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

net/publication/283330188

Review of antireflective surface structures on laser optics and windows

Article  in  Applied Optics · November 2015

DOI: 10.1364/AO.54.00F303

CITATIONS READS

17 1,491

5 authors, including:

Jesse A. Frantz Ishwar D. Aggarwal

United States Naval Research Laboratory University of North Carolina at Charlotte
139 PUBLICATIONS   1,354 CITATIONS    84 PUBLICATIONS   326 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

J. S. Sanghera
United States Naval Research Laboratory
138 PUBLICATIONS   693 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

ARSS on Glass and Crystals View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jesse A. Frantz on 05 November 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Review Vol. 54, No. 31 / November 1 2015 / Applied Optics F303

Review of antireflective surface structures

on laser optics and windows
LYNDA E. BUSSE,1,* JESSE A. FRANTZ,1 L. BRANDON SHAW,1 ISHWAR D. AGGARWAL,2 AND
JASBINDER S. SANGHERA1
1
US Naval Research Laboratory, Code 5620—4555 Overlook Ave. S.W., Washington, DC 20375, USA
2
Sotera Defense Solutions, Herndon, Virginia 20171, USA
*Corresponding author: lynda.busse@nrl.navy.mil

Received 8 June 2015; revised 30 September 2015; accepted 20 October 2015; posted 20 October 2015 (Doc. ID 241841);
published 30 October 2015

We present recent advancements in structured, antireflective surfaces on optics, including crystals for high-energy
lasers as well as windows for the infrared wavelength region. These structured surfaces have been characterized
and show high transmission and laser damage thresholds, making them attractive for these applications. We also
present successful tests of windows with antireflective surfaces that were exposed to simulated harsh environments
for the application of these laser systems.
OCIS codes: (050.6624) Subwavelength structures; (160.4670) Optical materials.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1364/AO.54.00F303

1. INTRODUCTION performance [1,2]. In addition, some work in the 1980s was

The reflections due to the refractive index difference between
air and optical surfaces cause undesirable effects in optical sys-
tems, including reduced transmission and stray reflections,
which are particularly serious problems for high-energy lasers.
Surface reflections in laser systems can also cause feedback into
the laser cavity that may result in destabilizing the laser output.
These Fresnel reflections are traditionally reduced by using
thin-film dielectric stacks of materials specifically designed to
have alternating high and low refractive indices, causing the
destructive interference of reflected light from the layer-to-sub-
strate and substrate-to-air interfaces. However, these coatings
often have serious limitations, including significantly lower
laser-induced damage thresholds (LIDTs) than that of the sub-
strate, environmental degradation and delamination under
thermal cycling due to the different thermal expansions of the
coatings and the substrate, and antireflective (AR) performance
only over a limited optical bandwidth and angular range.
An approach that has proven effective in reducing Fresnel
reflections while also mitigating the issues associated with
traditional AR coatings is the direct patterning of AR surface
structures (ARSSs) in the surfaces of optics. Fabricating these
structures does not involve applying a coating, but instead con-
sists of fabricating a particular microstructure into the surface of
the optical material itself. As early as the 1970s, work on creat-
ing random features in the surface of optics to reduce reflections
was reported. In 1976, reactive ion etching techniques were
used and patented for creating a random microstructure on
the surface of glass and amorphous silicon to enhance solar cell
done to chemically leach or etch the surface of borosilicate glass
(BK-7) and thereby create a random microstructure to reduce
reflections. The results showed a remarkable reduction in the
reflection from ∼4% per surface to <0.1% in the visible and
near-infrared regions [3,4]. In addition, the benefits of increas-
ing the LIDT for the glasses using these methods were also doc-
umented [4]. More recently, much work has been done using
reactive ion etching techniques to create low-reflectance ran-
dom microstructures on the surfaces of oxide glasses and other
materials [5–7]; also, alternate methods of laser patterning have
been investigated for zinc sulfide optical surfaces. [8].
Models for microstructured surfaces for optics were also re-
ported starting in the early 1980s, based on observations of the
microscopic, pillar-like structures on the surface of a moth’s eye
that reduce visible reflections and protect it from predatory
owls [9]. These structures may be understood conceptually
as providing a gradual transition in refractive index from the
air to the optic. As light transmits from air into the optic, the
effective refractive index in a given plane increases from 1.0 to
that of the optic, as more of the area within a given plane is
composed of the optic. Theoretical work on the expected op-
tical performance of appropriate sizes and shapes of structures
in optical surfaces to reduce reflections was published by
Southwell and co-workers [10–13]. Since then, there has been
a considerable amount of work done to develop the fabrication
techniques of lithography and dry or wet etching for these
so-called “moth eye” ARSS features in the surfaces of optics
[5,14–16]. The antireflective performance of ARSSs has been
 F304 Vol. 54, No. 31 / November 1 2015 / Applied Optics
shown to be comparable to that of the best-quality AR coatings,
while adding significant advantages, such as higher laser dam-
age thresholds, wide spectral bandwidths, low scattering, and
large acceptance angles [17].
In this paper, we focus on work done at the Naval Research
Laboratory in the last few years on the characterization and test-
ing of ARSSs fabricated on optics for near-infrared laser sys-
tems. Following a brief summary of the typical modeling
and fabrication methods for ARSSs, we present the characteri-
zation of the optical performance, including transmission and
laser damage thresholds, as well as the results of testing silica
glass samples with ARSSs in simulated real-world environments
to demonstrate the practical utility of these surface structures
for system applications.
2. DESIGN AND FABRICATION
Modeling of the surface structures has been reported in the lit-
erature by using the rigorous coupled-wave analysis method as
well as the effective medium theory [10–13]. As a general rule,
for a moth eye surface on optics in air, the depth of the features
is approximately half the wavelength of interest, and the spac-
ing of the moth eye features is approximately λ∕2n for a
material of index n with a low reflectance desired at wavelength
λ. For a particular wavelength region, it is necessary to ensure
that the diffraction edge (impacted by the features spacing) does
not affect the reflectance at the wavelength(s) of interest. To
our knowledge, the modeling of random AR surface structures
has not been documented in the literature; however, the em-
pirical data we have obtained shows that it is important to tailor
the etching process to obtain a maximum depth for the random
features that is similar to that for the ordered moth eye struc-
tures for the wavelength region of interest.
To fabricate features in a periodic, ordered moth eye-type
surface, the surface is first resist patterned through UV lithog-
raphy, followed by dry or wet etching, which transfers the resist
pattern into the substrate surface. This well-known method has
been widely used for creating microstructures on a variety of
optics, including ceramics, glasses, and nonlinear frequency-
conversion materials [14–17].
Fabricating the random AR surface structures requires
directly patterning the surface in a reactive ion etching system,
utilizing gases that are appropriate for the particular substrate.
The types of gases and typical conditions for etching optics
such as oxide glasses to achieve random ARSSs have been re-
ported in the literature, and include sulfur, chlorine, and fluo-
rine-containing gas mixtures, where the particular gases chosen
depended on the chemistry of the substrate [5].
Finally, methods to imprint moth eye structures onto a sub-
strate that can be heated and imprinted with a mold containing
the moth eye pattern were used for chalcogenide infrared fibers
[18] and were more recently reported for plastic materials [19].
For the chalcogenide fibers, the use of metal or silicon shims or
molds that were fabricated to contain the negative of the moth
eye pattern required were pressed into the fiber end face as it
was heated near the softening temperature [18]. Similarly, a
method was investigated for spinel ceramics whereby the spinel
powder was hot-pressed with a specially designed mold con-
taining the negative of the desired surface structure [20].
Review
3. OPTICAL PERFORMANCE
Recently, we published results for ARSSs applied to fused silica
substrates, lenses, and optical fibers [17]. The surface structures
obtained were observed with a scanning electron microscope,
as shown in Fig. 1 for (a) random AR surface structures and
(b) ordered moth eye structures on fused silica.
In that work, the results for the random AR surface struc-
tures showed very low reflectance (approaching 0.02% at
1 μm), which was comparable to high-quality AR coatings. We
recorded high laser damage thresholds (100 J∕cm2 at
1064 nm) and the applicability of the method to scale up to
large windows up to 10 cm in diameter. In addition, the ran-
dom ARSSs were successfully applied to curved lens surfaces as
well as fiber end faces [17], for which fabricating ordered moth
eye structures using lithography would be very challenging.
Other work has also been reported in the literature for the suc-
cessful application of random AR surface structures on fused
silica and other oxide glass substrates [6].
In addition, we reported on the angular dependence of the
reflectance of the ARSSs and measured no dependence at angles
up to 24° from the normal incidence [17], which makes ARSSs
quite attractive for applications when compared to AR coatings,
for which the reflectance can vary with the incident angle.
Other studies have in fact reported no dependence of the
reflectance of AR surface structures at incidence angles up to
45° from the normal [21].
For laser applications, it is often imperative to have high-
quality AR coatings on laser materials, such as YAG crystals or
ceramics, due to their high refractive indices (n ∼ 1.7 to 2.0).
Other windows used in the infrared, such as germanium,
spinel, and chalcogenide glasses, also have high refractive indi-
ces (n ∼ 2 to 3) and should show benefits using this ARSS tech-
nology. We will report on YAG laser materials (Nd:YAG and
Ho:YAG with doping levels of
1.0  0.1 at: % ) that were
processed with AR surface structures and characterized for
optical transmission, surface morphology, and laser damage
Fig. 1. Scanning electron micrographs of the cross sections of
(a) random AR surface structures on silica (scale bar  1 μm) and
(b) ordered moth eye structure (scale bar  100 nm) (from [17]).
 Review Vol. 54, No. 31 / November 1 2015 / Applied Optics F305

Fig. 2. (a) Transmission increase of up to 91.3% for a Nd:YAG single crystal with moth eye ARSS on one surface, as compared to the
maximum theoretical value of 92%. (b) Confocal microscope and scanning electron microscope images of the moth eye surface with
scale bar  1 μm.

thresholds. In addition, we will describe the characterization of 10

moth eye structures on mid- to long-wave infrared windows,
including germanium and arsenic selenide glass. untreated
8
surface reflection [%]

1.0

A. Transmission and Characterization of Surface

0.8
Structures reflection [%]
6
A Cary 7000 UV/Vis spectrophotometer was used to measure 0.6

the transmission through the samples before and after the ARSS 0.4 rARSS-1
rARSS-2
fabrication. However, limitations on measuring low reflectance 4
0.2
with the Cary spectrometer resulted in the need for a technique
previously described [17], which uses a broadband source and 2
0.0
0.96 1.00 1.04 1.08 1.12 1.16 1.20
rARSS-2
fiber bundle to characterize very low reflection losses. Both a wavelength [µm]
405 nm Keyence confocal microscope and a scanning electron rARSS-1
microscope were utilized for characterizing the dimensional de- 0
tails of the surface structures. 0.96 1.00 1.04 1.08 1.12 1.16 1.20
wavelength [µm]
1. YAG Crystalline Materials
Typical results for the increase in transmission for Nd:YAG (a)
single crystal samples with ordered moth eye structures are
shown in Fig. 2(a), and characterizations of the surface features
are shown in Fig. 2(b). A significant increase in transmission
through a sample with ordered moth eye patterned on one
surface was measured to be 91.3%, which amounts to only
0.7% residual reflection loss from the treated surface, given
the material Fresnel loss of 8% per surface. In addition, the
crystal samples were processed with random ARSSs (rARSSs)
on one surface only, with the results shown in Fig. 3.
Remarkably, for this sample, the reflection loss was measured
to be as low as 0.08% at 1 μm.
A ceramic sample of Nd:YAG was also processed to have an
ordered moth eye surface similar to that of the crystalline sam- (b)
ple. The results for the optical transmission are shown in Fig. 4.
Fig. 3. (a) Surface reflection loss measured for random ARSSs mea-
The transmission increase of 7.5% was measured at 1.06 μm sured for one surface treated on two different single crystals of Nd:
after one surface was processed, corresponding to a maximum YAG, showing reflection losses as low as 0.08% at 1 μm (inset shows
single-surface transmission of 98.5%. the data in detail). (b) AR random surface structure features on single
In addition to the Nd:YAG crystals, ARSS fabrication was crystal Nd:YAG, as observed with confocal microscopy, where the in-
also performed on Ho:YAG, an important material for lasers set shows the details of the surface features.
 F306 Vol. 54, No. 31 / November 1 2015 / Applied Optics Review

100

bulk transmission [%]

95
theoretical maximum
90
after
85
untreated
80

75
1.0
Fig. 4. Transmission measured through ceramic Nd:YAG sample
with one side processed with moth eye surface structures similar to
those for the single crystal sample, wherein the transmission increased
by 7.5% at 1.06 μm.
operating in the 2 μm wavelength region, where n  1.82. The
results for the transmission increase on Ho:YAG with a moth
eye ARSS treatment are shown in Fig. 5. From the data, we
observe that the transmission has increased to 88.6% at
2 μm, which shows the reflection loss for one surface treated
with an ARSS was reduced from 8.3% to 3.2%.
The surface features are shown in Fig. 6(a), and were mea-
sured using confocal microscopy analysis, with the features
depth and spacing shown in Fig. 6(b) observed to be approx-
imately 670 and 950 nm, respectively.
2. Infrared Transmitting Windows
The fabrication of ARSSs on spinel, an important material for
its UV through mid-IR transmission as well as its attractive
mechanical properties, was recently reported, whereby the re-
flection loss was reduced dramatically from 7% per surface to
0.7% at 1 μm, and the LIDT was increased by almost a factor
of 3 for windows with ARSSs compared to untreated windows
[17]. AR moth eye structures on sapphire, a comparable
window material, have also been reported with excellent
performance [22].
We have recently characterized moth eye structures fabricated
on germanium windows, which are important for mid- to long-
wave IR transmission. Figure 7 shows a sample fabricated with
100
96
bulk transmission [%]
1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7
wavelength [µm]
Fig. 6. (a) Confocal microscope image of Ho:YAG with (b) showing
the depth of the features of approximately 670 nm and with a spacing
of about 950 nm.
these structures on one side for 8–12 μm transmission, where
feature sizes are on the order of 2.2 μm spacing and 4.6 μm
depth, observed using confocal microscopy and a scanning
electron microscope analysis.
Figure 8 shows the long-wave IR transmission obtained for
this sample with one side treated with the moth eye surface.
The maximum transmission in the 8–12 μm region increased
from about 48% to 63%, such that the surface transmission
showed an increase up to 94.6%. Additional work is in progress
to further increase the transmission over this waveband.
Moth eye surfaces were also fabricated on samples of arsenic
selenide, as shown by the scanning electron microscopy image
in Fig. 9. The reflectance for this one side treated on this sample
was reduced from 22% to 13% over the 8–12 μm region.
However, since this glass, like other sulfur- and selenide-
containing chalcogenide glasses, has a low temperature
softening point (<200°C), the AR performance may be greatly
improved by instead using the method we have already dem-
onstrated for imprinting the moth eye AR surfaces on the sur-
faces. In that work, a significant reduction in the reflectance
from 17% to 3% was measured for the moth eye imprinted
end faces of arsenic sulfide fibers [18].
B. Laser-Induced Damage Threshold Results
The LIDT for a high-power laser incident on a surface with

theoretical maximum
92 scratches or defects is normally much lower than that for an
optic with a highly polished, smooth surface [23]. Similarly,
88 ARSS one might expect the surface of an optic with moth eye features
84 untreated to be more susceptible to laser damage. However, in a recent
80
study, modeling was carried out for the effects of the electro-
magnetic field impinging on such a surface, and showed that
76 there is no enhancement of the field intensity at the peaks of the
72
moth eye structures, as might intuitively have been expected
1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 [24]. To our knowledge, this is the first theoretical study that
wavelength [µm] lends support to the experimentally observed high LIDT for
Fig. 5. Transmission measured through crystalline Ho:YAG with surfaces with ARSSs.
one side processed with moth eye ARSS, wherein the transmission in- We conducted laser damage testing on the laser crystals fab-
creased to 88.6% at 2 μm. ricated with the moth eye features and compared the results to
 Review
Fig. 7. Germanium window with moth eye surface and expanded view using confocal microscopy analysis. Scale bar  10 μm in confocal image
on the right.
the results for the untreated samples. These tests were con-
ducted by Spica Technologies, Inc. using standardized tech-
niques with sources at 1.064 and 2.055 μm. The laser at
1.064 μm used for the Nd:YAG samples had the following
parameters: linear polarization, incidence angle 0°, TEM00
beam profile, 10 ns pulse width (full width at half-maximum),
300 μm diameter spot size (at 1 · e−2 ), and a 20 Hz repetition
rate. The laser damage testing consisted of 200 shots per site
over a total of 90–100 sites on each sample. The laser used at
2.055 μm for Ho:YAG was characterized by the following
parameters: linear polarization, incidence angle 0°, TEM00
beam profile, 35 ns pulse (full width at half-maximum), 88 μm
diameter spot size (at 1 · e−2 ), and a 400 Hz repetition rate. For
these tests, 4000 shots per site were used, with a total of 80–
100 sites per sample. The onset of damage was defined to occur
when it could be visibly observed with a 150× Nomarski dark-
field microscope or when a laser-induced plasma or increased
scatter was detected using a helium–neon laser.
Figure 10 shows the results obtained for (a) the Nd:YAG
single-crystal samples and (b) the Nd:YAG ceramic samples,
where the moth eye-treated sample results are compared to
those without surface treatment. In both cases, the laser-in-
Fig. 8. Transmission of germanium sample before (orange curve)
and after (red curve) the fabrication of moth eye surface structures
on one side.
Vol. 54, No. 31 / November 1 2015 / Applied Optics F307
duced damage thresholds for the surfaces with moth eye treat-
ments are very similar to those obtained for the untreated
surfaces. Although these damage thresholds are relatively low
when compared to those reported for other YAG materials [22],
we believe this was due to surface defects in the sample caused
by the polishing process on the samples used for this study.
Figure 11 shows results for the Ho:YAG crystalline samples
with AR surface structures, compared to that with an AR coat-
ing (HoYAG-ARC) and the untreated sample. The LIDT for
the sample with ARSSs was much lower than that for both the
AR-coated sample as well as the untreated sample. The reasons
for this discrepancy are the subject of further analysis.
4. ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING AND ANALYSIS
Although it was shown previously that optics with ARSSs that
were intentionally contaminated can then be successfully
cleaned with conventional methods [17], a major concern has
been whether optics with ARSSs can be used in real environ-
ments. Military systems such as those using silica glass output
windows as exit apertures for high-energy lasers will operate on
a variety of land, sea, and airborne platforms. Therefore, we
investigated the performance of silica windows with random
AR surface structures by testing the optical transmission before
Fig. 9. Scanning electron microscopy image of an arsenic selenide
glass sample with moth eye surface features optimized for 8–12 μm
transmission.
 F308 Vol. 54, No. 31 / November 1 2015 / Applied Optics Review

(1.06 µm, 10 ns, 20 Hz) (1.06 µm, 10 ns, 20 Hz)

100 100

site damage frequency [%]

site damage frequency [%]
80 80
SWS motheye
-2
SWS motheye LDT: 3.1 J.cm
-2
LDT: 3.8 J.cm
60 60

40 untreated 40
-2 untreated
LDT: 4.9 J.cm -2
LDT: 4.3 J.cm
20 20

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
-2 -2
(a) fluence [J.cm ] (b) fluence [J.cm ]
Fig. 10. Laser-induced damage thresholds measured at 1064 nm for (a) Nd:YAG single crystal samples with and without moth eye on one surface
and (b) Nd:YAG ceramic samples also with and without moth eye on one surface.

and after exposure to simulated environments of sea-based and applied, where “FS” corresponds to the untreated fused silica
land-based systems. samples and “ARSS” refers the sample with the random AR
Fused silica glass samples (1 0 0 diameter discs or squares) with surface structures. The samples’ transmission before the test
random ARSSs were prepared by using conventional reactive (FS-1 and ARSS-1) showed the typical transmission as previ-
ion etching techniques with the appropriate reactive gases to ously reported [17], whereby there is some reduction due to the
create random AR surface structures on the surface with a maxi- diffraction at the shorter wavelengths in the ARSS sample.
mum transmission near 1 μm. The measured transmission of However, the transmission is above 95% in the 1 μm wave-
>95% for a sample with one surface treated was within the length region for the sample with ARSS, as was the desired
experimental error of the maximum theoretical transmission of performance. If needed, tailoring the ARSS fabrication will give
96.5%. In addition, samples of fused silica without any AR higher visible transmission for the samples.
surface treatment were used as controls in all the tests. The As shown in Fig. 12, the curves for FS-2 and ARSS-2 are
transmission was measured before and after the samples were the transmission results after exposure to the dried seawater,
subjected to the environmental conditions. Following the tests, showing the dramatic reduction at all wavelengths. Following
the samples were cleaned and the transmission was re-measured those measurements, the samples were cleaned with a stream of
to determine if there was any change observed from the original deionized water and dried with dry nitrogen gas. Remarkably,
results. the transmission of the cleaned samples for both the fused silica
(FS-3) and the sample with ARSS (ARSS-3) both returned to
A. Seawater Contamination Tests the original values. The transmission results overlapped com-
The samples of fused silica with and without ARSSs were ex- pletely with the curves for FS-1 and ARSS-1 on the plot, so
posed to Key West seawater by using a syringe to deposit a they are not distinguishable. These results demonstrate that
0.4 ml drop onto each sample, then allowing the water to dry there were no residual problems with contamination due to
completely on the samples in air. Figure 12 shows the results for
the tests of transmission before and after the seawater was

-2
0.6 1.7 2.9 [GW.cm ]
6
HoYAG-ARSS
number of damaged sites

-2
LDT = 25 J.cm HoYAG-ARC
5 -2
LDT = 78 J.cm

HoYAG
1 (uncoated)
-2
LDT > 100 J.cm
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
-2
pulse energy [J.cm ] Fig. 12. Transmission of fused silica (FS) and silica with ARSS
Fig. 11. Summary of the laser-induced damage threshold measure- (ARSS) before and after seawater contamination, where 1, 2, and 3
ments for crystalline Ho:YAG (red: with ARSS; blue: with AR coating; are the labels for the samples before seawater application, with dried
and green: uncoated). seawater, and after cleaning with deionized water, respectively.
 Review
the salt or water on the samples with ARSS, thus showing their
utility for systems in a marine environment.
B. High Temperature and Humidity Environmental
Tests
The Tropical High Bay facilities at the Naval Research
Laboratory in the Naval Autonomous Systems Laboratory were
utilized for these tests, whereby conditions are maintained at
80°F and 80% relative humidity so as to simulate a southeast
Asian jungle environment, complete with native plants and a
stream of running water [25]. The temperature and humidity
were monitored and stayed within these parameters during the
test run on the fused silica samples with and without ARSSs.
The samples were attached to a platform on a catwalk 15 feet
above the floor of the laboratory, with intention to leave them
there for 48 h exposure. Care was taken to put the samples on
standoffs inside a dish with holes drilled in it to preclude stand-
ing water accumulation.
However, after one day, it was discovered that the sample
holder mounting had come loose when a fan that circulates
air in the room came on automatically, and the samples had
fallen into the dirt on the lab floor below. The (now dirty) sam-
ples were moved back into the tray, which was attached more
securely, then left for the remainder of the 48-h period. Thus,
this test also led to the evaluation of methods to clean dirt from
the samples.
Figure 13 shows the transmission results for the samples
with labeling as used before, whereby 1 corresponds to trans-
mission of the samples before testing, label 2 is for samples after
exposure, including the dirt, and label 3 is for cleaned samples.
After exposure, the samples were cleaned by rinsing them
with deionized water and wiping them with a lint-free, soft
cloth soaked in isopropyl alcohol. For the fused silica sample,
the transmission returned to the original levels (comparing
FS-1 and FS-3). For the ARSS sample, the transmission for
ARSS-2 was not as low as that for the untreated fused
silica (FS-2) after the high bay exposure. After cleaning, the
Fig. 13. Samples transmission of fused silica (FS) and silica with
ARSS before and after exposure in the Tropical High Bay and after
cleaning. Residual dirt on the sample of ARSS-3 caused some reduc-
tion in visible transmission, but not in the infrared.
Vol. 54, No. 31 / November 1 2015 / Applied Optics F309
transmission for ARSS-3 in the infrared (at wavelengths above
1 μm) was measured to be within 1% of that before exposure
(ARSS-1), and notably, there was no increase in the OH ab-
sorption of the sample. However, at wavelengths below 1 μm,
there was a slight reduction (<5%) in transmission from the
original values, possibly due to residual dirt that was not
removed from the surface.
5. SUMMARY
We have obtained results for crystalline laser optics and infrared
windows that demonstrate the excellent optical performance
of AR surface structures etched directly into the optics.
These features serve the same purpose as a low-reflectance AR
coating, but without the less-desirable properties, such as coat-
ings delamination or low laser-induced damage thresholds.
Crystalline samples of Nd:YAG and Ho:YAG with AR surface
features showed reflectances as low as 0.08% and LIDTs in
the near-infrared that were comparable to the untreated or
AR-coated samples that were tested. The results for long-wave
IR transmission in the 8–12 μm region showed good perfor-
mance for both the germanium and arsenic selenide glass
samples. Finally, the utility of AR surface structures in real envi-
ronments was tested on silica glass samples with random ARSSs
that were exposed to either seawater contamination or two
days in a tropical environment. The samples that were exposed
and then cleaned using the typical methods showed that the
infrared transmission returned to previous levels. For the sam-
ples exposed to dirt contamination in the tropical environment,
only a small change in transmission was observed at visible
wavelengths, and was most likely due to residual contaminants
on the surface.
These results demonstrate the utility of ARSSs on laser
optics, as well as infrared and visible-transmitting windows for
laser systems and other applications. The silica windows with
ARSSs not only perform well optically, but also show promise
for being operational in the field for high-energy laser systems,
whether it be a land- or sea-based environment.
Funding. Joint Technology Office for High Energy Lasers
(JTO-HEL).
Acknowledgment. ARSS fabrication was provided by
TelAztec, Inc. and the University of North Carolina, Charlotte.
REFERENCES
1. M. J. Minot, “Single-layer, gradient refractive index antireflection films
effective from 0.35 to 2.5 μm,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. 66, 515–519 (1976).
2. T. A. Hansen, C. Johnson, Jr., and R. R. Wilbarg, “Method for fabri-
cating non-reflective semiconductor surfaces by anisotropic reactive
ion etching,” U.S. patent 4,229,233 (21 October 1980).
3. L. M. Cook, W. H. Lowdermilk, D. Milam, and J. E. Swain,
“Antireflective surfaces for high-energy laser optics formed by neutral
solution processing,” Appl. Opt. 21, 1482–1485 (1982).
4. L. M. Cook, S. Ciolek, and K. H. Mader, “Integral antireflective surface
production on optical glass,” J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 65, C-152–C-155
(1982).
5. T. Lohmueller, R. Brunner, and J. P. Spatz, “Improved properties
of optical surfaces by following the example of the ‘Moth Eye’,” in
Biomimetics Learning From Nature, A. Mukherjee, ed. (Intech, 2010),
Chap. 22.
 F310 Vol. 54, No. 31 / November 1 2015 / Applied Optics
6. D. S. Hobbs, B. D. MacLeod, and E. Sabatino III, “Continued advance-
ment of laser damage resistant optically functional microstructures,”
Proc. SPIE 8530, 85300O (2012).
7. T. Maier, D. Bach, P. Müllner, R. Hainberger, and H. Brückl,
“Antireflective surface structures in glass by self-assembly of SiO2
nanoparticles and wet etching,” Opt. Exp. 21, 20254–20259 (2013).
8. K. J. Major, C. M. Florea, M. K. Poutous, L. E. Busse, J. S. Sanghera,
and I. D. Aggarwal, “Surface transmission enhancement of ZnS via
continuous-wave laser microstructuring,” Proc. SPIE 8968, 896810
(2014).
9. C. G. Bernhard and W. H. Miller, “A corneal nipple pattern in insect
compound eyes,” Acta Physiol. Scand. 56, 385–386 (1962).
10. W. H. Southwell, “Gradient-index antireflection coatings,” Opt. Lett. 8,
584–586 (1983).
11. W. H. Southwell, “Pyramid-array surface-relief structures producing
antireflection index matching on optical surfaces,” J. Opt. Soc. Am.
A 8, 549–553 (1991).
12. J. J. Cowan, “Aztec surface-relief volume diffractive structure,” J. Opt.
Soc. Am. A 7, 1529–1544 (1990).
13. P. Lalanne and D. Lemercier-Lalanne, “On the effective medium
theory of subwavelength periodic structures,” J. Mod. Opt. 43,
2063–2085 (1996).
14. Y. Kanamori, H. Kikuta, and K. Hane, “Broadband antireflection
gratings for glass substrates fabricated by fast atom beam etching,”
Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 39, L735–L737 (2000).
15. C. Aydin, A. Zaslavsky, G. J. Sonek, and J. Goldstein, “Reduction of
reflection losses in ZnGeP2 using motheye antireflection surface relief
structures,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 80, 2242–2244 (2002).
16. D. S. Hobbs, B. D. MacLeod, and J. R. Riccobono, “Design, fabrica-
tion, and measured performance of anti-reflecting surface textures in
infrared transmitting materials,” Proc. SPIE 5786, 40–57 (2005).
View publication stats
Review
17. L. E. Busse, C. M. Florea, J. A. Frantz, L. B. Shaw, I. D. Aggarwal,
M. K. Poutous, R. Joshi, and J. S. Sanghera, “Anti-reflective surface
structures for spinel ceramics and fused silica windows, lenses and
optical fibers,” Opt. Mater. Express 4, 2504–2515 (2014).
18. J. Sanghera, C. Florea, L. Busse, B. Shaw, F. Miklos, and I. Aggarwal,
“Reduced Fresnel losses in chalcogenide fibers by using anti-
reflective surface structures on fiber end faces,” Opt. Express 18,
26760–26768 (2010).
19. “Anti-reflective plastics inspired by moths’ eyes,” The Agency for
Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR), ScienceDaily, 24
May 2012. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120524134520
.htm.
20. G. Villalobos, S. Bayya, W. Kim, J. Sanghera, B. Sadowski, R. Miklos,
C. Florea, and I. Aggarwal, “Polished spinel directly from the hot
press,” in Advances in Ceramic Armor VIII, J. J. Swab, M. Halbig,
and S. Mathur, eds. (Wiley, 2012).
21. Q. Chen, G. Hubbard, P. A. Shields, C. Liu, D. W. E. Allsopp, W. N.
Wang, and S. Abbott, “Broadband moth-eye antireflection coatings
fabricated by low-cost nanoimprinting,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 94, 263118
(2009).
22. D. S. Hobbs, B. D. MacLeod, E. Sabatino, T. M. Hartnett, and R. L.
Gentilman, “Laser damage resistant anti-reflection microstructures in
Raytheon ceramic YAG, sapphire, ALON, and quartz,” Proc. SPIE
8016, 801628 (2011).
23. R. M. Wood, Laser-Induced Damage of Optical Materials (Institute of
Physics, 2003), Chap. 5.
24. R. J. Weiblen, C. R. Menyuk, C. Florea, L. Busse, B. Shaw, I.
Aggarwal, and J. Sanghera, “Irradiance enhancement and increased
laser damage threshold in As2S3 motheye antireflective structures,”
Opt. Lett. 40, 4799–4802 (2015).
25. www.nrl.navy.mil/research/automomus‑systems.