It is always impressive to see how a green reflection hologram temporarily changes to
red when you let breath-moisture condense on the gelatin surface. (This effect is due
to the gelatin swelling and the inter-fringe distance in the gelatin film increasing so
that it reflects red instead of green light.) Apart from the obvious use of this effect in
measuring the relative humidity of gases or liquids [1] our team at the Institute
of Biotechnology wanted to use this effect to make many other types of
measurements.
It was at the end of August 1995 that I tried an experiment which was to
cause a revolution in our Institute and beyond! For over three years I had
been experimenting on making so called “Lippmann” silver halide emulsions
using basically the traditional method of squirting, alternately, solutions
of silver nitrate and potassium bromide into a hot solution of gelatin [2].
The precipitated grains of silver bromide (AgBr) are very much finer in
Lippmann emulsions than in emulsions used for normal photography. To
be able to record holographic fringes satisfactorily the photosensitive grains
need to have diameters at least a factor of 10 smaller than the width of
a hologram fringe (around 200 nm, i.e. half the laser wavelength divided
by the refractive index of the gelatin layer.) Conventional fine-grained photographic
emulsions have grain sizes around 1000 nm or more. The experiment which
changed everything for us was to take a just a precoated and hardened
gelatin layer and to try and produce those vitally small AgBr grains inside
the layer just by using a silver ion diffusion process, while still achieving
a sufficient degree of photosensitivity [3]. The moment of success came when
I glimpsed a holographic image on a coated microscope slide of a polished
penny.—One of those all-too-rare eureka moments!
So the success had come by sequentially diffusing into the layer, a solution of silver
nitrate and following it up by diffusing in a solution of lithium bromide. (I
chose lithium rather than the common potassium salt because I thought I
might need the extra leeway of its very large solubility in both water and
alcohol [3].)
The reason this was such a breakthrough was that we could then use the principle on
a whole range of pre-coated hydrophilic polymers which responded to various specific
factors in the environment.
The vast majority of tests required in biotechnology are made in physiologically
based aqueous liquids, so polymers need to be hydrophilic from this standpoint apart
from the fact that the precipitation of AgBr is an ion exchange process which does
not lend itself to taking place in a hydrophobic polymer. So an early question was
just to see how far the scope of this diffusion process could be taken towards the
hydrophobic end between the typical extremes of say polyacrylamide and
polypropylene. Using as reactants the two most soluble salts of silver and bromine in
organic liquids, namely silver perchlorate and lithium bromide, I tested out the
sequential diffusion system on a few different polymers that were to hand. I found I
could get reflection holograms in the cellulose based wrappers commonly on so
many of our consumer products. But I did not manage to get any result
on the backside of a piece of old Agfa holographic film. This meant that
cellulose triacetate was too hydrophobic but with the help of a proportion of
acetone I did manage to get an ‘OK’ result in cellulose diacetate polymer
film.
I also managed to get a hologram in nylon (polyamide) but it was not brilliant. I must
say at once for those who instantly jump as I did, to the idea of putting holographic
gratings inside the fabric of say nylon tights, I had used nylon film and not mesh.
I did, however, carry out a few experiments trying it with nylon mesh where the first
requirement was to “index out” the mesh i.e. make it invisible by a suitable liquid
to actually record the hologram. Although I managed to make the pure mesh almost
disappear in an organic liquid (DMSO), the act of putting the AgBr salt inside
the nylon mesh caused some unavoidable refractive index variation and therefore
bad light scatter so I only got photographic images in silver, not holographic.
A pulsed 532 nm YAG laser was used so movement did not cause the failure.
As for other common plastics, I found “Perspex” or PMMA (polymethylmethacrylate)
to be too hydrophobic whereas poly(hydroxy)methylmethacrylate or poly-HEMA is
excellent at forming bright holograms. A nice piece of work carried out in 1998 by my
colleague Andrew Mayes (now at the University of East Anglia) used a small
polyHEMA hologram to make very effective measurements of the alcohol content of
various drinks [4]. I show the table of his results in table 1. Strong spirits are not
included in the table because they shift the hologram replay wavelength into the
infrared—beyond the range of the small reflection spectrometer available for us at
the time.
Table 1. Stated alcohol content of 17 drinks compared with the alcohol content measured with the holographic sensor,
together with the pH and conductivity data for each drink
| |
| | | | Calc | |
| | Alcohol | | Conductivity | Wavelength | alcohol | Error |
| Beverage | (vol %) | pH | (mS/cm) | (nm) | (vol %) | (vol %) |
| Kaliber lager (Guiness) | 0.03 | 4.10 | 0.91 | 503.6 | −0.32 | −0.35 |
| Swan Light lager | 1 | 3.70 | 0.84 | 514.2 | 1.21 | 0.21 |
| Steinbrau lager | 3 | 3.95 | 0.79 | 524.9 | 2.67 | −0.33 |
| Heiniken lager | 5 | 4.26 | 1.16 | 542.3 | 4.88 | −0.12 |
| Carlsberg Special Brew | 9 | 4.11 | 0.96 | 575.6 | 8.72 | −0.28 |
| Weihenstephaner Hefe Weissbier | 5.4 | 4.31 | 1.05 | 547.1 | 5.47 | 0.07 |
| Woodpecker cider (Bulmers) | 3.5 | 3.19 | 0.76 | 534.4 | 3.90 | 0.40 |
| “Katy” strong cider (Thatchers) | 7.4 | 3.46 | 0.91 | 563.6 | 7.39 | −0.01 |
| White Label Bitter (Whitbread) | 1 | 4.01 | 0.66 | 513.5 | 1.11 | 0.11 |
| Exmoor Gold Bitter | 5 | 4.07 | 1.17 | 543.4 | 5.02 | 0.02 |
| Newcastle Brown Ale | 4.7 | 3.88 | 0.87 | 541.3 | 4.76 | 0.06 |
| Guiness | 4.3 | 3.91 | 0.99 | 539.2 | 4.50 | 0.20 |
| Hoopers Hooch | 4.7 | 2.77 | 0.81 | 536.5 | 4.16 | −0.54 |
| Liebfraumilch white wine | 9.5 | 3.36 | 1.00 | 582.4 | 9.45 | −0.05 |
| French red wine | 11.5 | 3.56 | 1.40 | 600.9 | 11.36 | −0.14 |
| French white wine | 11 | 3.29 | 0.97 | 603.3 | 11.60 | 0.60 |
| Ruby port | 20 | 3.55 | 0.69 | 683.2 | 18.85 | −1.15 |
|
I remember we had a bit of trouble reclaiming the petty cash from the accounts
department for this lot and had to convince them that it really was for a new
scientific breakthrough. (Actually we only needed about 5 ml out of each bottle and
as for the rest of each bottle.... Well, we did not want to bother them with the finer
details of the experiment!)
For several years we have been making polymers with certain chemical groups able to
respond specifically to specific ions, enzymes and other analytes by swelling or
contracting in saline solution, so when we make a reflection hologram of a mirror in
these “smart” polymers we obtain a “smart hologram”mirror. (see: the OE magazine
report – http://www.oemagazine.com/fromTheMagazine/mar03/diagnostics.html)
In a future article in the Holographer I hope to reveal more about the amazing
possibilities opened up by this new holographic ball game.
References
[1] J. Blyth et al. 1996 Anal. Chem. 68 1089–94
[2] H. Thiry 1987 J. Phot. Sci. 35 150–4
[3] J. Blyth et al. 1999 Imaging Sci. J. 47 87–91
[4] A. Mayes et al. 1999 Anal. Chem. 71 3390–6