# Physical and Methodological Perspectives on the Optical Properties of Biological Samples: A Review

^{1}

^{2}

^{3}

^{4}

^{*}

## Abstract

**:**

## 1. Introduction

#### 1.1. Applications and Optical Spectra in Biological Samples

_{t}) in a cell type under a given condition (e.g., the effect of a growth factor over time) by detecting the protein levels or concentrations (X) at a given time (t). The question we can pose is whether we can precisely predict protein levels at time t + 1 (i.e., X

_{t}

_{+1}). The answer is no, due to uncertainty, while we can calculate the probability for the possible values of X

_{t}

_{+1}. Therefore, the stochastic method is an important tool for understanding biological phenomena.

#### 1.2. Basic Principles of Microscopy and Optical Properties of Tissues

_{A}), scattering (μ

_{Σ}), anisotropy (γ), reflection (μ

_{R}) and the scattering function p(θ,ψ), where θ is the polar and ψ is the azimuthal scattering angle. All the coefficients are presented in units of cm

^{−1}and the scattering function p(θ,ψ) in units of sr

^{−1}[40]. These coefficients with variations were obtained by several studies depending on the wavelength and the type of tissue used [40,41,42,43]. Although extensive studies were carried out on the optical properties of tissues, there is no absolute match between individual tissue measurements and in vivo measurements. In particular, since biological tissues are dynamical systems, a measurement of the optical property of tissues will manifest different results from a measurement at another time, since the tissues’ composition, such as water, lipids, proteins, and transcriptome, would have changed over time. At the same time, changes in tissue’s optical properties also differ individually. The same tissue between two subjects of the same species could hold different optical coefficients [44].

#### 1.3. Measuring Tissue’s Optical Properties

## 2. Theoretical Concepts for Optical Properties in Biological Studies

#### 2.1. Scattering

_{in}= λ

_{out}(λ: wavelength). In the case of inelastic scattering, energy is absorbed from the electromagnetic wave directed towards the medium, where λ

_{in}< λ

_{out}.

#### 2.1.1. Rayleigh Scattering

_{i}with respect to the same signal at time t

_{i}

_{+1}), where patterns are detected regarding the change of scattering coefficients in a tissue [50]. To simplify, tissues are known to be heterogeneous bodies, where optical factors change spatially. Different values will be acquired by measuring the changes of the scattering coefficient at different levels of a tissue, which can be auto-correlated with itself to find patterns. Ideally, the best-case scenario would be detecting a periodic or quasi-periodic pattern in a signal, from which we could predict the pattern. Another method for studying the optical properties of a medium comes from the Wiener–Khinchin theorem. The theorem of Wiener–Khinchin states that a wide-sense-stationary random process is spectrally composed, which can be resolved from the variable’s frequencies distribution or the power spectrum of the process. When the optical function′s coefficients are self-correlated, the optical properties present a spectral composition given by the distribution of frequencies [51,52]. Rayleigh energy theorem is also known as Parseval’s theorem [53]. This theorem reports that the energy of a signal in the time-domain can be expressed in terms of the average energy in its frequency components. In other words, Rayleigh’s theorem refers to the scattering of light by tissues, considering particles smaller than one-tenth the wavelength of the light. In contrast, Mie’s theorem refers to particles that are larger and longer in wavelength than the light, and approximates the phenomenon to spheres of both small and large sizes.

#### 2.1.2. Stokes–Raman and Anti-Stokes–Raman Scattering

#### 2.1.3. Scattering Coefficient

_{S}), which is tissue- and wavelength-dependent and is related to the size of the particles (tissue molecules). If σ

_{S}(m

^{2}) is the scattering cross-section, then:

_{S}(m

^{2}) is the cross section of the tissue’s part that scatters light and Q is the fractional scattering efficiency. Furthermore, the scattering coefficient (μ

_{s}cm

^{−1}) is related to the particle (tissue’s molecules) density and cross-section, as:

_{S}is the density of the scattering particles per volume (cm

^{−3}).

#### 2.1.4. Reduced Scattering Coefficient

^{−1}). The reduced scattering coefficient is defined as:

^{−1}. This coefficient describes the path of a photon undergoing a random walk of step size $\frac{1}{{\mu}_{S}^{\prime}}$ (cm), where each step involves isotropic scattering. As a matter of fact, Equation (4) introduces the connection between the reduced scattering coefficient and anisotropy. Such a description is equivalent to a photon moving with many small steps $\frac{1}{{\mu}_{S}^{\prime}}$, with only a partial deflection angle θ if there are many scattering events before an absorption event (i.e., ${\mu}_{A}<<{\mu}_{S}^{\prime}$). This situation of scattering-dominated light transport is called the diffusion regime, and ${\mu}_{S}^{\prime}$ is useful when visible and near-infrared light propagates through biological tissues. In its expanded form, the reduced scattering coefficient can be written as:

#### 2.1.5. Scattering and Anisotropy

_{C}is the transmission of light without any scattering and L is the length of the path. The problem with this measurement is that the step of transmission must not exceed the step of the random walk (1/μ

_{S}), which is estimated at approximately 100 nm. Although there are several technical restrictions when measuring the anisotropy factor, it has been estimated in various tissues [74,75]. For example, a single photon passing through a medium scatters and deflects with angle θ compared to the initial path. It can be proven that the scattering function p(θ) is a probability of scattering:

#### 2.2. Refraction

_{A}is the absorption coefficient.

#### 2.3. Absorption

#### 2.3.1. Definition and Mathematical Terms

_{A}(cm

^{−1}) is described as:

_{i}) multiplied by the extinction coefficient of each molecule (ε

_{i}). These equations have been used for the characterization of biological samples based on their absorption properties.

#### 2.3.2. Water

^{−6}. The absorption coefficient for water at 970 nm has been calculated to be μ

_{A}= 4πn″/λ = 0.45 cm

^{−1}. If the percentage of water in a tissue is f

_{H}

_{2O}= 0.65, the absorption coefficient of water at 970 nm is μ

_{A}= f

_{H}

_{2O}μ

_{A,H}

_{2O}= 0.65 × 0.45 = 0.29 cm

^{−1}. It seems that the role of water in tissue absorption properties is not negligible, and it should be taken into account [40,41]. In particular, in vivo, water (as well as blood in humans and mammals) dominates the absorption spectrum of tissues with respect to light or other electromagnetic radiations [76,77,78].

#### 2.3.3. Nucleotides

_{0}is the intensity of the incident light and I is the intensity of the emitted light. The Beer–Lambert theorem connects the absorption to the concentration:

_{260}

_{nm}is the extinction coefficient of the medium. From Equation (18), we can derive that the concentration of a nucleotide is:

#### 2.3.4. Hemoglobin and Blood

#### 2.3.5. Melanosomes, Melanocytes and Melanin

#### 2.3.6. Chlorophyll

#### 2.3.7. Adipose Tissue

#### 2.4. Optical Properties in Non-Spherical Particles: The Case of Real Life

## 3. Methods for Studying the Optical Properties of Tissues: The Case of Monte Carlo Simulations

#### 3.1. The Monte Carlo Simulation: A Short History

#### 3.2. Numerical Solution of the Monte Carlo Method

_{square}= A

^{2}and the circle surface is E

_{circle}= πR

^{2}. Taking the ratio of the two surfaces we get:

^{®}software and 10,000 dots (Figure 10). We were able to approximate π as 3.1408 (the Monte Carlo simulation, in some cases, can be very time-demanding; in the present case, the calculation of π required 1.2 s in an i7-8core, 24 GB RAM desktop computer). The Monte Carlo method can be applied to a series of disciplines, including microscopy.

_{S}). Accordingly, tissue’s geometry is of great importance [107]. The final step is to determinate the optical coefficients μ

_{A}, μ

_{S}, γ, and μ

_{R}, where they are all the function of f(x,y,z,λ). These coefficients are calculated by the application of an algorithm, which is presented in Figure 11 [108].

_{i}

_{=1}= (0,0,0) and therefore, (a

_{x}, a

_{y}, a

_{z})

_{i}

_{=1}= (0,0,1). Then, the step of the photon can be defined as:

## 4. Conclusions

## Author Contributions

## Funding

## Institutional Review Board Statement

## Informed Consent Statement

## Data Availability Statement

## Conflicts of Interest

## References

- Abbas, M.; Ali, M.; Shah, S.K.; D’Amico, F.; Postorino, P.; Mangialardo, S.; Cestelli Guidi, M.; Cricenti, A.; Gunnella, R. Control of structural, electronic, and optical properties of eumelanin films by electrospray deposition. J. Phys. Chem. B
**2011**, 115, 11199–11207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Gutierrez-Juarez, G.; Gupta, S.K.; Weight, R.M.; Polo-Parada, L.; Papagiorgio, C.; Bunch, J.D.; Viator, J.A. Optical photoacoustic detection of circulating melanoma cells in vitro. Int. J. Thermophys.
**2010**, 31, 784–792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version] - Krohn, J.; Svenmarker, P.; Xu, C.T.; Mork, S.J.; Andersson-Engels, S. Transscleral optical spectroscopy of uveal melanoma in enucleated human eyes. Investig. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci.
**2012**, 53, 5379–5385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Olsen, J.; Themstrup, L.; Jemec, G.B. Optical coherence tomography in dermatology. G. Ital. Dermatol. E Venereol. Organo Uff. Soc. Ital. Dermatol. E Sifilogr.
**2015**, 150, 603–615. [Google Scholar] - Omar, M.; Schwarz, M.; Soliman, D.; Symvoulidis, P.; Ntziachristos, V. Pushing the optical imaging limits of cancer with multi-frequency-band raster-scan optoacoustic mesoscopy (rsom). Neoplasia
**2015**, 17, 208–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Tseng, S.H.; Hou, M.F. Analysis of a diffusion-model-based approach for efficient quantification of superficial tissue properties. Opt. Lett.
**2010**, 35, 3739–3741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Wahab, R.; Dwivedi, S.; Umar, A.; Singh, S.; Hwang, I.H.; Shin, H.S.; Musarrat, J.; Al-Khedhairy, A.A.; Kim, Y.S. Zno nanoparticles induce oxidative stress in cloudman s91 melanoma cancer cells. J. Biomed. Nanotechnol.
**2013**, 9, 441–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Wang, H.; Yi, J.; Mukherjee, S.; Banerjee, P.; Zhou, S. Magnetic/nir-thermally responsive hybrid nanogels for optical temperature sensing, tumor cell imaging and triggered drug release. Nanoscale
**2014**, 6, 13001–13011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Deb, P.; Sharma, M.C.; Tripathi, M.; Sarat Chandra, P.; Gupta, A.; Sarkar, C. Expression of cd34 as a novel marker for glioneuronal lesions associated with chronic intractable epilepsy. Neuropathol. Appl. Neurobiol.
**2006**, 32, 461–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Stankovic, T.; Marston, E. Molecular mechanisms involved in chemoresistance in paediatric acute lymphoblastic leukaemia. Srp. Arh. Za Celok. Lek.
**2008**, 136, 187–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Weller, M.; Berger, H.; Hartmann, C.; Schramm, J.; Westphal, M.; Simon, M.; Goldbrunner, R.; Krex, D.; Steinbach, J.P.; Ostertag, C.B.; et al. Combined 1p/19q loss in oligodendroglial tumors: Predictive or prognostic biomarker? Clin. Cancer Res.
**2007**, 13, 6933–6937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Moolgavkar, S.H.; Knudson, A.G., Jr. Mutation and cancer: A model for human carcinogenesis. J. Natl. Cancer Inst.
**1981**, 66, 1037–1052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Belda-Iniesta, C.; de Castro Carpeno, J.; Casado Saenz, E.; Cejas Guerrero, P.; Perona, R.; Gonzalez Baron, M. Molecular biology of malignant gliomas. Clin. Transl. Oncol.
**2006**, 8, 635–641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Rutkowski, S. Current treatment approaches to early childhood medulloblastoma. Expert Rev. Neurother.
**2006**, 6, 1211–1221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Sanson, M.; Thillet, J.; Hoang-Xuan, K. Molecular changes in gliomas. Curr. Opin. Oncol.
**2004**, 16, 607–613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Assayag, O.; Antoine, M.; Sigal-Zafrani, B.; Riben, M.; Harms, F.; Burcheri, A.; Grieve, K.; Dalimier, E.; Le Conte de Poly, B.; Boccara, C. Large field, high resolution full-field optical coherence tomography: A pre-clinical study of human breast tissue and cancer assessment. Technol. Cancer Res. Treat.
**2014**, 13, 455–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version] - Diaconu, I.; Cristea, C.; Harceaga, V.; Marrazza, G.; Berindan-Neagoe, I.; Sandulescu, R. Electrochemical immunosensors in breast and ovarian cancer. Clin. Chim. Acta Int. J. Clin. Chem.
**2013**, 425, 128–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Hayashi, K.; Tamari, K.; Ishii, H.; Konno, M.; Nishida, N.; Kawamoto, K.; Koseki, J.; Fukusumi, T.; Kano, Y.; Nishikawa, S.; et al. Visualization and characterization of cancer stem-like cells in cervical cancer. Int. J. Oncol.
**2014**, 45, 2468–2474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Herranz, M.; Ruibal, A. Optical imaging in breast cancer diagnosis: The next evolution. J. Oncol.
**2012**, 2012, 863747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Kennedy, B.F.; McLaughlin, R.A.; Kennedy, K.M.; Chin, L.; Wijesinghe, P.; Curatolo, A.; Tien, A.; Ronald, M.; Latham, B.; Saunders, C.M.; et al. Investigation of optical coherence microelastography as a method to visualize cancers in human breast tissue. Cancer Res.
**2015**, 75, 3236–3245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Li, B.; Cheng, Y.; Liu, J.; Yi, C.; Brown, A.S.; Yuan, H.; Vo-Dinh, T.; Fischer, M.C.; Warren, W.S. Direct optical imaging of graphene in vitro by nonlinear femtosecond laser spectral reshaping. Nano Lett.
**2012**, 12, 5936–5940. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version] - Vardaki, M.Z.; Gardner, B.; Stone, N.; Matousek, P. Studying the distribution of deep raman spectroscopy signals using liquid tissue phantoms with varying optical properties. Analyst
**2015**, 140, 5112–5119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version] - Wang, L.W.; Peng, C.W.; Chen, C.; Li, Y. Quantum dots-based tissue and in vivo imaging in breast cancer researches: Current status and future perspectives. Breast Cancer Res. Treat.
**2015**, 151, 7–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Yan, X.; Zhou, Y.; Liu, S. Optical imaging of tumors with copper-labeled rhodamine derivatives by targeting mitochondria. Theranostics
**2012**, 2, 988–998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version] - Shai, R.M.; Reichardt, J.K.; Chen, T.C. Pharmacogenomics of brain cancer and personalized medicine in malignant gliomas. Future Oncol.
**2008**, 4, 525–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Allison, R.R. Photodynamic therapy: Oncologic horizons. Future Oncol.
**2014**, 10, 123–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Bechet, D.; Mordon, S.R.; Guillemin, F.; Barberi-Heyob, M.A. Photodynamic therapy of malignant brain tumours: A complementary approach to conventional therapies. Cancer Treat. Rev.
**2014**, 40, 229–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Miki, Y.; Akimoto, J.; Yokoyama, S.; Homma, T.; Tsutsumi, M.; Haraoka, J.; Hirano, K.; Beppu, M. Photodynamic therapy in combination with talaporfin sodium induces mitochondrial apoptotic cell death accompanied with necrosis in glioma cells. Biol. Pharm. Bull.
**2013**, 36, 215–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Smirnova, Z.S.; Ermakova, K.V.; Kubasova, I.Y.; Borisova, L.M.; Kiselyova, M.P.; Oborotova, N.A.; Meerovich, G.A.; Luk’yanets, E.A. Experimental study of combined therapy for malignant glioma. Bull. Exp. Biol. Med.
**2014**, 156, 480–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Sun, W.; Kajimoto, Y.; Inoue, H.; Miyatake, S.; Ishikawa, T.; Kuroiwa, T. Gefitinib enhances the efficacy of photodynamic therapy using 5-aminolevulinic acid in malignant brain tumor cells. Photodiagn. Photodyn. Ther.
**2013**, 10, 42–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Tzerkovsky, D.A.; Osharin, V.V.; Istomin, Y.P.; Alexandrova, E.N.; Vozmitel, M.A. Fluorescent diagnosis and photodynamic therapy for c6 glioma in combination with antiangiogenic therapy in subcutaneous and intracranial tumor models. Exp. Oncol.
**2014**, 36, 85–89. [Google Scholar] - Conteduca, D.; Brunetti, G.; Dell’Olio, F.; Armenise, M.N.; Krauss, T.F.; Ciminelli, C. Monitoring of individual bacteria using electro-photonic traps. Biomed. Opt. Express
**2019**, 10, 3463–3471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Zhou, H.; Yang, D.; Ivleva, N.P.; Mircescu, N.E.; Schubert, S.; Niessner, R.; Wieser, A.; Haisch, C. Label-free in situ discrimination of live and dead bacteria by surface-enhanced raman scattering. Anal. Chem.
**2015**, 87, 6553–6561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Lopez, D.; Vlamakis, H.; Kolter, R. Biofilms. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol.
**2010**, 2, a000398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Hall-Stoodley, L.; Costerton, J.W.; Stoodley, P. Bacterial biofilms: From the natural environment to infectious diseases. Nat. Rev. Microbiol.
**2004**, 2, 95–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Brunetti, G.; Conteduca, D.; Armenise, M.N.; Ciminelli, C. Novel micro-nano optoelectronic biosensor for label-free real-time biofilm monitoring. Biosensors
**2021**, 11, 361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Petrovszki, D.; Valkai, S.; Gora, E.; Tanner, M.; Banyai, A.; Furjes, P.; Der, A. An integrated electro-optical biosensor system for rapid, low-cost detection of bacteria. Microelectron. Eng.
**2021**, 239, 111523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Yoo, D.; Gurunatha, K.L.; Choi, H.K.; Mohr, D.A.; Ertsgaard, C.T.; Gordon, R.; Oh, S.H. Low-power optical trapping of nanoparticles and proteins with resonant coaxial nanoaperture using 10 nm gap. Nano Lett.
**2018**, 18, 3637–3642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Conteduca, D.; Brunetti, G.; Pitruzzello, G.; Tragni, F.; Dholakia, K.; Krauss, T.F.; Ciminelli, C. Exploring the limit of multiplexed near-field optical trapping. Acs Photonics
**2021**, 8, 2060–2066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Jacques, S.L. Optical properties of biological tissues: A review. Phys. Med. Biol.
**2013**, 58, R37–R61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Jacques, S.L.; Pogue, B.W. Tutorial on diffuse light transport. J. Biomed. Opt.
**2008**, 13, 041302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version] - Sandell, J.L.; Zhu, T.C. A review of in-vivo optical properties of human tissues and its impact on pdt. J. Biophotonics
**2011**, 4, 773–787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Zhu, T.C.; Liang, X.; Chang, C.; Sandell, J.; Finlay, J.C.; Dimofte, A.; Rodrigeus, C.; Cengel, K.; Friedberg, J.; Glatstein, E.; et al. An ir navigation system for real-time treatment guidance of pleural pdt. In Proceedings of the Optical Methods for Tumor Treatment and Detection: Mechanisms and Techniques in Photodynamic Therapy XX, San Francisco, CA, USA, 22–27 January 2011; Volume 7886. [Google Scholar]
- Eisel, M.; Strobl, S.; Pongratz, T.; Stepp, H.; Ruhm, A.; Sroka, R. Investigation of optical properties of dissected and homogenized biological tissue. J. Biomed. Opt.
**2018**, 23, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Wilson, B.C. Measurement of tissue optical properties: Methods and theories. In Optical-Thermal Response of Laser-Irradiated Tissue; Welch, A.J., Van Gemert, M.J.C., Eds.; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 1995; pp. 233–303. [Google Scholar]
- Van de Hulst, H.C.; Twersky, V. Light scattering by small particles. Phys. Today
**1957**, 10, 28–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Prahl, S. Optical property measurements using the inverse adding-doubling program. Or. Med Laser Cent. St. Vincent Hosp.
**1999**, 9205, 1–53. [Google Scholar] - Chen, B.; Stamnes, K.; Stamnes, J.J. Validity of the diffusion approximation in bio-optical imaging. Appl. Opt.
**2001**, 40, 6356–6366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Mie, G. Beiträge zur optik trüber medien, speziell kolloidaler metallösungen. Ann. Phys.
**1908**, 330, 377–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Yi, J.; Backman, V. Imaging a full set of optical scattering properties of biological tissue by inverse spectroscopic optical coherence tomography. Opt. Lett.
**2012**, 37, 4443–4445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Einstein, A. Méthode pour la détermination de valeurs statistiques d’observations concernant des grandeurs soumises à des fluctuations irrégulières. Arch. Des Sci.
**1914**, 37, 254. [Google Scholar] - Wiener, N. Generalized harmonic analysis. Acta Math.
**1930**, 55, 117–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Parseval, M.-A. Mémoire sur les séries et sur l’intégration complète d’une équation aux différences partielles linéaires du second ordre, à coefficients constants. Mém. Prés. Par Divers Savants Acad. Des Sci. Paris
**1806**, 1, 638–648. [Google Scholar] - Fung, A.A.; Shi, L. Mammalian cell and tissue imaging using raman and coherent raman microscopy. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Syst. Biol. Med.
**2020**, 12, e1501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Bevilacqua, F.; Berger, A.J.; Cerussi, A.E.; Jakubowski, D.; Tromberg, B.J. Broadband absorption spectroscopy in turbid media by combined frequency-domain and steady-state methods. Appl. Opt.
**2000**, 39, 6498–6507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Cerussi, A.E.; Berger, A.J.; Bevilacqua, F.; Shah, N.; Jakubowski, D.; Butler, J.; Holcombe, R.F.; Tromberg, B.J. Sources of absorption and scattering contrast for near-infrared optical mammography. Acad. Radiol.
**2001**, 8, 211–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Durduran, T.; Choe, R.; Culver, J.P.; Zubkov, L.; Holboke, M.J.; Giammarco, J.; Chance, B.; Yodh, A.G. Bulk optical properties of healthy female breast tissue. Phys. Med. Biol.
**2002**, 47, 2847–2861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version] - Firbank, M.; Hiraoka, M.; Essenpreis, M.; Delpy, D.T. Measurement of the optical properties of the skull in the wavelength range 650–950 nm. Phys. Med. Biol.
**1993**, 38, 503–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Gardner, C.M.; Jacques, S.L.; Welch, A.J. Light transport in tissue: Accurate expressions for one-dimensional fluence rate and escape function based upon monte carlo simulation. Lasers Surg. Med.
**1996**, 18, 129–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Parsa, P.; Jacques, S.L.; Nishioka, N.S. Optical properties of rat liver between 350 and 2200 nm. Appl. Opt.
**1989**, 28, 2325–2330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Saidi, I.S.; Jacques, S.L.; Tittel, F.K. Mie and rayleigh modeling of visible-light scattering in neonatal skin. Appl. Opt.
**1995**, 34, 7410–7418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Salomatina, E.; Jiang, B.; Novak, J.; Yaroslavsky, A.N. Optical properties of normal and cancerous human skin in the visible and near-infrared spectral range. J. Biomed. Opt.
**2006**, 11, 064026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Svaasand, L.O.; Wyss, P.; Wyss, M.T.; Tadir, Y.; Tromberg, B.J.; Berns, M.W. Dosimetry model for photodynamic therapy with topically administered photosensitizers. Lasers Surg. Med.
**1996**, 18, 139–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Taroni, P.; Danesini, G.; Torricelli, A.; Pifferi, A.; Spinelli, L.; Cubeddu, R. Clinical trial of time-resolved scanning optical mammography at 4 wavelengths between 683 and 975 nm. J. Biomed. Opt.
**2004**, 9, 464–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Taroni, P.; Pifferi, A.; Torricelli, A.; Spinelli, L.; Danesini, G.M.; Cubeddu, R. Do shorter wavelengths improve contrast in optical mammography? Phys. Med. Biol.
**2004**, 49, 1203–1215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Anderson, R.R.; Parrish, J.A. Optical properties of human skin. In The Science of Photomedicine; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 1982; pp. 147–194. [Google Scholar]
- Jacques, S.L. Origins of tissue optical properties in the uva, visible and nir regions. In Osa Tops on Advances in Optical Imaging and Photon Migration, 2nd ed.; Alfano, R.R., Fujimoto, J.G., Eds.; Optical Society of America: Washington, DC, USA, 1996; Volume 2, pp. 364–371. [Google Scholar]
- Simpson, C.R.; Kohl, M.; Essenpreis, M.; Cope, M. Near-infrared optical properties of ex vivo human skin and subcutaneous tissues measured using the monte carlo inversion technique. Phys. Med. Biol.
**1998**, 43, 2465–2478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Bashkatov, A.N.; Genina, E.A.; Tuchin, V.V. Optical properties of skin, subcutaneous, and muscle tissues: A review. J. Innov. Opt. Health Sci.
**2011**, 4, 9–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Alexandrakis, G.; Rannou, F.R.; Chatziioannou, A.F. Tomographic bioluminescence imaging by use of a combined optical-pet (opet) system: A computer simulation feasibility study. Phys. Med. Biol.
**2005**, 50, 4225–4241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Spinelli, L.; Torricelli, A.; Pifferi, A.; Taroni, P.; Danesini, G.M.; Cubeddu, R. Bulk optical properties and tissue components in the female breast from multiwavelength time-resolved optical mammography. J. Biomed. Opt.
**2004**, 9, 1137–1142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Peters, V.G.; Wyman, D.R.; Patterson, M.S.; Frank, G.L. Optical properties of normal and diseased human breast tissues in the visible and near infrared. Phys. Med. Biol.
**1990**, 35, 1317–1334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Newman, C.; Jacques, S.L. Laser penetration into prostate for various wavelengths. Lasers Surg. Med.
**1991**, S3, 75. [Google Scholar] - Mourant, J.R.; Johnson, T.M.; Carpenter, S.; Guerra, A.; Aida, T.; Freyer, J.P. Polarized angular dependent spectroscopy of epithelial cells and epithelial cell nuclei to determine the size scale of scattering structures. J. Biomed. Opt.
**2002**, 7, 378–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Mourant, J.R.; Johnson, T.M.; Doddi, V.; Freyer, J.P. Angular dependent light scattering from multicellular spheroids. J. Biomed. Opt.
**2002**, 7, 93–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Chung, S.H.; Yu, H.; Su, M.Y.; Cerussi, A.E.; Tromberg, B.J. Molecular imaging of water binding state and diffusion in breast cancer using diffuse optical spectroscopy and diffusion weighted mri. J. Biomed. Opt.
**2012**, 17, 071304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Hale, G.M.; Querry, M.R. Optical constants of water in the 200-nm to 200-microm wavelength region. Appl. Opt.
**1973**, 12, 555–563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Prahl, S.A.; Dayton, A.; Juedes, K.; Sanchez, E.J.; Lopez, R.P.; Duncan, D.D. Experimental validation of phase using nomarski microscopy with an extended fried algorithm. J. Opt. Soc. America. A Opt. Image Sci. Vis.
**2012**, 29, 2104–2109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version] - Dixon, J.M.; Taniguchi, M.; Lindsey, J.S. Photochemcad 2: A refined program with accompanying spectral databases for photochemical calculations. Photochem. Photobiol.
**2007**, 81, 212–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Du, H.; Fuh, R.C.A.; Li, J.Z.; Corkan, L.A.; Lindsey, J.S. Photochemcad: A computer-aided design and research tool in photochemistry. Photochem. Photobiol.
**1998**, 68, 141–142. [Google Scholar] - Taniguchi, M.; Du, H.; Lindsey, J.S. Photochemcad 3: Diverse modules for photophysical calculations with multiple spectral databases. Photochem. Photobiol.
**2018**, 94, 277–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Van Beekvelt, M.C.; Borghuis, M.S.; van Engelen, B.G.; Wevers, R.A.; Colier, W.N. Adipose tissue thickness affects in vivo quantitative near-ir spectroscopy in human skeletal muscle. Clin. Sci. (Lond. Engl. 1979)
**2001**, 101, 21–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Van Beekvelt, M.C.; Colier, W.N.; Wevers, R.A.; Van Engelen, B.G. Performance of near-infrared spectroscopy in measuring local o(2) consumption and blood flow in skeletal muscle. J. Appl. Physiol. (Bethesda Md. 1985)
**2001**, 90, 511–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Van Beekvelt, M.C.; Shoemaker, J.K.; Tschakovsky, M.E.; Hopman, M.T.; Hughson, R.L. Blood flow and muscle oxygen uptake at the onset and end of moderate and heavy dynamic forearm exercise. Am. J. Physiol. Regul. Integr. Comp. Physiol.
**2001**, 280, R1741–R1747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Jacques, S.L.; McAuliffe, D.J. The melanosome: Threshold temperature for explosive vaporization and internal absorption coefficient during pulsed laser irradiation. Photochem. Photobiol.
**1991**, 53, 769–775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - D’Mello, S.A.; Finlay, G.J.; Baguley, B.C.; Askarian-Amiri, M.E. Signaling pathways in melanogenesis. Int. J. Mol. Sci.
**2016**, 17, 1144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version] - Regazzetti, C.; Sormani, L.; Debayle, D.; Bernerd, F.; Tulic, M.K.; De Donatis, G.M.; Chignon-Sicard, B.; Rocchi, S.; Passeron, T. Melanocytes sense blue light and regulate pigmentation through opsin-3. J. Investig. Dermatol.
**2018**, 138, 171–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Serban, E.D.; Farnetani, F.; Pellacani, G.; Constantin, M.M. Role of in vivo reflectance confocal microscopy in the analysis of melanocytic lesions. Acta Dermatovenerol. Croat. ADC
**2018**, 26, 64–67. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] - Muneer, S.; Kim, E.J.; Park, J.S.; Lee, J.H. Influence of green, red and blue light emitting diodes on multiprotein complex proteins and photosynthetic activity under different light intensities in lettuce leaves (Lactuca sativa L.). Int. J. Mol. Sci.
**2014**, 15, 4657–4670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version] - Van Veen, R.L.; Sterenborg, H.J.; Marinelli, A.W.; Menke-Pluymers, M. Intraoperatively assessed optical properties of malignant and healthy breast tissue used to determine the optimum wavelength of contrast for optical mammography. J. Biomed. Opt.
**2004**, 9, 1129–1136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Mishchenko, M.I.; Hovenier, J.W.; Travis, L.D. Concepts, terms, notation. In Light Scattering by Nonspherical Particles; Mishchenko, M.I., Hovenier, J.W., Travis, L.B., Eds.; Academic Press: San Diego, CA, USA, 2000; pp. 3–26. [Google Scholar]
- Asano, S.; Yamamoto, G. Light scattering by a spheroidal particle. Appl. Opt.
**1975**, 14, 29–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Morgan, M.A.; Mei, K.K. Finite-element computation of scattering by inhomogeneous penetrable bodies of revolution. Ieee Trans. Antennas Propag.
**1979**, 27, 202–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Kervella, M.; Humeau, A.; L’Huillier, J.P. Effects of residual fluorescence on time-resolved signals simulated with the finite element method in biological tissues. In Proceedings of the 2007 29th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, Lyon, France, 22–26 August 2007; Volume 2007, pp. 5976–5979. [Google Scholar]
- Taflove, A.; Umashankar, K.R. The finite-difference time-domain method for numerical modeling of electromagnetic wave interactions with arbitrary structures. In Finite Element and Finite Difference Methods in Electromagnetic Scattering; Morgan, M.A., Ed.; Elsevier: New York, NY, USA, 1990; pp. 287–333. [Google Scholar]
- Drezek, R.; Dunn, A.; Richards-Kortum, R. A pulsed finite-difference time-domain (fdtd) method for calculating light scattering from biological cells over broad wavelength ranges. Opt. Express
**2000**, 6, 147–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Al-Rizzo, H.M.; Tranquilla, J.M. Electromagnetic wave scattering by highly elongated and geometrically composite objects of large size parameters: The generalized multipole technique. Appl. Opt.
**1995**, 34, 3502–3521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Shifrin, K.S.; Zolotov, I.G. Nonstationary scattering of electromagnetic pulses by spherical particles. Appl. Opt.
**1995**, 34, 552–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Naughton, N.M.; Tennyson, C.G.; Georgiadis, J.G. Lattice boltzmann method for simulation of diffusion magnetic resonance imaging physics in multiphase tissue models. Phys. Rev. E
**2020**, 102, 043305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Purcell, E.M.; Pennypacker, C.R. Scattering and absorption of light by nonspherical dielectric grains. Astrophys. J.
**1973**, 186, 705–714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Mesicek, J.; Kuca, K. Summary of numerical analyses for therapeutic uses of laser-activated gold nanoparticles. Int. J. Hyperth. Off. J. Eur. Soc. Hyperth. Oncol. N. Am. Hyperth. Group
**2018**, 34, 1255–1264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Sassaroli, A.; Martelli, F.; Fantini, S. Perturbation theory for the diffusion equation by use of the moments of the generalized temporal point-spread function. I. Theory. J. Opt. Soc. America. A Opt. Image Sci. Vis.
**2006**, 23, 2105–2118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Sakamoto, M.; Li, G.; Hara, T.; Chao, E.Y. A new method for theoretical analysis of static indentation test. J. Biomech.
**1996**, 29, 679–685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Soloviev, V.Y. Mesh adaptation technique for fourier-domain fluorescence lifetime imaging. Med. Phys.
**2006**, 33, 4176–4183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Piqueras, S.; Krafft, C.; Beleites, C.; Egodage, K.; von Eggeling, F.; Guntinas-Lichius, O.; Popp, J.; Tauler, R.; de Juan, A. Combining multiset resolution and segmentation for hyperspectral image analysis of biological tissues. Anal. Chim. Acta
**2015**, 881, 24–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Buffon, G. Essai d’arithmétique morale. Hist. Nat. Générale Er Part.
**1777**, 4, 46–123. [Google Scholar] - Ren, N.; Liang, J.; Qu, X.; Li, J.; Lu, B.; Tian, J. Gpu-based monte carlo simulation for light propagation in complex heterogeneous tissues. Opt. Express
**2010**, 18, 6811–6823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Zhu, C.; Liu, Q. Review of monte carlo modeling of light transport in tissues. J. Biomed. Opt.
**2013**, 18, 50902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]

**Figure 1.**Diagrammatical summary of the approaches toward the determination of biological samples’ optical properties.

**Figure 2.**Diagrammatical representation of the scattering variances described above. The different excitation processes are presented, i.e., that of Rayleigh scattering, Stokes–Raman scattering and Anti-Stokes–Raman scattering (adapted and reproduced from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raman_scattering, accessed 6 November 2021, under the CC BY-SA 3.0 license).

**Figure 3.**Diagrammatical representation of the refraction of light. A beam of light passes through a medium with refraction index n

_{1}, to a new medium with refraction index n

_{2}. The angle of incidence at point (0,0) is θ

_{1}, while the angle of refraction is θ

_{2}(adapted and reproduced from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refraction, accessed 6 May 2021).

**Figure 4.**Simplified representation of Beer–Lambert theorem principle and measurement of nucleotides with respect to their absorption—incoming light (hv

_{1}) with intensity I

_{0}, travels through a path (L), which goes through a solution with concentration (C) and extinction coefficient (ε), and exits the solution (hv

_{2}) with intensity I

_{1}.

**Figure 5.**The absorption spectra of the five nucleotides adenine (A), thymine (T), guanine (G), cytosine (C) and uracil (U).

**Figure 6.**The molecular structures, both in 2D (

**left**) and 3D (

**right**), of an RNA chain consisting of adenosine (A), guanosine (G), uridine (U) and cytidine (C).

**Figure 7.**Two in-house evaluations of RNA absorbance with respect to the wavelength (

**A**) and absorbance with respect to RNA concentration (

**B**).

**Figure 8.**The absorption spectra of chlorophyll a extracted with diethyl ether, as reproduced by PhotoChem CAD (

**A**) and in-house experimental spectrophotometric data (unpublished data) (

**B**).

**Figure 10.**One of the first applications of the Monte Carlo method was the calculation of pi. Two shapes, a square and a circle, are filled with random dots and superimposed. It is proven that the ratio of the two surfaces multiplied by 4 approximates the number pi.

**Figure 11.**The simplified algorithm of a Monte Carlo simulation for a photon passing through a biological medium (adopted and reproduced from Zhu and Liu (2013), Zhu, C.; Liu, Q. Review of Monte Carlo mod-eling of light transport in tissues. J. Biomed. Opt.

**2013**, 18, 50902, DOI:10.1117/1.JBO.18.5.050902 [108], under the Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode).

**Table 1.**The principal optical coefficients of tissues (adapted from Jacques SL (2013) [40]).

Coefficient | Symbol | Units |
---|---|---|

Absorption | μ_{A} | cm^{−1} |

Scattering | μ_{S} | cm^{−1} |

Scattering function | p(θ,ψ) | sr^{−1} |

Anisotropy | γ = cos(θ) | Arbitrary |

Real refractive index | n′ | Arbitrary |

Reduced scattering | ${\mu}_{S}^{\prime}={\mu}_{S}(1-g)$ | cm^{−1} |

**Table 2.**Factors that affect scattering coefficient of tissues ($a={\mu}_{S,500\mathrm{nm}}^{\prime}$, such as ${\mu}_{S}^{\prime}(\lambda )=\alpha {\left(\frac{\lambda}{500\mathrm{nm}}\right)}^{-b}$ and ${\mu}_{S}^{\prime}(\lambda )={\mu}_{S,500\mathrm{nm}}^{\prime}{f}_{Rayleigh}{\left(\frac{\lambda}{500\mathrm{nm}}\right)}^{-b}+{f}_{Mei}{\left(\frac{\lambda}{500\mathrm{nm}}\right)}^{-b}$) [50,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65] (adapted from Jacques (2013), Jacques, S.L. Optical properties of biological tissues: A review. Phys. Med. Biol. 2013, 58, R37–R61. Doi 10.1088/0031-9155/58/11/R37 [40]. Published after the license © Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine. Reproduced by permission of IOP Publishing. All rights reserved).

# | a (cm^{−1}) | b | a′ (cm^{−1}) | f_{Ray} | b_{Mic} | Ref. | Tissue |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Skin | |||||||

1 | 48.9 | 1.548 | 45.6 | 0.22 | 1.184 | Skin | Anderson et al., 1982 [66] |

2 | 47.8 | 2.453 | 42.9 | 0.76 | 0.351 | Skin | Jacques 1996 [67] |

3 | 37.2 | 1.390 | 42.6 | 0.40 | 0.919 | Skin | Simpson et al., 1998 [68] |

4 | 60.1 | 1.722 | 58.3 | 0.31 | 0.991 | Skin | Saidi et al., 1995 [61] |

5 | 29.7 | 0.705 | 36.4 | 0.48 | 0.220 | Skin | Bashkatov et al., 2011 [69] |

6 | 45.3 | 1.292 | 43.6 | 0.41 | 0.562 | Dermis | Salomatina et al., 2006 [62] |

7 | 68.7 | 1.161 | 66.7 | 0.29 | 0.689 | Epidermis | Salomatina et al., 2006 [62] |

8 | 30.6 | 1.100 | na | na | na | Skin | Alexandrakis et al., 2005 [70] |

Brain | |||||||

9 | 40.8 | 3.089 | 40.8 | 0.00 | 3.088 | Brain | Sandell and Zhu 2011 [42] |

10 | 10.9 | 0.334 | 13.3 | 0.36 | 0.000 | Cortex (frontal lobe) | Bevilacqua et al., 2000 [55] |

11 | 11.6 | 0.601 | 15.7 | 0.53 | 0.000 | Cortex (temporal lobe) | Bevilacqua et al., 2000 [55] |

12 | 20.0 | 1.629 | 29.1 | 0.81 | 0.000 | Astrocytoma of optic nerve | Bevilacqua et al., 2000 [55] |

13 | 25.9 | 1.156 | 25.9 | 0.00 | 1.156 | Normal optic nerve | Bevilacqua et al., 2000 [55] |

14 | 21.5 | 1.629 | 31.0 | 0.82 | 0.000 | Cerebellar white matter | Bevilacqua et al., 2000 [55] |

15 | 41.8 | 3.254 | 41.8 | 0.00 | 3.254 | Medulloblastoma | Bevilacqua et al., 2000 [55] |

16 | 21.4 | 1.200 | 21.4 | 0.00 | 1.200 | Brain | Yi and Backman 2012 [50] |

Breast | |||||||

17 | 31.8 | 2.741 | 31.8 | 0.00 | 2.741 | Breast | Sandell and Zhu 2011 [42] |

18 | 11.5 | 0.775 | 15.2 | 0.58 | 0.000 | Breast | Sandell and Zhu 2011 [42] |

19 | 24.8 | 1.544 | 24.8 | 0.00 | 1.544 | Breast | Sandell and Zhu 2011 [42] |

20 | 20.1 | 1.054 | 20.2 | 0.18 | 0.638 | Breast | Sandell and Zhu 2011 [42] |

21 | 14.6 | 0.410 | 18.1 | 0.41 | 0.000 | Breast | Spinelli et al., 2004 [71] |

22 | 12.5 | 0.837 | 17.4 | 0.60 | 0.076 | Breast, premenopausal | Cerussi et al., 2001 [56] |

23 | 8.3 | 0.617 | 11.2 | 0.54 | 0.009 | Breast, postmenopausal | Cerussi et al., 2001 [56] |

24 | 10.5 | 0.464 | 10.5 | 0.00 | 0.473 | Breast | Durduran et al., 2002 [57] |

Bone | |||||||

25 | 9.5 | 0.141 | 9.7 | 0.04 | 0.116 | Skull | Bevilacqua et al., 2000 [55] |

26 | 20.9 | 0.537 | 20.9 | 0.00 | 0.537 | Skull | Firbank et al., 1993 [58] |

27 | 38.4 | 1.470 | na | na | na | Bone | Alexandrakis et al., 2005 [70] |

Other soft tissues | |||||||

28 | 9.0 | 0.617 | 11.5 | 0.61 | 0.000 | Liver | Parsa et al., 1989 [60] |

29 | 13.0 | 0.926 | 13.0 | 0.00 | 0.926 | Muscle | Tromberg 1996 [67] |

30 | 12.2 | 1.448 | 13.0 | 0.44 | 0.731 | Fibroadenoma breast | Peters et al., 1990 [72] |

31 | 18.8 | 1.620 | 18.8 | 0.00 | 1.620 | Mucous tissue | Bashkatov et al., 2011 [69] |

32 | 28.1 | 1.507 | 27.7 | 0.23 | 1.165 | SCC | Salomatina et al., 2006 [62] |

33 | 42.8 | 1.563 | 42.5 | 0.10 | 1.433 | Infiltrative BCC | Salomatina et al., 2006 [62] |

34 | 31.9 | 1.371 | 31.5 | 0.15 | 1.157 | Nodular BCC | Salomatina et al., 2006 [62] |

35 | 16.5 | 1.240 | na | na | na | Bowel | Alexandrakis et al., 2005 [70] |

36 | 14.6 | 1.430 | na | na | na | Heart wall | Alexandrakis et al., 2005 [70] |

37 | 35.1 | 1.510 | na | na | na | Kidneys | Alexandrakis et al., 2005 [70] |

38 | 9.2 | 1.050 | na | na | na | Liver and spleen | Alexandrakis et al., 2005 [70] |

39 | 25.4 | 0.530 | na | na | na | Lung | Alexandrakis et al., 2005 [70] |

40 | 9.8 | 2.820 | na | na | na | Muscle | Alexandrakis et al., 2005 [70] |

41 | 19.1 | 0.970 | na | na | na | Stomach wall | Alexandrakis et al., 2005 [70] |

42 | 22.0 | 0.660 | na | na | na | Whole blood | Alexandrakis et al., 2005 [70] |

43 | 16.5 | 1.640 | 16.5 | 0.00 | 1.640 | Liver | Yi and Backman 2012 [50] |

44 | 8.1 | 0.980 | 8.1 | 0.00 | 0.980 | Lung | Yi and Backman 2012 [50] |

45 | 8.3 | 1.260 | 8.3 | 0.00 | 1.260 | Heart | Yi and Backman 2012 [50] |

Other fibrous tissues | |||||||

46 | 33.6 | 1.712 | 37.3 | 0.72 | 0.000 | Tumor | Sandell and Zhu 2011 [42] |

47 | 30.1 | 1.549 | 30.1 | 0.02 | 1.521 | Prostate | Newman and Jacques 1991 [73] |

48 | 27.2 | 1.768 | 29.7 | 0.61 | 0.585 | Glandular breast | Peters et al., 1990 [72] |

49 | 24.1 | 1.618 | 25.8 | 0.49 | 0.784 | Fibrocystic breast | Peters et al., 1990 [72] |

50 | 20.7 | 1.487 | 22.8 | 0.60 | 0.327 | Carcinoma breast | Peters et al., 1990 [72] |

Fatty tissue | |||||||

51 | 13.7 | 0.385 | 14.7 | 0.16 | 0.250 | Subcutaneous fat | Simpson et al., 1998 [68] |

52 | 10.6 | 0.520 | 11.2 | 0.29 | 0.089 | Adipose breast | Peters et al., 1990 [72] |

53 | 15.4 | 0.680 | 15.4 | 0.00 | 0.680 | Subcutaneous adipose | Bashkatov et al., 2011 [69] |

54 | 35.2 | 0.988 | 34.2 | 0.26 | 0.567 | Subcutaneous fat | Salomatina et al., 2006 [62] |

55 | 21.6 | 0.930 | 21.1 | 0.17 | 0.651 | Subcutaneous adipocytes | Salomatina et al., 2006 [62] |

56 | 14.1 | 0.530 | na | na | na | Adipose | Alexandrakis et al., 2005 [70] |

**Table 3.**The calculation of optical coefficients in a mouse simulation (adapted and reproduced from Ren et al. (2010) [107] with permission from ©The Optical Society).

Tissue | µ_{a} (1/mm) | µ_{s} (1/mm) | g | n | Number of Triangle Meshes |
---|---|---|---|---|---|

Adipose | 0.005045 | 20.4545 | 0.94 | 1.35 | 2000–100,000 |

Skeleton | 0.08138 | 26.0896 | 0.9 | 1.50 | 25,000 |

Heart | 0.078594 | 6.7104 | 0.85 | 1.42 | 3500 |

Lung | 0.262956 | 36.818 | 0.94 | 1.38 | 6000 |

Kidney | 0.088107 | 16.846 | 0.86 | 1.45 | 2500 |

Stomach | 0.015044 | 18.4973 | 0.92 | 1.40 | 4000 |

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |

© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## Share and Cite

**MDPI and ACS Style**

Lambrou, G.I.; Tagka, A.; Kotoulas, A.; Chatziioannou, A.; Matsopoulos, G.K. Physical and Methodological Perspectives on the Optical Properties of Biological Samples: A Review. *Photonics* **2021**, *8*, 540.
https://doi.org/10.3390/photonics8120540

**AMA Style**

Lambrou GI, Tagka A, Kotoulas A, Chatziioannou A, Matsopoulos GK. Physical and Methodological Perspectives on the Optical Properties of Biological Samples: A Review. *Photonics*. 2021; 8(12):540.
https://doi.org/10.3390/photonics8120540

**Chicago/Turabian Style**

Lambrou, George I., Anna Tagka, Athanasios Kotoulas, Argyro Chatziioannou, and George K. Matsopoulos. 2021. "Physical and Methodological Perspectives on the Optical Properties of Biological Samples: A Review" *Photonics* 8, no. 12: 540.
https://doi.org/10.3390/photonics8120540