ArticleAnalytical chemistry2023
Effects of Cascading Optical Processes: Part I: Impacts on Quantification of Sample Scattering Extinction, Intensity, and Depolarization.
Article in Analytical chemistry, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Measurement-Aware Computational Modeling for Optical Spectrometry in Scattering-Dominated Systems.ACS omega · 2026Article
- Overcoming Subjectivity in Bandgap Evaluation through On-Resonance Fluorescence: Establishing a Robust and Objective Optical Metric for Fluorescent Materials.ACS measurement science au · 2026Article
- Multitrack Linearly Polarized Spectrometer for Simultaneous Kinetic UV-Vis, Polarization-Resolved- Scattering, and Photoluminescence Measurements.ACS measurement science au · 2025Article
- Expanding the Horizons of UV-vis Spectroscopy Education: Beyond the Beer-Lambert Law.Journal of chemical education · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Light scattering is a universal matter property that is especially prominent in nanoscale or larger materials. However, the effects of scattering-based cascading optical processes on experimental quantification of sample absorption, scattering, and emission intensities, as well as scattering and emission depolarization, have not been adequately addressed. Using a series of polystyrene nanoparticles (PSNPs) of different sizes as model analytes, we present a computational and experimental study on the effects of cascading light scattering on experimental quantification of NP scattering activities (scattering cross-section or molar coefficient), intensity, and depolarization. Part II and Part III of this series of companion articles explore the effects of cascading optical processes on sample absorption and fluorescence measurements, respectively. A general theoretical model is developed on how forward scattered light complicates the general applicability of Beer's law to the experimental UV-vis spectrum of scattering samples. The correlation between the scattering intensity and PSNP concentration is highly complicated with no robust linearity even when the scatterers' concentration is very low. Such complexity arises from the combination of concentration-dependence of light scattering depolarization and the scattering inner filter effects (IFEs). Scattering depolarization increases with the PSNP scattering extinction (thereby, its concentration) but can never reach unity (isotropic) due to the polarization dependence of the scattering IFE. The insights from this study are important for understanding the strengths and limitations of various scattering-based techniques for material characterization including nanoparticle quantification. They are also foundational for quantitative mechanistic understanding on the effects of light scattering on sample absorption and fluorescence measurements.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.