Difference between revisions of "Team:TU Delft/Model/Q5"

 
(63 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 30: Line 30:
 
                 <span class="anchor" id="intro"></span>
 
                 <span class="anchor" id="intro"></span>
 
                 <h2 class="title-style-1">Question 5:<span class="title-under"></span></h2>
 
                 <h2 class="title-style-1">Question 5:<span class="title-under"></span></h2>
                 <h1>How does the polysilicate layer covered cell focus the light?</h1>
+
                 <h1>How does the polysilicate covered cell focus the light?</h1>
                 <div class="row">                  
+
                 <div class="row">      
                    <h2 class="title-style-2 col-md-offset-1">COMSOL modeling</h2>                                        
+
           
 +
                                        
 
                     <div class="col-md-10 col-md-offset-1">
 
                     <div class="col-md-10 col-md-offset-1">
 +
<h3>Introduction</h3>
 +
<p>In the second part of our project we created polysilicate covered <i>E. coli</i> cells with the intention to use them as biological microlences. In order to determine if our cells act as lenses when covered by polisilicate we modeled their interaction with light. Since we are making lenses which at lenghtscales close to the wavelength of light, simple ray optics does not apply, therefore we need to work approach light with its wave form properties. In the sections bellow we present different studies, models and software we used. Initially we modeled a spherical model and then a more accurate representation of actual <i>E. coli</i> bacteria, a rod shaped model. Finally we are comparing the optical properties of a spherical and rod shaped cell.</p>
 
<h3>Short intro about COMSOL Multiphysics:</h3>
 
<h3>Short intro about COMSOL Multiphysics:</h3>
<p>The software COMSOL Multiphysics was used to model the electromagnetic field’s interaction with our structure. COMSOL Multiphysics is a CAE software package that can be used to model any physics based system and the interaction of different physics <a href="#references">(COMSOL Multiphysics<sup> &reg </sup>, 2016)</a>. For this project the RF Module was used; this module is the best fit for the dimensions of our structure (micrometers) and the intended wavelength (in the visible spectrum). The figure below demonstrates the different options for different structure size and wavelengths <a href="#references">(COMSOL, 2013)</a>. </p>
+
<p>The software COMSOL Multiphysics was used to model the electromagnetic field’s interaction with our structure, a polysilicate layer covered cell. COMSOL Multiphysics is a CAE (Computed Aided Engineering) software package that can be used to model any physics based system and the interaction of different physics <a href="#references">(COMSOL Multiphysics<sup>&reg;</sup>, 2016)</a>. For this project the RF Module was used; this module is the best fit for the dimensions of our structure (micrometers) and the incident wavelength (in the visible spectrum). Figure 1 below   demonstrates the different options for different structure size and wavelengths <a href="#references">(COMSOL, 2013)</a>. </p>
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-6 col-md-offset-3 col-sm-12">
 
<figure>
 
<figure>
 
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/d/d4/T--TU_Delft--COMSOL_modules.png" alt="COMSOL modules">
 
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/d/d4/T--TU_Delft--COMSOL_modules.png" alt="COMSOL modules">
Line 42: Line 47:
 
</div>
 
</div>
 
</div>
 
</div>
 +
<h3>3D model – Sphere</h3> 
 +
<p> For the in teractions of the Electromagnetic field with the structure interaction there are two models built. The first and simplest module assumes that the shape of our structure is a simple sphere. Even though the spherical model is an oversimplification of the actual <i>E.coli</i> shape we used it as initial studies. We realize that the shape of <i>E.coli</i> is very different than a sphere so we also created more accurate representation of <i>E.coli</i> bacteria, the rod shaped models. Using the simple sphere model we have symmetry allowing to model only a quarter of the sphere, so we need smaller domain compared to a rod shaped structure, resulting in a computational less expensive model and faster conversions.  </p>
 +
<p>A parametric method of modeling was used, meaning that the most important parameters for the model were defined and then used for the model. The parameters used for this model are: the radius of the sphere, the wavelength, wavenumber and frequency of the incidentincident light, the thickness of the polysilicate layer, air layer and Perfectly Matched Layer  , which is basically the representation of the outside world, the intensity of the incidentincident electromagnetic field, and the material parameters epsilon defined later. The values of those parameters are shown in table 1. </p>
 +
 +
<span class= "anchor" id="Q5_parameters" ></span>
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<h2 class="title-style-2 col-md-offset-1">Whispering Gallery Modes</h2>                                      
+
<div class="col-md-6 col-md-offset-3 col-sm-12">
                    <div class="col-md-10 col-md-offset-1">
+
<figcaption> <b> Table 1: </b> Values of parameters used in the model. </figcaption>
 +
</div>
 +
</div>
 +
<center>
 +
<table><tr><th>Parameter</th><th>Value</th><th>Description</th></tr><tr><td>\(r_0\)</td><td>\(5\cdot10^{-7}\) [m]</td><td>Radius of the cell</td></tr><tr><td>\(\lambda\)</td><td>\(5 \cdot 10^7\) [m]</td><td>Wavelength</td></tr><tr><td>\(k_0\)</td><td>\(1.2566 \cdot 10^7\) [1/m]</td><td>Wavenumber in vacuum</td></tr><tr><td>\(f_0\)</td><td> \(5.9958\cdot 10^{14} \) [1/s]</td><td>Frequency</td></tr><tr><td>\(t_{medium}\)</td><td> \(2.5\cdot 10^{-7}\) [m]</td><td>Thickness of air layer</td></tr><tr><td>\(t_{pml}\)</td><td>\(6 \cdot 2.5 \cdot 10^{-7}\) [m]</td><td>Thickness of Perfectly Matched Layer</td></tr><tr><td>\(t_{sil}\)</td><td> \( 8\cdot 10^{-8}\) [m]</td><td>Thickness of silicate layer</td></tr><tr><td>\(E_0\)</td><td>1 [V/m]</td><td>Intended electromagnetic field</td></tr></table> </center></figure>
 +
 
 +
 
 +
<p> According to the aforementioned parameters a three dimensional model of a layered sphere, representing our structure, was created (Figure 2). In this model the inner part is the cell radius, the first layer is the polysilicate layer covering the cell (thickness of t<sub>sil</sub>), then the other two layers are the medium (thickness t<sub>medium</sub>) with the outermost representing the surroundings further away from the structure, called Perfectly Matched Layer (thickness t<sub>pml</sub>). It is important to note that the 3D model shown in Figure 2 is only a quarter of the actual structure, but due to symmetry it is possible to use only that part to decrease the computational cost. </p>
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-6 col-md-offset-3 col-sm-12">
 
<figure>
 
<figure>
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/2/21/T--TU_Delft--modeling2.png" alt="">
+
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/5/57/T--TU_Delft--3D_model_sphere_small_domain.png" alt="3D sphere in small domain">
<figcaption><b>Figure 2:</b> Circular resonation of light in a whispering gallery mode resonator. </figcaption>
+
<figcaption><b>Figure 2:</b> 3D design of the sphere in a small domain.</figcaption>
 
</figure>
 
</figure>
<p>In both methods of capturing light (PHB granules and covering the cell with silica), the light will become trapped by whispering gallery mode (<strong>WGM</strong>) resonance <a href="#references">(Humar <i>et al.</i>, 2015)</a>. WGM resonance is the phenomenon where waves travel around a concave surface in a closed path (figure 2). Every time the wave hits the surface, total internal reflection occurs. When light hits a interface between two materials the light gets refracted as in figure 3A. If the angle \(\theta_i\) is large enough, the lights does not go trough the interface and gets reflected as in figure 3B. Whispering gallery mode resonance was first explained by Lord Rayleight in the St Paul’s Cathedral for sound waves. When you whisper to the wall of the cathedral the sound waves were able to travel along the wall and a person at the other side of the cathedral could hear it. However someone standing in the middle of the cathedral was not able to hear the whispering. Therefore this phenomenon was called whispering gallery mode resonance. <a href="#references">(Rayleigh <i>et al.</i>, 1877)</a></p>
+
</div>
 +
</div>
 +
<h3>Materials </h3>
 +
<p>Next the materials need to be determined. The RF module uses three important material parameters for its calculations: relative permeability ( \( \mu_r \) ), electrical conductivity ( \( \sigma \) ) and relative permittivity (\( \epsilon_r \)). The relative permeability is equal or almost equal to unity for most real materials for the optical frequency range that concern us (visible spectrum of the EM field) <a href="#references">(Mcintyre and Aspnes, 1971)</a>. The values for the electrical conductivity were obtained from the material library of COMSOL Multiphysics<sup>&reg;</sup> and from literature and the relative permittivity can be calculated from the refractive index (n) using the following formulas<a href="#references">(Griffiths, 1999)</a>: </p>  
 +
$$\epsilon = \epsilon' – j \epsilon'' $$
 +
$$ \epsilon' = \frac{n^2 – k^2}{\mu} = n^2 – k^2$$
 +
$$\epsilon'' = 2 \cdot n \cdot \frac{k}{\mu} = 2 \cdot n \cdot k$$
 +
<p> So it is:</p>
 +
$$\epsilon = n^2 – k^2 – j \cdot 2 \cdot n \cdot k $$
 +
<p> Here n is the Real part of the refractive index and k is the Imaginary part. Because we assume that we have non absorbing materials and thus the complex part of the refractive index is zero ( \( k=0 \) ) the relative permittivity can be calculated from the refractive index as: </p>
 +
$$\epsilon = n^2$$
 +
<p>The material parameters used for this model are summarized in Table 2. The refractive index of water is 1.33 <a href="#references">(Daimon & Masumura, 2007)</a> and of the cell 1.401 <a href="#references">(Jericho, Kreuzer, Kanka, & Riesenberg, 2012)</a> and the relative permittivity of both is calculated using the aforementioned  formula. The same method was used to calculate the relative permittivity of tin dioxide, with refractive index between 2.33 and 2.8 for 550 nm <a href="#references">(Baco, Chik, & Md. Yassin, 2012)</a> the relative permittivity is 6.58. </p>
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-6 col-md-offset-3 col-sm-12">
 +
<figcaption> <b>Table 2:</b> Material parameters used in the model</figcaption>
 +
<table><tr><th>Parameters/Materials</th><th>Medium (water)</th><th>Glass Layer</th><th>Cell</th></tr><tr><td>Relative permeability (\(\mu_r\))</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Electrical conductivity (\(\sigma\))</td><td>0.05 [S/m]</td><td>\(10^{-14}\) [S/m]</td><td>0.48 [S/m] <a href="#references">(Castellarnau,<i> et al.</i>, 2006)</a></td></tr><tr><td>Relative permittivity (\(\epsilon_r\))</td><td>1.77</td><td>2.09</td><td>1.96</td></tr></table></div></div>
 +
 
 +
<h3>Electromagnetic wave</h3>
 +
<p> The incidentincident electric field is \(E_0 \cdot e^{j\cdot k_0\cdot x}\) and passes through the whole structure. Figure 3 demonstrates how EM radiation, in this case almost green light as the wavelength is 500 nm  propagates in space, we have set the propagation direction as x, the electric field oscillation as z and of course the magnetic field oscillation as y.</p>
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-6 col-md-offset-3 col-sm-12">
 
<figure>
 
<figure>
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/a/a4/T--TU_Delft--modeling4.png" alt="">
+
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/d/de/T--TU_Delft--EM_radiation_propagation.png" alt="spherical model">
<figcaption><b>Figure 3:</b> (A) Refraction of the light due to the interface of two materials. (B) When the angle of incidence becomes larger than in 3A, it reaches the critical angle. At the critical angle the out-coming light travels parallel to the interface. (C) If the incidence angle becomes larger than the critical angle total internal reflection can take place and the lights get reflected.</figcaption>
+
<figcaption><b>Figure 3:</b> Electromagnetic radiation propagation.</figcaption>
 
</figure>
 
</figure>
<p>It is important that the waves follow a closed path forming a polygon so that <strong>constructive interference</strong> takes place. Constructive interference occurs when two waves travel in phase so that their amplitudes add up (figure 4). We need constructive interference so that every cycle in the resonater adds to the constructive interference. To make sure the waves travel in phase so that constructive interference can take place, the optical path length (OPL) is required to be an integer number of wavelengths (equation 1).  In equation 1 <i>n</i> is the number of sides of length <i>l</i>, and <i>m</i> an integer number of wavelengths \(\lambda\). </p>
+
</div>
 
+
</div>
$$OPL=n\cdot l = m\lambda$$
+
<h3>Mesh</h3>
 +
<p>A very important part of finite element method modelling (FEM) is the meshing of the design. The important part is that there should be enough nodes that the structure is well represented from the FEM but not so many that the system runs out of memory and the simulation never finishes. The meshing is very important for our model because we have a very thin polysilicate layer between the cell and the medium.  Keep in mind that when changing the mesh, the number of the Degrees of Freedom of the model increases in the power of 3 because we are using a 3 dimensional domain. The general rule of thumb for meshing in RF simulations is to use as maximum element size about one tenth of the wavelength, in our case this is about 50 nm. The meshed structure can be seen in Figure 4. </p>  
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-6 col-md-offset-3 col-sm-12">
 
<figure>
 
<figure>
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/0/0d/T--TU_Delft--modeling5.png" alt="">
+
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/5/53/T--TU_Delft--3D_model_sphere_small_domain_meshed.png" alt="Meshed spherical model">
<figcaption><b>Figure 4:</b> Interference of light. The amplitudes of waves that that are at the same point in time and space add up together. </figcaption>
+
<figcaption><b>Figure 4:</b>Meshed Structure.</figcaption>
 
</figure>
 
</figure>
 +
</div>
 +
</div>
 +
<h3>3D - Rod Shaped model</h3>
 +
<p> After constructing the spherical model, a rod shaped model was made, which resembles the shape of <i>E. coli</i> in a better way. The modeling method, parameters and materials used to create the rod shaped structure are the same as the spherical one. The way this was modeled is with a layered cylinder and two half spheres in each end of the cylinder. The 3D model of the rod can be seen in figure 5. The length of the middle part was set to (0.5 µm). The meshing was created with the same rule as for the spherical model, where the maximum mesh size selected was 50 nm.</p>
 +
<div class="col-md-6 col-sm-12">
 +
<figure>
 +
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/5/5f/T--TU_Delft--3D_model_rod_small_domain.png" alt="Rod Model">
 +
<figcaption><b>Figure 5:</b> 3D design of the rod shaped structure. </figcaption>
 +
</figure>
 +
</div>
 +
<div class="col-md-6 col-sm-12">
 +
<figure>
 +
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/a/a9/T--TU_Delft--3D_model_rod_small_domain_meshed.png" alt="Meshed rod model">
 +
<figcaption><b>Figure 6:</b> Meshed rod shaped structure.</figcaption>
 +
</figure>
 +
</div>
 
</div>
 
</div>
 
</div>
 
</div>
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<h2 class="title-style-2 col-md-offset-1">PHB Granules</h2>                                       
+
<h2 class="title-style-2 col-md-offset-1">Spherical model</h2>                                       
 
                     <div class="col-md-10 col-md-offset-1">
 
                     <div class="col-md-10 col-md-offset-1">
</p>For intracellular lasers, oil droplets have been used before as an optical cavity <a href=”#references”>(Humar <i>et al.</i>, 2015)</a>. In our project we use PHB granules inside the <i>E. coli</i> instead of oil droplets as an optical cavity. This PHB granule will then be stained with the fluorescent dye Nile Blue with an emission maximum of 580 nm <a href="#references">(Kitamura <i>et al.</i>, 1994)</a> to create the gain medium. </p>
+
<h3>First simulations with small domain</h3>
<p>In order to get WGM resonance the light beam has to be reflected by total internal reflection every time it hits the surface. Therefore the light beam has to approach the surface at a minimal angle larger than the critical angle. From Snell’s law (equation 2) we can compute the critical angle <a href="#references">(Hecht, 2001)</a> where the incoming light is refracted to have an outgoing angle of exactly 90 degrees (figure 3C). In equation 2 and 3, <i>\(n_1\)</i> and <i>\(n_2\)</i> are the refractive indices of the materials at the interface. </p>
+
 
$$n_1 sin(\theta_{i}) = n_2 sin(\theta_{f})$$
+
<p>The aforementioned models were used to predict the behavior of light when it meets our biolenses. The first simulation was that of a circular cell of diameter \( 0.5 \mu m \) covered with a thin film of \( 80 nm\) polysilicate. The medium selected was water and the domain (volume used for the calculations) was circular for better use of symmetry. The domain in this study was \( 1 \mu m\). The reason a small domain was selected is the small computational time during the troubleshooting period. The first results of those simulations can be seen below.</p>
$$\theta_{c} = \arcsin\Big(\frac{n_2}{n_1}\sin\big(\frac{\pi}{2}\big)\Big)=\arcsin\Big(\frac{n_2}{n_1}\Big)$$
+
<div class="row">
<p>The outgoing light in total internal reflection should have an angle \(\theta_f>\theta_c\) to be reflected. When we look into geometrical optics the path of the light is as shown in figure 5. Since we want a closed optical path (polygon), we have an integer number of sides on the polygon. Using equation 4 from we can determine the number of sides \(n_{sides}\) of the polygon as in equation 5.</p>
+
<div class="col-md-6 col-md-offset-3 col-sm-12">
 
<figure>
 
<figure>
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/6/60/T--TU_Delft--modeling6.png" alt="">
+
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/c/cc/T--TU_Delft--Electric_field_z_component_sphere.png" alt=”Z component of electric field.">
<figcaption><b>Figure 5:</b> The path of the light in a PHB granule. Using trigonometry we can determine the angles \(\phi\) and \(\theta\). </figcaption>
+
<figcaption><b>Figure 7:</b> Electric field, z component.</figcaption>
 
</figure>
 
</figure>
$$\phi = \pi - 2\theta_{f}$$
+
</div>
$$n_{sides} = \frac{2\pi}{\phi} = \frac{2\pi}{\pi-2\theta_{f}}$$
+
</div>
<p>We can calculate the number of sides by using the reflected angle \(\theta_f\) in equation 4 and round the \(n_{sides}\) up to an integer. This will give us the smallest polygon possible for WGM. We can then calculate the smallest possible value of \(\theta_f\) to get total internal reflection with a closed optical path as in equation 6.</p>
+
<p>Figure 7 shows the z-component of the electric field in this figure we can clearly see the propagation of the light as plane wave until it reaches our structure. It can be seen that some focusing is present in the structure. This can be seen better in figure 8 , the normalized  electric field. The focusing here can be seen in the edge of the cell. We can see that the focal point of the lens is further away from the cell surface than the \(1 \mu m\) inthis simulation and it is somewhere in the Perfectly Matched Layer (PML) where we cannot see it. In order to investigate if this is the reason we cannot see a focal point additional simulations were performed with larger domain. Here needs to be noted again that while the domain is enlarged the number of nodes increase in the power of 3 so the increase of domain for example to \(1 mm\) is impossible at least with the equipment we have.   We run a number of simulations with larger domains but for more demanding models we used the CST Studio Suit and servers from the Imaging Physics department of TU Delft.</p>
$$\theta_f = \frac{\pi}{2}-\frac{\pi}{round(n_{sides})} $$
+
<p>One additional comment on this model is that the incident electric field can be seen propagating with no change except from the part that interacts with the sphere and a little around it due to some scattering  . This shows us that the simulations work properly and we don’t have parasitic scattering due to errors in PML or wrong symmetry definitions.</p>
<p>Now that we know how many sides the polygon has, we can compute the minimal size for the granule sphere so that an integer number of wavelengths fit into the optical path length:</p>
+
<div class="row">
$$m\lambda = n_{sides}l$$
+
<div class="row col-md-6 col-md-offset-3 col-sm-12">
$$l = 2Rcos(\theta_{f})$$
+
<p>We suggest that at least one wavelength should fit into \(l\) ( \(l=\lambda\) ) so that the waves can get trapped. Therefore the minimum size of the granule should be as in equation 9:</p>
+
$$R = \frac{\lambda}{2\cos(\theta_{f})}$$
+
<h3>Results</h3>
+
<p> For PHB granules the refractive index at a wavelength of 580 nm is \(n_{PHB} = 1.468\) <a href="#references">(Huglin <i>et al.</i>, 1991)</a>. The refractive index of cytosol is \(n_{cytoplasm} = 1.37\) <a href="#references"> (Liang <i>et al.</i>, 2007)</a>. Putting these values into our model, we find that the minimal size of the PHB granules is \(1.7\mu m\) (figure 6). This is quite a bit larger than we expect the granules to be since the size of E. coli is only \(1-2 \mu m\) long and the granules will not fill the entire bacterium. </p>
+
 
<figure>
 
<figure>
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/f/f1/T--TU_Delft--modeling7.png" alt="">
+
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/a/a0/T--TU_Delft--Electric_field_normalized_sphere.png" alt="Normalized  electric field">
<figcaption><b>Figure 6:</b> The path of light in a PHB granule. The minimal diameter of the granule is \(d=1.7\mu m\). </figcaption>
+
<figcaption><b>Figure 8:</b> Electric field normalized. Scattering intensity shown in red.</figcaption>
 
</figure>
 
</figure>
 +
</div>
 +
</div>
 +
<h3>Simulations with larger domain</h3>
 +
<p>The domain was increased to a radius of \(2.1 \mu m\). The result of the second simulation with greater domain can be seen in figure 9 below. Here the full focusing area can be seen , around \( 0.5 -1.5 \mu m \) behind the structure. Note here that we are talking about a focal area, not a focal point as expected compared to traditional lenses. One of the reasons that that we have focal area and not focal point is that we have scattering. This is due to the fact that the layer of polysilicate  is thin compared to the rest of the system and because the cell has similar refractive index to the medium (which simplified to water). Also due to the spherical shape of the structure there are some aberrations observed  above the focal point. Spheres in general don’t have nice focal points as traditional lenses so aberrations in the scattering light is a common effect of spherical structures. Again the propagation of light can be seen in figure 10.</p>
 +
<div class="col-md-6 col-sm-12">
 +
<figure>
 +
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/4/47/T--TU_Delft--Electric_field_normalized_sphere_large_domain.png" alt="Normalized electric field">
 +
<figcaption><b>Figure 9:</b> Normalized Electric field \(2.1 \mu m\) domain.</figcaption>
 +
</figure>
 +
</div>
 +
<div class="col-md-6 col-sm-12">
 +
<figure>
 +
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/3/33/T--TU_Delft--Electric_field_z_component_sphere_big_domain.png" alt="Normalized electric field">
 +
<figcaption><b>Figure 10:</b> Propagation of the light, z component of the EM field.</figcaption>
 +
</figure>
 +
</div>
 +
<h3>Discussion</h3>
 +
<p>This set of simulations shows that for the circular structure of the polysilicate covered cells  in water acts as a lens and it focuses the light about \( 0.5-1 \mu m\) away from the lens. Also, the focusing point is not an actual point but rather a broad area of focusing, and this can be partially explained due to the differences in refractive indices of the materials.  </p>
 +
 +
<h3>CST STUDIO SUITE simulations</h3>
 +
<p>In order to double check the findings of the aforementioned simulations we decided to use an additional software and run simulations for the same models. The second software used is the CST STUDIO SUITE, which is more specialized for RF and Microwave simulations.</p>
 +
<p>The same simulation was run with the same material parameters but in larger domain. The materials and the parameters used for this model were exactly the same as the COMSOL model. The design parameters can be seen in table 1 and the materials in table 2. </p>
 +
<p>Figure 7 shows that the focal point is at about \(0.5 – 1.5 \mu m\) from the lenses as well. It can be seen more clearly in figure 11 that there is not a focus point but rather a focus area. This is also shown in figure 12 where the intensity vs the distance is plotted for the yz plane when x is 0.</p>
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-6 col-sm-12">
 +
<figure>
 +
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/c/c4/T--TU_Delft--Electric_field_sphere_CST.png" alt="Normalized electric field.">
 +
<figcaption><b>Figure 11:</b> Focal point at about \(0.5 – 1.5 \mu m\) from the lens.</figcaption>
 +
</figure>
 +
</div>
 +
<div class="col-md-6 col-sm-12">
 +
<figure>
 +
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/7/7e/T--TU_Delft--Electric_field_sphere_CST_focus_area.png" alt="Normalized electric field.">
 +
<figcaption><b>Figure 12:</b> Focus area at about \(0.5 – 1.5 \mu m\) shown by the intensity in yz plane. </figcaption>
 +
</figure>
 +
</div>
 +
</div>
 +
<h3> Conclusion for the spherical model</h3>
 +
<p>The refraction of a spherical cell was simulated with two different software, COMSOL Multiphysics and CST STUDIO SUIT. Both of those models showed that there is a focusing area about \(0.5 – 1.5 \mu m\) from the lens. This leads to the conclusion that the polysilicate covered spherical cells in water can act as lenses. </p>
 +
 
</div>
 
</div>
 
</div>
 
</div>
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<h2 class="title-style-2 col-md-offset-1">Silica covered cells</h2>                                       
+
<h2 class="title-style-2 col-md-offset-1">Rod Shaped Model</h2>                                       
 
                     <div class="col-md-10 col-md-offset-1">
 
                     <div class="col-md-10 col-md-offset-1">
<p>Since the size of the PHB granules that can be grown inside an <i>E. coli</i> bacterium was expected to be smaller than the required size for lasing, we investigated the option of making a biolaser out of the entire cell. Therefore we encapsulated the cell with a layer of biosilica and tin dioxide. The gain medium in this method is provided by fluorophores which we expressed in the cytosol of the cell. To determine the minimal size in this case the calculation was a bit more tricky than for the PGB granules, since we had to take the layer into account and the optical path has a star-like shape (figure 3A) . </p>
+
<p>As discussed in the presentation of the models a second 3D model, resembling the shape of actual bacteria, was created: the rod shaped model. This model, due to the larger domain needed, was much harder to implement than the simpler spherical model. Figure 13 and figure 14 show the interaction of the electromagnetic field with the rod shaped structure</p>
 +
<p>The same phenomena as with the spherical model in small domain are observed here. The PML absorbs the field so we cannot observe the correct focal point. This model requires way bigger domain in order the focal point to be seen. Considering that this is the same phenomenon as in the spherical model we can assume that the focal point of the rod shaped model is in the area \( 1 – 2 \mu m\) further from the structure </p>
 +
<div class="col-md-6 col-sm-12">
 
<figure>
 
<figure>
<center><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/b/bd/T--TU_Delft--modeling8.png" alt=""></center>
+
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/4/46/T--TU_Delft--Electric_field_z_component_rod.png" alt="Normalized electric field.">
<figcaption><b>Figure 7:</b> The path of light in a cell covered with a layer of biosilica or tin dioxide. The optical path has a star like shape.</figcaption>
+
<figcaption><b>Figure 13:</b> Electric field interaction with the rod shaped structure. </figcaption>
 +
</figure>
 +
</div>
 +
<div class="col-md-6 col-sm-12">
 +
<figure>
 +
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/2/2e/T--TU_Delft--Electric_field_normalized_rod.png" alt="Normalized electric field.">
 +
<figcaption><b>Figure 14:</b> Electric field norm interaction with the rod shaped structure.
 +
</figcaption>
 +
</figure>
 +
</div>
 +
<p>This assumption was tested by using the CST software. Again the reason we are using two different software packages is that we want to double check the results and with the CST we have access to better hardware equipment meaning that we can simulate bigger domains with better resolution. Figure 15 shows the rod–shaped structure design. In this orientation the field is propagating along z axis with polarization in x axis  , we investigated the polarization in y axes as well but the results were the same. </p>
 +
<figure>
 +
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/c/c6/T--TU_Delft--Rod_shaped_CST_3D.png" alt="CST_rod.">
 +
<figcaption><b>Figure 15:</b> 3D design of the rod shaped structure in CST.
 +
</figcaption>
 +
</figure>
 +
<p>Again we investigated for the scattering fieled to see if there is a focusing effect with this shape. Figure 16 shows the scattering of the rod shaped structure. In this structure we observe a focusing area with almost the same focal area around \( 0.5 – 1 \mu m \) from the cell as the spherical model.</p>
 +
<figure>
 +
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/8/8c/T--TU_Delft--Rod_shaped_CST_focusing.png" alt="CST_rod_scattering.">
 +
<figcaption><b>Figure 16:</b> Focus of light from the rod-shaped structure.
 +
</figcaption>
 +
</figure>
 +
<p>The focusing is better visualized in figure 17 where a 2D  graph of the field in a cut that passes exactly in the center of the structure in the z-direction is shown. From this graph we can see that the maximum electric field is at about 1500 nm from the center of the structure, this means that the focal point is about 700 nm behind the cell. </p>
 +
<figure>
 +
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/9/9f/T--TU_Delft--Rod_shaped_CST_focusing_2D.png" alt="CST_rod_scattering.">
 +
<figcaption><b>Figure 17:</b> 2D  graph of the field in a cut that passes exactly in the center of the structure in the z-direction.
 +
</figcaption>
 
</figure>
 
</figure>
<p>The critical angle can again be computed by equation 3, where \(n_1\) is the refractive index of the layer \(n_f\), and \(n_2\) is the refractive index of the buffer outside the cell \(n_b\). When the angle is slightly larger than the critical angle we have total internal reflection where the outgoing angle is equal to the incoming angle, therefore we may set \(\alpha = \theta_c\). In this model we will neglect the curvature of the surface which means that we can also set \(\theta_i=\alpha\). Using Snell’s Law (equation 2) again we can compute the outgoing angle \(\theta_0\) (equation 10) where \(n_f\) is the refractive index of the layer and \(n_c\)  the refractive index of the cytosol.</p>
 
$$\theta_0 = asin\Big(\frac{n_f}{n_c} sin(\alpha)\Big) $$
 
<p>From \(\theta_0\) we can easily determine the angle \( \phi \) since all the angles in a triangle add up to \(\pi\) (equation 11).</p>
 
$$\phi = \pi-2 \theta_0 = \pi-2\arcsin\Big(\frac{n_f}{n_c} sin(\alpha)\Big)$$
 
<p>Here the path of the light is star-shaped and the \( OPL=k_{sides}\lambda\). Furthermore we will assume that the total path length per side is minimally  \(\lambda\) and that one side is taken as the path from point A to D. The optical path length per side is given as \(OPL_{side}=2\cdot x+l\geq\lambda\). \(X\) and \(l\) can be determined as in equation 12. From equation 12 the minimal radius can be determined for the criteria where \(OPL_{sides} = \lambda\) (equation 13). </p>
 
$$\left.\begin{matrix}
 
OPL_{sides} =2x+l\geq \lambda \\
 
x=\frac{t}{\cos\alpha}\\
 
l =2R\cos\theta_o
 
\end{matrix}\right\}
 
OPL_{sides} = \lambda = \frac{2t}{\cos\alpha}+2R \cos\theta_o =\frac{2t}{\cos\alpha}+2R \sqrt{1-(\frac{n_f}{n_c}\sin\alpha)^2}\geq\lambda $$
 
  
$$ R_{min} = \frac{\lambda-\frac{2t}{\cos\alpha}}{2\cos\theta_o}$$
+
<h3>Orientation of the rod-shaped cells</h3>
<p>Using the minimal radius of R we can determine the angle \(\psi\) as in equation 14.</p>
+
<p>The most important difference between the two models, the spherical and the rod-shaped, is that the spherical has a higher order of symmetry. We call those cells orientation independent because the scattering will be the same no matter what is the orientation of the filed compared to the cell.  For the rod shaped cells this is not so trivial and so we modified our model to see what is the scattering of a field coming vertical to its long edge. Figure 18 shows that model, it is the same model as earlier but with different initial conditions, now the electromagnetic field propagates through the z direction, the electric field at x and magnetic field at y.</p>
$$ \psi=2\arcsin(\frac{t \tan\alpha}{R_{min}})$$
+
<figure>
 +
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/4/4f/T--TU_Delft--Rod_shaped_90Degrees_CST_3D.png" alt="CST_rod_scattering.">
 +
<figcaption><b>Figure 18:</b> Structure positioned in the domain. </figcaption>
 +
</figure>
 +
<p>Figure 19 shows the interaction of EM field under this angle and figure 20 the 2D plot of electric field passing through the middle plane. We can see that the focusing area is more spread out and less defined than the other orientation or the spherical model. Additionally, some aberrations can be seen in the electromagnetic field. From figure 20 we can also see that the maximum of the scattered field can be found at the position 2000 nm, so about 1200 nm behind the cell. This focal length is higher than the other direction, wider and the intensity of the field is smaller, if we compare figure 20 and figure 17 (intensity shown in the y axis of those graphs). </p>
 +
<figure>
 +
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/3/3b/T--TU_Delft--Rod_shaped_90Degrees_CST_focusing.png"alt="CST_rod_scattering.">
 +
<figcaption><b>Figure 19:</b> EM field interaction with the structure. </figcaption>
 +
</figure>
 +
<figure>
 +
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/a/ac/T--TU_Delft--Rod_shaped_90Degrees_CST_focusing_2D.png"alt="CST_rod_scattering.">
 +
<figcaption><b>Figure 20:</b> 2D graph of the Electric field intensity in the middle plane. </figcaption>
 +
</figure>
 +
<p>From this study we can conclude that for the rod shape the focal area is dependent from its orientation compared to the incident radiation. Additionally, comparing the two extreme conditions, that is the light coming perpendicular to the small side or the light coming perpendicular to the ling side we can see that we can obtain better focusing effect in the first case. </p>
  
<p>Using \(\psi\) and \(\phi\) we can determine the minimal number of sides of the optical path (equation 15).</p>
+
</div>
$$k_{sides} = \frac{2\pi}{\psi+\phi}$$
+
</div>
<p>In equation 15, \(k_{sides}\) has to be an integer to have a closed optical path. Taken together the constraints as in equation 16 we get an equation for \(\phi\) and \(\psi\) as a function of \(\alpha\). </p>
+
 
$$\left.\begin{matrix}
+
<span class="anchor" id="Q5_conclusions"> </span>
\frac{2\pi}{k_{sides}}=\phi+\psi\\
+
<div class="row">
\phi = \pi-2\arcsin(\frac{n_f}{n_c}\sin\alpha)\\
+
<h2 class="title-style-2 col-md-offset-1">Conclusions</h2>                                      
\psi = 2\arcsin(\frac{t\tan\alpha}{R_{min}})\\
+
                    <div class="col-md-10 col-md-offset-1">
OPL_{sides}=2x+l \rightarrow R_{min} = \frac{\lambda-\frac{2t}{\cos\alpha}}{2\sqrt{1-(\frac{n_f}{n_c}\sin\alpha)^2}}
+
<p>We have modeled the interaction of electromagnetic field with bacteria covered with a layer of polysilicate. The goal of this part of the modeling was to see if those structures can act as microlenses focusing light on the other side. In order to verify the results of the models we used two types modeling software, COMSOL Multiphysics<sup>&reg;</sup> and the CST STUDIO SUIT. The models clearly show that the light is focused in about \(0.5 – 1 \mu m\) away from the cell. We cannot observe a traditional focus point but rather a focus area where the intensity of the light is stronger than the incoming. This was explained from the fact that the cell and the medium  have similar refractive indices and the light bending is happening mostly due to the very thin polysilicate layer so we cannot expect a very well defined focusing. Additionally, in spherical lenses spherical aberration take place. Concluding, <strong>these models have shown that the polysilicate covered cells can act as biological microlenses and that the preferred structure is the spherical as it is orientation independent.</strong> Therefore we recommended the lab team to investigate the possibilities of making cells spherical. <a href="https://2016.igem.org/Team:TU_Delft/Project" target = "_blank"><strong>They managed to use the bolA gene to create spherical lenses.</strong></a></p>
\end{matrix}\right\}
+
 
\frac{2\pi}{k_{sides}}=\pi-2\arcsin(\frac{n_f}{n_c}\sin\alpha)+2\arcsin(\frac{2t\sin\alpha\sqrt{1-(\frac{n_f}{n_c}\sin\alpha)^2}}{\lambda\cos\alpha-2t})$$
+
<div class="warning">
<p>Solving equation 16 for \(\alpha\) and using this in the equation for the radius results in the minimal radius required for WGM in a cell covered with a layer of biosilica or tin dioxide.</p>
+
<p>Our COMSOL Multiphysics and CST Studio Suit models were too large and unsupported to upload to the wiki servers. After a discussion with the Headquarters we were advised to upload them on Google drive. You can find the COMSOL models <a href=" https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B2g7hkJxev3tNHFZMEJINTNCTVU" target = "_blank"> <strong>here</strong>.</a> and the CST models <a href=" https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B2g7hkJxev3tZFI1VXo1Z3pfYlk" target = "_blank"> <strong>here</strong>.</a>  </p>
<h3>Results</h3>
+
<div class = "row">
<p>Using the model described above we determined the minimal radius of a cell covered with polysilica and tin dioxide to create a cavity that allows for whispering gallery modes. The refractive index of polysilica is 1.47 <a href="#references">(Liang <i>et al.</i>, 2007)</a>. The refractive index of tin dioxide is 2 <a href="#references">(Pradyot, 2003)</a>. For both cases we calculated the minimal radius assuming the thickness of the layer to be 50 nm and a wavelength of 509 nm, the emission wavelength of GFP. From our model we found a minimal diameter of \(1.2 \mu m\) and \(1.6 \mu m\) (figure 8) for polysilica and tin dioxide respectively. These sizes are comparable to the size of a bacterium, so whispering gallery modes should in principle be possible inside a covered cell. However, we made a number of simplifications in our model that will in practice probably prevent the system from lasing at this minimum scale. First, we did not take the polarization of the light into account. Second, the length scales we work with here are only about twice the wavelength, and the thickness of the boundary layer is much smaller than the wavelength. A more accurate description of what is happening within the cell would require us to work in the thin layer limit (known as Mie theory) as we do in <b><a href="/Team:TU_Delft/Model/Q4">Q4</a></b>. There we calculate the quality factor for the cavity, which indicates how well the light can be trapped within the structure. Third, in this model we only determined whether light waves will fit into the cavity, in <b><a href="/Team:TU_Delft/Model/Q3">Q3</a></b> we will also determine whether lasing can take place with the size of the cell and the reflectivity of polysilica and tin dioxide.</p>
+
<div class = "col-md-10 col-md-offset-1 col-sm-12">
 
<figure>
 
<figure>
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/2/2f/T--TU_Delft--modeling9.png" alt=""
+
<img src = "https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/2/20/T--TU_Delft--HQ_permission.PNG" alt="Electromagnetic_spectrum">
<figcaption><b>Figure 8:</b> (A) For a cell covered in a 50 nm polysilica the minimal diameter is \(1.2\mu m\). (B) For a cell covered in tin dioxide the minimal diameter is \(1.6\mu m\).</figcaption>
+
 
</figure>
 
</figure>
 +
</div>
 +
</div>
  
  
Line 145: Line 269:
 
           <h4 class="footer-title">References</h4>
 
           <h4 class="footer-title">References</h4>
 
                 <ol>
 
                 <ol>
<li>Aizenberg, J., Sundar, V. C., Yablon, A. D., Weaver, J. C., & Chen, G. (2004). Biological glass fibers: Correlation between optical and structural properties. <i>Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 101(10)</i>, 3358–3363. https://doi.org/DOI 10.1073/pnas.0307843101</li>
+
<li>Baco, S., Chik, A., & Md. Yassin, F. (2012). Study on Optical Properties of Tin Oxide Thin Film at Different Annealing Temperature. <i>Journal of Science and Technology, 4,</i> 61–72.</li>
<li>Hecht, E. (2001). Optics 4th edition. Optics 4th Edition by Eugene Hecht Reading MA Addison Wesley Publishing Company 2001. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.3274347</li>
+
<li>Banyamin, Z., Kelly, P., West, G., & Boardman, J. (2014). Electrical and Optical Properties of Fluorine Doped Tin Oxide Thin Films Prepared by Magnetron Sputtering. <i>Coatings, 4(4),</i> 732–746.</li>
<li>Huglin, M. B., & Radwan, M. A. (1991). Behaviour of poly(β-hydroxybutyric acid) in dilute solution. <i>Polymer International</i>, 24(2), 119–123. https://doi.org/10.1002/pi.4990240210</li>
+
<li>Castellarnau, M., Errachid,  a, Madrid, C., Juárez,  a, & Samitier, J. (2006). Dielectrophoresis as a tool to characterize and differentiate isogenic mutants of Escherichia coli. <i>Biophysical Journal, 91(10),</i> 3937–45.</li>
<li>Humar, M., & Yun, S. H. (2015). Intracellular microlasers. <i>Nature Photonics</i>, 9(9), 572–576. https://doi.org/10.1038/nphoton.2015.129</li>
+
<li>COMSOL. (2013). Computational Electromagnetics Modeling, Which Module to Use. Retrieved from www.comsol.com/blogs/computational-electromagnetics-modeling-which-module-to-use/</li>
<li>Kitamura, S., & Doi, Y. (1994). Staining method of poly(3-hydroxyalkanoic acids) producing bacteria by nile blue. <i>Biotechnology Techniques</i>, 8(5), 345–350. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02428979</li>
+
<li>COMSOL Multiphysics<sup>&reg;</sup> (2016) COMSOL Multiphysics<sup>&reg</sup> Simulation Software Product Suite. Retrieved from https://www.comsol.com/comsol-multiphysics</li>
<li>Liang, X. J., Liu, A. Q., Lim, C. S., Ayi, T. C., & Yap, P. H. (2007). Determining refractive index of single living cell using an integrated microchip. Sensors and Actuators A: Physical, 133(2), 349-354.</li>
+
<li>Daimon, M., & Masumura, A. (2007). Measurement of the refractive index of distilled water from the near-infrared region to the ultraviolet region. <i>Applied Optics, 46(18),</i> 3811–3820.</li>
<li>Patnaik, P. (2003). Handbook of Inorganic Chemicals. Ebook. Retrieved from ftp://pvictor.homeftp.net/public/Sci_Library/Chem Library/Handbooks/Patnaik P. Handbook of inorganic chemicals (MGH, 2003)(T)(1125s).pdf</li>
+
<li>Griffiths, D. J. (1999). <i>Introduction To Electrodynamics.</i></li>
<li>Strutt, J. W., & Rayleigh, B. (1877). The Theory of Sound. <i>Nature (Vol. 1)</i>. https://doi.org/10.1038/058121a0</li>
+
<li>Jericho, M. H., Kreuzer, H. J., Kanka, M., & Riesenberg, R. (2012). Quantitative phase and refractive index measurements with point-source digital in-line holographic microscopy. <i>Applied Optics, 51(10),</i> 1503–1515.</li>
<li>Wyatt, P. J. (1968). Differential Light Scattering: a Physical Method for Identifying Living Bacterial Cells. <i>Applied Optics</i>, 7(10), 1879. https://doi.org/10.1364/AO.7.001879</li>
+
<li>Mcintyre, J. D. E. and D.E. Aspnes, (1971). Differential reflection spectroscopy of very thin surface films. <i>Surface Science, 24,</i> 417–434.</li>
 
                 </ol>
 
                 </ol>
 
         </div>   
 
         </div>   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     <!--  Scripts================================================== -->
 
     <!--  Scripts================================================== -->
 
<script type="text/x-mathjax-config">
 
<script type="text/x-mathjax-config">

Latest revision as of 03:32, 20 October 2016

iGEM TU Delft

Modeling

Question 5:

How does the polysilicate covered cell focus the light?

Introduction

In the second part of our project we created polysilicate covered E. coli cells with the intention to use them as biological microlences. In order to determine if our cells act as lenses when covered by polisilicate we modeled their interaction with light. Since we are making lenses which at lenghtscales close to the wavelength of light, simple ray optics does not apply, therefore we need to work approach light with its wave form properties. In the sections bellow we present different studies, models and software we used. Initially we modeled a spherical model and then a more accurate representation of actual E. coli bacteria, a rod shaped model. Finally we are comparing the optical properties of a spherical and rod shaped cell.

Short intro about COMSOL Multiphysics:

The software COMSOL Multiphysics was used to model the electromagnetic field’s interaction with our structure, a polysilicate layer covered cell. COMSOL Multiphysics is a CAE (Computed Aided Engineering) software package that can be used to model any physics based system and the interaction of different physics (COMSOL Multiphysics®, 2016). For this project the RF Module was used; this module is the best fit for the dimensions of our structure (micrometers) and the incident wavelength (in the visible spectrum). Figure 1 below demonstrates the different options for different structure size and wavelengths (COMSOL, 2013).

COMSOL modules
Figure 1: Best COMSOL modules to use relevant to the Object size and wavelength (COMSOL, 2013).

3D model – Sphere

For the in teractions of the Electromagnetic field with the structure interaction there are two models built. The first and simplest module assumes that the shape of our structure is a simple sphere. Even though the spherical model is an oversimplification of the actual E.coli shape we used it as initial studies. We realize that the shape of E.coli is very different than a sphere so we also created more accurate representation of E.coli bacteria, the rod shaped models. Using the simple sphere model we have symmetry allowing to model only a quarter of the sphere, so we need smaller domain compared to a rod shaped structure, resulting in a computational less expensive model and faster conversions.

A parametric method of modeling was used, meaning that the most important parameters for the model were defined and then used for the model. The parameters used for this model are: the radius of the sphere, the wavelength, wavenumber and frequency of the incidentincident light, the thickness of the polysilicate layer, air layer and Perfectly Matched Layer , which is basically the representation of the outside world, the intensity of the incidentincident electromagnetic field, and the material parameters epsilon defined later. The values of those parameters are shown in table 1.

Table 1: Values of parameters used in the model.
ParameterValueDescription
\(r_0\)\(5\cdot10^{-7}\) [m]Radius of the cell
\(\lambda\)\(5 \cdot 10^7\) [m]Wavelength
\(k_0\)\(1.2566 \cdot 10^7\) [1/m]Wavenumber in vacuum
\(f_0\) \(5.9958\cdot 10^{14} \) [1/s]Frequency
\(t_{medium}\) \(2.5\cdot 10^{-7}\) [m]Thickness of air layer
\(t_{pml}\)\(6 \cdot 2.5 \cdot 10^{-7}\) [m]Thickness of Perfectly Matched Layer
\(t_{sil}\) \( 8\cdot 10^{-8}\) [m]Thickness of silicate layer
\(E_0\)1 [V/m]Intended electromagnetic field

According to the aforementioned parameters a three dimensional model of a layered sphere, representing our structure, was created (Figure 2). In this model the inner part is the cell radius, the first layer is the polysilicate layer covering the cell (thickness of tsil), then the other two layers are the medium (thickness tmedium) with the outermost representing the surroundings further away from the structure, called Perfectly Matched Layer (thickness tpml). It is important to note that the 3D model shown in Figure 2 is only a quarter of the actual structure, but due to symmetry it is possible to use only that part to decrease the computational cost.

3D sphere in small domain
Figure 2: 3D design of the sphere in a small domain.

Materials

Next the materials need to be determined. The RF module uses three important material parameters for its calculations: relative permeability ( \( \mu_r \) ), electrical conductivity ( \( \sigma \) ) and relative permittivity (\( \epsilon_r \)). The relative permeability is equal or almost equal to unity for most real materials for the optical frequency range that concern us (visible spectrum of the EM field) (Mcintyre and Aspnes, 1971). The values for the electrical conductivity were obtained from the material library of COMSOL Multiphysics® and from literature and the relative permittivity can be calculated from the refractive index (n) using the following formulas(Griffiths, 1999):

$$\epsilon = \epsilon' – j \epsilon'' $$ $$ \epsilon' = \frac{n^2 – k^2}{\mu} = n^2 – k^2$$ $$\epsilon'' = 2 \cdot n \cdot \frac{k}{\mu} = 2 \cdot n \cdot k$$

So it is:

$$\epsilon = n^2 – k^2 – j \cdot 2 \cdot n \cdot k $$

Here n is the Real part of the refractive index and k is the Imaginary part. Because we assume that we have non absorbing materials and thus the complex part of the refractive index is zero ( \( k=0 \) ) the relative permittivity can be calculated from the refractive index as:

$$\epsilon = n^2$$

The material parameters used for this model are summarized in Table 2. The refractive index of water is 1.33 (Daimon & Masumura, 2007) and of the cell 1.401 (Jericho, Kreuzer, Kanka, & Riesenberg, 2012) and the relative permittivity of both is calculated using the aforementioned formula. The same method was used to calculate the relative permittivity of tin dioxide, with refractive index between 2.33 and 2.8 for 550 nm (Baco, Chik, & Md. Yassin, 2012) the relative permittivity is 6.58.

Table 2: Material parameters used in the model
Parameters/MaterialsMedium (water)Glass LayerCell
Relative permeability (\(\mu_r\))111
Electrical conductivity (\(\sigma\))0.05 [S/m]\(10^{-14}\) [S/m]0.48 [S/m] (Castellarnau, et al., 2006)
Relative permittivity (\(\epsilon_r\))1.772.091.96

Electromagnetic wave

The incidentincident electric field is \(E_0 \cdot e^{j\cdot k_0\cdot x}\) and passes through the whole structure. Figure 3 demonstrates how EM radiation, in this case almost green light as the wavelength is 500 nm propagates in space, we have set the propagation direction as x, the electric field oscillation as z and of course the magnetic field oscillation as y.

spherical model
Figure 3: Electromagnetic radiation propagation.

Mesh

A very important part of finite element method modelling (FEM) is the meshing of the design. The important part is that there should be enough nodes that the structure is well represented from the FEM but not so many that the system runs out of memory and the simulation never finishes. The meshing is very important for our model because we have a very thin polysilicate layer between the cell and the medium. Keep in mind that when changing the mesh, the number of the Degrees of Freedom of the model increases in the power of 3 because we are using a 3 dimensional domain. The general rule of thumb for meshing in RF simulations is to use as maximum element size about one tenth of the wavelength, in our case this is about 50 nm. The meshed structure can be seen in Figure 4.

Meshed spherical model
Figure 4:Meshed Structure.

3D - Rod Shaped model

After constructing the spherical model, a rod shaped model was made, which resembles the shape of E. coli in a better way. The modeling method, parameters and materials used to create the rod shaped structure are the same as the spherical one. The way this was modeled is with a layered cylinder and two half spheres in each end of the cylinder. The 3D model of the rod can be seen in figure 5. The length of the middle part was set to (0.5 µm). The meshing was created with the same rule as for the spherical model, where the maximum mesh size selected was 50 nm.

Rod Model
Figure 5: 3D design of the rod shaped structure.
Meshed rod model
Figure 6: Meshed rod shaped structure.

Spherical model

First simulations with small domain

The aforementioned models were used to predict the behavior of light when it meets our biolenses. The first simulation was that of a circular cell of diameter \( 0.5 \mu m \) covered with a thin film of \( 80 nm\) polysilicate. The medium selected was water and the domain (volume used for the calculations) was circular for better use of symmetry. The domain in this study was \( 1 \mu m\). The reason a small domain was selected is the small computational time during the troubleshooting period. The first results of those simulations can be seen below.

”Z
Figure 7: Electric field, z component.

Figure 7 shows the z-component of the electric field in this figure we can clearly see the propagation of the light as plane wave until it reaches our structure. It can be seen that some focusing is present in the structure. This can be seen better in figure 8 , the normalized electric field. The focusing here can be seen in the edge of the cell. We can see that the focal point of the lens is further away from the cell surface than the \(1 \mu m\) inthis simulation and it is somewhere in the Perfectly Matched Layer (PML) where we cannot see it. In order to investigate if this is the reason we cannot see a focal point additional simulations were performed with larger domain. Here needs to be noted again that while the domain is enlarged the number of nodes increase in the power of 3 so the increase of domain for example to \(1 mm\) is impossible at least with the equipment we have. We run a number of simulations with larger domains but for more demanding models we used the CST Studio Suit and servers from the Imaging Physics department of TU Delft.

One additional comment on this model is that the incident electric field can be seen propagating with no change except from the part that interacts with the sphere and a little around it due to some scattering . This shows us that the simulations work properly and we don’t have parasitic scattering due to errors in PML or wrong symmetry definitions.

Normalized  electric field
Figure 8: Electric field normalized. Scattering intensity shown in red.

Simulations with larger domain

The domain was increased to a radius of \(2.1 \mu m\). The result of the second simulation with greater domain can be seen in figure 9 below. Here the full focusing area can be seen , around \( 0.5 -1.5 \mu m \) behind the structure. Note here that we are talking about a focal area, not a focal point as expected compared to traditional lenses. One of the reasons that that we have focal area and not focal point is that we have scattering. This is due to the fact that the layer of polysilicate is thin compared to the rest of the system and because the cell has similar refractive index to the medium (which simplified to water). Also due to the spherical shape of the structure there are some aberrations observed above the focal point. Spheres in general don’t have nice focal points as traditional lenses so aberrations in the scattering light is a common effect of spherical structures. Again the propagation of light can be seen in figure 10.

Normalized electric field
Figure 9: Normalized Electric field \(2.1 \mu m\) domain.
Normalized electric field
Figure 10: Propagation of the light, z component of the EM field.

Discussion

This set of simulations shows that for the circular structure of the polysilicate covered cells in water acts as a lens and it focuses the light about \( 0.5-1 \mu m\) away from the lens. Also, the focusing point is not an actual point but rather a broad area of focusing, and this can be partially explained due to the differences in refractive indices of the materials.

CST STUDIO SUITE simulations

In order to double check the findings of the aforementioned simulations we decided to use an additional software and run simulations for the same models. The second software used is the CST STUDIO SUITE, which is more specialized for RF and Microwave simulations.

The same simulation was run with the same material parameters but in larger domain. The materials and the parameters used for this model were exactly the same as the COMSOL model. The design parameters can be seen in table 1 and the materials in table 2.

Figure 7 shows that the focal point is at about \(0.5 – 1.5 \mu m\) from the lenses as well. It can be seen more clearly in figure 11 that there is not a focus point but rather a focus area. This is also shown in figure 12 where the intensity vs the distance is plotted for the yz plane when x is 0.

Normalized electric field.
Figure 11: Focal point at about \(0.5 – 1.5 \mu m\) from the lens.
Normalized electric field.
Figure 12: Focus area at about \(0.5 – 1.5 \mu m\) shown by the intensity in yz plane.

Conclusion for the spherical model

The refraction of a spherical cell was simulated with two different software, COMSOL Multiphysics and CST STUDIO SUIT. Both of those models showed that there is a focusing area about \(0.5 – 1.5 \mu m\) from the lens. This leads to the conclusion that the polysilicate covered spherical cells in water can act as lenses.

Rod Shaped Model

As discussed in the presentation of the models a second 3D model, resembling the shape of actual bacteria, was created: the rod shaped model. This model, due to the larger domain needed, was much harder to implement than the simpler spherical model. Figure 13 and figure 14 show the interaction of the electromagnetic field with the rod shaped structure

The same phenomena as with the spherical model in small domain are observed here. The PML absorbs the field so we cannot observe the correct focal point. This model requires way bigger domain in order the focal point to be seen. Considering that this is the same phenomenon as in the spherical model we can assume that the focal point of the rod shaped model is in the area \( 1 – 2 \mu m\) further from the structure

Normalized electric field.
Figure 13: Electric field interaction with the rod shaped structure.
Normalized electric field.
Figure 14: Electric field norm interaction with the rod shaped structure.

This assumption was tested by using the CST software. Again the reason we are using two different software packages is that we want to double check the results and with the CST we have access to better hardware equipment meaning that we can simulate bigger domains with better resolution. Figure 15 shows the rod–shaped structure design. In this orientation the field is propagating along z axis with polarization in x axis , we investigated the polarization in y axes as well but the results were the same.

CST_rod.
Figure 15: 3D design of the rod shaped structure in CST.

Again we investigated for the scattering fieled to see if there is a focusing effect with this shape. Figure 16 shows the scattering of the rod shaped structure. In this structure we observe a focusing area with almost the same focal area around \( 0.5 – 1 \mu m \) from the cell as the spherical model.

CST_rod_scattering.
Figure 16: Focus of light from the rod-shaped structure.

The focusing is better visualized in figure 17 where a 2D graph of the field in a cut that passes exactly in the center of the structure in the z-direction is shown. From this graph we can see that the maximum electric field is at about 1500 nm from the center of the structure, this means that the focal point is about 700 nm behind the cell.

CST_rod_scattering.
Figure 17: 2D graph of the field in a cut that passes exactly in the center of the structure in the z-direction.

Orientation of the rod-shaped cells

The most important difference between the two models, the spherical and the rod-shaped, is that the spherical has a higher order of symmetry. We call those cells orientation independent because the scattering will be the same no matter what is the orientation of the filed compared to the cell. For the rod shaped cells this is not so trivial and so we modified our model to see what is the scattering of a field coming vertical to its long edge. Figure 18 shows that model, it is the same model as earlier but with different initial conditions, now the electromagnetic field propagates through the z direction, the electric field at x and magnetic field at y.

CST_rod_scattering.
Figure 18: Structure positioned in the domain.

Figure 19 shows the interaction of EM field under this angle and figure 20 the 2D plot of electric field passing through the middle plane. We can see that the focusing area is more spread out and less defined than the other orientation or the spherical model. Additionally, some aberrations can be seen in the electromagnetic field. From figure 20 we can also see that the maximum of the scattered field can be found at the position 2000 nm, so about 1200 nm behind the cell. This focal length is higher than the other direction, wider and the intensity of the field is smaller, if we compare figure 20 and figure 17 (intensity shown in the y axis of those graphs).

CST_rod_scattering.
Figure 19: EM field interaction with the structure.
CST_rod_scattering.
Figure 20: 2D graph of the Electric field intensity in the middle plane.

From this study we can conclude that for the rod shape the focal area is dependent from its orientation compared to the incident radiation. Additionally, comparing the two extreme conditions, that is the light coming perpendicular to the small side or the light coming perpendicular to the ling side we can see that we can obtain better focusing effect in the first case.

Conclusions

We have modeled the interaction of electromagnetic field with bacteria covered with a layer of polysilicate. The goal of this part of the modeling was to see if those structures can act as microlenses focusing light on the other side. In order to verify the results of the models we used two types modeling software, COMSOL Multiphysics® and the CST STUDIO SUIT. The models clearly show that the light is focused in about \(0.5 – 1 \mu m\) away from the cell. We cannot observe a traditional focus point but rather a focus area where the intensity of the light is stronger than the incoming. This was explained from the fact that the cell and the medium have similar refractive indices and the light bending is happening mostly due to the very thin polysilicate layer so we cannot expect a very well defined focusing. Additionally, in spherical lenses spherical aberration take place. Concluding, these models have shown that the polysilicate covered cells can act as biological microlenses and that the preferred structure is the spherical as it is orientation independent. Therefore we recommended the lab team to investigate the possibilities of making cells spherical. They managed to use the bolA gene to create spherical lenses.

Our COMSOL Multiphysics and CST Studio Suit models were too large and unsupported to upload to the wiki servers. After a discussion with the Headquarters we were advised to upload them on Google drive. You can find the COMSOL models here. and the CST models here.

Electromagnetic_spectrum
  1. Baco, S., Chik, A., & Md. Yassin, F. (2012). Study on Optical Properties of Tin Oxide Thin Film at Different Annealing Temperature. Journal of Science and Technology, 4, 61–72.
  2. Banyamin, Z., Kelly, P., West, G., & Boardman, J. (2014). Electrical and Optical Properties of Fluorine Doped Tin Oxide Thin Films Prepared by Magnetron Sputtering. Coatings, 4(4), 732–746.
  3. Castellarnau, M., Errachid, a, Madrid, C., Juárez, a, & Samitier, J. (2006). Dielectrophoresis as a tool to characterize and differentiate isogenic mutants of Escherichia coli. Biophysical Journal, 91(10), 3937–45.
  4. COMSOL. (2013). Computational Electromagnetics Modeling, Which Module to Use. Retrieved from www.comsol.com/blogs/computational-electromagnetics-modeling-which-module-to-use/
  5. COMSOL Multiphysics® (2016) COMSOL Multiphysics&reg Simulation Software Product Suite. Retrieved from https://www.comsol.com/comsol-multiphysics
  6. Daimon, M., & Masumura, A. (2007). Measurement of the refractive index of distilled water from the near-infrared region to the ultraviolet region. Applied Optics, 46(18), 3811–3820.
  7. Griffiths, D. J. (1999). Introduction To Electrodynamics.
  8. Jericho, M. H., Kreuzer, H. J., Kanka, M., & Riesenberg, R. (2012). Quantitative phase and refractive index measurements with point-source digital in-line holographic microscopy. Applied Optics, 51(10), 1503–1515.
  9. Mcintyre, J. D. E. and D.E. Aspnes, (1971). Differential reflection spectroscopy of very thin surface films. Surface Science, 24, 417–434.