The Effect of Immersion Oil in the Optical Tweezers

Ali Mahmoudi, and S.Nader S.Reihani

arXiv:1007.2370v1 [physics.optics] 14 Jul 2010

Department of Physics, Institute for Advanced Studies in Basic Sciences (IASBS), Gava Zang, P.O.Box:45195-1159, Zanjan 45137-66731, Iran. [email protected]

In this paper, we report on theoretical investigation of the effect of refractive index of immersion oil on the position of optimal depth and optical trap quality in optical tweezers. Using simple numerical calculation presented here, one can study the optical trapping in different samples, after multi interfaces and find the best choice of immersion oil for a c 2010 Optical Society of America particular case. OCIS codes: (000.3110) Instruments, apparatus, and components common to the sciences; (350.4855) Optical tweezers or optical manipulation; (140.7010) Laser trapping;(170.3880) Medical and biological imaging. 1.

Introduction

Optical Tweezers(OT) are used as a micromanipulation tool in many scientific areas for example in biology [1–4] and nanotechnology [5–8]. Optical tweezers are is a Gaussian laser beam tightly focused through a high quality objective lens producing a 3-D Gaussian intensity profile at the focus. An object with refractive index greater than that of the surrounding medium experiences a Hookean force towards the focus [9]. The strength of the trap can be regarded as the spring constant. Such an instrument is widely used for micromanipulation using micron (and nano)-sized objects without mechanical contact with the trapped object. Nanometer spacial resolution along with sub-Megahertz temporal resolution have turned OT to a widely desired tool in many scientific communities. OT are normally implemented into an optical microscope in order to visualize the specimen under manipulation. The structure of focused electromagnetic wave in focal region is studied before [10], the problem of focusing the electromagnetic through one planar surface(e.g in optical microscopes) is also considered by T¨ or¨ ok [11–14]. In this letter, by using the approach of Richard-Wolf and T¨or¨ok, the electric field focused through multiple dielectric interfaces is given for using in optical tweezers calculations. Using the relations given here, one can calculate the intensity distribution in the sample medium when the trapped object is in a dielectric sample and an immersion oil(medium) with an arbitrary refractive index is used. so that one the position(depth) of optimal trap in the sample, and the relation between the optimal depth depth and quality and the optical properties and thickness of media located in the optical pathway can be predicted. 2.

The effect of immersion oil on the intensity distribution in focal region

In this section, we find intensity distribution in the focal region of a high numerical aperture lens illuminated by a linearly polarized gaussian laser beam, this beam is focused into diffraction limit after passing through m − 1 planar interfaces made by m medium(from objective to sample medium). These media have refractive indices equal to n1 , n2 , ..., nm . Assume that thickness of j-th medium is tj , then using the approach and

1

notation used by Torok [14], it can be shown that the electric field in m-th medium(sample) has this form: Z Z T m−1→m T m−2→m−1 ...T 2→3 T 1→2 Em (x, y, z) = C Ω1

W (e) exp[−it2 (k1 s1z − k2 s2z ) − it3 (k1 s1z − k3 s3z ) − ... − itm (k1 s1z − km smz )] exp[ik1 (s1x x + s1y y)] exp[ikm smz z]ds1x ds1y

(1)

a(s1x ,s1y ) where C is a constant, W(e) = is the amplitude of the plane waves incident upon the s1z (first)interface, a is the electric strength vector, the operators T j−1→j are functions of angle of incidence and refractive indices of the materials of two sides of interfaces. si is unit vector along a typical ray in different media(objective,immersion oil,coverglass, coating layers, etc.)with s2i = s2ix + s2iy + s2iz . kq is wavenumber in q-th medium and Ω1 is the aperture of the objective.   1 2 − ρ2 w  Assuming a linearly polarized gaussian beam Ei = E0 e 0 0  incident on the front aperture of the 0 objective, after transforming s-coordinates to spherical polar coordinates in the Eq.1 electric field inside the sample is given by :

Em (x, y, z) = C

Z

0

α

Z

2π

Esample exp[−ik0 [n1 (t1 + t+ ... + tm ) cos φ1 − n2 t2 cos φ2 − n3 t3 cos φ3 − ... − nm tm cos φm ]] s1z exp[ik1 sin φ1 (x cos θ + y sin θ)]exp[inm k0 z cos φm ] sin φ1 cos φ1 dθdφ1 (2)

0

Where α is the convergence angle of the objective, Esample is electric strength vector inside the sample medium and has this form:

2

Esample = A(φ1 )E0 e

− ρ2 w

0

 τp(m−1) × ... × τp2 τp1 cos2 θ cos φm + τs(m−1) × ... × τs2 τs1 sin2 θ,  τp(m−1) × ... × τp2 τp1 cos θ sin θ cos φm − τs(m−1) × ... × τs2 τs1 cos θ sin θ  −τp(m−1) × ... × τp2 τp1 cos θ sin φm 

(3)

Where A is an apodization function related to the objective lens and when the lens obeys Abbe’s sine condition(aplantic lens) A(φ1 ) ∝ cos1/2 φ1 . The angles φi , (i = 2...m) are refraction angles in different media. τpi and τsi are the Fresnel coefficients at i − th interface,

τpi =

2 sin φi+1 cos φi sin(φi+1 + φi ) cos(φi − φi+1 )

,

τsi =

2 sin φi+1 cos φi sin(φi+1 + φi )

(4)

Note that in normal case when m=4 and the refractive index of the immersion oil is 1.518(= nob = ng ) Eq.2 reduces to that of Min Gu [15]. In optical tweezers setups when oil objectives are used, there are m=4 mediums including: objective, immersion oil, coverglass and sample. In most cases the refractive indices of objective, immersion oil and coverglass are same. But there is a possibility to use an immersion oil(or other material) with a refractive index different from that of objective. Also, one can try to trap objects in a medium rather than water. When m=4, putting x,y=0,n1 = nobjective = 1.518, n2 = nimmersion oil , n3 = ncoverglass = 1.518, n4 = nsample , the thickness of immersion oil layer t1 = Y, the thickness of coverglass t2 = 170µm and t4 = d the probe depth(the amount of objective movement or the distance between coverslip surface and the Gaussian focus when there is no refractive index mismatch) in Eq.3, the electric field on the optical axis can be find by numerical integration. Also one can find Intensity distribution in lateral direction at the focal plane by putting z = zf the axial position of the focus. So, using Eq.3, the electric field inside the medium in a 3D region around the focus can be found. 2

2.A.

Trapping in water

First we examine the axial distribution of intensity when the sample is water(nsample = 1.33) and the immersion oil has a refractive index equal to the refractive index of the objective (nimmersion oil = 1.518), numerical aperture of the objective (NA) is 1.3, working distance of the objective (W.D) is 200µm and the thickness of coverglass(U) is 170µm. Using these parameters, axial distribution of intensity for different probe depths(d) are shown in Fig.1.

0.30 0.28 0.26 0.24 0.22 0.20

Intensity

0.18 0.16 0.14 0.12 0.10 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.00 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

depth( m)

Fig. 1. Intensity distribution in the axial direction in the focal region for different probe depths

Figure 1 shows that when refractive index of objective, immersion oil and coverglass are same,and the objective is abberation free, the optimal trap would occur at the zero depth, just in vicinity of the coverglass surface and the trap would be weaker with increasing depth. In Fig.2, axial distribution of intensity for different probe depths is shown when the immersion oil 1.53 is used. Comparing Figs 1 and 2, one can deduce that application of an immersion oil with greater refractive index, shifts the focal peak(hence the optimal trap) on the optical axis to the deeper depths. How much is this shift? For answering this question, we plot the axial distribution of intensity for different immersion oils, the result can be seen in Fig.3. As it can be seen in Fig.3, when the refractive index of the immersion oil is increased, the height of the focal peak is reduced as it is expected because of increased reflections in the objective-oil and oil-coverglass interfaces, a result of higher refractive index mismatch. It is obvious from Fig.3 that using an immersion oil with refractive index higher than 1.518, the optimal depth(the depth in which the trap stiffness is maximum) moves inside the chamber. The amount of this movement is related to the refractive index of the immersion oil. In table.1, the amount of the movement of optimal depth for different oils are shown. From table 1, we can deduce that for a 0.01 increase in refractive index of the immersion oil, the optimal depth will move 3 − 3.5µm inside the chamber, this is in very good agreement with our previous experimental work [16]. In the lateral direction, there is a similar behavior for optimal depth. In Fig.4 the lateral intensity distribution at the focus is plotted for immersion oil 1.54 in the different probe depths.

3

depth0

0.30

depth2 depth3 depth4

0.25

depth5 depth6

Intensity

0.20

depth8 depth10 depth12

0.15

depth14 depth16

0.10

0.05

0.00

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

depth( m)

Fig. 2. Intensity distribution in the in the axial direction, immersion oil 1.53 is used.

n_oi=1.53

0.25

n_oi=1.54 n_oi=1.55 n_oi=1.56

Intensity(a.u)

0.20

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00 -2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

Depth( m)

Fig. 3. Intensity distribution in the in the axial direction when different immersion oils are used. Black)immersion oil 1.53,blue)immersion oil 1.54,red)immersion oil 1.55 and gray is for immersion oil 1.56. Solid curves denote the intensity distribution in optimal probe depth.

2.B.

Trapping in Air

In this part, we try to use Eq.3 with m=4 when the sample medium is air nsample = 1. In this case the complete reflection at the coverglass-air interface may occur for some incident angles, so there is an upper limit for numerical aperture. In table.2 the position(depth) of the optimal trap for different oils is listed. From this table, one can conclude that, when the sample medium is air, for every 0.01 increase in refractive index of the immersion

4

d=0

0.25

d=2 d=3 d=4 d=5

0.20

d=6

Intensity(a.u.)

d=7 d=8

0.15

d=9 d=10

0.10

0.05

0.00

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

x( m)

Fig. 4. Intensity distribution in the in the lateral direction when immersion oil 1.54 is used. Optimal depth is at probe depth 6µm, or real depth 7.75µm

Table 1. position of optimal depth, probe depth and focus shift for different immersion oils when the sample is water. noil

1.518

1.52

1.53

1.54

1.55

1.56

1.57

1.58

xoptimal (µm)

0

0.75

4.36

7.71

10.79

13.7

16.66

20.31

probe depth, d(µm)

0

0.55

3.1

5.45

7.55

9.5

11.6

14.75

f ocus shif t, ∆f (µm)

0

0.2

1.26

2.26

3.24

4.2

5.06

5.56

oil, the optimal trap will move almost 0.3µm in depth. References 1. A. Ashkin, and J. M. Dziedzic, “ Optical trapping and manipulation of viruses and bacteria,” Science, 235, 1517–1520 (1987). 2. C. Bustamante, Z. Bryant, and S. B. Smith, “ Ten years of tension: single-molecule DNA mechanics,” Nature, 421, 423–427 (2003). 3. S. M. Block, D. F. Blair, and H. C. Berg, “ Compliance of bacterial flagella measured with optical tweezers,” Nature, 338, 514–518 (1989). 4. T. M. Hansen, S. N. S. Reihani, L. B. Oddershede, and M. A. Sorensen, “Correlation between mechanical strength of messenger RNA pseudoknots and ribosomal frameshifting,” PNAS, 104, 5830–5835 (2007). 5. R. Agarwal, K. Ladavac, Y. Roichman, G. Yu, C. M. Lieber and D. G. Grier, “ Manipulation and

5

1.518

0.08

1.55 1.60

Intensity(a.u.)

0.06

0.04

0.02

0.00 -2

0

2

4

6

8

depth( m)

Fig. 5. Intensity distribution on the optical axis when the sample is air for three different immersion oil.

Table 2. position of optimal depth, probe depth and focus shift for different immersion oils when the sample is air. noil

1.518

1.52

1.53

1.54

1.55

1.56

1.57

1.58

xoptimal (µm)

0.0

0.06

0.37

0.68

1.04

1.33

1.62

1.89

probe depth, d(µm)

0

−0.2

−1.25

−2.3

−3.2

−4.25

−5.3

−6.35

f ocus shif t, ∆f (µm)

0

0.26

1.62

2.98

4.24

5.58

6.92

8.24

assembly of nanowires with holographic optical traps,” Opt. Express, 13, 8906–8912(2005). 6. S. Tan, H. A. Lopez, C. W. Cai, and Y. Zhang, “ Optical Trapping of Single-Walled Carbon Nanotubes,” Nano Lett., 4 , 1415–1419 (2004). 7. C. Selhuber-Unkel, I. Zins, O. Schubert, C. S¨ onnichsen, and L. B. Oddershede, “ Quantitative Optical Trapping of Single Gold Nanorods ,” Nano Lett., 8 (9), 2998–3003 (2008). 8. Y. Seol, A. E. Carpenter, and T. T. Perkins, “Gold nanoparticles: enhanced optical trapping and sensitivity coupled with significant heating,” Opt. Lett., 31,2429–2431(2006). 9. A.Ashkin, J. M. Dziedzic, J. E. Bjorkholm, and S. Chu, “ Observation of a single-beam gradient force optical trap for dielectric particles,” Opt. Lett., 11, 288–290 (1986). 10. B. Richards and E. Wolf,“Electromagnetic Diffraction in Optical Systems II. Structure of the Image Field in an Aplanatic System,”Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences, 253, 358–379 (1959)

6

11. P. T¨or¨ok,“Focusing of electromagnetic waves through a dielectric interface by lenses of finite Fresnel number,“JOSA A,15, 3009–3015 (1998). 12. P. R. T. Munro and P. T¨ or¨ ok,“Calculation of the image of an arbitrary vectorial electromagnetic field,“Optics Express,15, 9293–9307 (2007). (1998). 13. P. R. T. Munro and P. T¨ or¨ ok,“Propagation of electromagnetic dipole waves through dielectric interfaces ,“Opt.Lett,25, 1463–1465 (2000). (1998). 14. P. T¨or¨ok, P. Varga, Z. Laczik, and G. R. Booker, “ Electromagnetic diffraction of light focused through a planar interface between materials of mismatched refractive indices: an integral representation,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A, 12, 325–332 (1995). 15. P. C. Ke, and M. Gu, “Characterization of trapping force in the presence of spherical aberration” J. Mod. Opt., 45, 2159–2168 (1998). 16. S. N. S. Reihani and Lene B. Oddershede ,“Optimizing immersion media refractive index improves optical trapping by compensating spherical aberrations,”Opt. Lett. 32, 1998–2000 (2007).

7

−1

−0.8

−0.6

−0.4

−0.2

0

0.2

radial distance(micrometers)

0.4

0.6

0.8