Inci F. Çilesiz and Ashley J. Welch, "Light dosimetry: effects of dehydration and thermal damage on the optical properties of the human aorta," Appl. Opt. 32, 477-487 (1993)
The influences of dehydration and thermal damage on inυitro optical properties of human aorta were studied. The absorption coefficient increased by 20–50%, especially in the visible range when at least 40% of total tissue weight was lost as a result of dehydration. The reduced scattering coefficient increased by 10–45% in the visible and 30% to over 150% in the near IR after the tissue samples were heated in a constant temperature water bath at 100°C for 300 ± 10 s. This study implies that dehydration and protein coagulation during photothermal treatment of tissue are important factors altering optical properties of tissue.
I. Çilesiz and A. J. Welch, "Light dosimetry: effects of dehydration and thermal damage on the optical properties of the human aorta: errata," Appl. Opt. 33, 3571-3571 (1994) https://opg.optica.org/ao/abstract.cfm?uri=ao-33-16-3571
You do not have subscription access to this journal. Cited by links are available to subscribers only. You may subscribe either as an Optica member, or as an authorized user of your institution.
You do not have subscription access to this journal. Figure files are available to subscribers only. You may subscribe either as an Optica member, or as an authorized user of your institution.
You do not have subscription access to this journal. Article tables are available to subscribers only. You may subscribe either as an Optica member, or as an authorized user of your institution.
You do not have subscription access to this journal. Equations are available to subscribers only. You may subscribe either as an Optica member, or as an authorized user of your institution.
The values are given as a mean ± standard deviation. The corresponding tissue thicknesses for normal and dehydrated samples were 575 ± 138 and 464 ± 116 μm, respectively. The percentage weight loss and thickness shrinkage caused by dehydration were 46.4 ± 7.6% and 19.5 ± 4.8%, respectively. % change = {[μ (dehydrated)/μ (control)] −1}100.
From only five control and five dehydrated samples, which are not necessarily the same samples.
From scans of only two samples, which did not miss data points in the water absorption band.
From only two control and two dehydrated samples, which are not necessarily the same samples.
From scans of only one sample, which did not miss data points in the water absorption band.
From only five control and four dehydrated samples, which are not necessarily the same samples.
From scans of only two samples, which did not miss data points in the water absorption band.
Table 2
Optical Properties of Normal and Thermally Damaged (at 60°C for 300 ± 10 s) Human Aorta at Selected Wavelengths: nnormal = 4, ndamaged = 4a
The samples were directly exposed to hot saline. The values are given as mean ± standard deviation. The corresponding tissue thicknesses for normal and thermally damaged samples were 575 ± 115 and 425 ± 75 μm, respectively. Note that normal and damaged samples were different samples from the same specimen. % change = {[μ (damaged)/μ (control)] −1)100.
From only three control and three damaged samples, which are not necessarily from the same specimen.
From only one control and three damaged samples, which are not necessarily from the same specimen.
From only three control and three damaged samples, which are not necessarily from the same specimen.
From scans of only two specimens, which did not miss data points in the water absorption band.
From scans of only one specimen, which did not miss data points in the water absorption band.
From scans of only two specimens, which did not miss data points in the water absorption band.
Table 3
Optical Properties of Normal and Thermally Damaged (at 70°C for 300 ± 10 s) Human Aorta at Selected Wavelengths: nnormal = 2, ndamaged = 3a
The samples were directly exposed to hot saline. The values are given as mean ± standard deviation. The corresponding tissue thicknesses for normal and thermally damaged samples were 388 ± 88 μm and 458 ± 12 μm, respectively. Note that normal and damaged samples were different samples from the same specimen. % change = {[μ (damaged)/μ (control)] −1)100.
From only one control and two damaged samples, which are not necessarily from the same specimen.
From scans of only one specimen, which did not miss data points in the water absorption band.
Table 4
Optical Properties of Normal and Thermally Damaged (at 100°C for 300 ± 10 s) Human Aorta at Selected Wavelengths: nnormal = 6, ndamaged = 9a
The samples were directly exposed to hot saline. The values are given as mean ± standard deviation. The corresponding tissue thicknesses for normal and thermally damaged samples were 305 ± 37 μm and 420 ± 59 μm, respectively. Note that normal and damaged samples were different samples from the same specimen. % change = {[μ (damaged)/μ (control)] −1}100.
From only three control and seven damaged samples, which are not necessarily from the same specimen.
From only five control and nine damaged samples, which are not necessarily from the same specimen.
From scans of only two specimens, which did not miss data points in the water absorption band.
From scans of only five specimens, which did not miss data points in the water absorption band.
Table 5
Optical Properties of Normal and Thermally Damaged (at 100°C for 300 ± 10 s) Human Aorta at Selected Wavelengths: nnormal = ndamaged = 5a
The samples were wrapped in aluminum foil before being immersed in a hot saline bath. The values are given as the mean ± standard deviation. The corresponding tissue thicknesses before and after the hot saline bath were 460 ± 116 and 530 ± 124 μm, respectively. The percentage thickness increase caused by thermal damage was 16 ± 5.5%. % change = {[μ (damaged)/μ (control)] −1)100.
From only three control and five damaged samples.
From only four control and five damaged samples.
From scans of only three specimens, which did not miss the data points in the water absorption band.
From scans of only four specimens, which did not miss the data points in the water absorption band.
Table 6
Power Relationship Between the Wavelength and the Reduced Scattering Coefficient and the Significance of n Values for Control and Experimental Reduced Scattering Spectra as Obtained from a t-Test
Description
ncontrol
nexperimental
Significance (%)
Dehydration
1.15 ± 0.10
1.22 ± 0.13
~15
Heating at 60°C
1.21 ± 0.12
1.28 ± 0.04
~25
Heatingat70°C
1.30 ± 0.01
1.10 ± 0.10
<5
Heating at 100°C (Direct heating)
1.38 ± 0.11
1.06 ± 0.07
<5
Heating at 100°C (Wrapped heating)
1.26 ± 0.08
1.03 ± 0.05
<5
Table 7
Published Optical Properties of Normal Human Aorta at Selected Wavelengths Compared with Values Obtained in This Study
KM, Kubelka–Munk properties converted by using34AKM = 2 μa, SKM = (3 μs′ − μa)/4; DA, diffusion approximation; ADT, asymptotic diffuse transmission.
Mean ± standard deviation from 22 samples.
Tables (7)
Table 1
Optical Properties of Normal and Dehydrated Human Aorta at Selected Wavelengths: nnormal = ndehydrated = 9a
The values are given as a mean ± standard deviation. The corresponding tissue thicknesses for normal and dehydrated samples were 575 ± 138 and 464 ± 116 μm, respectively. The percentage weight loss and thickness shrinkage caused by dehydration were 46.4 ± 7.6% and 19.5 ± 4.8%, respectively. % change = {[μ (dehydrated)/μ (control)] −1}100.
From only five control and five dehydrated samples, which are not necessarily the same samples.
From scans of only two samples, which did not miss data points in the water absorption band.
From only two control and two dehydrated samples, which are not necessarily the same samples.
From scans of only one sample, which did not miss data points in the water absorption band.
From only five control and four dehydrated samples, which are not necessarily the same samples.
From scans of only two samples, which did not miss data points in the water absorption band.
Table 2
Optical Properties of Normal and Thermally Damaged (at 60°C for 300 ± 10 s) Human Aorta at Selected Wavelengths: nnormal = 4, ndamaged = 4a
The samples were directly exposed to hot saline. The values are given as mean ± standard deviation. The corresponding tissue thicknesses for normal and thermally damaged samples were 575 ± 115 and 425 ± 75 μm, respectively. Note that normal and damaged samples were different samples from the same specimen. % change = {[μ (damaged)/μ (control)] −1)100.
From only three control and three damaged samples, which are not necessarily from the same specimen.
From only one control and three damaged samples, which are not necessarily from the same specimen.
From only three control and three damaged samples, which are not necessarily from the same specimen.
From scans of only two specimens, which did not miss data points in the water absorption band.
From scans of only one specimen, which did not miss data points in the water absorption band.
From scans of only two specimens, which did not miss data points in the water absorption band.
Table 3
Optical Properties of Normal and Thermally Damaged (at 70°C for 300 ± 10 s) Human Aorta at Selected Wavelengths: nnormal = 2, ndamaged = 3a
The samples were directly exposed to hot saline. The values are given as mean ± standard deviation. The corresponding tissue thicknesses for normal and thermally damaged samples were 388 ± 88 μm and 458 ± 12 μm, respectively. Note that normal and damaged samples were different samples from the same specimen. % change = {[μ (damaged)/μ (control)] −1)100.
From only one control and two damaged samples, which are not necessarily from the same specimen.
From scans of only one specimen, which did not miss data points in the water absorption band.
Table 4
Optical Properties of Normal and Thermally Damaged (at 100°C for 300 ± 10 s) Human Aorta at Selected Wavelengths: nnormal = 6, ndamaged = 9a
The samples were directly exposed to hot saline. The values are given as mean ± standard deviation. The corresponding tissue thicknesses for normal and thermally damaged samples were 305 ± 37 μm and 420 ± 59 μm, respectively. Note that normal and damaged samples were different samples from the same specimen. % change = {[μ (damaged)/μ (control)] −1}100.
From only three control and seven damaged samples, which are not necessarily from the same specimen.
From only five control and nine damaged samples, which are not necessarily from the same specimen.
From scans of only two specimens, which did not miss data points in the water absorption band.
From scans of only five specimens, which did not miss data points in the water absorption band.
Table 5
Optical Properties of Normal and Thermally Damaged (at 100°C for 300 ± 10 s) Human Aorta at Selected Wavelengths: nnormal = ndamaged = 5a
The samples were wrapped in aluminum foil before being immersed in a hot saline bath. The values are given as the mean ± standard deviation. The corresponding tissue thicknesses before and after the hot saline bath were 460 ± 116 and 530 ± 124 μm, respectively. The percentage thickness increase caused by thermal damage was 16 ± 5.5%. % change = {[μ (damaged)/μ (control)] −1)100.
From only three control and five damaged samples.
From only four control and five damaged samples.
From scans of only three specimens, which did not miss the data points in the water absorption band.
From scans of only four specimens, which did not miss the data points in the water absorption band.
Table 6
Power Relationship Between the Wavelength and the Reduced Scattering Coefficient and the Significance of n Values for Control and Experimental Reduced Scattering Spectra as Obtained from a t-Test
Description
ncontrol
nexperimental
Significance (%)
Dehydration
1.15 ± 0.10
1.22 ± 0.13
~15
Heating at 60°C
1.21 ± 0.12
1.28 ± 0.04
~25
Heatingat70°C
1.30 ± 0.01
1.10 ± 0.10
<5
Heating at 100°C (Direct heating)
1.38 ± 0.11
1.06 ± 0.07
<5
Heating at 100°C (Wrapped heating)
1.26 ± 0.08
1.03 ± 0.05
<5
Table 7
Published Optical Properties of Normal Human Aorta at Selected Wavelengths Compared with Values Obtained in This Study
KM, Kubelka–Munk properties converted by using34AKM = 2 μa, SKM = (3 μs′ − μa)/4; DA, diffusion approximation; ADT, asymptotic diffuse transmission.
Mean ± standard deviation from 22 samples.