See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/350400749

Effect of Low-Doses of Gamma Radiation on Electric Arc-Induced Long Period

Fiber Gratings

Article  in  Sensors · March 2021

DOI: 10.3390/s21072318

CITATIONS READS

0 25

7 authors, including:

Patricia Mesonero-Santos Ana Fernández-Medina

Instituto Nacional de Técnica Aeroespacial Instituto Nacional de Técnica Aeroespacial
1 PUBLICATION   0 CITATIONS    6 PUBLICATIONS   37 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Luis Coelho Duarte Viveiros

Institute for Systems and Computer Engineering, Technology and Science (INESC … Institute for Systems and Computer Engineering, Technology and Science (INESC …
119 PUBLICATIONS   2,638 CITATIONS    33 PUBLICATIONS   42 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Applied optics View project

RAS-ORGMAT - Developing water treatment technology for land-based closed containment systems (LBCC-RAS) to increase efficiency by reducing the negative effects
of organic matter View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Duarte Viveiros on 26 March 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 sensors
Article
Effect of Low-Doses of Gamma Radiation on Electric
Arc-Induced Long Period Fiber Gratings
Patricia Mesonero-Santos 1, * , Ana Fernández-Medina 1 , Luis C. C. Coelho 2 , Duarte Viveiros 2 ,
Pedro A. Jorge 2 , Tomás Belenguer 1 and Raquel López Heredero 1






Citation: Mesonero-Santos, P.;
Fernández-Medina, A.; Coelho,
L.C.C.; Viveiros, D.; Jorge, P.A.;
Belenguer, T.; López Heredero, R.
Effect of Low-Doses of Gamma
Radiation on Electric Arc-Induced
Long Period Fiber Gratings. Sensors
2021, 21, 2318. https://doi.org/
10.3390/s21072318
Academic Editor: Joseba Zubia
Zaballa
Received: 24 February 2021
Accepted: 23 March 2021
Published: 26 March 2021
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 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/).
Sensors 2021, 21, 2318. https://doi.org/10.3390/s21072318
1 Space Optics Department, National Institute for Aerospace Technology (INTA), Carretera de Ajalvir km 4,
28850 Torrejón de Ardoz, Spain; fdezmmab@inta.es (A.F.-M.); belenguer@inta.es (T.B.);
lopezhr@inta.es (R.L.H.)
2 Department of Physics and Astronomy of Faculty of Sciences, INESC TEC—Institute for Systems and
Computer Engineering, Technology and Science and Faculty for Sciences, University of Porto,
4169-007 Porto, Portugal; lcoelho@inesctec.pt (L.C.C.C.); carlos.d.viveiros@inesctec.pt (D.V.);
pedro.jorge@fc.up.pt (P.A.J.)
* Correspondence: mesonerosp@inta.es; Tel.: +34-91-520-12-79
Abstract: This work presents an experimental study on the effects of gamma radiation on Long Period
Fiber Gratings (LPFGs) in a low-dose test campaign to evaluate their eventual degradation. The study
was carried out with standard single-mode fibers where the grating was inscribed using the Electric-
Arc Discharge (EAD) technique. Before the gamma campaign, a detailed optical characterization
was performed with repeatability tests to verify the accuracy of the setup and the associated error
sources. The gamma-induced changes up to a dose of 200 krad and the recovery after radiation were
monitored with the Dip Wavelength Shift (DWS). The results show that the gamma sensitivity for a
total dose of 200 krad is 11 pm/krad and a total DWS of 2.3 nm has been observed with no linear
dependence. Post-radiation study shows that recovery from radiation-induced wavelength shift is
nearly complete in about 4000 h. Experimental results show that the changes suffered under gamma
irradiation of these LPFGs are temporary making them a good choice as sensors in space applications.
Keywords: gamma irradiation; Electric-Arc Discharge (EAD); Long Period Fiber Grating (LPFG);
relaxation
1. Introduction
Fiber optic sensors are used in a wide range of applications in many fields of industry,
engineering, and science offering alternatives to traditional sensors, based on electronic
devices, thanks to their characteristics such as electromagnetic immunity, capacity of
multiplexing and remote sensing, and power and weight saving; they can be used to
measure several physical, chemical, and biological parameters [1,2]. Furthermore, fiber
optic sensors have good sensitivity and performance in harsh environments with low and
high temperatures, and where ionizing radiation can be present, such as in oil and gas
industry, space and nuclear applications [3–7].
This study is focused on sensors based on gratings written in fiber optics. In recent
years, this type of sensors have been studied in applications with ionizing radiation, char-
acterizing how radiation affects their properties and its possible application in radiation
dosimetry [8]. It is well known from previous studies that the effects of radiation induce
changes in fiber gratings. The most investigated effects are the Radiation Induce Attenu-
ation (RIA) and the refractive index change [9–11]. It is worth mentioning that, in these
studies, direct correlation between these radiation-induced effects was not found. The
wavelength shift observed on the reflection or attenuation bands, is related to refractive
index change; in the case of Fiber Bragg Gratings (FBGs), it is due to the change in the core
effective refractive index and in the case of Long Period Fiber Gratings (LPFGs), it is due to
the difference between core and cladding effective refractive indices [12–16].
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sensors
Sensors 2021, 21, 2318 2 of 13

This type of gratings with longer periods have certain advantages when compared to
FBGs; they show greater thermal sensitivity than FBGs and can be also used to measure
several parameters at the same time. LPFGs compared to FBGs are sensitive to surrounding
refractive index [17–20] and are easy to manufacture using different techniques as electric
arc discharge (EAD) [21,22], CO2 laser [23] and femtosecond laser [24] or UV radiation [25].
This work is focused on LPFGs manufactured using the induced EAD technique, which
can be applied in a wide range of fibers, including non-photosensitive fibers, standard
fibers, and even non-doped fibers with pure silica core, useful, depending on the desired
application [22].
Planetary exploration represents one of the greatest challenges of the present and
future lander’s science instruments. The main goal of this kind of space missions is to search
for extinct or extant life and characterize the environment. Mars and some icy satellites of
the giant planets (as Europa, Enceladus, Titan . . . ) are good candidates for having hosted
or hosting life. The development of in situ probes used as multi-parameter sensors is of
great interest of the space community to study the habitability of the lander impact zone
and to identify biomarker [26]. The European Space Agency (ESA) has shown great interest
in the development of miniaturized payloads based on optical technologies to detect and
quantify biomarkers and to measure temperature with high accuracy for housekeeping
purposes and to study the thermo-elastic deformations [27,28]. The payloads must be
robust enough to survive the journey and the in situ harsh conditions of the environment,
with special care in the design of instrumentation for the icy moons due to long duration
of journey and their thin atmosphere. For planetary exploration, sensors based on LPFG
can be good candidates thanks to their extremely sensitivity to the external refractive
index. In this work, the effects of gamma radiation is studied by submitting the fiber optic
samples to doses equivalent to standard space environmental conditions considering the
shielding that cover the payloads to prevent from radiation [29,30]. The goal of this work
is to evaluate the LPFG degradation as a first step to validate the technology for space
applications focusing on low doses
In the present work, an experimental study on gamma radiation sensitivity of LPFGs
was manufactured using the EAD technique. Some extra gratings were used as Control
samples, preserved from radiation. The gamma radiation campaign was performed in
different and discontinuous steps with an average dose rate of 32.95 krad/h and reaching
a total dose of 200 krad. A careful analysis was performed to estimate the experimental
errors in order to avoid cross-sensitivity effects. The radiation induced effects in terms
of Dip Wavelength Shift (DWS) and the relaxation of the samples after irradiation was
evaluated to discern if the effects occur permanently or temporarily. Finally, the effects of
the gamma radiation in the temperature sensitivity before and after the campaign were
also studied.

2. Experimental
2.1. Samples
In order to evaluate how space radiation environment affects to EAD LPFGs, three
units have been manufactured at INESC TEC-Institute for Systems and Computer Engi-
neering, Technology and Science (Porto, Portugal), point-by-point, using a common optical
fiber SMF-28e with 4% Ge content in the core, following the procedure in [31]. With a
grating period of 410 µm, and an approximate length of 20 mm, the asymmetric 6th order
cladding mode LP1,6 falls in the desire 1500–1600-nm range window. Two units, LPFG1
and LPFG2, were irradiated and another one (Control LPFG) was preserved for control.
Additionally, two commercial rad-hard FBGs (FBG1 and FBG2 from FemtoFiberTec
GmbH) were also irradiated to test their insensitivity acting this way as invariant irradiated
samples to discriminate other parameters that could affect the measurements of the LPFGs.
Two extra rad-hard FBG units from the same provider were preserved for control (Control
FBG1 and Control FBG2, with peak wavelengths very close to FBG1 and FBG2, respectively).
The inscription method of these FBGs is based on infrared fs-laser technology, using a
 Additionally, two commercial rad-hard FBGs (FBG1 and FBG2 from FemtoFiberTec
GmbH) were also irradiated to test their insensitivity acting this way as invariant irradi-
ated samples to discriminate other parameters that could affect the measurements of the
Sensors 2021, 21, 2318 LPFGs. Two extra rad-hard FBG units from the same provider were preserved for control 3 of 13
(Control FBG1 and Control FBG2, with peak wavelengths very close to FBG1 and FBG2,
respectively). The inscription method of these FBGs is based on infrared fs-laser technol-
ogy, using a point-by-point process, with a grating length of 5.0 mm and a reflectivity of
point-by-point
75.6%. process,
The gratings with aare
inscribed grating
Type length of 5.0
II gratings mm
and andwritten
were a reflectivity of 75.6%.
in radiation The
insensi-
gratings inscribed are Type II gratings and were written in radiation
tive fibers, being suitable for harsh environments, such as space applications.insensitive fibers,
beingThe
suitable forofharsh
spectra environments,
all the samples usedsuch as space
in this applications.
work are represented in Figure 1 (Control
The spectra of all the samples used in this work
FBG1 and Control FBG2 are not depicted to avoid overlappingare represented in Figure
with FBG1 and 1FBG2).
(Control
FBG1 and Control FBG2 are not depicted to avoid overlapping with FBG1 and FBG2).

Figure 1. Spectra of the gratings in air at 35 ◦ C: Long Period Fiber Grating (LPFG)1, LPFG2, and Control LPFG measured in
Figure 1. Spectra
transmission mode.of the gratings
Fiber in air at (FBG)1
Bragg Grating 35 °C: Long Period
and FBG2 Fiber Grating
measured (LPFG)1,
in reflection LPFG2, and Control LPFG measured
mode.
in transmission mode. Fiber Bragg Grating (FBG)1 and FBG2 measured in reflection mode.
2.2. Gamma Irradiation Test
2.2. Gamma Irradiation Test
The irradiation of the LPFG sensors has been carried out in the NAYADE facility
The irradiation
at Centro of the LPFG
de Investigaciones sensors Medioambientales
Energéticas has been carried out in the NAYADE
y Tecnologicas facility in
(CIEMAT) at
Centro 60
de Investigaciones Energéticas Medioambientales y Tecnologicas
Spain. A Co was used as radiation sources placed at the bottom of a pool with a depth of(CIEMAT) in
Spain. A 60Co
four meters forwas used as
shielding radiation
purposes assources
shown inplaced at2.the
Figure bottom
The LPFGsofanda pool with asensors
the FBGs depth
of four
were meters
placed infor shielding purposes
a waterproof container,asimmersed
shown in in
Figure
water2.atThe ◦
18 LPFGs
C andand the FBGs
closely located sen-
to
sors were placed
the gamma sourceinthat
a waterproof container,
is distributed immersed
in a circular in water atto18
configuration °C and
assure theclosely located
homogeneity
to
of the gamma source that is distributed in a circular configuration to assure the homoge-
dose received.
neityAtof the time
dose of
received.
test, the dose rate was evaluated with the Fricke dosimetry technique
to calculate the time of irradiation needed for the campaign test. The dose rate was
32.95 krad/h and the dose received by the LPFGs was homogeneous within 94.6%. The
samples were irradiated up to 200 krad following four steps at 20 krad, 60 krad, 100 krad,
and 200 krad in order to study the response of the LPFGs to different accumulated doses.
Sensors 2021, 21, 2318 4 of 13
Sensors 2021, 21, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 14

Left: snapshot
Figure 2. Left: snapshot of
of mounting
mounting process
process of the
the container
container descending inside the pool. Middle: irradiation
irradiation facility setup
60 Co sources in a circular configuration.
during irradiation; view of the container located at the bottom of the pool and the 60 Co sources in a circular configuration.
Right: Waterproof container
container with
with LPFGs
LPFGs and
and FBGs
FBGs rolled-up
rolled-up inside.
inside.

At the time
2.3. Optical of test, the dose
Characterization: rate was evaluated with the Fricke dosimetry technique
Repeatability
to calculate the time of irradiation needed for
It is well known that the sensitivity the campaign
of LPFGs test. The
to different dose parameters
external rate was 32.95
as
krad/h
temperature, strain, and/or external refractive index changes depends on the The
and the dose received by the LPFGs was homogeneous within 94.6%. typesamples
and the
were irradiated
fabrication up to
process 200tokrad
used following
inscribe four steps
the grating. at 20
In this krad,the
sense, 60 measurements
krad, 100 krad,accuracy
and 200
krad in order to study the response
can be dependent on the LPFG type. of the LPFGs to different accumulated doses.
Repeatability tests (10 measurements) were performed to verify the accuracy of our
2.3. Optical Characterization:
measurements and associated Repeatability
error sources, as temperature, weight, temporary connectors,
and Ittheis joint contribution
well known that theof sensitivity
all these factors
of LPFGsin the setup. All
to different these parameters
external error sources as were
tem-
evaluatedstrain,
by repetitive ◦ C ± 0.1 ◦ C with one Control LPFG
perature, and/or tests at a refractive
external temperature of 35
index changes depends on the type and the
and with two
fabrication LPFGs
process used already submitted
to inscribe to theIngamma
the grating. campaign,
this sense, LPFG1 andaccuracy
the measurements LPFG2.
LPFG1 was used to measure
can be dependent on the LPFG type. the Dip Wavelength Shift (DWS) during the test campaign
and LPFG2 was used
Repeatability teststo (10
evaluate additionally
measurements) if the
were degradation
performed of the the
to verify LPFG can affect
accuracy the
of our
error measurements.
measurements and associated error sources, as temperature, weight, temporary connect-
Figure
ors, and the 3joint
shows the experimental
contribution setup
of all these usedintothe
factors measure andthese
setup. All characterize the optical
error sources were
spectrum by
evaluated andrepetitive
the DWStests of the
at aLPFGs. For this
temperature purpose,
of 35 °C ± 0.1an
°Coptical
with oneinterrogator
Control LPFG (Micron
and
Optics, si255) was used with integrated Enlight software for
with two LPFGs already submitted to the gamma campaign, LPFG1 and LPFG2. LPFG1 data acquisition. The inter-
rogator
was used light
to source
measure is athe
swept
Dipwavelength
Wavelength laser with
Shift a wavelength
(DWS) during therange
testfrom 1460 nmand
campaign up
to 1620 nm, an acquisition rate of 1 kHz, and a wavelength accuracy
LPFG2 was used to evaluate additionally if the degradation of the LPFG can affect the of 1 pm, according to
the provider.
error measurements.
In order
Figure to maintain
3 shows a stable temperature
the experimental setup usedduring the measurements,
to measure the LPFGs
and characterize were
the optical
placed inside an oven formed by two aluminum plates equipped
spectrum and the DWS of the LPFGs. For this purpose, an optical interrogator (Micron with resistors. The
temperature control was performed by a Proportional Integral Derivative
Optics, si255) was used with integrated Enlight software for data acquisition. The interro- (PID) algorithm
that controls
gator the oven
light source temperature
is a swept wavelengthby adjusting
laser with the parameter control
a wavelength automatically
range from 1460 nm up to
maintain the set value. For this purpose, a PID controller
to 1620 nm, an acquisition rate of 1 kHz, and a wavelength accuracy was used (EZ-ZONE PM, Watlow)
of 1 pm, according to
it was programmed to maintain a stable temperature of 35 ◦ C with an oscillation of
andprovider.
the
±0.1 ◦ C.
The LPFGs were written inducing some strain to the optical fiber by suspending a
small weight on one side of the fiber; the same weight needs to be attached after fabrication
to recover the dip wavelengths achieved during the manufacturing process. In order to
 Sensors 2021, 21, 2318 5 of 13

Sensors 2021, 21, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 14

evaluate the experimental error due to the weight, the measurement was performed by
mounting and dismounting the weight on the setup.

Figure 3. Experimental setup. Proportional Integral Derivative (PID) controller was used for temper-
Figure
ature 3. Experimental setup. Proportional Integral Derivative (PID) controller was used for tem-
control.
perature control.
The samples were rolled-up in the irradiation container without connectors due to
theIn order to
reduced maintain
space. a stableconnectors
Temporary temperature during
were usedthe measurements,
during the whole test the LPFGs
campaign were for
placed
optical inside an oven formed
measurements. The by two aluminum
standard deviationplates equipped with
of measurements resistors.
due The tem-
to mounting and
perature
dismountingcontrolthe was performed
connectors fromby the
a Proportional Integral Derivative
fiber was analyzed. Amplitude(PID) algorithm
variations were
that controls the oven temperature by adjusting
observed as expected, but the study was focused in terms of DWS. the parameter control automatically to
maintain the set
In order tovalue.
evaluateForthe
this purpose, a to
contribution PID
thecontroller
error duewas used
to the (EZ-ZONE
temperature PM, Wat-of
oscillations
low)
the and
PID,itthe
was dipprogrammed
wavelengthstowere maintain
monitoreda stable temperature
during one hour of with
35 °Canwith an oscillation
acquisition rate of
often
± 0.1 °C.
measurements per minute. To evaluate the overall contribution of these factors together,
tenThe LPFGs measurements
additional were written inducing some strain
were performed to the optical
dismounting fiber by
the whole suspending
setup (connectors a
small
and weight
weight)on at one side of the
a controlled fiber; the same
temperature of 35 ◦weight
C. needs to be attached after fabrica-
tion toTable
recover the dipthe
1 shows wavelengths achievedofduring
standard deviation all thethe manufacturing
repetitive measurementsprocess.considered
In order
toas the experimental
evaluate error sources
the experimental error due independently
to the weight, and the value obtained
the measurement for the setup
was performed by
measurements.
mounting The resultsthe
and dismounting exhibit
weight thatonthetheweight
setup. mounting/dismounting action is the
oneThethatsamples
produceswere morerolled-up
uncertainty in the
in the measurements.
irradiation containerThewithout
increaseconnectors
of the experimental
due to
error
the of both
reduced irradiated
space. TemporaryLPFGs comparedwere
connectors to the values
used of the
during theControl
whole test LPFG, ensure for
campaign that
the weight contribution is the main source of experimental
optical measurements. The standard deviation of measurements due to mounting and error. In this type of LPFG,
the weight can
dismounting the cause deformation
connectors from the of fiber
the grating itself andAmplitude
was analyzed. the irradiated samples
variations undergo
were ob-
more this effect due to the handling and
served as expected, but the study was focused in terms of DWS.rolling several times along the whole gamma
campaign.
In orderIttocan be observed
evaluate that the error
the contribution dueerror
to the to weight
due tois the
slightly higher inoscillations
temperature LPFG2 than
ofinthe
thePID,
Control
the dipLPFG; LPFG1 shows
wavelengths wereamonitored
greater standard
duringdeviation.
one hour with The values obtainedrate
an acquisition with
Control LPFG show that the error due to connectors is of the same
of ten measurements per minute. To evaluate the overall contribution of these factors to- order as the one obtained
with the
gether, tenweight and the
additional whole setup.were
measurements Taking into account
performed these values,
dismounting it can be
the whole concluded
setup (con-
that great care must be applied when the
nectors and weight) at a controlled temperature of 35 °C. LPFGs are measured to avoid handling errors.
Table 1 shows the standard deviation of all the repetitive measurements considered
asTable 1. LPFGs standard
the experimental deviation
error sourcesvalues of repeatability
independently andmeasurements with optical
the value obtained for interrogator.
the setup
measurements. The results exhibit Standard that the weight mounting/dismounting
Standard Deviation action
Standard is the
Deviation
Parameter
one that produces more uncertainty in(nm) the measurements. The increase of the experi-
DeviationLPFG1 LPFG2 (nm) Control LPFG (nm)
mental error of both irradiated LPFGs compared to the values of the Control LPFG, ensure
Temperature 0.02 0.03 0.01
that the weight contribution is the
Connectors main source of experimental
0.07 0.09 error. In this type
0.09of LPFG,
the weight can
Weight cause deformation of
0.3 the grating itself and the
0.1 irradiated samples
0.09undergo
more thisSetup
effect due to the handling— and rolling several—times along the whole 0.08 gamma
campaign. It can be observed that the error due to weight is slightly higher in LPFG2 than
in the Control
At the endLPFG; LPFG1
of the test shows
campaign,a greater standard deviation.
a temperature calibratorThe values
(Sika obtained
TP381165, with
accuracy
Control
0.01 C) was used to precisely characterize the response of the FBGs before and ob-
◦ LPFG show that the error due to connectors is of the same order as the one after
tained with the
irradiation. weight
The and theofwhole
verification setup. Taking
the invariance into
in their account
thermal these values,
response it can be
after irradiation
concluded that great care
resulted fundamental must bebetween
to discern appliedthe when the LPFGs
changes observedare with
measured to avoid LPFGs
the irradiated han-
dling errors.
 Sensors 2021, 21, 2318 6 of 13

and the experimental errors commented above. The FBGs were placed inside the standard
dry block calibrator and were measured in reflection with the optical interrogator during
the temperature characterization at an acquisition rate of 100 Hz. The calibrator was
programmed with eight temperature steps (−10, 0, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, and 60 ◦ C). Each step
of the calibrator temperature was stable during 20 min within ±0.01 ◦ C before continuing
with the next one. The peak wavelength of the FBGs was saved with the interrogator every
10 s during the whole temperature calibration. The mean values and the standard deviation
of the measurements were calculated for each step of stabilized temperature. The standard
deviation obtained was between 1 and 2 pm.

3. Results
The results obtained to evaluate the effect of gamma radiation on LPFG are shown
below. Before and after each step of irradiation in the facility, the LPFGs were brought back
to the laboratory for measurements and to study the sensitivity of the irradiation-related
parameters.

3.1. Radiation-Induced Wavelength Shift

The LPFG irradiation was performed in four steps up to a dose of 200 krad, with
a dose rate of 32.9 krad/h at room temperature. These sessions were carried out on
alternate days due to the availability of the facility and the employees, such as the weekend.
Sensors 2021, 21, x FOR PEER REVIEW Figure 4 shows the steps of irradiation followed during the test campaign; the width 7 of 14of
the bars shows the irradiation time starting from zero established from the beginning
of the test campaign; the circles show the LPFG1 DWS measurements performed with
the optical interrogator and the arrows show the time elapsed between irradiation and
measurement moment.

Figure 4. Test campaign irradiation and dip wavelengths measurements versus time. Bars: the width of the bars indicates
the exposure
Figure time to irradiation
4. Test campaign forand
irradiation eachdip
step (20 krad: 0.62
wavelengths h; 60 krad: 1.22
measurements h; 100
versus krad:
time. 1.22the
Bars: h and 200ofkrad:
width 3.03 indicates
the bars h). Circles:
LPFG1 DWS measurements; the arrows show the time elapsed between irradiation and measurement moment.
the exposure time to irradiation for each step (20 krad: 0.62 h; 60 krad: 1.22 h; 100 krad: 1.22 h and 200 krad: 3.03 h). Circles:
LPFG1 DWS measurements; the arrows show the time elapsed between irradiation and measurement moment.

After irradiation, LPFG1 was measured to study its relaxation after the last 200 krad
step on different days and stored at room temperature (see Figure 5). It can be appreciated
that the recovery occurs rapidly in the first hours after irradiation, while the final part of
the recovery occurs moderately, presenting an exponential decay. It can be estimated that
the LPFG recovery is almost complete around 4000 h after the last step of irradiation,
Sensors 2021, 21, 2318 7 of 13

After irradiation, LPFG1 was measured to study its relaxation after the last 200 krad
step on different days and stored at room temperature (see Figure 5). It can be appreciated
that the recovery occurs rapidly in the first hours after irradiation, while the final part
of the recovery occurs moderately, presenting an exponential decay. It can be estimated
that the LPFG recovery is almost complete around 4000 h after the last step of irradiation,
showing a difference of 329 pm with respect to the LPFG measurement before irradiation.
Sensors 2021, 21, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 14
The measurements that were carried out in the laboratory both before and after radiation
were taken at 35 ± 0.1 ◦ C.

Figure5.5. LPFG1
Figure LPFG1recovery
recoveryDip
DipWavelength
Wavelengthafter irradiation.
after Data
irradiation. withwith
Data 0 krad is depicted
0 krad for wave-
is depicted for
length reference.
wavelength reference.

Thestudy
The studyindicates
indicatesthat thatthese
theseLPFGs
LPFGsshows shows a significant
a significant sensitivity
sensitivity to to radiation;
radiation; forfor
a
total dose
a total of 200
dose of 200krad
kradthethe
total wavelength
total wavelength shift obtained
shift obtained is 2.3 nm.nm.
is 2.3 It was
It wasnotnot
observed
observed a
great change
a great change in in
transmitted
transmitted power
power variation
variation nor
nor attenuation
attenuationofofthe thedipdipwavelengths.
wavelengths.InIn
order
ordertotoevaluate
evaluatethe theRIA,
RIA,the theuse useofoftemporary
temporaryconnectors
connectorsshouldshouldbe beavoided.
avoided.Figure
Figure66
represents
representsthetheDWS
DWSofofLPFG1 LPFG1duringduringthe theirradiation
irradiationcampaign
campaignand andthethecorrected
correcteddatadatadue
due
to
torelaxation
relaxationconsidering
consideringthe thetime
timeelapsed
elapsedfrom fromirradiation
irradiationuntiluntilthe themeasurement
measurement(values (values
depicted
depicted inin arrows
arrows in Figure 4). The Theglobal
globalradiation
radiationsensitivity
sensitivityshown shown bybythethe LPFG1
LPFG1 up
up to 200 krad is 11 pm/krad, with no linear dependence. The
to 200 krad is 11 pm/krad, with no linear dependence. The error bar values are the biggest error bar values are the
biggest errors obtained,
errors obtained, shownshownin Table in 1Table (±0.3The
(±0.31nm). nm). The results
results shownshown in Figure in Figure
6 are in6 are in
agree-
agreement
ment withwith otherother
works works
found found
in the inliterature.
the literature. TableTable 2 shows
2 shows the results
the results of LPFGs
of LPFGs sub-
subjected to gamma
jected to gamma irradiation
irradiation focused
focused onon higher
higher absorbed
absorbed doses
doses than
than thethe ones
ones presentedin
presented
in
this work. Analyzing the data presented in these studies for doses between 100100
this work. Analyzing the data presented in these studies for doses between andand600
600
krad (first hours of exposure to radiation), it can be found that the data obtained is isin
krad (first hours of exposure to radiation), it can be found that the data obtained
in concordance
concordance with
with thethe results
results reported
reported in terms
in terms of DWS.
of DWS. The TheLPFG1 LPFG1
shows shows a higher
a higher sensi-
sensitivity
tivity than the EAD LPFGs in Table 2. As it is known, the irradiation parameters andand
than the EAD LPFGs in Table 2. As it is known, the irradiation parameters the
the continuity
continuity of the
of the absorbed
absorbed dose dose
havehavean an influence
influence on onthethe induced
induced changes.
changes.
The relaxation study was performed from the total dose accumulated at the end of the
irradiation campaigndata
Table 2. Comparison (200of krad).
LPFGs This exponential
inscribed in SMF-28fitsubjected
was used to calculate
to gamma the corrected
radiation with pre-
values in picometers assuming the same behavior for all steps of radiation (20, 60, 100, and
sent work.
200 krad). A slight difference of a few pm can be observed for all the steps since after a few
Fabrication
hours, Dose Rate
there are no significant changes. Absorbed
The longest Dose time elapsedDWSbetween irradiation and
Reference
Methodwas 49 h after
measurement (krad/h)
the first irradiation (krad) step (20 krad) (nm) and the applied correction is
89 pm. CO2 37 108 and 166 1.1 and 1.9 [16]
EAD 18 200 and 600 ~1.4 and ~3.0. [11]
EAD 20 500 ~3.0 [12]
EAD 33 200 2.3 Present work
 Sensors
Sensors 2021,2021, 21, x FOR PEER REVIEW
21, 2318 8 of 913of 14

Figure 6. LPFG1 Dip Wavelength with Gamma radiation Dose (circles); LPFG1 data applying measurement time correction
due to recovery of LPFG (squares) and data of the rad-hard FBGs (triangles). All the measurements were performed using
Figure 6. LPFG1 Dip Wavelength with Gamma radiation Dose (circles); LPFG1 data applying measurement time correc-
the optical interrogator.
tion due to recovery of LPFG (squares) and data of the rad-hard FBGs (triangles). All the measurements were performed
using the optical interrogator.
Table 2. Comparison data of LPFGs inscribed in SMF-28 subjected to gamma radiation with
present work.
The relaxation study was performed from the total dose accumulated at the end of
the irradiation
Fabrication campaign
Dose Rate (200 krad). This exponential
Absorbed Dose fit was
DWSused to calculate the cor-
rected values in picometers Reference(20, 60,
Method (krad/h) assuming the same behavior for(nm)
(krad) all steps of radiation
100,COand 200 krad). A slight 37
difference of a few pm can be1.1observed
108 and 166 and 1.9
for all the[16]
steps since
2
afterEAD
a few hours, there18are no significant changes.
200 and 600 The longest time
~1.4 and ~3.0. elapsed between
[11] irra-
diation
EADand measurement 20 was 49 h after the 500 first irradiation step ~3.0 (20 krad) and[12] the applied
EAD is 89 pm. 33
correction 200 2.3 Present work
The Bragg wavelength of the FBGs measured after each dose step are also shown in
Figure 6. Thewavelength
The Bragg error bars for FBGs
of the datameasured
FBGs are not depicted
after each since
dose their
stepvalue is ofshown
are also the orderin of
±1 pm according to interrogator specifications and the standard
Figure 6. The error bars for FBGs data are not depicted since their value is of the order deviation obtained with
of ±1 pm according to interrogator specifications and the standard deviation obtained af-
repetitive measurements. It can be considered that the rad-hard FBGs response is not
withfected by themeasurements.
repetitive gamma radiation as expected.
It can be consideredIt canthatbe noted that theFBGs
the rad-hard LPFG1 data after
response is 60
notkrad doesby
affected notthe
follow
gamma the expected
radiationbehavior;
as expected. taking intobe
It can account
notedthat thatthetheFBG
LPFG1 wavelength
data
is within
after 60 kradthe doesspectral range the
not follow expected,
expected it can be assumed
behavior; takingthat theaccount
into DWS LPFG1 that theat this
FBG dose
presents aisdeviation
wavelength within thedue to a handling
spectral error when
range expected, it canthebesample
assumed was mounted.
that the DWS LPFG1
The presents
at this dose optical characterization
a deviation due after the irradiation
to a handling error whenwas also carried was
the sample out mounted.
by measuring
the
Thespectra
opticaltocharacterization
monitor eventual degradation
after the irradiationof the was LPFGs optical out
also carried response covering a
by measuring
thewider
spectrarange, even if eventual
to monitor the resolution compared
degradation of to
thetheLPFGsoptical interrogator
optical response was smaller.aIt is
covering
wider range, even
important if the
to note thatresolution compared to
these measurements the optical
were carried interrogator
out just afterwas smaller.
the ones takenIt is
after
important to note
the optical that theseFor
interrogator. measurements
this purpose, were carried
a white light out just after
source the ones
(Thorlabs taken afterwas
SLS201L/M)
theused
optical
and interrogator.
an Optical For this purpose,
Spectrum Analyzer a white
(OSA, light
modelsource (Thorlabs
Agilent 86140B)SLS201L/M) was
with a resolution
used and an Optical Spectrum Analyzer (OSA, model Agilent
of 350 pm for a wavelength range from 1250 nm to 1600 nm. These measurements were 86140B) with a resolution
of 350 pmimmediately
taken for a wavelength range fromwith
after measuring 1250thenminterrogator,
to 1600 nm. changing
These measurements
the connectors, werewith-
taken
outimmediately
altering theafterrest measuring
of the setup. with
Thethespectra
interrogator, changingwere
measurements the connectors,
made five without
times. The
altering the rest of the
dip wavelength wassetup.
located The spectra ameasurements
applying smooth fit andwere made five atimes.
subsequently, The dip
peakfinder func-
wavelength ®
tion with was located
MatLab . It applying
is important a smooth
to notefitthat
andthe subsequently,
OSA has lower a peakfinder
resolutionfunction
than of the
with MatLab ® . It is important to note that the OSA has lower resolution than of the
optical interrogator. Figure 7 shows the DWS measured with OSA and the corrected val-
optical interrogator.
ues from Figureanalysis.
the recovery 7 shows As theitDWS
can be measured
seen, thewith totalOSA
DWS and is the corrected
2.3 nm with bothvaluesset of
Sensors 2021, 21, 2318 9 of 13
Sensors 2021, 21, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 14

from the recovery analysis. As it can be seen, the total DWS is 2.3 nm with both set of
values (experimental and corrected), being the same DWS as the value obtained with the
values (experimental and corrected), being the same DWS as the value obtained with
optical interrogator (data in Figure 6) and showing the same behavior with respect to the
the optical interrogator (data in Figure 6) and showing the same behavior with respect
total dose. The error bars represent the value of the standard deviation obtained with five
to the total dose. The error bars represent the value of the standard deviation obtained
measurements with the OSA (between 200 and 400 pm). It can be observed that the data
with five measurements with the OSA (between 200 and 400 pm). It can be observed
measurement after 60 krad shows the same discrepancy as in the case of the optical inter-
that the data measurement after 60 krad shows the same discrepancy as in the case of the
rogator.
optical interrogator.

Figure 7.
Figure 7. LPFG1
LPFG1DipDipWavelength
Wavelengthwith
withGamma
Gamma radiation Dose
radiation (in (in
Dose red); LPFG1
red); datadata
LPFG1 applying
applying
measurement time correction due to recovery of LPFG (in blue). These measurements werewere
measurement time correction due to recovery of LPFG (in blue). These measurements per-
performed
formed using the Optical Spectrum
using the Optical Spectrum Analyzer. Analyzer.

3.2.
3.2.Temperature
TemperatureSensitivity
Sensitivity
ItItisiswell
wellknown
knownthat thatirradiation
irradiation process cancan
process change the the
change thermo-optic
thermo-opticcoefficient of theof
coefficient
fiber, modifying
the fiber, consequently
modifying the temperature
consequently sensitivity
the temperature of the LPFG
sensitivity of the[14,15].
LPFG Temperature
[14,15]. Tem-
sensitivity was analyzed
perature sensitivity was after
analyzedirradiation for LPFG1.for
after irradiation The temperature
LPFG1. analysis was
The temperature also
analysis
carried
was also out on theout
carried Control
on theLPFG
Control with the same
LPFG characteristics
with the and manufacturing
same characteristics method
and manufacturing
as LPFG1.
method asIn this way,
LPFG1. theway,
In this results thecan be compared
results betweenbetween
can be compared the temperature sensitivity
the temperature sen-
before
sitivityand afterand
before irradiation for the extended
after irradiation range. range.
for the extended
The
Thetemperature
temperaturewas wasstudied
studiedin inaashort
shortrange
rangedue duetotothe
thefact
factthat
thatininspace
spacemissions
missions
the
the instruments are usually athermalized and good thermal control is needed foroptical
instruments are usually athermalized and good thermal control is needed for optical
payloads
payloads[7]. [7].
The ◦ C, which was taken
TheControl
ControlLPFG LPFGshowsshowsaatemperature
temperaturesensitivity
sensitivityofof101101pm/
pm/°C, which was taken
as
asaareference
referencefor forthe
thesensitivity
sensitivitytototemperature
temperaturebeforebeforeirradiation.
irradiation.After
Afterirradiation,
irradiation,for
for
the ◦ C (see
thesame
sametemperature
temperaturerange, range,LPFG1LPFG1shows showsaatemperature
temperaturesensitivity
sensitivityofof130130pm/
pm/°C (see
Figure
Figure8). 8).Comparing
Comparingthe theresults
resultsbefore
beforeandandafter
afterirradiation,
irradiation,LPFG1
LPFG1shows
showsaagreat
greatchange
change
of thermal sensitivity with a difference of 30 pm/ ◦ C after irradiation (30% increase). This
of thermal sensitivity with a difference of 30 pm/°C after irradiation (30% increase). This
increase
increase is is higher than the
higher than the value
valuereported
reportedininliterature
literature[8][8]showing
showing a higher
a higher change
change in
in the
the thermo-optic coefficient. It can be assumed that the manufacturing
thermo-optic coefficient. It can be assumed that the manufacturing process can have a process can have
agreat
greatinfluence
influenceininthe thethermal
thermal response
response of of irradiated
irradiated samples,
samples, as electric
as electric current,
current, arc arc
du-
duration, and number of repetitions [21]. The temperature sensitivity
ration, and number of repetitions [21]. The temperature sensitivity of LPFG1 was re-stud- of LPFG1 was
re-studied around 5000 h after the last irradiation step, assuming that the relaxation is
ied around 5000 h after the last irradiation step, assuming that the relaxation is almost
Sensors 2021, 21, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 14

complete. The temperature sensitivity of the LPFG1 obtained was 101 pm/°C, correspond-
Sensors 2021, 21, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 14
Sensors 2021, 21, 2318 10 of 13
ing to the sensitivity measured with the Control LPFG.

complete. The temperature sensitivity of the LPFG1 obtained was 101 pm/°C, correspond-
almost
ing complete.
to the The
sensitivity temperature
measured sensitivity
with the Control of the LPFG1 obtained was 101 pm/◦ C,
LPFG.
corresponding to the sensitivity measured with the Control LPFG.

Figure 8. LPFG1 temperature sensitivity data (blue): after irradiation and after recovery (5000 h); Control LPFG tempera-
ture sensitivity data (green); linear fits are presented in black.
Figure 8. LPFG1 temperature sensitivity data (blue): after irradiation and after recovery (5000 h); Control LPFG temperature
Figure 8. LPFG1 temperature sensitivity data (blue): after irradiation and after recovery (5000 h); Control LPFG tempera-
sensitivity data (green); linear fitsIn
arethe case ofinthe
presented rad-hard FBGs, the wavelength shift of the Bragg wavelength due
black.
ture sensitivity data (green); linear fits are presented in black.
to temperature changes was measured with a temperature calibrator between −10 and +60
In the case
°C. Figure of the rad-hard
9 shows FBGs, the wavelength shift of the preserved
Bragg wavelength due
In the case of thethe data obtained
rad-hard FBGs, thewith the Control
wavelength shift FBGs from radiation,
of the Bragg wavelength due
to
and temperature changes
the data obtained was measured
withmeasured
the FBGswith with a temperature
aftera temperature calibrator
the completecalibrator
gamma between between
test (200−10 −
krad).10 and
to temperature changes was andIn+60these
+60 ◦ C. Figure 9 shows the data obtained with the Control FBGs preserved from radiation,
figures,
°C. Figurethe9 peak
showswavelength of eachwith
the data obtained FBGthe at 20 °C was
Control taken
FBGs as a reference.
preserved As it can be
from radiation,
and the data obtained with the FBGs after the complete gamma test (200 krad). In these
appreciated,
and the data the FBGswith
obtained response
the stayed
FBGs afterinvariable
the after
complete irradiation
gamma test (12
(200 pm/°C)
krad). In as it was
these
figures, the peak wavelength of each FBG at 20 ◦ C was taken as a reference. As it can be
expected
figures, due
the to
peak their characteristics.
wavelength of each These
FBG at values
20 °C confirm
was taken the
as a fact that
reference.
appreciated, the FBGs response stayed invariable after irradiation (12 pm/◦ C) as it was
the
Asvariations
it can be ex-
perimented
appreciated,
expected due bytothe
the LPFGs
FBGs
their in terms
response of These
stayed
characteristics. wavelength
invariable and
after
values in temperature
irradiation
confirm the fact dependency
(12that
pm/°C) as it was
the variationscan be
expected
attributed due
to to their
gamma characteristics.
radiation These
effects. values confirm the fact
experimented by the LPFGs in terms of wavelength and in temperature dependency can that the variations ex-
perimented
be attributedbytothe LPFGs
gamma in termseffects.
radiation of wavelength and in temperature dependency can be
attributed to gamma radiation effects.

Figure 9. Wavelength shift of the Bragg wavelength when temperature changed from −10 ◦ C to +60 ◦ C: full squares
Figure 9. Wavelength shift of the Bragg wavelength when temperature changed from −10°C to +60 °C: full squares repre-
represents the data from Control FBGs; hollow squares represent the FBGs data after irradiation; left: FBG1 and Control
sents the9.data
Figure from ControlofFBGs;
Wavelength hollow squares represent the FBGschanged
data after irradiation; left: FBG1 and Control FBG1;
FBG1; right: FBG2 andshift
Controlthe Bragg
FBG2. wavelength
Linear fits are when temperature
represented in black lines. from −10°C to +60 °C: full squares repre-
right:
sentsFBG2 andfrom
the data Control FBG2.
Control Linear
FBGs; fitssquares
hollow are represented
represent in
theblack
FBGslines.
data after irradiation; left: FBG1 and Control FBG1;
right: FBG2 and Control FBG2. Linear fits are represented in black lines.
Sensors 2021, 21, 2318 11 of 13

4. Discussion and Conclusions

In the present work, we have studied how the exposure to low doses of gamma
radiation affects the behavior of LPFGs written by EAD technique in standard fiber optic,
SMF-28, doped with Ge. Most of the studies focused on this area are oriented for high dose
applications as nuclear and high energy facilities and on the feasibility to use the LPFGs
for radiation dosimetry.
The effects of gamma radiation on the LPFGs have been studied analyzing their DWS
and their thermal response. The results obtained show that these LPFGs have a high
sensitivity to radiation, since for a total dose of 200 krad, the DWS obtained is 2.3 nm and
a total radiation sensitivity of 11 pm/krad, not showing a linear behavior. In addition,
it is observed that there is a dependence on the change in the wavelength with the dose,
as reported in the literature [16]. These values show a higher radiation sensitivity than
the results reported in literature for different types of LPFGs [8] which makes them good
candidates as possible dosimetry sensors. The value obtained indicates that the LPFGs
fabrication method and the test campaign parameters can influence on their response. In
this study the average dose rate was 32.9 krad/h, the samples were exposed to radiation in
different and discontinuous steps, and the measurements were not performed in situ.
The measurements were made with an optical interrogator (Micron Optics, si255),
with a better resolution compared to a classic Optical Spectrum Analyzer. Nevertheless,
the measurements were also performed with an OSA (Agilent 86140B) to compare the
results. The results obtained with both instruments are very similar and the DWS for the
total radiation dose is the same in both (2.3 nm).
After irradiation, the relaxation of the LPFGs was studied to check if the LPFGs suffer
degradation, i.e., whether the radiation-induced changes are permanent or temporary. In
view of the results, the EAD LPFGs show a total recovery of the initial parameters after a
few months, around 4000 h, stored at room temperature. Therefore, the induced changes
are temporary and LPFGs do not undergo degradation.
Rad-hard FBGs were also irradiated to test their insensitivity to radiation, obtaining
the expected results and complying with the technical characteristics of the manufacturer.
The results show small variations; these values do not follow a typical behavior due to the
influence of radiation, but rather present a scattered pattern within the values obtained
in the standard deviation of repeatability measurements, being 1 pm. These results verify
that the FBGs response does not change after irradiation and result useful to discriminate
the radiation effects in the LPFGs from the rest of parameters that can influence the
LPFGs measurements. Therefore, the DWS observed in the LPFGs can be attributed to
radiation effects.
In relation to the temperature sensitivity, it is known that radiation can induce changes
in the thermo-optic coefficient and consequently, changes in the sensitivity to temperature
can occur [12]. Sensitivity to temperature was analyzed in the Control LPFG and LPFG1
to study the radiation-induced changes. The Control LPFG showed a sensitivity of 100
pm/◦ C, while after irradiation, LPFG1 showed a sensitivity to temperature that changed
significantly, being 130 pm/◦ C. It should be noted that the LPFG1 recovered their initial
temperature sensitivity (100 pm/◦ C) once they are totally recovered.
Furthermore, the thermal sensitivity of Control FBGs and the irradiated FBGs was
also studied. The verification of the invariance in their thermal response after irradiation
confirm that the radiation induced the changes observed with LPFGs.
The LPFGs tested were exposed to low doses of radiation because the study is oriented
to their future application in space payloads. The results shown in this study are far from
saturation due to the low-doses of gamma radiation applied. The response of the LPFGs
used as sensors is always influenced by the temperature and are highly sensitive to strain,
bending and curvature. In this sense, calibration in situ is essential to discriminate these
effects when measuring other physical or chemical parameters. This fact is not a drawback
in space applications where the optical payloads are usually athermalized to guarantee their
Sensors 2021, 21, 2318 12 of 13

good performances. Special attention should be taken into account for the packaging design
when choosing the materials depending on their Coefficient of Thermal Expansion (CTE).
Our experience with this work shows that extreme care should be taken in consider-
ation when handling the samples. In addition, improvements of packaging to place the
LPFGs should be designed to compensate the temperature effects and to avoid the greatest
experimental errors observed in this campaign. Moreover, in situ tests during irradiation
will give better knowledge of their behavior and allow a deep study of RIA and DWS for
low-doses. Our future works will focus on the study of the relaxation for different total
accumulated doses for full understanding the process involved in the recovery; this a key
aspect for payload calibration in space applications.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization and writing P.M.-S.; writing—review and editing A.F.-M.,
R.L.H.; supervision R.L.H., T.B.; samples fabrication and discussion L.C.C.C., D.V., P.A.J. All authors
have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: Patricia Mesonero would like to acknowledge the support of the National Institute for
Aerospace Technology through the Fellowship TS 02/18. Duarte Viveiros and Luís C. C. Coelho
would like to acknowledge the support of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Por-
tuguese Government through the FCT PhD grant SFRH/BD/110035/2015 and the research contract
CEECIND/00471/2017.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Data is contained within the article.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Pevec, S.; Donlagić, D. Multiparameter Fiber-Optic Sensors: A Review. Opt. Eng. 2019, 58, 072009. [CrossRef]
2. Grattan, K.T.V.; Sun, T. Fiber Optic Sensor Technology: An Overview. Sens. Actuators Phys. 2000, 82, 40–61. [CrossRef]
3. Mihailov, S.J. Fiber Bragg Grating Sensors for Harsh Environments. Sensors 2012, 12, 1898–1918. [CrossRef]
4. Mckenzie, I.; Karafolas, N. Fiber Optic Sensing in Space Structures: The Experience of the European Space Agency (Invited
Paper). Proc. SPIE 2005, 5855, 262–269.
5. Gusarov, A.; Leysen, W.; Wuilpart, M.; Mégret, P. Status and Future Developments of R&D on Fiber Optics Current Sensor for
ITER. Fusion Eng. Des. 2018, 136, 477–480. [CrossRef]
6. Kuhnhenn, J.; Weinand, U.; Morana, A.; Girard, S.; Marin, E.; Périsse, J.; Genot, J.S.; Grelin, J.; Hutter, L.; Mélin, G.; et al. Gamma
Radiation Tests of Radiation-Hardened Fiber Bragg Grating-Based Sensors for Radiation Environments. IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci.
2017, 64, 2307–2311. [CrossRef]
7. Heredero, R.L.; Frövel, M.; Laguna, H.; Belenguer, T. In-Orbit Demonstration of Fiber Optic Sensors Based on Bragg Gratings. In
Proceedings of the International Conference on Space Optics—ICSO 2018; International Society for Optics and Photonics: Chania,
Greece, 2019; Volume 11180, p. 111807D.
8. Esposito, F.; Srivastava, A.; Campopiano, S.; Iadicicco, A. Radiation Effects on Long Period Fiber Gratings: A Review. Sensors
2020, 20, 2729. [CrossRef]
9. Gusarov, A.; Hoeffgen, S.K. Radiation Effects on Fiber Gratings. IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 2013, 60, 2037–2053. [CrossRef]
10. Henschel, H.; Hoeffgen, S.K.; Krebber, K.; Kuhnhenn, J.; Weinand, U. Influence of Fiber Composition and Grating Fabrication
on the Radiation Sensitivity of Fiber Bragg Gratings. In Proceedings of the 2007 9th European Conference on Radiation and Its
Effects on Components and Systems, Deauville, France, 10–14 September 2007; pp. 1–8.
11. Esposito, F.; Ranjan, R.; Stăncălie, A.; Sporea, D.; Neguţ, D.; Becherescu, N.; Campopiano, S.; Iadicicco, A. Real-Time Analysis of
Arc-Induced Long Period Gratings under Gamma Irradiation. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 1–9. [CrossRef]
12. Esposito, F.; Stăncălie, A.; Neguţ, C.-D.; Campopiano, S.; Sporea, D.; Iadicicco, A. Comparative Investigation of Gamma Radiation
Effects on Long Period Gratings and Optical Power in Different Optical Fibers. J. Light. Technol. 2019, 37, 4560–4566. [CrossRef]
13. Stancălie, A.; Esposito, F.; Ranjan, R.; Bleotu, P.; Campopiano, S.; Iadicicco, A.; Sporea, D. Arc-Induced Long Period Gratings in
Standard and Speciality Optical Fibers under Mixed Neutron-Gamma Irradiation. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 15845. [CrossRef]
14. Rego, G.; Fernandez, A.F.; Gusarov, A.; Brichard, B.; Berghmans, F.; Santos, J.L.; Salgado, H.M. Effect of Ionizing Radiation on the
Properties of Arc-Induced Long-Period Fiber Gratings. Appl. Opt. 2005, 44, 6258–6263. [CrossRef]
15. Sporea, D.; Stancalie, A.; Negut¸, D.; Pilorget, G.; Delepine-Lesoille, S.; Lablonde, L. Online Tests of an Optical Fiber Long-Period
Grating Subjected to Gamma Irradiation. IEEE Photon. J. 2014, 6, 1–9. [CrossRef]
Sensors 2021, 21, 2318 13 of 13

16. Sporea, D.; Stăncalie, A.; Neguţ, D.; Pilorget, G.; Delepine-Lesoille, S.; Lablonde, L. Comparative Study of Long Period and Fiber
Bragg Gratings under Gamma Irradiation. Sens. Actuators Phys. 2015, 233, 295–301. [CrossRef]
17. Stephen, W. James Ralph, P. Tatam Optical Fibre Long-Period Grating Sensors: Characteristics and Application. Meas. Sci. Technol.
2003, 14, R49–R61.
18. Rego, G. A Review of Refractometric Sensors Based on Long Period Fibre Gratings. Sci. World J. 2013, 2013, 1–14. [CrossRef]
19. Bhatia, V.; Ashish, M. Vengsarkar Optical Fiber Long-Period Grating Sensors. Opt. Lett. 1996, 21, 692–694. [CrossRef]
20. Jorge, P.A.S.; Silva, S.O.; Gouveia, C.; Tafulo, P.; Coelho, L.; Caldas, P.; Viegas, D.; Rego, G.; Baptista, J.M.; Santos, J.L.; et al. Fiber
Optic-Based Refractive Index Sensing at INESC Porto. Sensors 2012, 12, 8371–8389. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
21. Rego, G. Arc-Induced Long Period Fiber Gratings. J. Sens. 2016, 2016, e3598634. [CrossRef]
22. Iadicicco, A.; Ranjan, R.; Campopiano, S. Fabrication and Characterization of Long-Period Gratings in Hollow Core Fibers by
Electric Arc Discharge. IEEE Sens. J. 2015, 15, 3014–3020. [CrossRef]
23. Coelho, J.M.P.; Silva, C.; Nespereira, M.; Abreu, M.; Rebordão, J. Writing of Long Period Fiber Gratings Using CO2 Laser Radiation.
In Advances in Optical Fiber Technology: Fundamental Optical Phenomena and Applications; Yasin, M.O.H., Arof, H., Harun, S.W., Eds.;
InTech: Rijeka, Croatia, 2015; ISBN 978-953-51-1742-1.
24. Viveiros, D.; de Almeida, J.M.M.M.; Coelho, L.; Vasconcelos, H.; Amorim, V.A.; Maia, J.M.; Jorge, P.A.S. Spectral Tuning of Long
Period Fiber Gratings Fabricated by Femtosecond Laser Micromachining through Thermal Annealing. Multidiscip. Digit. Publ.
Inst. Proc. 2019, 15, 4. [CrossRef]
25. Poveda-Wong, L.; Cruz, J.L.; Delgado-Pinar, M.; Roselló-Mechó, X.; Díez, A.; Andrés, M.V. Fabrication of Long Period Fiber
Gratings of Subnanometric Bandwidth. Opt. Lett. 2017, 42, 1265. [CrossRef]
26. Fairén, A.G.; Gómez-Elvira, J.; Briones, C.; Prieto-Ballesteros, O.; Rodríguez-Manfredi, J.A.; López Heredero, R.; Belenguer, T.;
Moral, A.G.; Moreno-Paz, M.; Parro, V. The Complex Molecules Detector (CMOLD): A Fluidic-Based Instrument Suite to Search
for (Bio)Chemical Complexity on Mars and Icy Moons. Astrobiology 2020, 20, 1076–1096. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
27. ESA-Star Publication. Available online: https://esastar-publication-ext.sso.esa.int/ESATenderActions (accessed on 27
February 2020).
28. ESA-star Publication. Available online: https://esastar-publication-ext.sso.esa.int/ESATenderActions/details/7466 (accessed on
30 October 2020).
29. Heredero, R.L.; Uribe-Patarroyo, N.; Belenguer, T.; Ramos, G.; Sánchez, A.; Reina, M.; Pillet, V.M.; Álvarez-Herrero, A. Liquid-
Crystal Variable Retarders for Aerospace Polarimetry Applications. Appl. Opt. 2007, 46, 689–698. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
30. Parejo, P.G.; Álvarez-Herrero, A. Liquid Crystals for Space Instrumentation: Optical Properties of Liquid Crystal Mixtures for
Polarimeters. Opt. Mater. Express 2019, 9, 2681–2698. [CrossRef]
31. Coelho, L.; Santos, J.L.; Viegas, D.; Almeida, J.M.M.M. de Fabrication and Characterization of Metal Oxide-Coated Long-Period
Fiber Gratings. J. Light. Technol. 2016, 34, 2533–2539. [CrossRef]

View publication stats