Detection and measurement of biogenic ultra-weak photon emission

Abstract

The chapter provides the reader with a link to better comprehend the interacting concepts and the implications of electromagnetic radiation for biocommunicative processes. The issues presented herein can be also considered as tools to elaborate new perspectives and to understand the issues presented in successive chapters. In practical terms, the reader will be introduced into the technical aspects and challenges involved when dealing with the detection of ultra-weak photon emissions. Hence, this section looks at various types of detectors available and discusses advantages as well as disadvantages of their usage for one-dimensional measurements (1D). It also includes a short outlook for areal (2D) and spatial (3D) imaging. The chapter concludes with an elaboration on how to register and record photonic emissions from biotic samples, and highlights the basic building-blocks of a state-of-the-art detection system, its modes of use, and issues of calibration.

Full text

Fields of the Cell
Editors: Daniel Fels1, Michal Cifra2, Felix Scholkmann3
1 Institute of Botany, University of Basel, Switzerland;
2 Institute of Photonics and Electronics, The Czech Academy of Sciences, Prague,
Czech Republic
3 Bellariarain 10, Zurich, Switzerland
Research Signpost, T.C. 37/661 (2), Fort P.O., Trivandrum-695 023
Kerala, India

Published by Research Signpost
2015; Rights Reserved
Research Signpost
T.C. 37/661(2), Fort P.O.,
Trivandrum-695 023, Kerala, India
E-mail IDs: admin@rsflash.com
signpost99@gmail.com; rsignpost@gmail.com
Websites: http://www.ressign.com
http://www.trnres.com
http://www.signpostejournals.com
http://www.signpostebooks.com
Editors
Daniel Fels
Michal Cifra
Felix Scholkmann
Managing Editor
S.G. Pandalai
Publication Manager
A. Gayathri
Research Signpost and the Editors assume no responsibility
for the opinions and statements advanced by contributors
ISBN: 978-81-308-0544-3

Contents
Prologue
i
Introduction ii
Chapter 1
The evolution of the biological field concept
Antonios Tzambazakis
1
Chapter 2
The field and the photon from a physical point of view
Pierre Madl and Stephane Egot-Lemaire
29
Chapter 3
Detection and measurement of biogenic ultra-weak photon emission
Pierre Madl
55
Chapter 4
Equilibrium and far-from equilibrium states
Claudio Rossi, Pierre Madl, Alberto Foletti and Chiara Mocenni
71
Chapter 5
The origin and the special role of coherent water in living systems
Emilio Del Giudice, Vladimir Voeikov, Alberto Tedeschi and Giuseppe Vitiello
95
Chapter 6
The photon source within the cell
Ankush Prasad and Pavel Pospíšil
113
Chapter 7
Photon emission in multicellular organisms
Eduard Van Wijk, Yu Yan and Roeland Van Wijk
131
Chapter 8
Electromagnetic cell communication and the barrier method
Daniel Fels
149

Chapter 9
Coherence and statistical properties of ultra-weak photon emission
Christian Brouder and Michal Cifra
163
Chapter 10
Cellular electrodynamics in kHz–THz region
Michal Cifra
189
Chapter 11
Investigating encounter dynamics of biomolecular reactions:
long-range resonant interactions versus Brownian collisions
Jordane Preto, Ilaria Nardecchia, Sebastien Jaeger
Pierre Ferrier and Marco Pettini
215
Chapter 12
Synchrony and consciousness
Thilo Hinterberger, Cigdem Önal-Hartmann and Vahid Salari
229
Chapter 13
Cytoskeletal electrostatic and ionic conduction effects in the cell
Douglas Friesen, Travis Craddock, Avner Priel, and Jack Tuszynski
247
Chapter 14
Morphogenetic fields: History and relations to other concepts
Lev V. Beloussov
271
Chapter 15
Endogenous bioelectric cues as morphogenetic signals in vivo
Maria Lobikin and Michael Levin
283
Chapter 16
Electromagnetic resonance and morphogenesis
Alexis Pietak
303
Epilogue 321
Acknowledgements 321

Research Signpost
37/661 (2), Fort P.O.
Trivandrum-695 023
Kerala, India
D. Fels, M. Cifra and F. Scholkmann (Editors), Fields of the Cell, 2015, ISBN: 978-81-308-0544-3, p. 55–69.
Chapter 3
Detection and measurement of biogenic
ultra-weak photon emission
Pierre Madl
University of Salzburg, Department of Physics & Biophysics, Hellbrunnerstr. 34, A-5020 Salzburg,
Austria
Abstract: The chapter provides the reader with a link to better comprehend the
interacting concepts and the implications of electromagnetic radiation for bio-
communicative processes. The issues presented herein can be also considered as
tools to elaborate new perspectives and to understand the issues presented in
successive chapters. In practical terms, the reader will be introduced into the
technical aspects and challenges involved when dealing with the detection of
ultra-weak photon emissions. Hence, this section looks at various types of detec-
tors available and discusses advantages as well as disadvantages of their usage
for one-dimensional measurements (1D). It also includes a short outlook for
areal (2D) and spatial (3D) imaging. The chapter concludes with an elaboration
on how to register and record photonic emissions from biotic samples, and high-
lights the basic building-blocks of a state-of-the-art detection system, its modes
of usage, and issues of calibration.
Correspondence/Reprint request: Dr. Pierre Madl, University of Salzburg, Department of Physics &
Biophysics, Hellbrunnerstr. 34, A-5020 Salzburg, Austria. E-mail: pierre.madl@sbg.ac.at
1. The concept of a photon
The particle-like view of nature is the predominant way to envision the flow
of matter such as atoms, ionic species or (macro-)molecules through biologi-
cal structures. Yet, the interaction of electromagnetic radiation (EMR)
with matter involves both particle-like as well as wave-like properties. Their
manifestations in matter and the resulting consequences constitute the min-

Pierre Madl
56
imum “set of tools” for entering into the fascinating area of exploring the
interplay between electromagnetic fields and living cells.
According to Quantum Mechanics, there is no distinction between a
wave and a particle. However, the field aspect of EMR is more evident at
lower frequencies, whereas the particle aspects become more evident at
higher frequencies (see Figure 4 of Ch.2). Accordingly, it is legitimate to
introduce here – apart from electron, neutron and proton – another kind of
particle, which is denoted as the photon. This particle however, has no rest-
ing mass and as such is never at rest – it always propagates with velocity “c”
(Feynman et al., 2010). Hence, as a wave it carries the energy (E = h
ν
). Due
to the electromagnetic properties of matter, and only upon striking it, will
the photon reveal its particle-like nature. When the photon's energy is con-
verted to another form, the photon no longer exists. An example where the
particle-like nature prevails is the photoelectric effect – see Figure 13-e of
Ch.2. In the wake of this particle-wave duality, the photon should therefore
be envisioned as an interactive process of an EM-field – thus the term “wav-
icle” would perhaps better denote these underlying features.
Now, how can this particle-wave duality be embedded into a biophysical
context? From a classical perspective the assembly of molecules giving rise
to cell membranes and other complex structures relies on covalent bonding,
van der Waals forces etc. In such a setting, biochemical reactions are re-
garded as signal-driven processes in a stochastic temperature bath. Some
authors claim that the often-quoted “randomness” in a cell’s metabolism is
never able to fully encompass the complexity of life in its entire form. Dürr
et al. (2002) and Ho (2003) state that movements of the molecules within
cells have to be coordinated. Indeed, biology is also a philosophy within
which the facts are organized into a unified conceptual framework that at-
tempts to relate them all into a consistent concept of reality. This issue still
dominates the quest of how all the neurons in a brain integrate and work
together to produce coherent functioning (Becker & Marino, 1982). Already
Fröhlich (1968) noted that, when energy is supplied to a system – either
from metabolism or from external sources – above a critical rate and under
certain conditions it is channelled into the lowest frequency mode, thereby
resulting in coherent excitation of the vibratory components. This well-
known established concept in Quantum Electro Dynamics (QED) is known
as a Bose-Einstein condensate and manifests itself in macroscopic effects
like lasing, superconductivity as well as other macroscopic quantum coher-
ence phenomena. Particularly, weak condensates (those involving enzyme
kinetics) could in fact be induced by biochemical energy (Reimers et al.,
2009) or EMR, especially among microtubuli (Pokorný et al., 2001, Pokorný,
2004).
One way to shed light on Fröhlich’s observation is to show how cells
utilize EMR for intra- and extra-cellular modes in “biocommunication”. The

Detection and measurement of biogenic ultra-weak photon emission
57
act of monitoring such phenomena is accomplished by using photon-
counting devices. Yet, these devices somehow elude us, as these make us
believe that the product of the transmitted energy equates to the “clicking”
noise of a particle. Surely, this process correlates with the detection of a
photon - but again, the driving principles behind it are less than obvious.
When envisioning these processes, namely the emission of photons, as being
part of all life-forms, it is necessary to find out why a particular emission
occurs at a specific point in time. This is an issue that will be better under-
stood when integrating biophysical aspects into biochemistry (Dürr et al.
2002).
Although beyond commonly accepted understanding, Ho (1997) and oth-
er authors proposed that QED offers solutions that help to comprehend why
an autopoietic entity, such as a cell or a cellular cluster, can act in organis-
mic fashion without falling apart. Popp (2005) for example, hypothesized
that the presence of an underlying photonic field helps to explain the rather
low rate of mutations during cell divisions. Every second, roughly 10
4
reac-
tions take place within each cell. Orchestration of these reactions requires
some kind of coordination. So he suggested that coherent fields within the
cell sustain coordination of these reactions. In addition it is assumed that
any of these fields are coupled to resonating structures with high Q-values
(see Section 3 of Chapter 2). Physics teaches us that a high Q-value of the
resonating structure is required for the specificity of an EM-field to couple
with a given biological structure.
On a higher hierarchical level, these fields were proposed to account for
the efficient and cooperative act among the roughly 37.2 × 10
13
cells that
constitute the human body (Bianconi et al., 2013). Doing so would involve a
broad range of frequencies coupled together in such a way as to effectively
converge into a single degree of freedom – so much so as to prevent life from
disintegrating (Ho, 1997). By following this thread, it becomes more plausi-
ble that the common denominator is rooted in the concept of wholeness,
which encompasses the genotype (genome) as well as the phenotype (prote-
ome, metabolome and epigenome). It somehow seems to be embedded in an
underlying field potential that plays a crucial role in the shape and the
structure of every organism (Ho, 2003). Birnbaum & Sanchez-Alvarado
(2008) for example, refer to the toti- and pluripotency of stem-cells in that if
less vital parts are removed from an organisms, it is in principle able to re-
generate the missing parts. Already Becker & Seldon (1985) wrote about the
regenerative capabilities of amputated fingertips of young children, which
has only recently being picked up again by Rinkevich et al. (2011) who doc-
umented similar effects in amputated digits of adult mammalia. According-
ly, Ho (2003) postulates that the underlying field potential must act as the
directive entity that organizes the newly forming live from the zygote via
the foetus to the embryo, thereby orchestrating an entire organism or to

Pierre Madl
58
regenerate the whole from a part. Although beyond the level of accepted
knowledge, it is possible to relate the underlying field-potential with the
photon as the relational entity.
As outlined in section 4 of Chapter 2, matter at the subatomic level not
only interacts with EMR, it basically is made out of it. Here, matter does not
exist with certainty at definite places, but rather shows’ tendencies to exist’.
These 3D-probability-waves collapse into a local entity to constitute its parti-
cle nature (thus, the particle is merely a local condensation of the underlying
field; a concentration of energy that can be quite stable even in geological
timescales or very labile as in radioactive decay patterns). As such, it cannot
be regarded as isolated; rather it has to be understood as an integrated part of
the whole that is, connected via electromagnetic coupling (Capra, 1975, Zu-
kav, 2007). Accordingly, matter can be envisioned as a “coagulated potentiali-
ty” or in simpler terms as “condensed standing waves” usually in the form of a
crystalline matrix where coherent phonon coupling among molecules accounts
for the “hardness” of matter. While abiotic structures can be considered mere
standing waves frozen in space-time, biotic structures – in particular the liq-
uid-crystalline matrix of living tissues (Ho, 1997) – are dynamic entities,
which are able to “harvest” EMR for specific needs. Well-known examples
regard antenna complexes in thylakoid membranes for photosynthesis, or
rhodopsin molecules in the rods and cones of the retina. Already Schrödinger
(1943) wrote that organisms feed on negative entropy, by extracting energy
from the environment to build order (an issue that will be discussed in more
details in Chapter 4). Such order, regardless of their nature, i.e. biological
primary (plants) or secondary (animal) matter, in their source terms are
EMR-driven. So it should not come as a surprise that most biotic structures
upon exposure to external stimuli emit light at a steady rate from a few pho-
tons per cell per day to several hundred photons per second (Musumeci et al.,
1992). So, rather than speaking of ultra-weak photon emissions, especially
when originating from living tissues, the word "biophotons" has been coined
already 70 years ago to express the fact that light emissions from living sam-
ples (greek: bios) correlate with metabolic activity (Gurwitsch & Gurwitsch,
1943). Depending on the site of photonic origin, spectral emissions have been
observed for various biological species and cellular fractions (van Wijk &
Schamhart, 1988). Already Gurwitsch & Gurwitsch (1943) as well as Colli &
Facchini (1954), documented this phenomenon but only later did Presman
(1970), Becker & Seldon (1985), and Popp & Li (1993) develop concepts on how
EMR is involved in cell interaction and cell-to-cell communication.
Recent experiments actually provide evidence for the bio-communicative
role of light within and among cell populations (Farhadi et al., 2007; Fels,
2009, 2012; Salari et al., 2011; Albrecht-Buehler, 1991, 1992, Rossi et al.,
2011; Madl & Witzany, 2014). Standard biological thermodynamics attests
that all living systems are out of thermal equilibrium (Kondepudi & Prigo-

Detection and measurement of biogenic ultra-weak photon emission
59
gine, 1981), and as such are likely to be more sensitive to external stimuli,
including EMR (Kondepudi, 1982), than systems at linear steady states – an
issue also elaborated in Chapter 4.
Although not too many studies have been performed in this field, it is
possible to show that biophotonic emissions are somewhat correlated with
the cell cycle and other functional states of cells. In reverse, biophotonic
emissions of cells correlate with the extent and duration of many external
stimuli of stresses (Roschger & Klima, 1985). Both properties can be ob-
served in-vitro using highly sensitive photon-detecting devices.
2. Measurement of EM-fields and photons in live biotic samples
Hereafter, detection and measurement techniques of EMR are presented
that emphasize photon capturing, either in the visible (VIS), infrared (IR) or
ultraviolet (UV) ranges. Detection of longer wavelengths such as radio- and
decimetre waves (referring to Fig. 1 of Chapter 2), require discrete macro-
scopic structures that act as antennas. According to Faraday’s law, detection
of magnetic fields employ loops that transform the time-derivative of the
magnetic field flux density into currents. Likewise, detection of the comple-
mentary electric fields, demands linear antennas, or electric dipoles that
convert the electric field to voltages. In order to extract imprinted infor-
mation such as a modulated signal from a radio wave – apart from induct-
ances (L) and capacitances (C) required to tune into a specific resonance
band – engineers use special demodulators to decode a useful signal. To en-
vision the sensitivity of such devices, one just needs to recall that the Pio-
neer-spacecraft series relied just on 40 W-transmitters to relay data down to
Earth from distances as far as from the edge of our solar system.
As outlined above, for shorter wavelengths (e.g. below the IR-range),
EMR increasingly manifest its particle-like properties. Here, detection does
not rely anymore on a matching relationship between wavelength and its
corresponding resonator geometry but on the resonance modes of harmoni-
cally coupled atomic/molecular oscillators. In that regime, the energy of the
radiation has to match at least one energy level of electronic orbitals (see
Fig.13 of Chapter 2), whereby a resonating “LC-equivalent” can only be as-
signed if the molecular/atomic properties are considered. Such minute “an-
tenna-like properties” are found among photosensitive chemicals, in gas-
filled ionisation chambers, among fluorescence/phosphorescence properties
of certain materials, volatile fluids of bubble chambers, gases of Geiger-
tubes, in semi-conducting solid-state counters and so forth.
With regards to photons in the VIS range, real progress in the field of
biophotonic research was made possible by Colli & Facchini (1954), Colli et
al (1955) and later by Ruth’s device when it was possible to quantify these
emissions (Ruth, 1977). The employed emission-type photomultiplier was

Pierre Madl
60
able to detect light intensities as low as 10
-17
W (comparable with photonic
emissions of a single firefly at a distance of 10 km).
Their elusive properties – very low intensities (Popp et al., 1988),
ranging from a few to up to some hundreds photons s
-1
cm
-2
along with
their wide spectral occurrence, covering the UV- VIS- and near IR win-
dows (van Wijk & Schamhart, 1988) – call for detection devices that meet
these requirements. Nowadays, various detector types are available and
range from photomultiplier tubes (PMTs) and channeltrons that are fitted
with photon-converting cathode interfaces to photodiode arrays (PDA)
suitable for 1D-resolution (Fig. 1). The latter can be classical, avalanche or
even made as a hybrid type. All are widely used standard optical detec-
tors. For areal (2D) or spatial (3D) resolution, PDAs, charged-coupled de-
vices (CCDs as used in digital cameras) and micro-channel plates (MCPs)
can be utilized. MCPs are closely related to electron multipliers in that
these amplify single photons by the multiplication of electrons via second-
ary emissions (Kobayashi, 2013). Signal intensities of PDAs or CCDs can
be boosted substantially not only by cooling the device to reduce noise but
additionally by simply combining MCPs with CCD-technology. Thus,
MCPs are much more sensitive than comparable PDAs or CCDs and could
one day become a real alternative to currently used PMTs.
1
Yet, still, 2D-
yield is much lower per detector element than in 1D-detectors as in the
latter the full detector surface area (representing one large pixel) is used
for photon capturing. In order to obtain usable signals in 2D, these detec-
tors require prolonged exposure times, as a reduction in detection area
results in a drastic loss of integration time – the functional dependence is
proportional to diameter
-2
. More recent advances include visible light pho-
ton counters (VLPCs) and superconducting tunnel junctions (STJs) – both
have good yield but require operation at almost absolute zero temperature
(Hadfield. 2009).
Since PMTs can be operated at reasonable conditions at very low noise
and relatively high photon detection efficiency of up to 40%, they still re-
main the workhorses for ultra-weak photon detection (Swain, 2010).
1
Inter-comparison of MCP & PMT detectors (accessed 25
th
April, 2012):
www.boselec.com/products/documents/FastDetectors11-28-06.pdf

Detection and measurement of biogenic ultra-weak photon emission
61
Figure 1. Revealing spatio-temporal dimensions of detector arrangement. Left pane:
1D-detector covering the full surface area of the underlying petri dish housing a cell
culture. Center pane: 2D-detector made up of several smaller 1D-units enabling re-
cordings of dynamic changes within the cell culture (here areal resolution predomi-
nantly depends on the number of detectors employed). Right pane: a battery of single
units to constitute a 3D detector (for sake of clarity, the detector battery is limited to
few sectors only); ideally such a detector arrangement should attain a spherical ar-
rangement to cover full 3D-resolution.
3. Concept of a 1D-ultra-weak photon emission detector
(UWPE) system
The core of a UWPE-System with 1D-resolution consists of a highly sensi-
tive PMT, which allows photon counting of biological as well as non-
biological samples. Figure 2 displays the principal components of such a
system, with the PMT constituting the heart of the system (Fig. 3). Me-
chanically, a PMT is simply an assembly of electrodes in a sealed, evacuated
glass tube, which houses a photo-cathode conversion layer, several dynodes,
and an anode. In order to yield the photo-multiplying effect, this setup must
be operated using a high voltage power supply. Incident photons strike the
photo-cathode material, which is present as a thin deposit on the entry win-
dow of the device. For wide range applications, the photo-cathodic window is
made of a multi-alkali alloy (e.g. Sb-Na-K-Cs) that is sensitive over a wide
spectral range from 200 to 800 nm (Popp et al, 1984).

Pierre Madl
62
Figure 2. Schematics of ultra-weak photon emission detector for spontaneous and
delayed emission modes. Amp: signal amplifier; Ctrl: control-signal-link; DC: dark
chamber; Dis: signal discriminator; DPU: data processing unit, i.e. desktop computer;
ES: electronic shutter; FoC: fiber-optical cable link; M: mirror; H: temperature con-
troller; HV: high voltage supply; MC: monochromator; PMT: photo-multiplier-tube;
PC: peltier-elements for cooling; PS: standard power supply; SM: step-motor; Xe-LS:
wide spectral light source, e.g. a Xenon-lamp.
Due to the photoelectric effect, this layer emits primary electrons when
hit by incoming UV-VIS-IR radiation. Yet, detection efficiency over this
range is not the same all over. Here, quantum efficiency (QE) – which is the
ratio of the number of produced primary electrons over the number of pho-
tons striking the photo-cathode – characterizes the sensitivity of the photo-
converting layer. Referring to Planck’s equation (E = h ν), photons with
shorter wavelengths have higher energy than those with longer wave-
lengths. This means that the QE is higher at shorter wavelengths than for
longer ones. Thus, not all photons are energetically strong enough to trigger
the release of primary electrons. These shortcomings contribute to the overall
reduced QE of most common PMTs, which – depending on the wavelength
sensistitity – is typically less than 30%. Thus, the energy of primary electrons
corresponds to the incident photonic energy minus the conversion function of
the photo-cathode. The emitted primary electrons in turn are directed to the
focusing electrode and toward the electron multiplier unit via a process known
as secondary emission. This unit consists of a number of serially arranged

Detection and measurement of biogenic ultra-weak photon emission
63
electrodes (various dynode stages). Each dynode is held at a more positive
voltage than the previous one, with the most distal dynode stage – depending
on the PMT-type – reaching a maximum potential of approx. 2 kV
DC
. Acceler-
ation via the applied electrical field gradient assures that the electrons hit the
first dynode stage with much greater energy than originally released by the
photo-converting cathode. Upon striking the first dynode and due to the exist-
ing potential gradient more electrons are emitted, which in turn are accelerat-
ed toward the successive dynode. The geometry of the dynode chain is such
that with every dynode and thus potential increase more and more electrons
are being produced. Upon reaching the anode, the avalanche of electrons is
typically amplified by a factor of 10
6
, where the accumulation of charge results
in a sharp current pulse that correlates to the incident photon.
Figure 3. Functional design of a classical PMT. It consists of a photon-electron con-
verting cathode to which a series of dynodes are attached. The dynodes are connected
to a voltage cascade that increases in stepwise manner as it approaches the anode.
The latter can reach a potential of up to 2 kV.
2
QE, though, is not the most important delimiter when detecting ultra-
weak photon emissions. Even more important is a low signal to noise ratio
(SNR) of the PMT. For simplicity, it can be condensed to a simple ratio of
“signal over noise”. SNR follows a Poisson distribution and is highly depen-
dent on the type of PMT used, its gating and the employed signal amplifier.
To improve SNR, one needs to restrict the signal to a few photons per gate
and count photons for many successive gating intervals. Obviously, this in-
troduces the inconvenience of longer measurement times. Yet, doing so
2
PMTs (accessed 25
th
April, 2012) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photomultiplier_tube
& http://www.torontosurplus.com/par/DATA2069.JPG

Pierre Madl
64
usually far offsets the small gain in SNR, which would result from a single
photon count.
Thermoionic background noise from the photocathode – in the lower
kHz-range when operated at ambient temperature – can be further reduced
by cooling the PMT to well below freezing: typically -25 °C. This is achieved
via Peltier-elements, which causes the spontaneous emission of tempera-
ture-related primary electrons to fall below 10 dark-count pulses per second.
Only then is it possible to observe ultra-weak emissions from live samples.
As PMTs operate on the basis of a potential gradient, these detectors
are sensitive to magnetic fields (>100 mT). Thus shielding of the detector
should be considered to maintain proper gains in signal strength. Further-
more, to extend the lifespan of a PMT, it should never be operated at maxi-
mum potential, rather 300–400 V below this value (Swain, 2010).
Figure 4. Channel Photomultiplier. Cross-sectional view (left) and external view with
and without encapsulation (right).
3
A more modern design concerns the channel photomultiplier (CPM). It
still preserves the advantages of the classical PMT, yet instead of the com-
plicated dynode structure, a bent, thin semi-conductive channel acceler-
3
CMPs (accessed 25
th
April, 2012) www.perkinelmer.com/CMSResources/Images/44-
6570DTS_PhotomultipliersMolecularDetectionAnalyticalApplicationsMedicalDiagnos
tics.pdf

Detection and measurement of biogenic ultra-weak photon emission
65
ates the electrons through the channel. Secondary emissions are emitted
each time electrons are obstructed by the undulating geometry of the tube,
resulting in the same avalanche effect as in the classical dynode design
(Fraden, 2011). As depicted in Figure 4, the CPM is polled with encapsula-
tion material and is quite rugged compared to the fragility of classical
PMTs. Other advantages of CPM technology include: i) very low back-
ground noise due to different dynode design; ii) being made of a monolithic
semi-conductive channel structure, there are no charge-up effects. As with
PMTs, however, cooling is again unavoidable if one wants to reduce ther-
mal emissions of the photocathode.
With the absence of dynode noise, thermoelectrically cooled CMPs en-
able clean separation between real events created from the conversion of a
photon to a photoelectron, which leads to high stability of the signal over
time. However, these ruggedized detectors still do not yield the same detec-
tor efficiency as comparable PMTs.
Since active (window) diameters are quite smaller than in larger PMTs,
CMPs are suitable for 2D imaging. An array of several CMPs in parallel
provides a 2D detector surface with a very coarse resolution. The drawback
however, is evident: the reduced surface area per detector translates into a
1/d
2
lower yield compared to a large 1D-PMT.
Regardless of the detector employed and as shown in Figure 2, addi-
tional amplification using an electronic amplifier is necessary. Only then
can the discriminator unit convert the current spikes into a computer-
compatible transistor-transistor-logic (TTL) signal. Since recovery times of
these detectors are very fast, the number of TTL signals per given sam-
pling interval (ranging from ms to days) corresponds to the intensity of
photon emission (Yu, 2002).
4. Experimental procedures
Prior to measurements and to avoid the additive effect of ambient bias, any
sample (e.g. quartz-glass cuvette housing the cell suspension) should be kept
in a dark chamber for at least 15 minutes. With respect to the spectral win-
dow, quartz-glass cuvettes are preferred for liquid samples over standard
glass, as it allows UV radiation originating from the sample to actually
reach the detector.
For biological samples, it is often required to operate the measurement
cycle under controlled temperature conditions. Thus, the dark chamber (as
shown in Fig. 2) is fitted with temperatur sensors, a PID controller and pel-
tier elements to enable accurate adjustment to comply with physiological
constraints – usually in a range from 0 to 50 °C.
Upon placing a biological specimen into the detector chamber, as con-
ceptualized in Figure 2, two modes of operations are possible. The first

Pierre Madl
66
concerns conditioning the sample with a light source prior to measurement
(delayed luminescence, DL-mode), whereas the second operates without
activation and aims to detect spontaneous emissions (SE-mode).
Illumination in the DL-mode requires a focused light source with a
spectral range covering UV, VIS and IR (e.g. xenon-lamp with a lumi-
nous flux rating in the order of 1–2 klm). A suitable optic fiber cable
routs the beam of light to the sample. The optical link, as shown in Fig-
ure 2, is recommended as this cuts off specific wavelengths; e.g. above 720
and below 310 nm. In addition, the light source can be used in full spectral
mode (polychromatic DL-mode) or via a monochromator to select the desired
narrow spectral window (monochromatic DL-mode). Illumination with mon-
ochromatic light stimulates resonant structure only that best interact with
the incident radiation and thus provide additional information with respect
to the most active re-radiated spectral window. Each measuring cycle should
start with an irradiating phase that lasts from 1 to several minutes. After
excitation, the subsequent DL-emission are then recorded and evaluated in
a time slot ranging from 0.7 to 60 seconds. For statistical purposes, every
sample should be measured at least three times (Scholz et al., 1988).
Calibration of the detector is crucial and can be achieved by using refer-
ence emission sources. Usually, it is sufficient to turn towards readily avail-
able
14
C isotopes (β-emitters) in combination with fluorescent organic solu-
tions that are frequently utilized in calibration procedures for scintillation
counters. The isotope comes in a range from 1–2 kBq (27–54 nCi), which
needs to be coupled to the fluorescing scintillation solutions consisting of
2,5-Diphenyloxazole and 1,4-bis-(2-methylstyryl)-benzene. The β-radiation
from the isotope induces weak fluorescence, which is recorded by the detec-
tor. Calibration of the detector assures reproducibility and reduces meas-
urement errors to levels of a few counts per second (Popp et al., 1984; Yu,
2002).
5. Conclusion
In this chapter the focus was laid on how EMR emitted by living entities –
both within cells as well as outside the organism – could play a vital role in
inter- and intra-cellular communication as well as in the organization of
living systems. Such ultra-weak photon emission (also known as biophotons)
can be measured with highly sensitive devices called photomultipliers. This
type of detector has shown to be a reliable tool for diagnostic purposes with-
in the field of biophotonics. Yet, further research efforts and improved detec-
tor efficiencies are urgently required to achieve better signal to noise ratios
and enhanced photon-conversion yield. The emerging 2
nd
-generation detec-
tors will eventually make it possible to explore biophysical properties in
living organisms even beyond existing limitations. This will both include

Detection and measurement of biogenic ultra-weak photon emission
67
measurements of the spectral intensities of these emissions as well as 2D-
dynamics within cell cultures during growth and development or during
normal metabolic activity.
References
Albrecht-Buehler, G. 1991. Surface extensions of 3T3 cells towards distant infrared light
sources. J Cell Biol. 114(3): 493–502.
Albrecht-Buehler, G. 1992. Rudimentary form of cellular "vision". PNAS, 89(17): 8288–
8292.
Becker, R.O. & Marino, A.A. 1982. Electromagnetism and Life. State University Press New
York, Albany.
Becker, R.O. & Seldon, G. 1985. The Body Electric. Morrow Publ., New York.
Bianconi, E., Piovesan, A., Facchin, F., Beraudi, A., Casadei, R., Frabetti, F., Vitale, L.,
Pelleri, M.C., Tassani, S., Piva, F., Perez-Amodio, S., Strippoli, P. & Canaider, S.
(2013). An estimation of the number of cells in the human body. Annals of Human Biol-
ogy, 40(6): 463–471.
Birnbaum, K.D. & Sanchez-Alvarado, A. 2008. Slicing across kingdoms: regeneration in
plants and animals. Cells, 132(4): 697–710.
Capra F. 1975. The Tao of Physics: An Exploration of the Parallels Between Modern Phys-
ics and Eastern Mysticism. Shambhala Publications, Boulder.
Colli, L. & Facchini U. 1954. Light emissions by germinating plants. Il Nuovo Cimento, 12,
150–153.
Colli, L., Fachini, U., Guidotti, G., Dugnani-Lonati R., Orsenigo, M. & Sommariva, O. 1955.
Brief Report on: Further Measurements on the Bioluminescence of the Seedlings. Cellu-
lar and Molec. Life Sci., 11(12): 479–481.
Dürr, H. P., Popp, A. F. & Schommers. 2002. What is Life: Scientific Approaches and Philo-
sophical Positions. World Scientific, River Edge.
Farhadi, A., Forsyth, C., Banan, A., Shaikh, M., Engen, P., Fields, J.Z., Keshavarzian, A.
2007. Evidence for non-chemical, non-electrical intercellular signaling in intestinal epi-
thelial cells. Bioelectrochemistry, 71(2): 142–148.
Fels, D. 2009. Cellular Communication through Light. PLoS ONE 4(4): e5086, 1-8.
Fels, D. 2012. Analogy Between Quantum and Cell Relations. Axiomathes, 22 (4): 509–520.
Feynman, R.P, Leighton, R.B. & Sands, M. 2010. The Feynman Lectures on Physics – Mil-
lennium Edition, Volume 1; Basic Books Publ., New York.
Fraden, J. 2011. Handbook of Modern Sensors – Physics, Design and Application. 4
th
ed.
Ch.15 – Radiation Detectors. Springer – New York.
Fröhlich H. 1968. Bose condensation of strongly excited longitudinal electric modes. Physics
Letters A, 26(9): 402–403.
Grassa, F., Klima, H. & Kasper, S. 2004. Biophotons, microtubules and CNS: is our brain a
Holographic computer? Medical Hypotheses, 62: 169–172.
Gurwitsch, A.G. & Gurwitsch, L.D. 1943. Twenty Years of Mitogenetic Radiation: Emer-
gence, Development, and Perspectives. Uspekhi Sovremennoi Biologii 16, 305–334.
(English translation: 21
st
Century Science and Technology. Fall, 1999, 12(3): 41–53.

Pierre Madl
68
Hadfield, R.H. 2009. Single-photon detectors for optical quantum information applications.
Nature Photonics, 3: 696–705.
Ho, M.W. 1997. Towards a Theory of the Organism. Integrative Physiological and Behav-
ioral Science, 32(4): 343–363.
Ho, M.W., 2003. The Rainbow and the Worm – The Physics of Organism, World Scientific,
Singapore.
Kondepudi, D.K. 1982. Sensitivity of chemical dissipative structures to external fields:
Formation of propagating bands. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications,
115(3): 552–566.
Kondepudi, D.K., Prigogine, I. 1981. Sensitivity of nonequilibrium systems. Physica A:
Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 107(1): 1–24.
Kobayashi, M. 2013. Highly sensitive imaging for ultra-weak photon emission from living
organisms. J.o. Photochem Photobiol B. S111–1344(13), 00255-8
Madl. P., Witzany, G. 2014. How Corals coordinate and organize: an ecosystemic analysis
based fractal properties. In: Biocommunication of Animals. Heidelberg: Springer, 351–
382.
Musumeci, F., Godlevski, M., Popp, F.A. & Ho, M.W. 1992. Time Behavior of Delayed Lu-
minescence in Acetabularia acetabulum. In: Popp, F.A., Li, K.H. & Gu, Q. (eds) Ad-
vances in Biophoton Research. World Scientific, Singapore.
Pokorný, J., Hašek, J., Jelínek, F., Saroch, J. & Palán, B,. 2001. Electromagnetic activity of
yeast cells in the M phase. Electro Magnetobiol., 20: 371–396.
Pokorný, J. 2004. Excitation of vibrations in microtubules in living cells. Bioelectrochemistry
63: 321–326.
Popp, F.A., Nagl, W., Li, K. H., Scholz, W., Weingartner, O. and Wolf, R. 1984, New Evidence
for Coherence and DNA as Source, Cell Biophysics Vol. 6, 33–52.
Popp, F.A., Li, K.H., Mei, W.P., Galle, M. & Neurohr, R. 1988. Physical aspects of biophotons.
Experientia 44(7): 576–585.
Popp, F.A. & Li, K.H. 1993. Hyperbolic relaxation as a sufficient condition of a fully coherent
ergodic field. Int. J. Theoret. Physics, 32(9): 1573–1583.
Popp, F.A 2005. Essential differences between coherent and non-coherent effects of photon
emission from living organisms. In: Shen, X & vanWijk, R. (eds) Biophotonics – Optical
Science and Engineering for the 21
st
Century. Springer, New York.
Presman, A.S. 1970. Electromagnetic fields and Life. Plenum Press, New York.
Reimers, J.R., McKemmish, L.K., McKenzie, R.H., Mark, A.E. & Hush, N.S. 2009. Weak,
strong, and coherent regimes of Fröhlich condensation and their applications to terahertz
medicine and quantum consciousness. PNAS, 106(11): 4219–4224.
Rinkevich, Y., Lindau, P., Ueno, H., Longaker, M.T., & Weissman, I.L. 2011. Germ-layer and
lineage-restricted stem/progenitors regenerate the mouse digit tip. Nature, 476(7361):
409–413.
Roschger, P. & Klima, H. 1985. Untersuchungen von NOx-Schaedigung an Wasserlinsen mit
Hilfe der ultraschwachen Photonenemisison. Atomic Institute, University of Vienna,
AIAU-Report No. 85501.
Rossi, C., Foletti, A., Magnani, A. & Lamponi, S. 2011. New perspectives in cell communica-
tion: Bioelectromagnetic interactions. Semin Cancer Biol. 21(3):207–214.

Detection and measurement of biogenic ultra-weak photon emission
69
Ruth, B. 1977. Experimenteller Nachweis ultraschwacher Photonenemissionen aus biologi-
schen Systemen. Dissertation, University of Marburg.
Salari, V,. Tuszynski, J., Rahnama, M., Bernroider, G. 2011. Plausibility of Quantum Coher-
ent States in Biological Systems. JPCS, 306: 012075, 1–10.
Scholz, W., Staszkiewicz, U., Popp, F. A. & Nagl, W. 1988. Light-Stimulated Ultraweak Pho-
ton Reemission of Human Amnion Cells and Wish Cells. Cell Biophysics. 13: 55–63.
Schrödinger, E. 1944. What is Life? The Physical Aspect of the Living Cell. Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, Cambridge.
Swain, J. 2010. Detectors for the quantized electromagnetic field. Summerschool on biopho-
tonics and application of biophotons. Neuss.
van Wijk, R. & Schamhart, D. 1988. Regulatory aspects of low intensity photon emission.
Experientia, 44: 586–593.
Yu, Y. 2002, Biophotonenemission von Gerstensamen (Hordeum vulgare L.). Dissertation at
the Johannes Gutenberg University of Mainz.
Zukav, G., 2007. La Danza dei Maestri Wu Li Masters. La fisica quantistica e le teorie della
relatività spiegati senza l’aiuto della matematica. Corbaccio Editori, Milan.