Comparison of Methods for Rapid Evaluation of Lifetimes of Exponential Decays

For evaluating exponential luminescence decays, there are a variety of computational rapid integral methods based on the areas of the decay under different binned intervals. Using both Monte Carlo methods and experimental photon counting data, we compare the standard rapid lifetime determination method (SRLD), optimized rapid lifetime determination methods (ORLD), maximum likelihood estimator method (MLE), and the phase plane method (PPM). The different techniques are compared with respect to precision, accuracy, sensitivity to binning range, and the effect of baseline interference. The MLE provides the best overall precision, but requires 10 bins and is sensitive to very small uncorrected baselines. The ORLD provides nearly as good precision using only two bins and is much more immune to uncompensated baselines. The PPM requires more bins than the MLE and has systematic errors, but is largely resistant to baseline issues. Therefore, depending on the data acquisition method and the number of bins that can be readily employed, the ORLD and MLE are the preferred methods for reasonable signal-to-noise ratios.

[1]  L. Melton Planar Liquid and Gas Visualization , 1993 .

[2]  Steven A. Soper,et al.  Error Analysis of Simple Algorithms for Determining Fluorescence Lifetimes in Ultradilute Dye Solutions , 1994 .

[3]  David H. Burns,et al.  Quantitative, Depth-Resolved Imaging of Oxygen Concentration by Phosphorescence Lifetime Measurement , 1993 .

[4]  J N Demas,et al.  Optimized gating scheme for rapid lifetime determinations of single-exponential luminescence lifetimes. , 2001, Analytical chemistry.

[5]  H. Gerritsen,et al.  Multiple Time-Gate Module for Fluorescence Lifetime Imaging , 2001 .

[6]  Jürgen Wolfrum,et al.  How many photons are necessary for fluorescence-lifetime measurements? , 1992 .

[7]  N. Laurendeau,et al.  Laser-induced Fluorescence Triple-integration Method Applied to Hydroxyl Concentration and Fluorescence Lifetime Measurements , 1998 .

[8]  Charles W. Wilkerson,et al.  Bias and precision in the estimation of exponential decay parameters from sparse data , 1993 .

[9]  O. Wolfbeis,et al.  Luminescence Lifetime Imaging of Oxygen, pH, and Carbon Dioxide Distribution Using Optical Sensors , 2000 .

[10]  J. Demas,et al.  Evaluation of errors in the phase plane method for deconvolution of luminescence lifetime data , 1981 .

[11]  H. Gerritsen,et al.  Fluorescence lifetime imaging in scanning microscopes: acquisition speed, photon economy and lifetime resolution , 2002, Journal of microscopy.

[12]  Lynn A. Melton,et al.  Fluorescence Lifetime Imaging: An Approach for Fuel Equivalence Ratio Imaging , 1991 .

[13]  Kristin K. Sharman,et al.  Error analysis of the rapid lifetime determination method for double-exponential decays and new windowing schemes. , 1999, Analytical chemistry.

[14]  R. Ballew,et al.  An error analysis of the rapid lifetime determination method for the evaluation of single exponential decays , 1989 .

[15]  N. Mack,et al.  Multicomponent lifetime-based pH sensors utilizing constant-lifetime probes. , 2002, Analytical Chemistry.