Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/11455/17278
標題: 螢光活體影像系統光源與濾光片改進
The Improving of Light Source & Filters In Fluorescence in vivo Imaging System
作者: 王俊傑
Wang, Chun-Chieh
關鍵字: 螢光活體影像系統
Fluorescence in vivo Imaging System
出版社: 物理學系所
引用: [1] 魏培倫 ”中興大學活體影像系統架設與改進”中興大學物理研究所 (2009) [2] 陳建人,”光學元件精密製造與檢測” ,國家實驗研究院儀器 [3] 網站: 俞德企業光學吸收型濾片 [4] 史國光 “半導體發光二極體及固態照明”全華科技圖書股份有 限公司印(2006) [5] 葉書佑 “彩色LED顯示器模組亮度均勻性檢測及補償機制之研究”國立台灣科技大學自動化及控制研究所 (2007) [6] D.A. Benaron, K.D. Stevenson, Science 259, 1463-1466. (1993) [7] C.H. Contag, et al. Mol. Microbiol , 18, 593-603. (1995) [8] D.A. BENARON, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B. 352, 755-761 (1997) [10] 薄膜設計軟體 ” TFCalc “ 光研科學台灣有限公司 [11]科技研究中心 [12] Newport, Inc [13] 陳森洲 ” 發光二極體的整形與均勻化 ” 中興大學物理研究所 (2012) [14] S.O. Kasap, “Optoelectronics and Photonics: Principles and Practices”, (Prentice Hall, 2001) Chap 1, Chap5
摘要: 在本論文中,我們改進了活體影像系統之光源與濾光片。以往的螢光活體影像系統光源是使用氙燈,成本昂貴,又因收光系統的濾光片為接收型濾光片,螢光的穿透率較低,所以曝光時間較久,故我們做了以下兩項改進: (一) 光源由以往的氙燈改為LED光源搭配積分柱,因氙燈原本需搭配的濾光片是窄帶濾光片,除了氙燈的成本昂貴,搭配的窄帶濾光片成本也相當昂貴,而改為LED搭配積分柱與低通濾光片,LED成本相對於氙燈成本少了許多,低通濾光片成本也比窄帶濾光片便宜了許多,經過兩者照度比較後,發現兩者的照度是差不多的。LED的成本更低,短通濾光片成本也比窄帶濾光片更低,使得活體影像系統的成本降低了許多。 (二) 螢光活體影像系統的收光系統之濾光片,由接收型濾光片改為高通濾光片。因為高通濾光片較接收型濾光片光譜的陡度更陡,所以截止帶截止的效果更好,可降低雜訊提高信噪比。另一方面,高通濾光片的螢光穿透率更高,可提高信號提高信噪比。故使螢光活體影像系統曝光的時間變得更短,使得檢測所需等待的時間縮得更短,效益更好。
In this paper, we improve the in vivo imaging of the light source and filter system. Fluorescence in vivo imaging system light source is a xenon lamp, and costly because of the received light filter for receiving type filters, fluorescent transmittance is low, so the exposure time is longer, so we do both of the following improvements: (一) Xenon lamp light source from the past to the LED light source with integral column xenon lamp was originally to be with the filter is a narrow-band filter, in addition to the expensive cost of xenon lamp with narrow-band filters cost is quite expensive, instead of LED withthe integral column with the low-pass filter, LED costs relative to the xenon lamp cost much less, a low-pass filter cost is also much cheaper than the narrowband filter after both illumination comparison, both the illumination is almost.LED''s lower cost, the cost of short-pass filter is also lower than narrowband filter, reduce the cost of many makes in vivo imaging systems. (二) in vivo imaging system received light system of filters, receiver type filter replaced by a high-pass filter. Because the steepness of the filter spectrum steeper high-pass filter than the receiver type, so the deadline with a deadline of better noise reduction to improve the signal-to-noise ratio. In the other hand, the higher the transmittance of the high-pass filter for fluorescence, can improve the signal to improve the SNR. Therefore, the exposure time of the fluorescence imaging system of the living body becomes shorter, and allows detection of the waiting time required condensing shorter and better efficiency.
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/11455/17278
其他識別: U0005-2301201314180800
文章連結: http://www.airitilibrary.com/Publication/alDetailedMesh1?DocID=U0005-2301201314180800
Appears in Collections:物理學系所

文件中的檔案:

取得全文請前往華藝線上圖書館



Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.