Water Vapor Absorption of Visible and Near
Infrared Radiation
Ralph G. Eldridge
Water vapor error function absorption coefficientsfor visible and near ir radiation have been recalculated
from experimental transmission data. The error function absorption coefficients and the resulting
transmissions as a function of precipitable water vapor are tabulated for wavelengths from 0.2 , to 1.3 ,u.
Comparisons are made between computed and measured spectral transmittances.
Introduction
Most studies of thermal transfer through realistic
atmospheres consider water vapor absorption of visible
radiation to be negligible. In general, the attenuation
caused by scattering dominates that which is due to
absorption. However, a transmittance of 0.861
through 1 cm of precipitable water vapor is not truly
negligible. An atmospheric path of 1 km at 20'C with
a relative humidity of 58% would have an absolute
humidity of 10 g/m 3 , or 1 cm of precipitable water
vapor. According to the tables of Larmorel, which
were reproduced in the first edition of the Handbook of
Geophysics2 , these atmospheric parameters result in an
absorption coefficient of 0.139/km at a wavelength of
0.5 A.
The water vapor absorption table used above ex-
tends over wavelengths from 0.2 g to 7.0 g. Passman
and Larmore 3 corrected the transmittances in the spec-
tral region from 1.4-yu to 5.9-A wavelength to conform
with the experimental measurements of Howard et al.4
It does not seem that the transmittances at wave-
lengths less than 1.3 /u have been subjected to critical
comparison, yet this simple illustration indicates a
greater atmospheric opacity than has been observed.
A brief literature search indicated that there has been
no qualitative investigation of the absolute absorption
of visible radiation by water vapor since Fowle.Y Even
today, his experimental data is quite unique. There-
fore, the data of Fowle are used as the basic data for re-
determining the water vapor error function absorption
coefficients for visible radiation.
The author is with The Mitre Corporation, Bedford, Massa-
chusetts.
Received 5 May 1966.
The research reported was sponsored by the Electronic Sys-
tems Division, Air Force Systems Command under a contract.
Best Estimate Spectral Transmission
In the summary of his experimental data, Fowle5 in-
cluded spectral transmissions for "dry (dust free) air"
through 1 cm of precipitable water vapor. More
recently, Taylor and Yates6 published spectral trans-
missions through hazy atmospheres. The most trans-
parent path, that of 0.31 km (1000 ft), contained
0.11 cm of precipitable water vapor. This transmit-
tance cannot be compared directly with that of Fowle
because of the difference in the water vapor content of
the optical path. However, the data of Taylor and
Yates do indicate some wavelength discrepancies re-
garding the location of absorption bands. It may be
presumed that in four decades more sophisticated tech-
niques in wavelength calibration have resulted in more
precise location of the absorption bands. Therefore,
a spectral transmission curve for 1 cm of precipitable
water vapor was drawn to conform with Fowle's data
in magnitude of absorptivity, and tempered with the
data of Taylor and Yates for wavelength location of the
absorption bands. The resulting spectral transmit-
tance, with a resolution of 0.05 ,u for wavelengths less
than 1.0 A,and 0.1 A for wavelengths greater than 1.0 ,
is shown with the experimental transmissions of Fowle,
and Taylor and Yates in Fig. 1. The difference in the
spectral transmission computed with Larmore's error
function absorption coefficients and that inferred from
Fowle's data is not insignificant.
Though Fowle mentions scattering by air molecules
in connection with his water vapor transmissions,
Middleton 7 indicates that Fowle's data prove the al-
most universally accepted X-4 law. Therefore, the
attenuation due to Rayleigh (molecular) scattering
must be removed if only the spectral absorption of water
vapor is desired.
The spectral transmission resulting from Rayleigh
scattering and ozone absorption through a 1-km path
is shown in Fig. 2 with the inferred spectral transmission
April 1967/ Vol. 6, No. 4 / APPLIED OPTICS 709
 . . . . . . . .
spectral transmissions for comparison, it is necessary to
1.0 specify the appropriate aerosol concentration and dis-
i/ |' i~t"'OX
0\ tribution and the liquid water content in the optical
0.8 F path.
W
w
The absorption of thermal radiation by water vapor
is computed with Eq. (1) and the error function ab-
0.6 sorption coefficients of Table I. The precipitable
0 water vapor per kilometer is determined from the tem-
-J
peratures and relative humidities reported by Taylor
0.4 F
Uf) and Yates.6
Uf)
5Z
The attenuation of thermal radiation due to aerosol
4r 0.2 scattering is computed with Mie scattering principles.
!, The scattering cross sections used are those of Hough-
0.0
/i ton and Chalker9 for an index of refraction of 1.33, and
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1. 4 those of Johnson and Terrell' 0 for appropriate complex
WAVELENGTH (MICRONS' indices of refraction. The aerosol distributions used
Fig. 1. Experimental and calculated spectral transmissions with the scattering cross sections
1 are either the con-
through 1 cm of precipitable water vapor. - Fowle-Taylor tinental or maritime haze type.' The visibility is used
and Yates. - - - - Larmore. - - 0 - - inferred. to determine the concentration of aerosols in each of
the model haze distributions. Because these two dis-
tributions are the extremes that may be encountered
from Fig. 1. The tabulations of Elterman 8 were used
to evaluate the ground level spectral attenuation due
to Rayleigh scattering and ozone absorption. When
these attenuations are removed from the inferred spec- 1.0
tral transmission, only the best estimate spectral K 1._
transmission due to water vapor remains. The best
estimate spectral transmission is used to recalculate the a:
0.9 F
w
error function absorption coefficients.
w
0.8 .
Error Function Absorption Coefficients for -J
Water Vapor
0z 0.7 F
Following the procedure employed by Larmorel, new U)
U)
error function absorption coefficients were determined
z
U)
from the relationship 4
0.6 F
I-

--
T = 1 - erf[(13/2)(7W)'/], (1)
where T is the transmittance through a 1-km path, w is 0.5
0.2 04 0.6 0.8 1.0 i.2 1.4
the water vapor content, and f is the error function ab- WAVELENGTH (MICRONS)
sorption coefficient. The water vapor content is ex-
pressed in terms of the depth of precipitable water vapor Fig. 2. Transmissions resulting from Rayleigh scattering, ozone
in centimeters in the optical path. and water vapor absorption, and the best estimate transmission
through 1 cm of precipitable water vapor. inferred (Fig. 1).
The resulting error function absorption coefficients ozoneabsorption. - - - Rayleighscattering. -
are tabulated in Table I. These coefficients are used to - - best
estimate.
compute spectral transmissions (see Table II) as a func-
tion of the precipitable water vapor in an optical path
of 1 km.
Table I. Water Vapor Error Function Absorption Coefficient
Computed Spectral Transmissions as a Function of Wavelength (Microns)
Spectral attenuation through realistic atmospheres re- X (,u) ,(cm '/,) X( 0(cm-l
sults from scattering by aerosols and absorption by 0.20 0.000 0.70 0.024
atmospheric gases. In the spectral region from 0. 5 -A 0.25 0.000 0.75 0.050
to 1. 3-bt wavelength, the major gaseous absorber (at 0.30 0.000 0.80 0.056
sea level) is water vapor; there is no significant carbon 0.35 0.003 0.85 0.018
dioxide or ozone absorption. Therefore, the propi- 0.40 0.009 0.90 0.016
tiousness of the revised water vapor error function ab- 0.45 0.016 0.95 0.19
sorption coefficients may be indicated by employing 0.50 0.022 1.0 0.028
them in computations of spectral transmissions and 0.55 0.022 1.1 0.13
comparing the results with the experimental trans- 0.60 0.020 1.2 0.14
missions of Taylor and Yates.6 0.65 0.020 1.3 0.19
In order to compute

710 APPLIED OPTICS / Vol. 6, No. 4 / April 1967

Table II. Atmospheric Transmission Through Water Vapor (at Sea Level) as a Function of Precipitable Water (in Centimeters)

Precipitable Wavelength ()
water vapor
(cm) 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65

0.01 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.999 0.998 0.998 0.998 0.998 0.998
0.02 + + 1.000 0.999 0.998 0.997 0.997 0.997 0.997
0.05 I l 0.999 0.998 0.996 0.995 0.995 0.996 0.996

0.1 0.999 0.997 0.995 0.993 0.993 0.994 0.994

0.2 0.999 0.996 0.993 0.990 0.990 0.991 0.991
0.5 0.998 0.994 0.989 0.984 0.984 0.986 0.986

1.0 0.997 0.991 0.984 0.978 0.978 0.980 0.980

2.0 0.996 0.987 0.977 0.969 0.969 0.972 0.972
5.0 0.993 0.980 0.964 0.951 0.951 0.955 0.955

10.0 0.991 0.972 0.949 0.930 0.930 0.937 0.937

20.0 0.987 0.960 0.928 0.901 0.901 0.911 0.911
50.0 +, 0.979 0.937 0.887 0.846 0.846 0.860 0.860

100.0 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.971 0.911 0.841 0.783 0.783 0.803 0.803

Precipitable Wavelength (,)

water vapor
(cm) 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3

0.01 0.998 0.995 0.994 0.998 0.998 0.981 0.997 0.987 0.986 0.981
0.02 0.997 0.993 0.992 0.997 0.998 0.974 0.996 0.982 0.981 0.973
0.05 0.995 0.989 0.987 0.996 0.996 0.958 0.994 0.972 0.970 0.957

0.1 0.992 0.984 0.982 0.994 0.995 0.941 0.991 0.960 0.957 0.939
0.2 0.989 0.978 0.975 0.992 0.993 0.917 0.987 0.943 0.939 0.914
0.5 0.983 0.964 0.960 0.987 0.989 0.869 0.980 0.911 0.904 0.864

1.0 0.976 0.950 0.944 0.982 0.984 0.816 0.972 0.874 0.865 0.810
2.0 0.966 0.929 0.920 0.974 0.977 0.742 0.960 0.823 0.811 0.733
5.0 0.946 0.888 0.874 0.960 0.964 0.603 0.937 0.724 0.705 0.589

10.0 0.924 0.843 0.824 0.943 0.949 0.461 0.911 0.617 0.592 0.445
20.0 0.892 0.779 0.753 0.919 0.928 0.298 0.875 0.478 0.449 0.281
50.0 0.832 0.656 0.618 0.873 0.887 0.100 0.805 0.263 0.231 0.088

100.0 0.764 0.530 0.479 0.822 0.841 0.020 0.727 0.114 0.090 0.016

2
in nature, the resulting computed spectral transmissions longer than 0.4 A. Curcio et al.1 indicate that the
should encompass the measured spectral transmissions. spectral region below 0.54 A is free of observable ab-
The meteorological/optical parameters observed by sorption structure down to 0.35 u, except for a few weak
Taylor and Yates6 during their transmission measure- absorption bands. Their statement may be considered
ments are presented in metric units in Table III. The as a justification for the apparent absorption between
three continental and the three maritime model aerosol 0.4 A and 0.54 A, but a more reasonable assumption
distributions are shown in Fig. 3. Because the resolu- might be that the apparent absorption in this spectral
tion of the computed spectral transmissions is con- region is somewhat overestimated. Without confirm-
siderably less than that of the measured spectral trans- ing or negating evidence,the best estimate transmission
missions, the latter must be degraded to approximately still appears reasonable at this time.
the resolution of the computations. The solid, heavy
curves of Fig. 4 represent the degraded spectral trans-
mission depicted by the solid, light curves. These6 Table IlIl. Meteorological/Optical Parameters
latter curves have been copied from Taylor and Yates. Pre-
The data points with the dashed curves represent com- cipi-
Trans-
puted transmissions for continental or maritime hazes mission Temper- Humid- table
as indicated, and these can be compared with the ex- designa- Path ature ity Visibility water
perimental transmissions. tion (km) (0 C) (%) (km) (cm)

Discussion of Results A 0.3 2.8 62 35.4 3.6

B 5.8 1.4 47 25.7 5.5
Water vapor absorption by visible radiation ap- C 16.3 4.7 48 38.6 3.2
parently becomes significant (Fig. 2) at wavelengths

April 1967/ Vol. 6, No. 4 / APPLIED OPTICS 711

 and that the calculated window transmission is about
97%.
In general, the computed spectral transmissions
through continental and maritime hazes for Trans-
missions B and C tend to enclose the appropriate,
= 0 3
measured spectral transmissions. The lack of agree-
ment between the computed and measured transmis-
0 2
sions beyond l.1-bt wavelength may possibly be a con-
o ~~~~~~C1 sequence of a higher concentration of aerosols larger
A CONTINENT than 1-u radius existing in nature than predicted by the
HAZE
W I B) model aerosol distribution. This supposition is sup-
ported further if the recently published water vapor
transmissions of Wyatt et al." are used. Their 1.1-,4
A}MAR
to 1.3-a wavelength region is generally more opaque
0 than indicated by the recalculated water vapor error
function absorption coefficients. The use of the trans-
I missions of Wyatt et al. would increase the discrepancy
z
0
between the measured and computed spectral trans-
missions.
In conclusion, the computed spectral transmissions
are considered to be reasonably good approximations of
the measured spectral transmissions. To obtain more
ro-4 than a general agreement between the computed and
measured spectral transmissions would be to demand a
0.1 0.2 0.5 I 2 5 10 20 50 complete description of the pertinent atmospheric
AEROSOLRADIUS (MICRONS) parameters and a complete understanding of the
Fig. 3. Continental and maritime haze model aerosol distribu- parametric relationship between scattering and ab-
tions. sorption phenomena in real atmospheres. Therefore,
the recalculated water vapor error function absorption
coefficients are considered adequate for quantitative
The comparison of computed spectral transmissions calculations of the absorption of visible and near ir
with experimental transmissions is illustrated in Fig. 4. radiation by atmospheric water vapor.
The primary purpose of Fig. 4, however, is to illustrate
the capabilities of the recalculated error function ab-
sorption coefficients in spectral transmission calcula-
tions.
The magnitude of the spectral transmission is dic-
tated by the optical density (the product of the attenua- 80- A
tion coefficient and the optical path) of the atmospheric
path. The concentration of aerosols and water vapor
content per unit path length is essentially the same;
therefore, the magnitude is determined by the trans- zW 600
mission path length. The general slope of the spec-
tral transmissions, inferred from transmissions in the
w 40
atmospheric windows, is controlled by the type of
aerosol distribution. In the examples illustrated in z
Fig. 4, the slope of the continental haze tends to be 20 0
positive with increasing wavelength, whereas the slope U)

for maritime haze tends to be negative. 40 Bt its--0

Consideration of the above properties of spectral
transmissions allows an assessment of the over-all shape 40
of the three spectral transmissions in terms of the loca-
tion and magnitude of the water vapor bands. The
discrepancies between the computed and measured 20- C

transmissions characterized by Transmission A are a

consequence of Taylor and Yates6 using this measured 0
transmission as nonattenuating for determining the 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
absolute transmittance through the longer paths. WAVELENGTH (MICRONS)

Therefore, the experimental window transmissions are Fig. 4. Comparison of computed and measured spectral trans-
100%. It is interesting to note that Taylor and Yates missions. measured transmission. - degraded resolu-
indicate an uncertainty of measurements of about 3% tion. - - - - continental haze. - - X - - maritime haze.

712 APPLIED OPTICS / Vol. 6, No. 4 / April 1967

References
1. L. Larmore, Proc. IRIS 1, 14 (1956).
2. J. N. Howard, Handbook of Geophysics (AFCRL, USAF,
Bedford, Mass., 1957), p. 15-1.
3. S. Passman and L. Larmore, Proc. IRIS 1, 15 (1956).
4. J. N. Howard, D. E. Burch, and D. Williams, Scientific Re-
port No. 1, Contract AF19(604)-516, Ohio State University
Res. Found. (1954).
5. F. E. Fowle, Astrophys. J. 42, 394 (1915).
6. J. H. Taylor and H. W. Yates, J. Opt. Soc. Am. 47, 223
(1957).
1967
April
4 OSA Local Sect. Mtg., Rochester P. W. Baumeister,
U. of Rochester, Rochester, N.Y. 14627
5-7 Internatl. Nonlinear Magnetics Conf., Washington,
D.C. IEEE, 345 E. 47th St., New York, N.Y., 10017
10-13 AAS Mtg., Huntsville S. S. Hu, Northrop Space
Lab., Box 1484, Huntsville, Ala.
10-15 4th Festival of Technical Films, Budapest Hungar-
ian Soc. for Optics, Acoustics and Film Techniques,
Szabadsdgt'r 17, Budapest V, Hungary
12-14 Optical Society of America Spring Mtg., Columbus,
Ohio M. E. Warga, OSA, 1155 16th St. N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20036
16-21 101st Semiann. Conf. SMPTE, New York Michael
Denson, 9 E. 41st St., New York, N.Y. 10017
16-21 EUCHEM Mtg. on Nature of the Chemical Bond,
Elmau, Germany
19-21 19th Ann. Southwestern IEEE Conf., Dallas A. A.
Dougal, U. of Texas, Eng.-Sci. Bldg. 112, Austin,
Tex. 78712
19-22 47th Ann. Mtg. Am. Geophysical Union, Washington,
D.C. W. E. Smith, AGU, 1145 19th St. N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20036
24-27 APS Mtg., Washington, D.C. Ex. Sec. APS, Colum-
bia U., New York, N.Y. 10027
May
3-4 4th Natl. Ann. Colloq. on Information Retrieval,
Philadelphia L. Berul, Auerbach Corp., 121 N.
Broad St., Philadelphia, Pa. 19107
5-6 Symp. Interaction of Light with Matter NYS-APS
Spring Mtg., Webster E. M. Pell, Xerox Corp.,
890 Phillips Rd, Webster,N.Y. 14850
8-11 9-MTT Internatl. Microwave Symp. Boston T.
Saad, Sage Labs., Huron Dr., Natick, Mass.
8-12 Color Measurement Seminar, Clemson School of
Industrial Management and Textile Science, Clem-
son U., Clemson, S.C. 29631
8-12 5th Ann. Inst. on Raman Spectroscopy, College Park
E. Lippincott, U. of Md., CollegePark, Md.
9-11 9th Ann. IEEE Symp. on Electron, Ion, and Laser
Beam Technology, Berkeley C. Susskind, EE, U.
of Calif., Berkeley, California 94720
14-19 SPSE Ann. Conf. on Photographic Science and En-
gineering, Sherman House, Chicago SPSE, Main
P.O. Box 1609, Washington, D.C.
15-19 18th Ann. Mid-America Symp. on Spectroscopy,
Chicago W. Baer, Nalco Chemical Co., 6216 W. 66
PI., Chicago,Ill.
16 Ann. Dinner Mtg. OSA Local Sect., Rochester P.W.
Baumeister, U. of Rochester, Rochester, N.Y. 14627
7. W. E. K. Middleton, Vision Through the Atmosphere (Uni-
versity of Toronto Press, Toronto, 1952).
8. L. Elterman, Environmental Research Paper No. 46 (1964).
9. H. G. Houghton and W. R. Chalker, J. Opt. Soc. Am. 39,
955 (1949).
10. J. C. Johnson and J. R. Terrell, J. Opt. Soc. Am. 45, 451
(1955).
11. C. E. Junge, Handbook of Geophysics (ARCRL, USAF, Bed-
ford, Mass., 8-1, 1957).
12. J. A. Curcio, L. F. Drummeter, and G. L. Knestrick, Appl.
Opt. 3, 1401 (1964).
13. P. J. Wyatt, V. R. Stull, and G. N. Plass, Appl. Opt. 3, 229
(1964).
18-21 74th German Roentgen Congress, Berlin H. Lossen,
Fischtorplatz 20, III, 650 Mainz., Germany
19-21 Royal Astronomical Soc. of Canada, Montreal M.
Phillipe Mailloux, 5435 rue Monsabre, Montreal 5,
P.Q.
21-26 Internat. Conf. Nondestructive Testing, Montreal
IV. E. Haverstock,568 Booth St., Ottawa, Canada
26-27 10th Ann. Mtg. Austrian Ophthalmological Soc.,
Vienna Sec., Vienna Academy of Medicine,
Stadiongasse 6-8, A-1010 Wien, Austria
29-June 2 Fundamentals of ir Technology Course, Ann Arbor
Engrg. Summer Courses, U. of Mich., W. Engrg.
Bldg., Ann Arbor, Mich. 48104
30-June 6 SPSE Ann. Conf., LaSalle Hotel, Chicago SPSE,
Main P.O. Box 1609, Washington, D.C.
31-June 2 13th ISA Ann. Symp. on Instrumental Methods in
Analysis L. Fowler, Monsanto Co., 1700 2nd
St., St. Louis, Mo.
June
5-7 Royal Society of Canada Ann. Mtg., Ottawa Ex.
Sec., Royal Soc. Canada, Rm 1120, 100 Sussex Dr.,
Ottawa, Ont.
5-9 Advanced ir Technology Course, Ann Arbor Engrg.
Summer Courses, U. of Mich., W. Engrg. Bldg., Ann
Arbor, Mich. 48104
5-9 Atmospheric Physics Course, Ann Arbor Engrg.
Summer Courses, U. of Mich., W. Engrg. Bldg.
Ann Arbor, Mich. 48104
6-9 Conf. on Laser Eng. and Application, Washington,
D.C. K. Tomi Yasu, GE Co., P.O. Box 8, 1 River
Rd, #37-465, Schenectady, N.Y. 12301
8-9 Molecular Absorption Spectroscopy Course, Toronto
The Chemical Inst. of Canada, 151 Slater St., Ot-
tawa 4, Ont.
12-13 Intersociety Color Council, New York R. M. Evans,
Eastman Kodak, Rochester,N.Y.
12-14 Optical Thin Films and Multilayers Course, Roches-
ter Inst. of Optics, B & L Bldg., U. of Rochester,
Rochester, N.Y. 14627
15-16 AAPT Mtg., Canton A. Romer, St. Lawrence U.,
Canton, N.Y.
18-21 30th Ann. Mtg. Canadian Ophthalmological Soc.,
Ottawa Secretary, 1849 Yonge St., Suite 902,
Toronto 7, Ont., Canada
19-23 13th Internatl. Spectroscopy Colloq., Carleton U.,
Ottawa C. S. Joyce, Pulp and Paper Research
Inst. of Canada, 570 St. John's Rd., Pointe Claire,
Que., Canada
20-28 Internatl. Comm. on Illumination, Plenary Mtg.,
16th Quadrennial, Washington, D.C. L. Barbrow,
U.S. Natl. Com. on Illumination, NBS, Wash-
ington, D.C. 20234
20-24 Conf. of Oil and Colour Chemists' Assn., Scarborough
E. B. Hamblin, Wax Chandlers' Hall, GreshamSt.,
London, EC2, U.K.
21 IRDG Mtg, Oxford J. H. S. Green, NPL, Ted-
dington, Mx, U.K.
continuedon page 746
April 1967 / Vol. 6, No. 4 / APPLIED OPTICS 713
 AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF PHYSICS- JOURNALS
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF PHYSICS THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY
The Review of Scientific Instruments The Physical Review
Monthly. Scientific instruments, apparatus and techniques. Weekly. Original research in experimental and theoretical
physics.
The Journal of Chemical Physics Reviews of Modern Physics
Semimonthly. Bridges the gap between physics and
chemistry. Quarterly. Discussionsof current problems of physics.

Journal of Applied Physics Bulletin of the American Physical

Monthly. Applying physicsin industry and in other sciences. Society
8 times yearly. Abstracts of papers given at all Physical
Applied Physics Letters Society Meetings, minutes, advanceinformation of Meetings.
Semimonthly. Timely short reports of important new
findings in applied physics areas. Physical Review Letters
Weekly. Timely short reports of important new findings.
The Physics of Fluids
Monthly. Original research in structure, dynamics and OPTICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA
general physics of gases,liquids, plasmas,and other fluids.
Journal of the Optical Society of
Journal of MathematicalPhysics America
Monthly. Advances in mathematical techniques applicable Monthly. Original papers on optics in all its aspects.
to various branchesof modern physics.

Physics Today Applied Optics

Monthly. Original papers in applied optics and related fields.
Monthly. Developments in physics for physicists and others.
Optics and Spectroscopy
Monthly. Translation of OPTIKA I SPEKTROSKOPIYA.
JOURNALS OF THE U.S.S.R.
ACADEMY OF SCIENCES-IN TRANSLATION ACOUSTICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA
Soviet Physics-JETP The Journal of the Acoustical
Monthly. Russian original: Zhurnal Eksperimental'noi i Society of America
Theoreticheskoi Fiziki. Monthly. Original papers on acoustics in all its aspects.
JETP Letters AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF
Semimonthly. Russianoriginal: JETP Pis'ma v Redaktsiyu.
PHYSICS TEACHERS
Soviet Physics-Solid State American Journal of Physics
Monthly. Russianoriginal: Fizika Tverdogo Tela. Monthly. Stresses educational, historical, and philosophic
Soviet Physics-Technical Physics aspects of physics.
Monthly. Russianoriginal: Zhurnal Tekhnicheskoi Fiziki. The Physics Teacher
8 times yearly. For high school physics teachers.
Soviet Physics-Doklady'
Monthly. Russian original: physics sections of Doklady AMERICAN ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY
Akademii Nauk SSSR.

Soviet Physics-Acoustics The Astronomical Journal

10tines yearly. Publishesoriginal observations in astronomy.
Quarterly. Russian original: Akusticheskii Zhurnal.

Soviet Physics-Crystallography AMERICAN VACUUM SOCIETY

Bimonthly. Russianoriginal : Kristallografiya. The Journal of Vacuum Science and
Soviet Physics-Uspekhi Technology
Bimonthly. Original research contributions in fundamental
Bimonthly. Russian original : Uspekhi Fizicheskihk Nauk. and applied vacuum science.
Soviet Physics-AJ SOCIETY FOR APPLIED SPECTROSCOPY
Bimonthly. Russianoriginal : Astronomicheskii Zhurnal.

Soviet Journal of Nuclear Physics Applied Spectroscopy

Bimonthly. Original contributions in the theory and practice
Monthly. Russianoriginal : Yadernaya Fizika. of spectroscopy.

For subscriptionprices and other information,write to:

AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF PHYSICS
335 East 45 Street, New York, New York 10017
714 APPLIED OPTICS / Vol. 6, No. 4 / April 1967