Fluorescence decay data analysis correcting for detector pulse pile-up at very high count rates
Authors:
Matthias Patting,
Paja Reisch,
Marcus Sackrow,
Rhys Dowler,
Marcelle Koenig,
Michael Wahl
Abstract:
Using Time-Correlated Single Photon Counting (TCSPC) for the purpose of fluorescence lifetime measurements is usually limited in speed due to pile-up. With modern instrumentation this limitation can be lifted significantly but some artefacts due to frequent merging of closely spaced detector pulses (detector pulse pile-up) remains an issue to be addressed. We propose here a data analysis method co…
▽ More
Using Time-Correlated Single Photon Counting (TCSPC) for the purpose of fluorescence lifetime measurements is usually limited in speed due to pile-up. With modern instrumentation this limitation can be lifted significantly but some artefacts due to frequent merging of closely spaced detector pulses (detector pulse pile-up) remains an issue to be addressed. We propose here a data analysis method correcting for this type of artefact and the resulting systematic errors. It physically models the photon losses due to detector pulse pile-up and incorporates the loss in the decay fit model employed to obtain fluorescence lifetimes and relative amplitudes of the decay components. Comparison of results with and without this correction show a significant reduction of systematic errors at count rates approaching the excitation rate. This allows quantitatively accurate fluorescense lifetime imaging (FLIM) at very high frame rates.
△ Less
Submitted 21 December, 2017; v1 submitted 29 September, 2017;
originally announced November 2017.
Innovative Science
Authors:
Donald W Braben,
John F Allen,
William Amos,
Richard Ball,
Hagan Bayley,
Tim Birkhead,
Peter Cameron,
Eleanor Campbell,
Richard Cogdell,
David Colquhoun,
Steve Davies,
Rod Dowler,
Peter Edwards,
Irene Engle,
Felipe Fernandez-Armesto,
Desmond Fitzgerald,
Jon Frampton,
Dame Anne Glover,
John Hall,
Pat Heslop-Harrison,
Dudley Herschbach,
Sui Huang,
H Jeff Kimble,
Sir Harry Kroto,
James Ladyman
, et al. (23 additional authors not shown)
Abstract:
Sir, We write as senior scientists about a problem vital to the scientific enterprise and prosperity. Nowadays, funding is a lengthy and complex business. First, universities themselves must approve all proposals for submission. Funding agencies then subject those that survive to peer review, a process by which a few researchers, usually acting anonymously, assess a proposal's chances that it will…
▽ More
Sir, We write as senior scientists about a problem vital to the scientific enterprise and prosperity. Nowadays, funding is a lengthy and complex business. First, universities themselves must approve all proposals for submission. Funding agencies then subject those that survive to peer review, a process by which a few researchers, usually acting anonymously, assess a proposal's chances that it will achieve its goals, is the best value for money, is relevant to a national priority and will impact on a socio-economic problem. Only 25% of proposals received by the funding agencies are funded. These protracted processes force researchers to exploit existing knowledge, severely discourage open-ended studies and are hugely time-consuming. They are also new: before 1970, few researchers wrote proposals. Now they are virtually mandatory.
△ Less
Submitted 23 September, 2015;
originally announced October 2015.
