Applied Physics Express

LETTERS Related content

- Photonic crystal resonances for sensing
Improving the sensitivity of compound waveguide and imaging

grating biosensor via modulated wavevector - Cavity-mediated interactions between the

guided mode resonance and surface
phonon polaritons in a hybrid
photonic–phononic system
To cite this article: Hai Lu et al 2018 Appl. Phys. Express 11 082202
- Surface plasmon differential ellipsometry
of aqueous solutions for bio-chemical
sensing

View the article online for updates and enhancements.

This content was downloaded from IP address 140.113.155.173 on 25/09/2020 at 07:48

Applied Physics Express 11, 082202 (2018)
https://doi.org/10.7567/APEX.11.082202

Improving the sensitivity of compound waveguide grating biosensor

via modulated wavevector
Hai Lu1*, Meng Huang1, Xiubao Kang2, Wenxing Liu3, Chao Dong1, Jun Zhang1, Shiqiang Xia1, and Xianzhou Zhang1
1
Engineering Laboratory for Optoelectronic Technology and Advanced Manufacturing, Henan Normal University, Xinxiang 453007, China
2
School of Science, Henan Institute of Engineering, Zhengzhou 451191, China
3
Department of Physics, Nanchang University, Nanchang 330031, China
*E-mail: luhai123@gmail.com
Received May 20, 2018; accepted June 21, 2018; published online July 5, 2018

We report here on the improvement of the sensitivity of a compound waveguide grating (CWG) biosensor via a modulated wavevector. We first
address that the primary challenges to enhance the sensitivity of the CWG biosensor is the constant effective relative permittivity of the grating. We
then present guidelines on how to improve the sensitivity of the CWG biosensor. As a result, the sensitivity of the CWG biosensor in our example
doubles its original value without changing any of the structural parameters. In this work, we aim at paving the way for the development of efficient
CWG biosensors by offering new strategies to optimize the sensitivity through wavevector modulation.
© 2018 The Japan Society of Applied Physics

he ability to detect small changes in the refractive

T index of a biological analyte is very important to

fundamental studies in biological and chemical
sciences, as well as applications such as label-free photonic
detection.1–3) On the basis of this method, to achieve a highly
efficient label-free biosensor, various optical technologies
have been proposed. Typical examples include surface
plasmon resonance (SPR) and guided mode resonance
(GMR) biosensors.4–10)
As a kind of surface wave, the surface plasmon mode is
strongly localized near the interface. Because of the strong
overlap between the resonant mode and the biosolution and
the fact that SPRs are excited at working wavelengths where
metals offer strong dispersion, SPR biosensors can achieve
high sensitivity S values (the sensitivity is defined as the
resonance spectral shift over a perturbation in the refractive
index of the biosolution). The sensitivity of SPR biosensors
is generally on the order of several hundred nm=RIU (Δλ=
Δn).11,12) Accompanying the strong dispersion, the inevitable
loss of metal components leads to small quality factors for the
SPRs. The most widely adopted metric for the intrinsic spec-
trum resolving power of an optical biosensor is the figure of
merit [FOM = S (nm=RIU)=Γ (nm), where Γ is the full width
at half maximum (FWHM) of the resonance]. In the SPR
biosensor design, the FOM is generally less than 100 owing
to the small quality factor caused by metal losses.13)
On the other hand, in contrast to conventional SPR bio-
sensors, practical implementations of GMR-based biosensors
have been elusive for two main reasons. First, the decreased
FWHM of the GMR comes commonly at the price of in-
creased layer thickness. Second, as the resonantly enhanced
guided mode generally decays rapidly in the substrate, the
sensitivity of a GMR sensor is then limited by the small
overlap between the resonantly enhanced guided mode
and the biosolution. Concerning the FWHM of the GMR,
we have recently reported that an asymmetric resonance
response (Fano-like resonance) can be realized in a com-
pound waveguide grating (CWG) structure, whose FWHM
can be tailored in an independent manner.14) Soon afterwards,
Hu et al. have shown that a similar strategy can be used for
optical sensing.15)
In this Letter, we address the second issue that concerns
the improvement of sensitivity through wavevector modu-
082202-1
Fig. 1. Scheme of CWG biosensor. The grating region is covered by the
biosolution. nB, nG, and ns are the refractive indices of the biosolution,
grating, and substrate, respectively. nG = 3.48 (Si) and ns = 1.48 (SiO2); d is
the grating layer thickness, d = 0.16 µm; the grating constant is Λ = 0.862
µm; fa, fb, and fc are the filling factors. θ is the angle between the incident
light and the z-axis, and φ is the angle between the in-plane projection of the
incident light and the x-axis.
lation in CWG biosensors. We propose a practical imple-
mentation for rotating a longer-period CWG biosensor into
an oblique configuration with an optimized sensitivity as high
as 345 nm=RIU that is about two times higher in magnitude
than a normal case (140 nm=RIU). We anticipate that such an
improvement strategy could be generalized to other GMR-
based concepts and could allow for the development of
efficient CWG biosensors.
This Letter is divided into three parts. We first demonstrate
that it is not helpful to improve S by adjusting the fill factor,
even though the FOM can increase significantly. Next, we
address the S of a CWG biosensor by analyzing the relation-
ship between S and the wavevector, with the goal of finding a
guideline that improves the S in such a situation. Finally, we
apply this guideline to the oblique configuration for which we
also consider the longer-period CWG biosensor case.
For a typical CWG biosensor in Fig. 1, the spatially
modulated permittivity in the grating region can be expanded
into a Fourier series as ε(x) = ∑εn exp(i2nπx=Λ), where
the zero-order effective relative permittivity "0 ¼ ð1  fb 
fc Þn2G þ ð fb þ fc Þn2B , and the grating Fourier harmonics
"n ¼ ðn2G  n2B Þ=ðnÞ  fsin½nð1  fc Þ  sinðnfb Þg. In ac-
cordance with our discussion in Ref. 14, the grating Fourier
harmonics εn controls the amplitude of the evanescent
diffraction field and is responsible for the interaction of
© 2018 The Japan Society of Applied Physics
Appl. Phys. Express 11, 082202 (2018)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Fig. 2. Spectrum shifts when there are small variations in the refractive
index of the biosolution for CWG biosensors with different filling factor fb
values of (a) 0, (b) 0.1, and (c) 0.14. (d) The peak wavelength changes
against the refractive index of the biosolution. The slopes of the curves
show that refractive index sensitivities corresponding to (a)–(c) were all
140 nm=RIU.
evanescent diffraction fields.14) In principle, ∣εn∣ is highly
dependent on the filling factor fb, which means that the
coupling can be controlled by adjusting the filling factor fb.
Here, the total width of the two grating grooves in each period
is kept constant, that is, fb + fc = 0.3. Generally, a smaller ∣ε1∣
means a weaker coupling, which, in turn, yields a decreased
spectral width. With an appropriate design for waveguide
gratings, leaky guided modes can be excited solely through
the first evanescent diffracted order of the grating. In addition,
the spectral lineshapes and sideband levels of the GMR are
mainly determined by the equivalent homogeneous layers,
and the refractive index of the grating layer could be
represented using an effective medium theory approximation,
where the value of the effective medium was mainly deter-
mined by the zero-order effective relative permittivity ε0.16)
It is not difficult to find that ε0 is fixed at a certain value
(i.e., ε0 = 7.6662) for different filling factor fb values, indi-
cating that S almost remains constant when the filling factor fb
changes.
On the basis of the above analysis method, we illustrate the
spectrum of the CWG biosensor with various filling factor fb
values for the normal incidence TE-polarized light (electric
field parallel to the y-direction, θ = 0°, and φ = 0°), as shown
in Fig. 2. A scattering matrix method based on rigorous
coupled wave analysis (RCWA) is used here and in the
following calculations.17) In Fig. 2, one can clearly find that,
when the refractive index of the biosolution changes evenly
from 1.33 to 1.35, the peaks of the resonances experience
redshifts in all three cases. In particular, in the case of
Fig. 2(c), the FWHM is as small as 0.53 nm, which leads to a
FOM as large as 2622. All these features indicate that, for
CWG biosensors, the linewidth of the guided mode is
obviously narrower than that of the classical GMR structure
(e.g., when fb = 0, the CWG biosensors become the classical
GMR structure. In this case, the FWHM and corresponding
FOM are just 80 nm and 17.5, respectively). Benefitting
from the lossless configuration, such a FOM is 24 times
larger than the theoretical upper limits (FOM = 108) for a
standard gold SPP sensor and almost as large as 37 times the
082202-2
H. Lu et al.
Fig. 3. Distribution of electric field at the wavelength of the resonance
peak for filling factor fb values of (a) 0 and (b) 0.14. Different colors
represent different electric field densities. Black lines indicate the CWG
biosensor structure.
recording high FOM of the biosensors based on plasmonic
nanohole arrays.11,12)
However, the performance of a biosensor depends on not
only the FOM of the structure, but also the sensitivity S. These
asymmetric resonance responses belong to a large family of
characteristically asymmetric Fano resonances, which occur
from interference between a discrete GMR in waveguide
grating structures and a continuum Fabry–Perot etalon reso-
nance of equivalent homogeneous structures.18,19) Because the
zero-order effective relative permittivity of the grating is kept
constant for different filling factor fb values, the equivalent
homogeneous slab waveguides corresponding to the CWG
structures remain almost unchanged. This leads to the
dispersion relations of the leaky guided modes supported by
the structures, which are nearly identical. Therefore, as can be
seen in Fig. 2(d), the same S is nearly preserved for different
structures.
In addition, since the biosolution always covers the surface
grating region of the CWG biosensor, S should also be
affected by the sum of the electromagnetic fields in the
solution. In Fig. 3, we show the electric field distribution.
One can clearly find that the electric field is strongly localized
in the groove whether in the CWG biosensor or in the normal
GMR biosensor. As mentioned earlier, the zeroth-order field
remains unchanged in the CWG biosensors with different fb
values and does not contribute to intensity enhancement,
owing to the fact that the zeroth-order effective relative
permittivity of the grating is kept constant for different fb
values. On the other hand, the high-order evanescent field,
which is responsible for intensity enhancement in the
structure, is bound in the groove. Although the electric field
intensity localized in the CWG biosensor is higher than that
localized in the normal GMR structure owing to the larger
filling factor fb, S depends on not only the electric field within
the groove but also the total electric field in the biosolution.
Therefore, the change in electric field in the groove negli-
gibly affects S. In other words, the S values of the CWG
biosensors with different fb values may be similar.
© 2018 The Japan Society of Applied Physics
Appl. Phys. Express 11, 082202 (2018) H. Lu et al.

As known, the S of a biosensor represents its ability to (a)

detect small changes in the refractive index of a biological
analyte, while the wavevector is closely related to the
refractive index of the equivalent homogeneous grating layer
in a CWG biosensor. For the oblique configuration, the
normal wavevector of the Fano-like resonance for the CWG
biosensor can be written as
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
#ffi
u "  2
u m
kz ¼ tk20 n2B  sin  cos  þ  ðsin  sin Þ2 ; ð1Þ (b)


where k0 = 2π=λ and m ¼ 0; 1; 2; . . . ; and then, consid-

ering the small changes in the wavevector with the spectrum
or the refractive index of the biosolution, we can obtain
(c)
m
sin  cos  þ
@kz  m
¼ k0 sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 2 ffi ;
@ m 
n2B  sin  cos  þ  ðsin  sin Þ2

ð2Þ
@kz nB
¼ k0 sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
  ffi : ð3Þ Fig. 4. Variation in S calculated using Eq. (4) for the CWG biosensor
@nB m 2 versus (a) Λ, (b) θ, and (c) φ.
2 2
nB  sin  cos  þ  ðsin  sin Þ

(a)
From Eqs. (2) and (3), the derivative related to S can be
simplified as
@  nB
S¼ ¼ : ð4Þ
@nB m m (b)
sin  cos  þ

To assess this interpretation, we computed S as a function of
(d)
the parameters in Eq. (4), i.e., Λ, θ, and φ. Figure 4(a) shows
(c)
the evolution of the S of the CWG biosensor as a function of
the related grating constant (Λ, in unit of nm). In this figure, a
linear dependence between S and Λ is observed. This means
that a higher S can be obtained by designing CWG biosensors
with larger grating constants. A similar phenomenon has been
indicated in Ref. 15. However, the grating constant Λ can be
Fig. 5. Spectrum shifts when there are small variations in the refractive
varied only in a limited range when designing GBR sensors. index of the biosolution for CWG biosensors with different schemes of
The basic limitation is imposed by the fact that an appropriate (a) Λ = 980 nm, θ = 0°, (b) Λ = 862 nm, θ = 70°, and (c) Λ = 980 nm,
Λ is necessary for the coupling between the zeroth-order and θ = 70°. (d) The peak wavelength changes against the refractive index of the
high-order diffraction modes. However, if we choose an biosolution. The slopes of the curves show that the refractive index
sensitivities corresponding to (a)–(c) were 160, 300, and 345 nm=RIU,
oblique configuration (i.e., θ ≠ 0° or φ ≠ 0°), S can also be
respectively.
increased efficiently as shown in Figs. 4(b) and 4(c), even if
the grating constant remains unchanged. It should be noted
that different illumination configurations show different trends simultaneously increase Λ and θ. From this configuration, we
in S. For example, in the same case (m = −1), S increases with find that the optimized S is close to 345 nm=RIU in com-
a positive θ but decreases with φ always. parison with the S of the normal case shown in Fig. 2(c),
In accordance with the guidelines analyzed above, we now evaluated to be 140 nm=RIU. As a result, the combined
move forward with the optimization of the S of the former optimization of these parameters allows a twofold enhance-
example mentioned in Fig. 2(c) through wavevector modu- ment in the magnitude of S. It should be noted that S is
lation. We start with a direct transfer of the enlarged Λ to the dependent on the grating period, incident angle, and the zero-
normal incidence case as depicted in Fig. 5(a). Compared order effective index of the grating layer. If different kinds of
with S = 140 nm=RIU corresponding to Fig. 2(c), the S of this materials are used for device fabrication, the zero-order
longer-period case increases slightly (S =160 nm=RIU) as effective index of the grating layer would be slightly modified.
shown in Fig. 5(d). If we keep the grating constant unchanged However, the zero-order effective index of the grating layer
(Λ = 862 nm), by increasing the angle, S can be effectively can also be tuned by different filling factors, which means that
improved (S = 300 nm=RIU) as shown in Figs. 5(b) and 5(d). a similar sensitivity can be obtained by adjusting the structural
Here, the −1-order diffraction is chosen to excite the Fano-like parameters of the compound waveguide grating. Moreover, it
resonance in the CWG biosensors. Here again, to obtain a is noteworthy that the simulated sensitivities are lower than
higher improvement of S, we keep φ equal to zero and the theoretically predicted ones, in all of the three cases. The
082202-3 © 2018 The Japan Society of Applied Physics
Appl. Phys. Express 11, 082202 (2018)
discrepancy arises from the fact that our theoretical analysis
does not take the real refractive index of the grating layer into
consideration. [In a calculation using Eq. (4), nB was set
to 1.33.] However, the dependences of the simulated S on
these parameters show that the guidelines based on Eq. (4)
still enable sensitivity improvement. In addition, many
kinds of optical biosensors, such as photonic crystals and
optical fibers, have been developed.20–23) However, as seen in
Fig. 5(d), such a sensitivity (S = 345 nm=RIU) of the CWG
biosensor is four times higher than the theoretical upper limits
(S = 88 nm=RIU) of recent photonic crystal biosensors.20)
In particular, compared with a similar low concentration solu-
tion case in near-infrared wavelength domains (∼1.5 µm), the
sensitivity (S = 345 nm=RIU) of the CWG biosensor is eight
times higher than that (S = 46.5 nm=RIU) of a microfiber
biosensor.23)
In summary, from the results of RCWA numerical
investigations, we determined two primary obstacles to the
optical sensing applications of a CWG, i.e., the constant zero-
order effective relative permittivity of the grating and the
high-order evanescent field trapped in the groove. Then, we
showed that the S of CWG biosensors through wavevector
modulation can be strongly enhanced. We addressed this
issue in two steps: first, by considering the enlarged Λ of a
CWG; and second, by rotating the angle of the incident
light or the grating. A numerical S up to 345 nm=RIU was
obtained; this value is two times higher in magnitude than the
normal case. The results reported here may allow for practical
implementations of optical biosensors showing high FOM
and S. They also provide some general rules for improving
the S of a Fano-resonance-based sensor and, as such, could
enable the future development of CWG devices with
unexpected electromagnetic properties.
Acknowledgments The research was supported by the National Natural
Science Foundation of China (NSFC) (11404102, 11304078, and 11604136), the
082202-4
H. Lu et al.
Key Project of Science and Technology of Henan Province (152102210079), and
the Natural Science Foundation of Henan Province of China (19B140003).
1) Y. H. Zheng, C. C. Zhang, and Q. M. Wang, Sens. Actuators B 245, 622
(2017).
2) J. Martínez, A. Ródenas, M. Aguiló, T. Fernandez, J. Solis, and F. Díaz,
Opt. Lett. 41, 2493 (2016).
3) M. S. Diware, H. M. Cho, W. Chegal, Y. J. Cho, D. S. Kim, S. W. O, K. S.
Kim, and S. H. Paek, Biosens. Bioelectron. 87, 242 (2017).
4) J. Homola, Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 377, 528 (2003).
5) F. Bahrami, J. S. Aitchison, and M. Mojahedi, Opt. Lett. 39, 3946 (2014).
6) T. J. Wang and W. S. Lin, Appl. Phys. Lett. 89, 173903 (2006).
7) T. J. Wang and C. W. Hsieh, Appl. Phys. Lett. 91, 113903 (2007).
8) S. Foland, K. H. Choi, and J. B. Lee, Opt. Lett. 35, 3871 (2010).
9) P. G. Hermannsson, K. T. Strensen, C. Vannahme, C. L. Smith, J. J. Klein,
M.-M. Russew, G. Grützner, and A. Kristensen, Opt. Express 23, 16529
(2015).
10) P. G. Hermannsson, C. Vannahme, C. L. C. Smith, and A. Kristensen, Appl.
Phys. Lett. 105, 071103 (2014).
11) A. A. Yanik, A. E. Cetin, M. Huang, A. Artar, S. H. Mousavi, A.
Khanikaev, J. H. Connor, G. Shvets, and H. Altug, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.
U.S.A. 108, 11784 (2011).
12) W. Li, X. Jiang, J. Xue, Z. Zhou, and J. Zhou, Biosens. Bioelectron. 68, 468
(2015).
13) M. Piliarik and J. Homola, Opt. Express 17, 16505 (2009).
14) W. X. Liu, Y. H. Li, H. T. Jiang, Z. Q. Lai, and H. Chen, Opt. Lett. 38, 163
(2013).
15) J. Hu, X. Liu, J. Zhao, and J. Zou, Chin. Opt. Lett. 15, 030502 (2017).
16) Y. F. Ku, H. Y. Li, W. H. Hsieh, L. K. Chau, and G. E. Chang, Opt. Express
23, 14850 (2015).
17) M. G. Moharam and T. K. Gaylord, J. Opt. Soc. Am. 71, 811 (1981).
18) S. H. Fan and J. D. Joannopoulos, Phys. Rev. B 65, 235112 (2002).
19) G. D’Aguanno, D. de Ceglia, N. Mattiucci, and M. J. Bloemer, Opt. Lett.
36, 1984 (2011).
20) X. B. Kang, L. J. Liu, H. Lu, H. D. Li, and Z. G. Wang, J. Opt. Soc. Am. A
33, 997 (2016).
21) X. B. Kang, H. Lu, and Z. G. Wang, Opt. Express 26, 12769 (2018).
22) J. L. Chen, J. L. Gan, Z. S. Zhang, T. Yang, H. Q. Deng, and Z. M. Yang,
Appl. Phys. Express 7, 012501 (2014).
23) H. Q. Yu, L. B. Xiong, Z. H. Chen, Q. G. Li, X. N. Yi, Y. Ding, F. Wang,
H. Lv, and Y. M. Ding, Appl. Phys. Express 7, 022501 (2014).
© 2018 The Japan Society of Applied Physics