PuSH - Publikationsserver des Helmholtz Zentrums München: Comparison of bulk piezoelectric and opto-mechanical micromachined detectors for optoacoustic and ultrasound sensing.

Informationen

Hinweise zu Qualitätskriterien von Zeitschriften

Open-Access-Richtlinie der Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft 2016

CC Licencences

Metriken für Publikationen

Navigation

Startseite

English

EVA: Veröffentlichen

Neuer EVA Antrag

Recherche

Erweiterte Suche

Durchblättern nach ...

... HMGU-Autoren/Konsortien

... Organisationsstruktur

... Zeitschriften

... Publikationstypen

... Forschungsdaten

... Arbeitsgruppen

... Erscheinungsjahr

Publikationen im Überblick

Statistik

HGF Fortschrittsbericht

OA Publikationen

Eintragen

Neue Publikation eintragen

Neue Publikation holen aus...

...EVA

Fehlende Publikation melden

Highlights

Suche

Hilfe & Kontakt

Ansprechpartner

Hilfe

Datenschutz

Helmholtz Open Science

Bibliometrische Indikatoren

SHERPA/RoMEO

DOAJ

Export:

Text

Endnote (RIS) BIB

BibTeX

Prebeck, A. ; Keulemans, G.* ; Stahl, U. ; Jans, H.* ; Rottenberg, X.* ; Ntziachristos, V.

Comparison of bulk piezoelectric and opto-mechanical micromachined detectors for optoacoustic and ultrasound sensing.

IEEE Sens. J. 25, 34459 - 34467 (2025)

Verlagsversion

DOI

	Open Access Hybrid

Abstract
Metriken
Zusatzinfos

Optical detection of sound, using opto-mechanical micromachined ultrasound sensors (OMUS), is a promising detection technology for optoacoustic (OptA) imaging because it achieves a small active detection area, in the few tens of micrometers size, without loss of sensitivity as a function of area size. It also has potential to be produced as array configurations at low cost. However, while OMUS sensitivity has been reported in terms of noise equivalent pressure density (NEPD), there has been no comparison to conventional piezoelectric transducers under identical conditions. We differentially compared a highly sensitive ring-resonator-based OMUS and a single element focused piezoelectric ultrasound transducer (FPUT), under the same experimental conditions. The comparison considered the detectors’ signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), impulse response, axial point-spread-function and their spatial sensitivity. Our results show that OMUS attained lower SNR to FPUT, when operating at the same working distance, but similar performance when placed close to the sample interrogated, for example as it relates to optoacoustic microscopy. Advantageously, OMUS uniquely offers the spatial behavior of a point-like acoustic detector which reduces the sensitivity to ultrasound interference effects occurring on the large detection area of FPUTs. We discuss the implications of the two detection approaches in the design of OptA systems.

Impact Factor

Scopus SNIP

Altmetric

0.000

1.495