Single-step fabrication of thin-film linear variable
bandpass filters based on metal–insulator–metal
geometry
CALUM WILLIAMS,* GIRISH RUGHOOBUR, ANDREW J. FLEWITT, AND TIMOTHY D. WILKINSON
Electrical Engineering Division, Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge, 9 JJ Thomson Avenue, Cambridge CB3 0FA, UK
*Corresponding author: cw507@cam.ac.uk
Received 6 September 2016; revised 10 October 2016; accepted 19 October 2016; posted 19 October 2016 (Doc. ID 275019);
published 9 November 2016
A single-step fabrication method is presented for ultra-thin, linearly variable optical bandpass filters (LVBFs)
based on a metal–insulator–metal arrangement using modified evaporation deposition techniques. This alternate
process methodology offers reduced complexity and cost in comparison to conventional techniques for fabricating
LVBFs. We are able to achieve linear variation of insulator thickness across a sample, by adjusting the geometrical
parameters of a typical physical vapor deposition process. We demonstrate LVBFs with spectral selectivity from
400 to 850 nm based on Ag (25 nm) and MgF2 (75–250 nm). Maximum spectral transmittance is measured at
∼70% with a Q-factor of ∼20.
Published by The Optical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. Further distribution of this work
must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI.
OCIS codes: (310.0310) Thin films; (120.2440) Filters; (310.3840) Materials and process characterization; (310.6628)
Subwavelength structures, nanostructures; (120.4610) Optical fabrication.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1364/AO.55.009237
1. INTRODUCTION
Optical transmission filters, specifically linear variable bandpass
filters (LVBFs), are crucial optical elements in a number of dif-
ferent applications including astronomy and hyper-spectral im-
aging [1]. The cost of LVBFs is relatively expensive for what are
commonly Fabry–Perot (FP) etalons with a 1D thickness varia-
tion profile (cavity). Conventional LVBF fabrication processes
include reflow of photographically patterned layers of resist
[2,3], gray-scale lithography [4], and mechanically moving
multiple graded masks [5]. However, these techniques suffer
drawbacks including high cost, complexity, and processing
time. Alternatives include holographic color filters [6], but
these suffer from inherent diffraction orders and, again, require
expensive lithographic processes. More recently, plasmonic-
enhanced optical elements have been investigated [7–12],
yet they inherently suffer damping (loss) mechanisms and like-
wise require lithographic processes.
Metal–insulator–metal (MIM) geometries have been exten-
sively studied in the literature and have been shown to offer a
range of attractive optical characteristics for applications includ-
ing super absorbers and color filters [9,13–18]. Their reduced an-
gular dependence, sub-wavelength thickness, reduced fabrication
complexity, and non-structured and continuous ultra-thin nature
make them interesting candidates for low-cost LVBFs.
When the electric field of light interacts with a MIM cavity,
the resonant FP-mode associated with the dielectric cavity is ter-
minated by two ultra-thin metallic layers, which act as partially
reflective mirrors. The mirror thickness is less than or compa-
rable to themetal skin depth, enabling transmission into the cav-
ity. At resonance, the field is highly concentrated in the central
region of the cavity. For a back-mirror thickness greater than the
skin depth, perfect absorption can be achieved, whereas for
thickness similar to the top mirror, transmission filtering is pos-
sible. By adjusting the mirror thicknesses, optimal coupling into
the cavity mode for a particular wavelength can be achieved
[14,15,18]. In this paper, using fabrication methodology based
on the modification of conventional metal evaporation tech-
niques, we demonstrate LVBFs based on ultra-thin-film
MIM cavities at first-order resonance, which include a thin
(25 nm) top–bottom metallic (Ag) layer coupled to a dielectric
cavity composed of transparent MgF2 (75–250 nm). Through
this thickness variation, spectral selectivity from blue-NIR is
achieved in a single device. Figure 1 highlights the concept,
whereby the LVBF exhibits a spatially varying (1D) dielectric
cavity [Figs. 1(a) and 1(c)] terminated by two metallic mirrors,
in comparison to a single-wavelength device [Fig. 1(b)].
Research Article Vol. 55, No. 32 / November 10 2016 / Applied Optics 9237
1559-128X/16/329237-05 Journal © 2016 Optical Society of America
2. DESIGN
A. Fabrication
To obtain a device whereby the thickness profile of deposited
material is continually varying (linearly or otherwise) presents
a fabrication difficulty. Most process steps, either etching or
physical/chemical vapor deposition, generally act uniformly
across a sample [19]. Furthermore, conventional techniques
for fabricating LVBFs [2–5,20] require additional masks or
lithographic steps for resist reflow. For a typical physical vapor
deposition evaporation process, such as thermal evaporation, at a
typical chamber base pressure of 10−6 mbar, the mean-free path
of molecular vapor is much larger than the typical chamber
length (∼50 cm); thus a ‘line-of-sight’ deposition can be ap-
proximated. Hence, the deposition rate (nm · s−1), Γ, of an
evaporated source with finite surface area can be written as
Γ ∝ cosn
θiR−2i ; (1)
where n is a decimal or an integer describing emission profile,
whereby for n > 1, non-ideal (increasing anisotropy) emission
behavior is described [21]. R is the source-sample distance.
Figures 2(a) and 2(b) show how the deposition rate (non-ideal
source, with n  1.5) varies as a function of distance from the
source (on-axis). This value is an estimate based on the geometry
of the apparatus and previous experimental work. Normally, to
achieve uniform thickness, the sample is placed far enough away
from the source in order to obtain similar deposition rates across
the sample; i.e., for a sample of finite length, deposition uni-
formity increases as R increases.
By controlling the position of the sample and source within
the chamber, and keeping a relatively low deposition rate in order
to minimize delamination effects, the deposition rate across a
sample can be spatially tailored, and hence a near-linear gra-
dient distribution of source material can be deposited by cal-
culating the correct geometry parameters to form linear variable
devices. Figures 2(c) and 2(d) show how, by laterally offsetting a
source, a “near-linear” thickness profile is readily obtainable. In
Fig. 2(d), the steps are as follows: (1) on-central-axis deposition
maximizes separation to obtain a uniform deposition rate for
the first metal mirror; (2) the sample is brought closer to
the source, the source is negatively offset, and now a spatially
variant deposition profile across the sample occurs; (3) same
process as (1) for the second metal mirror; (4) an encapsulation
layer is deposited to prevent degradation. Moreover, through
the adjustment of the “source-function,” a variety of thickness
profiles, over varying length scales, can be achieved.
For this study, to obtain the near-linear variation of the in-
sulator across a sample with length <10 cm, the concept is to
reduce R and spatially offset both the sample and source
material. Keeping the metal source close to on-sample-axis, the
dielectric laterally offset, and the sample offset laterally in the
opposite direction will ensure near uniform metal thickness and
linearly variant dielectric thickness. The sample holder distance
(h) is chosen to be ∼7.5 cm with lateral offset ∼10 cm.
Molybdenum evaporation boats with Ag wire (99.9%) and
MgF2 (99.9%) optical grade evaporation pieces and glass slides
are used.MgF2 is chosen due to its low melting point, low cost,
and optical properties—specifically, its relatively flat dispersion
across 400–850 nm. The glass (thickness 0.7 mm) is cleaved,
cleaned in subsequent ultrasonic baths of acetone and isopropyl
alcohol (IPA), blow dried with N 2, and then dehydrated at
360°C for 10 min. Deposition in the thermal evaporator is per-
formed at a base pressure of ∼2 × 10−6 mbar and with film
thickness monitored (quartz crystal monitor) deposition at
0.1 nm · s−1, for both Ag and MgF2. The monitor is located
at a fixed position approximately 10 cm from the central axis
of the chamber.
It is important to note some materials considerations, spe-
cifically the integrity of the thin films. Generally, Ag adheres
poorly to glass, and the low mechanical stability between Ag
Fig. 1. MIM filter design. (a) Constant cavity thickness MIM
LVBF composed of Ag (40 nm) andMgF2 dielectric with FDTD sim-
ulation results in (b) the E-field profile at first-order resonance (inset).
(c) MIM LVBF with gradient dielectric. (d) Simulated spectral proper-
ties as the position of observation on the sample changes (blue–red =
dielectric thickness increase).
Fig. 2. Evaporation principles. (a) Deposition rate profile of a non-
ideal source (n  1.5). (b) Normalized deposition as a function of po-
sition along sample (on-axis) as substrate height varies. (c) Same as
(b) but with lateral offset. (d) Fabrication process flow.
9238 Vol. 55, No. 32 / November 10 2016 / Applied Optics Research Article
and MgF2 means that for future larger-scale fabrication, a thin
coating (Ti/Cr) to promote adhesion would be necessary.MgF2
is used here; however, a range of dielectrics can be used that are
more chemically suitable for larger-scale processing. To obtain
good quality, high packing density (hence low permeability
to water vapor) thin films, thermal evaporation ofMgF2 is best
performed with a raised substrate temperature (>200°C) and
Ag with a cooler substrate (else sputtering techniques are pos-
sible). For this proof-of-concept study, substrate temperature
control and additional adhesion layers were not utilized, and
hence the devices here are potentially vulnerable to degradation
over their lifespan. However, both problems are relatively
straightforward to solve for future fabrication (and done so
at an industrial scale), and a pure materials optimization is
beyond the scope of this work.
B. Simulation
Figure 3 shows the compiled results from finite-difference time-
domain (FDTD) simulations [22] of a range of MIM devices
using Ag:MgF2:Ag. Ag is chosen over Au based on the inherent
interband electron transitions affecting the optical behavior of
Au at shorter wavelengths and subsequently the more linear
response of Ag across the entirety of the spectrum range of
interest. The transmission maxima, reflection minima, and
Q-factors (λ∕Δλ), with respective wavelengths, taken from a
range of simulations, are plotted. Simulations are performed
using a mesh size of 0.5 nm, broadband plane-wave input, peri-
odic boundary conditions, and a range of device geometries.
Transmission and reflection values are calculated from power
monitors positioned on either side of the structure. Complex
dispersive material models are used for Ag (CRC), SiO2 (Palik),
and a real, non-dispersive refractive index of 1.38 for MgF2.
Figures 3(a)–3(c) illustrate the linear behavior of the transmis-
sion peak as a function of dielectric and Ag mirror thickness,
where the size of the data point indicates the associated trans-
mission amplitude. The increase in dielectric thickness linearly
red-shifts the cavity mode’s spectral position, whereas metal
thickness contributes to cavity finesse, as shown in Fig. 3.
Generally, there is a trade-off between cavity finesse and trans-
mission amplitude. From the simulation results, 25 nm of Ag is
chosen as the top–bottom metallic layers in order to maximize
transmission while maintaining spectral selectivity and high
Q-factors. The spatial variation of MgF2 is chosen to be
75–250 nm in order to obtain an operating wavelength range
of ∼400–850 nm. These characteristics are used for the plots in
Fig. 3(c).
3. DEVICES
Characterization is performed using a BX-51 Olympus optical
microscope (Halogen light source with IR filters removed),
with 5–20× objectives, attached via 200 μm core optical
fiber to a spectrometer (OceanOptics HR2000+). The optical
results are normalized to the transmission and reflection
through an equally thick glass slide and bulk-Ag mirror refer-
ence, respectively.
Figure 4 shows the reflection and transmission results of a
range of separate color filter devices based on constant thickness
layers of Ag (25 nm): MgF2 (variation):Ag (25 nm) structures.
The samples are placed at default chamber height, and multiple
depositions are used to obtain varying dielectric thickness
layers. The results here were to validate the initial MIM filter
concept and ensure that the deposition, parameters, etc., were
suitable to produce color filters.
The sample stage height is now reduced to (∼7.5 cm),
bringing the sample much closer to the source material, in order
to achieve the maximum linear variation over the smallest sam-
ple length; however, for optimal linearity, the stage height
should be greater. The sample is laterally offset (∼10 cm), and
the MgF2 source boat is negatively offset (∼6 cm—the maxi-
mum possible in our setup). The height is such that deposition
Fig. 3. FDTD simulation of MIM. (a) Peak transmission
wavelengths as the dielectric and mirror thickness is varied.
(b) Respective peak Q-factors; the size of the scatter points is propor-
tional to transmission amplitude. (c) Reflection and transmission of
MIM: Ag 25 nm mirrors with varying dielectric thickness.
Fig. 4. Optical characterization results of single-wavelength filters.
(a) Images of a range of samples with varying dielectric thicknesses
showing the color filtering in transmission. (b) Three devices’ reflec-
tion and transmission spectra: the MgF2 thickness for each plotted
spectrum (line-color: blue, red, black) is ∼155, 172, and 189 nm,
respectively. These are recorded from the quartz crystal thickness
monitor.
Research Article Vol. 55, No. 32 / November 10 2016 / Applied Optics 9239
of MIM material is achieved without breaking vacuum for
geometry adjustment. Figure 5 shows the reflection and trans-
mission results of the LVBF obtained from this deposition. For
deposition control, the concept in Fig. 2(c) is used to estimate
the thickness across the sample stage based on thickness mon-
itor output. Deviation from this model is due to the monitor
position within the chamber (at an angle to source), finite
source area (non-point-source-like behavior), and uncertainty
in the exact value of the deposition parameter, n. Nevertheless,
the top and bottom Ag mirror thicknesses were designed to be
25 nm and MgF2, 75–250 nm. Figure 5(a) shows an image of
the transmission of the sample, and Fig. 5(b) the spectra, as the
objective (20×) collection spot is laterally moved; spectral selec-
tivity of ∼550–800 nm is observed. Peak transmission varies
from ∼70% − 10%, with a Q-factor variation of ∼20 − 8.
Intensity reduction and peak broadening as the collection spot
is laterally moved across the sample (to longer wavelengths), in
conjunction with the simulation results in Fig. 3, may suggest
that the metal thickness also has a thickness variation across the
sample that dampens the coupling into the cavity mode. This
can be expected due to the fact that source(Ag)-sample central
axes are different. Furthermore, full spectral range (blue-NIR)
has not been achieved; thus the sample was in a sub-optimal
position (lateral placement and or height from source). The
deposition setup is subsequently adjusted to include the steps
outlined in Figs. 2(d1)–2(d4). The bottom and top mirror
metal is deposited at chamber height to reduce in-plane thick-
ness variation. The dielectric is deposited with the source with
negative lateral displacement; the sample has lateral displace-
ment and reduced sample height once again. Additionally, an
encapsulation layer (50 nmMgF2) is deposited post-top-mirror
layer. This reduces the degradation of the top metal in terms
of environmental oxidation and offers increased mechanical sta-
bility, yet has few detrimental effects on the optical perfor-
mance. Deposition of MIM material is now achieved with
breaking vacuum for geometry modifications, and a larger glass
substrate is used. Figure 6(a) shows the images of reflection
and transmission of the sample on an optical bench, and
Fig. 6(b) shows the measured spectra during lateral movement
across the sample (20× objective), where (i) shows data taken
with the device in the designed orientation and (ii) shows the
same upside down (i.e., glass first). The observed operating
wavelength range is ∼400–850 nm. Peak transmission varies
from ∼60% − 11% (i) and ∼47% − 10% (ii), with a Q-factor
variation of ∼10 − 6 (i), and similar values in (ii). The image
inset in (i) is of the filter in transmission, showing the range of
colors filtered.
4. DISCUSSION AND COMPARISON
The transmission spectra in Fig. 6(b) are similar in nature to
those of the simulations in Fig. 3(c) but with slightly reduced
amplitudes andQ-factors. This can be attributed to non-optimal
experimental deposition parameters. Furthermore, source offset
(deposition angle variation) leads to a varying refractive index
of MgF2, which is not accounted for in the simulation work.
Linearity is not completely matched to theoretical predictions, in-
dicating a mismatch in the deposition parameter, n, of the actual
system. The designed wavelength range is achieved; however,
toward the shorter wavelength range we observe an additional
absorption mechanism that is not present in Fig. 5(b), in the
simulation results, or in the device in the reverse orientation
[upside down: Fig. 6(b)(ii)]. In this deposition, vacuum was
broken (exposed to atmospheric gases) to adjust the deposition
geometry, and hence we speculate that this means that oxidation
has occurred to the bottom mirror. Silver oxidizes rapidly when
exposed to air, and silver oxide is known to be absorbing at wave-
lengths <500 nm [23]. Thus, this may help to explain the
pronounced blue anomaly in Fig. 6(b)(i) to the effect that with
a silver oxide surface layer, the larger extinction coefficient
(blue part of the spectrum) for the back-mirror would mean sim-
ilar operation for longer wavelengths but increased absorption
at shorter wavelengths. An automated mechanical stage height
and lateral adjustment for in situ geometrical adjustment, or
a thin additional encapsulation layer, would help reduce the
severity of this problem.
Fig. 5. Optical characterization results of MIM LVBF based on
initial conditions. (a) Image taken of final device (length ∼7.5 cm)
in transmission. (b) Reflection and transmission results from spatially
varying the objective collection spot linearly across the sample (thinner-
thicker dielectric thickness). (Inset) Schematic of single-step deposition.
Fig. 6. Optical characterization results of Ag (25 nm): MgF2
(range): Ag (25 nm) linearly variable filter. (a) Images of reflection
and transmission of final device and (b) spectra of the device; inset
shows an image of the filter in transmission at normal incidence.
9240 Vol. 55, No. 32 / November 10 2016 / Applied Optics Research Article
Through careful choice of geometry parameters, related to
calibration data similar to Fig. 2, LVBFs with varying transmis-
sion functions can be achieved. However, a number of optimi-
zation techniques are required: through additional experiments,
the exact emission value parameter used in the modeling can be
determined, thus ensuring the thickness profile of the sample
matches expectations. The final device does not exhibit a purely
linear profile, and optimization of the boat shape, to tailor the
plume profile, is necessary to produce greater linearity. In ad-
dition, as seen by the deposited material’s circular distribution
in Fig. 5(a), inherent in point-source-like evaporation tech-
niques, the modification of the source function and source po-
sition optimization would allow for the tailoring of this final
distribution. Further fabrication modifications should include
real-time monitoring of the evaporation plume distribution
(and how it evolves with time) through carefully designed po-
sitioning of precise thin-film monitors and in situ optical per-
formance monitoring using angled-reflection measurements.
Accounting for the refractive index variation of MgF2 due to
angled deposition in the simulation and performing ellipso-
metry to determine how the refractive index varies as a function
of source offset. The devices exhibit unwanted higher-order
harmonic modes, which can be suppressed with a multi-layer
(multiple cavity) thin-film approach—also improving optimal
transmittance and Q-factors. From a device integrity stand-
point, as discussed earlier, substrate temperature control is
critical to obtain densely packed, high-quality thin films and
adhesion layers required for mechanical stability between Ag,
glass, and MgF2. Furthermore, the replacement of MgF2 with
another more suitable dielectric (better chemical and mechani-
cal stability) is desirable; however, one then must consider using
sputtering techniques due to the high temperatures required for
evaporation of most dielectrics.
5. CONCLUSION
Existing techniques for fabricating LVBFs [2–5,20] require
additional masks or lithography resist reflow. In this paper,
we have shown an alternate technique for fabricating MIM
LVBFs simply, with reasonable optical specifications, prior to
any optimization of the process. By adjusting the spatial
position of the sample and evaporation material within the
chamber, deposition rate differences can be used in order to
tailor linear varying thickness across glass samples. Ag (25 nm)
and MgF2 (75–250 nm) are used as the metal and dielectric
materials, respectively, which give spectral sensitivity from
400 to 850 nm. Peak transmission varies from ∼70% − 10%,
and a Q-factor (λ∕Δλ) variation of ∼20 − 8 is observed. A
number of optimization techniques have been outlined that
are necessary in order to produce mechanically robust, optimal
performance LVBFs using this approach. Commercial thin-film
coating technologies commonly include thermal and e-beam
evaporation; thus modification to include these modifications
would be relatively straightforward.
Funding. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research
Council (EPSRC) (EP/L015455/1); Cambridge Commonwealth,
European and International Trust.
Acknowledgment. We thank Alexander Macfaden,
James Dolan, Ammar Khan, and Richard Bartholomew for
their help and support during the work.
REFERENCES
1. H. A. Macleod, Thin-Film Optical Filters, 3rd ed. (Institute of Physics,
1969).
2. A. Emadi, H. Wu, S. Grabarnik, G. De Graaf, K. Hedsten, P.
Enoksson, J. Correia, and R. Wolffenbuttel, “Fabrication and charac-
terization of IC-compatible linear variable optical filters with application
in a micro-spectrometer,” Sens. Actuators A 162, 400–405 (2010).
3. N. P. Ayerden, G. de Graaf, and R. F. Wolffenbuttel, “Compact gas cell
integrated with a linear variable optical filter,” Opt. Express 24, 2981–
3002 (2016).
4. M. Fritze, J. Knecht, C. Bozler, C. Keast, J. Fijol, S. Jacobson, P.
Keating, J. LeBlanc, E. Fike, B. Kessler, M. Frish, and C. Manolatou,
“Fabrication of three-dimensional mode converters for silicon-based
integrated optics,” J. Vac. Sci. Technol. B 21, 2897–2902 (2003).
5. A. Piegari, J. Bulir, and A. Krasilnikova Sytchkova, “Variable narrow-
band transmission filters for spectrometry from space. 2. Fabrication
process,” Appl. Opt. 47, C151–C156 (2008).
6. C. Moser, L. Ho, E. Maye, and F. Havermeyer, “Fabrication and ap-
plications of volume holographic optical filters in glass,” J. Phys. D 41,
224003 (2008).
7. T. Xu, Y.-K. Wu, X. Luo, and L. J. Guo, “Plasmonic nanoresonators for
high-resolution colour filtering and spectral imaging,” Nat. Commun. 1,
59 (2010).
8. V. Raj Shrestha, S.-S. Lee, E.-S. Kim, and D.-Y. Choi, “Polarization-
tuned dynamic color filters incorporating a dielectric-loaded aluminum
nanowire array,” Sci. Rep. 5, 12450 (2015).
9. K. Aydin, V. E. Ferry, R. M. Briggs, and H. A. Atwater, “Broadband
polarization-independent resonant light absorption using ultrathin
plasmonic super absorbers,” Nat. Commun. 2, 517 (2011).
10. E. Laux, C. Genet, T. Skauli, and T. W. Ebbesen, “Plasmonic photon
sorters for spectral and polarimetric imaging,” Nat. Photonics 2,
161–164 (2008).
11. C. Williams, Y. Montelongo, J. O. Tenorio-Pearl, A. Cabrero-Vilatela,
S. Hofmann, W. I. Milne, and T. D. Wilkinson, “Engineered pixels us-
ing active plasmonic holograms with liquid crystals,” Phys. Status
Solidi RRL 9, 125–129 (2015).
12. Y. Montelongo, J. O. Tenorio-Pearl, C. Williams, S. Zhang, W. I. Milne,
and T. D. Wilkinson, “Plasmonic nanoparticle scattering for color holo-
grams,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 111, 12679–12683 (2014).
13. B. Zeng, Y. Gao, and F. J. Bartoli, “Ultrathin nanostructured metals
for highly transmissive plasmonic subtractive color filters,” Sci. Rep.
3, 1–9 (2013).
14. Z. Li, S. Butun, and K. Aydin, “Large-area, lithography-free super
absorbers and color filters at visible frequencies using ultrathin met-
allic films,” ACS Photon. 2, 183–188 (2015).
15. G. Kajtár, M. Kafesaki, E. N. Economou, and C. M. Soukoulis,
“Theoretical model of homogeneous metal-insulator-metal perfect
multi-band absorbers for the visible spectrum,” J. Phys. D 49,
055104 (2016).
16. K. Diest, J. A. Dionne, M. Spain, and H. A. Atwater, “Tunable color
filters based on metal-insulator-metal resonators,” Nano Lett. 9,
2579–2583 (2009).
17. M. A. Kats, R. Blanchard, P. Genevet, and F. Capasso, “Nanometre
optical coatings based on strong interference effects in highly absorb-
ing media,” Nat. Mater. 12, 20–24 (2012).
18. Y. Cui, Y. He, Y. Jin, F. Ding, L. Yang, Y. Ye, S. Zhong, Y. Lin, and S.
He, “Plasmonic and metamaterial structures as electromagnetic
absorbers,” Laser Photon. Rev. 8, 495–520 (2014).
19. S. Franssila, Introduction to Microfabrication (Wiley-Blackwell, 2010).
20. A. Emadi, H. Wu, S. Grabarnik, G. De Graaf, and R. F. Wolffenbuttel,
“IC-compatible fabrication of linear variable optical filters for micro-
spectrometer,” Procedia Chem. 1, 1143–1146 (2009).
21. M. Ohring, Materials Science of Thin Films (Academic, 1992).
22. Lumerical Solutions, Inc., http://www.lumerical.com/tcad‑products/fdtd/.
23. G. S. S. Saini and S. K. Tripathi, Thin Solid Films (Elsevier, 1995).
Research Article Vol. 55, No. 32 / November 10 2016 / Applied Optics 9241