# Polar Fe(IO3)3 nanocrystals as local probes for nonlinear microscopy

L. Bonacina, Y. Mugnier, F. Courvoisier, R. Le Dantec, J. Extermann, Yannick Lambert, V. Boutou, C. Galez, J.-P. Wolf

► To cite this version:

L. Bonacina, Y. Mugnier, F. Courvoisier, R. Le Dantec, J. Extermann, et al., Polar Fe(IO3)3 nanocrystals as local probes for nonlinear microscopy. Applied Physics B - Laser and Optics, 2007, 87 (3), pp.399-403. 10.1007/s00340-007-2612-z. hal-00494021

HAL Id: hal-00494021

https://hal.science/hal-00494021v1

Submitted on 6 May 2021

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 - Attribution - International License
# Polar Fe(IO₃)₃ nanocrystals as local probes for nonlinear microscopy

L. Bonacina<fnref n="1" />, Y. Mugnier<fnref n="2" />, F. Courvoisier<fnref n="1" />, R. Le Dantec<fnref n="2" />, J. Extermann<fnref n="1" />, Y. Lambert<fnref n="2" />, V. Boutou<fnref n="3" />, C. Galez<fnref n="2" />, J.-P. Wolf<fnref n="1" />

**ABSTRACT** We have investigated nanocrystals of Fe(IO₃)₃ by polarization-sensitive second harmonic generation (SHG) microscopy. As the nonlinear optical properties of this material were only poorly characterized, we have first determined the relative values of the elements of its second-order susceptibility tensor, by the global fitting of the polarization-resolved SHG response of an ensemble of nanocrystals. This information allows one to optically retrieve the orientation of individual particles in the sample. The high SHG efficiency measured for nanocrystals of Fe(IO₃)₃ and their polar nature could make them very attractive for nonlinear microscopy of biological samples.

## 1 Introduction

Nonlinear optics in nanoparticles recently emerged as a very active field of research. In particular, second harmonic generation (SHG) was investigated both theoretically [1–4] and experimentally on metal- [5, 6], semiconductor- [7, 8], and organic nanoparticles [9, 10]. Although many studies were dedicated to nanostructures or to ensembles of particles, SHG imaging of single nanorods and single organic nanocrystals was only recently demonstrated using laser scanning microscopy [10] and SNOM [8, 9]. A major application of SHG microscopy is imaging of biological samples [11]. Fluorescent dyes (cyanines, GFP, YFP, CFP, etc.) are commonly used as markers. However these molecules suffer from a major drawback: fast photo-degradation. Bleaching occurs already after the emission of 10⁶ – 10⁸ photons in organic dyes [12] and < 10⁵ photons in autofluorescent proteins [13]. Fluorescing semiconductor quantum dots provide much higher photostability, but are known to suffer from blinking (strong fluorescence intensity variations over unpredictable timescales) [14, 15]. Provided that SHG conversion efficiency is large enough, SHG appears as an attractive alternative to fluorescence, as no bleaching nor blinking effects (no absorption) are expected [16, 17]. The absence of phase-matching requirements in nanoparticles allows a large tun-

ability of the excitation and provides the possibility to double the full frequency spectrum of broad sources. This capability could be used for identifying the multiple scattering paths of the various spectral components of the incoming light improving depth resolution in tissues [18].

In order to obtain high SHG conversion efficiency, noncentrosymmetric inorganic nanocrystals are of particular interest. We previously showed that iron iodate (Fe(IO₃)₃) can be grown as nanocrystals with a simple and inexpensive process, and is an excellent candidate for nanodoublers. Moreover Fe(IO₃)₃ has low-chemical reactivity, and it is stable in aqueous solution in a wide pH and temperature range (up to 400 °C) [19], contrary to SHG active organic crystals [20]. It could also be potentially used as a nanoprobe of the local electric field by taking advantage of its polar structure.

We used polarization-sensitive SHG microscopy of Fe(IO₃)₃ nanocrystals associated to a robust fitting procedure, in order to achieve the following: 1) retrieve quantitative information on the elements of the previously unknown second-order susceptibility tensor of this material, and 2) determine the spatial orientation of each nanodoubler.

## 2 Experimental

### 2.1 Fe(IO₃)₃ sample

Iron iodate was synthesized in the form of a powder of agglomerated nanocrystals by a co-precipitation method. Although dispersion of nanocrystals is crucial to obtain a homogeneous suspension suited for biomedical imaging, co-precipitation in aqueous solution is a cost-effective way to elaborate nanomaterials with specific properties. Recent studies have shown that the size of nanocrystals can be adjusted according to the experimental parameters of the synthesis [21]. Co-precipitation in aqueous solution of Fe(IO₃)₃ powder is obtained from iron nitrate (Fe(NO₃)₃·9H₂O, Aldrich, 98%) and iodic acid (HIO₃, Aldrich, 99.5%). The reactants are separately dissolved in distilled water, then the iron nitrate solution is progressively poured into the iodic acid solution while vigorous stirring is maintained. After being heated at 80 °C for 2 days, the suspension is filtered (30 µm) and dried in an air flow at room temperature [19]. The powder is successively diluted in water, and a drop of the filtered (0.22 µm) solution is dried on a graphite substrate or a standard microscope glass slide.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

<footnote n="1">¹GAP-Biophotonics, Université de Genève, 20 rue de l'Ecole de Médecine, 1211 Geneva 4, Switzerland</footnote>

<footnote n="2">²SYMME, Polytech'Savoie, Université de Savoie, BP 80439, 7944 Annecy Le Vieux, France</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³LASIM, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, 43 bd du 11 Novembre 1918, 69622 Villeurbanne Cedex, France</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>**FIGURE 1** IC-AFM image of Fe(ΙΟ₃)₃ nanocrystals deposited on a graphite substrate. The histogram in the lower panel illustrates the size distribution of 60 nanocrystals, and it is fitted by a Gaussian centered at 27.7 nm of FWHM 13.7 nm</figcaption></figure>

X-ray powder diffraction indicates that the mean particle size is 20–40 nm [19], as confirmed (Fig. 1) by intermittent-contact atomic force microscopy (IC-AFM). These data were collected for nanocrystals dispersed on a graphite substrate. For the SHG experiments we had to work with standard microscopic glass slides, where we observed a stronger tendency of Fe(ΙΟ₃)₃ nanoparticles to aggregate, as illustrated by the size distribution in Fig. 2 centered around 80 nm.

## 2.2 Optical set-up

The SHG images were acquired using an inverted laser scanning microscope (Nikon TE300), equipped with a 1.3 NA 100× oil immersion objective. The position of the sample was controlled by an XYZ piezo-scanner with a resolution of 2 nm on each axis. The excitation source was a mode locked Ti:sapphire oscillator (Kapteyn–Murnane Labs), providing 20 fs pulses at 100 MHz repetition rate. The incident light polarization was selected by a rotating half wave plate, while SHG signal was collected in the backward direction by the same objective. A combination of a BG40 Schott filter, and a bandpass filter (40 nm bandwidth at 400 nm) assured an efficient rejection of the 800 nm scattering. After being analyzed by a Glan–Taylor polarization cube, the signal was measured by a photomultiplier tube and processed by a lock-in amplifier.

## 3 Results

The sample was first characterized (imaging and sizing) by AFM, and labelled to allow a straight comparison with the results obtained by SHG microscopy (Fig. 2). Apart from its intrinsic lower spatial resolution (~500 nm), the latter technique was able to retrieve the positions of almost all the nanocrystals dispersed on the microscope slide. In scanning

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>**FIGURE 2** Upper panel: IC-AFM image of Fe(ΙΟ₃)₃ nanocrystals deposited on a glass slide. Inset: distribution of AFM heights of the sample. Lower panel: SHG image of the same sample region. The SHG image was obtained by averaging two scans associated with perpendicular polarizations of the excitation laser and no polarization selection at the detector. The three *open circles* highlight nanocrystals with measured height at 40 nm and AFM width below 350 nm. The *open square* is a guideline to the eye for an easier comparison of the two images. Inset: SHG spectrum emitted by a single nanocrystal</figcaption></figure>

mode we were able to identify the SHG signal of individual crystals as small as 50 nm height and 150 nm lateral size. The white circles in the figure highlight three nanocrystals of 40 nm height and AFM width below 350 nm to prove the spatial sensitivity of the technique. The inset in the lower panel shows the SHG spectrum emitted by a single nanocrystal. The spectral full width half maximum of the second harmonic emission is 12 nm, which corresponds to doubling the whole fundamental laser spectrum (~50 nm at 810 nm).

To detect the individual orientation in space of each nanocrystal the laser was first focused onto selected crystals, previously characterized in size by AFM. During this oper-
ation, the SHG signal was carefully maximized by adjusting the microscope piezo-scanner displacements. The polarization response was successively acquired measuring the SHG signal as a function of the polarization angle of the incident light, γ, and of the detection polarization, setting the analyzer along the X or Y direction (see definitions in Fig. 3). The data presented in Fig. 4 were acquired integrating 100 ms on the lock-in with a post-averaging over 10 points.

The experimental SHG polarization response was fitted according to the following assumptions. The fundamental beam is supposed at normal incidence, with only two in-plane components [10], $E_x^\omega = E^\omega \cos(\gamma)$ and $E_y^\omega = E^\omega \sin(\gamma)$. The collected SHG intensity in the X direction $I_X$ (resp. $I_Y$) is then assumed to be proportional to $P_X^2$ (resp. $P_Y^2$), where P is the nonlinear polarization given by:

$$P_i^{2\omega} = \epsilon_0 \sum_{jk} \chi_{ijk} E_j^\omega E_k^\omega. \qquad (1)$$

The crystal nonlinear susceptibility tensor, $\chi_{ijk}$, is given here in the laboratory frame and can be derived from the $\chi_{\bar{i}\bar{j}\bar{k}}$ tensor expressed in the crystal frame by:

$$\chi_{ijk} = \sum_{\bar{i}\bar{j}\bar{k}} \chi_{\bar{i}\bar{j}\bar{k}} S_{\bar{i}\bar{i}} S_{\bar{j}\bar{j}} S_{\bar{k}\bar{k}} \qquad (2)$$

where $S_{\bar{i}\bar{i}}$ are the components of the rotation matrix between the laboratory and crystal axes depending on the Euler angles $\varphi, \theta$ and $\psi$.

Since the basic physical properties of Fe(IO₃)₃ are still unknown, as the bulk counterpart is not easily grown [22, 23], we first tested the procedure on a bulk crystal of well known nonlinear optical properties. As shown in Fig. 4a, the SHG polarization response of bulk LiNbO₃ was found in excellent agreement with the theoretical curve obtained using the literature values for the $\chi_{ijk}$ tensor [24], and the experimentally measured Euler angles ($\varphi = 88^\circ, \theta = 90^\circ, \psi = 90^\circ$C). Models more sophisticated than the present one have been proposed to describe the response of multiphoton microscopy [11, 25–27], accounting for the effect of a high NA objective in the collection of the backward propagating radiation and in the polarization dependent response. To verify the

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 3 Definition of the angles. The c-axis of the crystal is expressed in the laboratory frame X, Y, Z by the Euler angles $\varphi, \theta$ and $\psi$, whereas the angle $\gamma$ denotes the polarization of incident laser light on the sample plane</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 4 Polarization response of SHG emission analyzed along the X (blue) and Y (red) direction. The dots are experimental points, the solid lines the best fit according to the model described in the text. (a) Bulk LiNbO₃ plate. $I_X$ is multiplied by a factor 10 for easier inspection. (b–e) Examples taken from an ensemble of 12 nanocrystals simultaneously fitted. (f) Typical response from a non-monocrystalline aggregate</figcaption></figure>

accuracy of our simplified approach which neglects these aspects, we have simulated the effect of wide angle collection of our 1.3 NA objective and included in the calculation the dichroism and ellipticity of our apparatus. Under certain crystals orientations, as shown in Fig. 4a, we did not observe any difference between the measurements and both the complete and the simplified model. However, as discussed in [25], the axial components of the electric field can play a role in the polarization response. For example, we could remark some discrepancies between the experimental response of bulk lithium niobate (Z-cut) and the predictions of the simplified model, which can be reduced applying the complete treatment. These effects were not retained in the fitting procedure described here exclusively for computational reason. In fact, we needed to dispose of an analytical compact expression for $I_X$ and $I_Y$ that could not be derived in the framework of the complete model.

Iron iodate belongs to the symmetry class 6, and thus only 4 components of the nonlinear tensor are expected to be non-zero: $\chi_{zzz}, \chi_{zxx} = \chi_{zyy}, \chi_{xxz} = \chi_{xzx} = \chi_{yyz} = \chi_{yzy}, \chi_{xyz} = \chi_{xzy} = -\chi_{yzx} = -\chi_{yxz}$. Given that the absolute values of these nonlinear coefficients are not known, the symmetry of the nonlinear tensor represents the only fixed input parameter that can be employed in the model. As the SHG intensity in the X or Y direction of the n-labelled crystal can be computed as $I_X^n = K f_x(\varphi^n, \theta^n, \chi_{ijk})g(v^n)$ and $I_Y^n = K f_y(\varphi^n, \theta^n, \chi_{ijk})g(v^n)$, 7 free parameters remain to be adjusted for the fit: the 4
non-zero $\chi_{ijk}$ elements, the Euler angles $\varphi^n$ and $\theta^n$, and the function $g(v^n)$, which relates the crystal size $v^n$ to the SHG intensity. The experimental factor $K$ accounts for the incident laser intensity, the collection and the detection efficiency. Note that, according to the crystal symmetry ($P6_3$), the angle $\psi$ has no influence on the nonlinear optical response. Siltanen et al. [28] have shown that it is possible to uniquely determine the values of six parameters by fitting the polarization responses $I_X$ and $I_Y$ of a sample. The system is, thus, under-determined when fitting exclusively the response of a single nanocrystal. On the other hand, when fitting simultaneously the polarized SHG emission of several nanocrystals, the system is over-determined, and the relative values of the nonlinear susceptibility tensor, as well as the orientation of each nanoparticle, become accessible. Consequently, we adopted a global fitting procedure, and we fitted simultaneously the SHG data collected from 12 nanocrystals considering $\chi_{ijk}$ as a global parameter.<fnref n="1" /> The experimental curves in Fig. 4 (panels b to e) are very well reproduced using the form of $\chi_{ijk}$ tensor associated to the Fe(IO$_3$)$_3$ symmetry. Although the intensities of the signals span more than one order of magnitude, the fitting procedure is very robust in indicating the in-plane orientation of each crystal, $\varphi^n$, which connotes unambiguously the shape and the relative intensities of $I_X^n$ and $I_Y^n$. Note that even small differences of the $\varphi^n$ angles lead to responses that can be distinguished by the experiment.

The absolute intensities of $I_X$ and $I_Y$ are determined con-
jointly by the off-plane angle $\theta^n$, the elements of the $\chi_{ijk}$
tensor, and the value assumed by the volume-function $g(v^n)$.
A lack of modelling concerning the exact expression for
$g(v^n)$, i.e., the correspondence between the nanocrystal size
and the backward propagating SHG emission, is at the origin
of the spread in the values of $\chi_{ijk}/\chi_{zzz}$ obtained for different
fits and summarized in Table 1. All fits coincide in indicating
that the element $\chi_{zzz}$ is by far the dominant one, $\chi_{zxx} \ge \chi_{xyz}$,
and that $\chi_{xxz}$ is almost negligible. The values obtained for the
off-plane angles $\theta^n$, directly reflect the indeterminacy shown
for $\chi_{ijk}$. As already pointed out, the results retrieved for the
angles $\varphi^n$ remain the same in all the fits performed.

The SHG signals emitted by larger structures, typically
of ≥ 0.8 µm AFM lateral size, cannot be satisfactorily fit-
ted using the assumptions described above. Very likely, these
particles are polycrystalline aggregates made up by several
crystal structures oriented in different directions, and their
polarization response results in a superposition of signals gen-
erated by the different domains (plot in panel f). Therefore,
once the relative values of $\chi_{ijk}$ are known, the polarization re-
sponse allows a rapid in situ inspection of the local crystalline
order, and allows one to tell apart monocrystalline structures
from polycrystalline aggregates as recently observed for or-
ganic nanocrystals [10].

The quantitative determination of $\chi_{ijk}$ of Fe(IO$_3$)$_3$ is currently under progress, by comparison with the responses of several different bulk materials, and by adopting an expression for $g(v^n)$ accounting for tight focused excitation, and coherent superposition effects as a function of sample

<table><caption>TABLE 1 Relative values of the non-zero elements of the χ–tensor of Fe(IO$_3$)$_3$ retrieved from the global fitting of 12 nanocrystals SHG polarization response</caption>
  <thead>
    <tr>
      <th>|χ<sub>zxx</sub>/χ<sub>zzz</sub>|</th>
      <th>|χ<sub>xyz</sub>/χ<sub>zzz</sub>|</th>
      <th>|χ<sub>xxz</sub>/χ<sub>zzz</sub>|</th>
    </tr>
  </thead>
  <tbody>
    <tr>
      <td>0.03 - 0.2</td>
      <td>0.03 - 0.1</td>
      <td>&lt; 10<sup>-2</sup></td>
    </tr>
  </tbody>
</table>

ple size [2, 25, 26]. However, to give an estimate and al-
low a comparison with other recent works, we applied
the procedure outlined by Delahaye et al. [29] to evalu-
ate χ$_{zzz}$ using as reference signal the response of a bulk
LiNbO$_3$ crystal. Within this framework g(v$^n$) = (v$^n$)$^2$. Adopt-
ing for the calculation the response of a ~ 0.6 µm particle,
we estimated χ$_{zzz}$ ≃ 18 pm/V, in agreement with the order
of magnitude deduced from powder measurements [23].
Nevertheless, this value should be taken with caution, be-
cause the approximations of this treatment lead to a strong
dependency of its outcome on the size of the nanocrys-
tal. The complementarity of AFM and SHG microscopy
in our experiment has the advantage of exposing immedi-
ately the limitations of stating such a simplified correspon-
dence between the response of a massive crystal and that of
a nano-object.

4 Conclusions

We have performed a detailed analysis of the po-
larization response of nanocrystals of Fe(IO3)3, which can
be easily synthesized by an inexpensive chemical method.
Due to the difficulty of growing bulk crystals of this mate-
rial, its nonlinear properties were previously only partially
known. We demonstrated that Fe(IO3)3 is an efficient fre-
quency doubler, and this property, together with its remark-
able stability in aqueous solution even under extreme pH and
temperature conditions, makes of it a very attractive probe
for SHG microscopy. Moreover, the possibility to interro-
gate optically the orientation of each nanocrystal opens the
way to a large number of applications. Contrary to similar
studies where SHG active particles were embedded in host
media (sol–gel matrices, polymers, inclusion compounds),
the present measurements were taken directly on nanocrystal
isolated on a substrate to prove their aptness as markers for
microscopy.

REFERENCES

1 J.I. Dadap, J. Shan, K.B. Eisenthal, T.F. Heinz, Phys. Rev. Lett. **83**, 4045 (1999)

2 J. Mertz, L. Moreaux, Opt. Commun. **196**, 325 (2001)

3 Y. Pavlyukh, W. Hubner, Phys. Rev. B **70**, 245434 (2004)

4 K. Nappa, I. Russier-Antoine, E. Benichou, C. Jonin, P.F. Brevet, Chem. Phys. Lett. **415**, 246 (2005)

5 J. Nappa, G. Revillod, I. Russier-Antoine, E. Benichou, C. Jonin, P.F. Brevet, Phys. Rev. B **71**, 165407 (2005)

6 M.L. Sandrock, C.D. Pibel, F.M. Geiger, C.A. Foss, J. Phys. Chem. B **103**, 2668 (1999)

7 S.W. Chan, R. Barille, J.M. Nunzi, K.H. Tam, Y.H. Leung, W.K. Chan, A.B. Djurisic, Appl. Phys. B **84**, 351 (2006)

8 J.C. Johnson, H. Yan, R.D. Schaller, P.B. Petersen, P. Yang, R.J. Saykally, Nano Lett. **2**, 279 (2002)

9 Y.Z. Shen, P. Markowicz, J. Winiarz, J. Swiatkiewicz, P.N. Prasad, Opt. Lett. **26**, 725 (2001)

<footnote n="1">¹ The same procedure applied to different ensembles/numbers of particles yielded similar results.</footnote>
10 S. Brasselet, V. Le Floc'h, F. Treussart, J.F. Roch, J. Zyss, E. Botzung-Appert, A. Ibanez, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 207401 (2004)

11 L. Moreaux, O. Sandre, J. Mertz, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 17, 1685 (2000)

12 L. Cognet, *Lasers et Technologies Femtosecondes*, 1st edn. (Publications de l'Université, Saint-Etienne, 2005)

13 G.S. Harms, L. Cognet, P.H.M. Lommerse, G.A. Blab, T. Schmidt, Bio-phys. J. 80, 2396 (2001)

14 M. Nirmal, B.O. Dabbousi, M.G. Bawendi, J.J. Macklin, J.K. Trautman, T.D. Harris, L.E. Brus, Nature 383, 802 (1996)

15 X. Brokmann, J.P. Hermier, G. Messin, P. Desbiolles, J.P. Bouchaud, M. Dahan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 120601 (2003)

16 R.M. Williams, W.R. Zipfel, W.W. Webb, Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 5, 603 (2001)

17 J. Mertz, Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 14, 610 (2004)

18 J.M. Dela Cruz, I. Pastirk, M. Comstock, V.V. Lozovoy, M. Dantus, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 101, 16996 (2004)

19 C. Galez, Y. Mugnier, J. Bouillot, Y. Lambert, R. Le Dantec, J. Alloys Compd. 416, 261 (2006)

20 K. Komorowska, S. Brasselet, G. Dutier, I. Ledoux, J. Zyss, L. Poulsen, M. Jazdzyk, H. Egelhaaf, J. Gierschner, M. Hanack, Chem. Phys. 318, 12 (2005)

21 J.P. Jolivet, C. Froidefond, A. Pottier, C. Chaneac, S. Cassaignon, E. Tronc, P. Euzen, J. Mater. Chem. 14, 3281 (2004)

22 K. Nassau, J.W. Shiever, B.E. Prescott, J. Solid State Chem. 7, 186 (1973)

23 S.C. Abrahams, R.C. Sherwood, J.L. Bernstein, K. Nassau, J. Solid State Chem. 7, 205 (1973)

24 R.L. Sutherland, *Handbook of Nonlinear Optics*, 2nd edn. (Marcel Dekker, London, 2003)

25 E.Y.S. Yew, C.J.R. Sheppard, Opt. Express 14, 1167 (2006)

26 J.X. Cheng, X.S. Xie, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 19, 1604 (2002)

27 W. Débarre, D. Supatto, E. Beaurepaire, Opt. Lett. 30, 2134 (2005)

28 M. Siltanen, S. Cattaneo, E. Vuorimaa, H. Lemmetyinen, T.J. Katz, K.E.S. Phillips, M. Kauranen, J. Chem. Phys. 121, 1 (2004)

29 E. Delahaye, N. Tancrez, T. Yi, I. Ledoux, J. Zyss, S. Brasselet, R. Clément, Chem. Phys. Lett. 429, 533 (2006)