrofluorescence intensity dependence on laser power and sensitized laser retrofluorescence line shapes. When the laser frequency is scanned through the hyperfine resonance line, the sensitized retrofluorescence spectra signal corresponding to the 795 nm line has a profile similar to the profile of the retrofluorescence signal at the 780 nm. The authors have pointed out that mechanism(1)gives the linear dependence of the trtrofluorescence as a function of laser power and the spectrum profile. The population of the 5P1/2 atomic level in an optically thick vapour can be principally explained by the fine-structure excitation transfer process ［mechanism(1)］. It appears from our experimental and theoretical investigations that, the spectral properties of the laser-induced Rb 795 nm sensitized retrofluorescence in a pure optically thick vapour near a dissipative surface cannot be explained by the mechanism(2).