Abstract
Miniaturized integrated spectrometers will have unprecedented impact on applications ranging from unmanned aerial vehicles to mobile phones, and silicon photonics promises to deliver compact, costeffective devices. Mirroring its ubiquitous freespace counterpart, a silicon photonicsbased Fourier transform spectrometer (SiFTS) can bring broadband operation and fine resolution to the chip scale. Here we present the modeling and experimental demonstration of a thermally tuned SiFTS accounting for dispersion, thermooptic nonlinearity, and thermal expansion. We show how these effects modify the relation between the spectrum and interferogram of a light source and we develop a quantitative correction procedure through calibration with a tunable laser. We retrieve a broadband spectrum (7 THz around 193.4 THz with 0.38THz resolution consuming 2.5 W per heater) and demonstrate the SiFTS resilience to fabrication variations—a major advantage for largescale manufacturing. Providing design flexibility and robustness, the SiFTS is poised to become a fundamental building block for onchip spectroscopy.
Introduction
In recent years, significant efforts have been directed toward the realization of miniaturized optical spectrometers for in situ spectral analysis in numerous areas of science and technology^{1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17}. The widespread use of optical spectroscopy from remote sensing^{4,7} and planetary sciences^{13} to medical research^{18} and pharmaceutical processes^{19} strongly relies on the large absorption and/or reflection crosssections of many compounds in the nearinfrared and midinfrared range.
Siliconbased devices operate in such range and the substantial progress in integrated silicon photonics design and fabrication can therefore be leveraged to develop miniaturized spectrometers for mobile platforms. Typical silicononinsulator (SOI) waveguides can operate in the 1.1–4 μm wavelength range, limited by the silicon band edge at short wavelengths and by the oxide absorption at long wavelengths. The incorporation of additional complementary metaloxidesuperconductor (CMOS)compatible materials to the mainstream fabrication process, including silicon nitride (SiN)^{4,20} for short wavelengths and germaniumonsilicon (GeonSi)^{4,21,22} for long wavelengths, promises to significantly extend this window of operation. Moreover, the possibility of monolithic integration of spectrometers and photodetectors is a valuable advantage of photonic integration, promising high signaltonoise ratio and increased sensitivity. Adding heterogeneously integrated light sources^{23,24,25}, all the optical components required for a fully functional spectrometer can be realized in a single chip. Finally, the access to multiprojectwafer services through silicon photonics foundries provides a costeffective path to developing robust highperformance devices^{4,26,27,28}.
A large variety of integrated photonic spectrometer designs has been recently investigated. These include dispersive devices such as arrayed waveguide gratings^{4,5} and cavityenhanced spectrometers^{6}, spatial heterodyne spectrometers (SHS)^{7,8,9,10,11} based on arrays of interferometers, and stationary waveintegrated Fourier transform spectrometers (SWIFTS)^{12,13,14}. In the latter, a spatial—rather than temporal—interferogram is formed by the standing wave pattern generated by the interference of two counterpropagating beams inside a waveguide. Designs based on the traditional Fourier transform spectrometer (FTS)^{29}, in which a temporal interferogram is measured varying the optical path between the arms of an interferometer, have also been investigated using microelectromechanical systems^{15,16} and lithiumniobate planar photonic circuits^{17}.
Investigations of the traditional FTS design in the silicon photonics platform have been, however, surprisingly scarce^{30}. Whereas FTbased spectrometers such as SHS are suitable for highresolution, narrowband applications, the traditional FTS is a promising candidate to address moderate resolution, broadband applications. Considering the requirements for a silicon photonicsbased FTS (SiFTS), some challenges can be identified. First, the optical path difference between the arms of the interferometer is achieved tuning the refractive index rather than changing the physical length, thus an index tuning mechanism capable of large index changes must be used for high spectral resolution. Fortunately, the thermooptic effect can deliver large index changes of more than 10^{−2} for temperature differences around 100 K. For large temperatures, however, thermooptic nonlinearity and thermal expansion of the waveguide become important. Second, silicon waveguides are highly dispersive. As a consequence, the thermooptic effect will also present strong dispersion. This translates to each optical frequency effectively experiencing a different change in optical path.
In this article, we demonstrate the implementation of a SiFTS on the SOI platform with integrated microheaters. We show that the issues related to thermooptic nonlinearity, thermal expansion, and dispersion can be properly understood and incorporated in a simple manner. We derive a FT relation between the power spectral density (PSD) and the interferogram with modified optical frequency and arm delay accounting for these effects and we demonstrate a calibration procedure using a tunable laser source. Further, we demonstrate the retrieval of a 7THzwide light source around 193.4 THz with spectral resolution of 0.38 THz (12.7 cm^{−1}, 3.05 nm) using a 1 mm^{2} device with total electric power dissipation around 2.5 W per heater. The SiFTS shows intrinsic resilience to fabrication variations that allows scalability of its resolution and power consumption performance, enabling robust and versatile portable spectrometers.
Results
Experimental device
The device consists of a standard MachZehnder Interferometer (MZI) integrated with metal microheaters fabricated in full compatibility with standard silicon photonics foundry processes (Fig. 1). The external light is buttcoupled into and out of the chip using inverse tapers and adiabatically transitions to the highly confined quasiTE mode of the access strip waveguide before splitting in the two arms of the interferometer and subsequently recombining into the output waveguide through broadband ybranch couplers (Fig. 1e)^{31}. The output light is coupled out of chip directly into a photodetector. Each arm of the MZI consists of a spiral (Fig. 1d) with total length of 30.407 mm and is covered by independently actuated nichrome microheaters. The propagation losses of the waveguides are estimated to be around 2 dB cm^{−1}. The total device footprint is 1 mm^{2}.
Spectrometer modeling
In this section, we present the main results that allow to define a modified FT relation between the varying optical power at the output of the MZI, I, and the PSD of the incoming light, PSD (ν). A detailed discussion is provided in Supplementary Note 2.
The operation of the SiFTS includes a simple data acquisition step consisting of measuring the output power as a function of the phase difference Δϕ between the two arms of the MZI. The Δϕdependent term is given by
where ν is the optical frequency and T(ν) is the transfer function of the MZI—ideally 1. The phase difference is
where c is the speed of light, n_{eff,i} and L_{ i } are the effective index and the total length of arm i.
The discussion is facilitated by first considering the response of an idealized device. In this case T(ν) = 1, the two arms are identical with length L, the effective indices are identical and dispersionless, n_{eff,i}(ν) ≡ n_{eff}, and the effective index change due to temperature change ΔT depends only on a linear thermooptic coefficient (TOC) ∂_{ T }n, such that Δn_{eff} = ∂_{ T }nΔT. We use a contracted notation for partial derivatives, \(\frac{{\partial n_{{\mathrm{eff}}}}}{{\partial x}} \equiv \partial _xn\). The time delay between the arms of the MZI is defined as \(\tau = \frac{L}{c}\partial _Tn{\mathrm{\Delta }}T\) and the phase difference is simply
The phase difference in the form 2π × frequency × delay establishes a direct FT relation between I(τ) and PSD(ν), with the conjugate variables ν and τ,
where \({\cal F}\)[] denotes the Fourier transform. Thus, PSD(ν) can be directly obtained from the inverse FT (IFT) of the interferogram,
In practice, the SiFTS with thermal tuning includes other effects that must be taken into account. First, the strong mode dispersion of silicon waveguides causes significant frequency dependence on the effective index. Second, a large temperature excursion is required to achieve large phase imbalances and the nonlinearity of the thermooptic response must be considered. The large temperature excursion also induces changes in the arm length (ΔL) due to thermal expansion. Finally, chipscale variability^{20,26} and fabrication imperfections often introduce small differences between the two arms of the MZI, identical by design. Such variations may affect the arm length (δL) as well as the effective index (δn(ν)). Assuming the heater on top of arm 1 (H_{1}) is actuated and including the deviations from the designed parameters in arm 2, the effective indices and arm lengths are
The expressions for n_{eff}(ν), Δn_{eff}(ν, ΔT), δn(ν), and ΔL(ΔT) are presented in Supplementary Note 2 and contain highorder terms in ΔT and/or Δν, with Δν = ν − ν_{0}.
The phase difference of the SiFTS can be written in the form 2π × frequency × delay, similar to Eq. 3 but with modified frequency and delay terms. Substituting Eq. 6 in Eq. 2 yields Δϕ with contributions in Δν^{i}ΔT^{j} for i from 0 to 4 and for j from 0 to 5. The simplification of the resulting expression depends on the dispersion and thermooptical properties of the waveguide as well as on the maximum temperature excursion and on the bandwidth of the light source. Using the properties of our 250by550 nm^{2} SOI waveguides (Supplementary Table 1) with temperature excursion of <100 K and optical bandwidth of a few tens of terahertz, we show that Δϕ can be simplified to
The first term φ(ν) depends only on ν (Supplementary Eq. 19) and therefore does not contribute to the kernel of the FT. It contributes to shifting and distorting the interferogram, but it has no influence on the retrieved PSD as will be shown. Thus, it is not discussed in detail here.
The second term, \(2\pi u{\cal T}\) is similar to Eq. 3, but with modified optical frequency and time delay
u represents the broadening of the original optical frequency ν around ν_{0} by a factor 1 + ξ_{1}. In our case, ξ_{1} is dominated by ∂_{ν,T}n. \({\cal T}\) represents a correction of the original optical delay τ that includes the nonlinear contribution γ_{2}τ^{2}, with γ_{2} dominated by \(\partial _{T^2}n\). τ in turn is related to ΔT by τ = η_{1}ΔT, with η_{1} dominated by ∂_{ T }n. The expressions for ξ_{1}, γ_{2}, and η_{1} are presented in Supplementary Note 2.
Substituting Eq. 7 in Eq. 1 and changing the integration variable from ν to u, the interferogram and the PSD are finally related through a FT in the modified conjugate variables u and \({\cal T}\), denoted by \({\cal F}\)[],
Neglecting the constant term (1 + ξ_{1})^{−1} multiplying the FT, the PSD is then retrieved from the absolute value of the IFT of the interferogram, normalized by the MZI transfer function T(u),
Finally, the frequency axis must be transformed back to the original optical frequency ν,
Spectrometer calibration with tunable laser
As in free space, the SiFTS must be calibrated to provide good absolute frequency accuracy. In addition, parameters ξ_{1}, γ_{2}, and T(ν) should also be ideally determined in a calibration step such that the transformations u → ν, \(\tau \to {\cal T}\), and the renormalization of Eq. 10 can be properly performed in later use. A calibration process realized with a narrow linewidth tunable laser source allows to address all these requirements.
First, the calibration of the absolute optical frequency, ξ_{1} and γ_{2} is achieved measuring the interferogram of the laser source at different laser frequencies (at least three) in the spectral region of interest. Calibrating the absolute optical frequency reduces to determining κ_{ τ } that connects the electric power dissipated in the heater with the resulting arm delay, τ = κ_{ τ }W. The interferogram of a laser source at frequency ν is, according to Eq. 9,
where A and φ_{ ν } are constant amplitude and phase. Using this relation and Eq. 8, the interferogram can be written as a function of the electric power and the original laser frequency as
with
K(ν) and γ_{ W } can be determined for each heater (H_{1} and H_{2}) curvefitting the experimental interferograms using a cosine with nonlinear argument. Following, the linear fit of K(ν) with ν_{0} = 193.414 THz allows to determine κ_{ τ } for each heater and ξ_{1}. Finally, using κ_{ τ }, we obtain γ_{2} = γ_{ W }/κ_{ τ }.
The calibration results using the laser interferograms are presented in Fig. 2a–e and the extracted parameters are summarized in Table 1. The interferogram for the laser frequency 187.37 THz (1600 nm) with heater H_{2} actuated and its curvefit are shown in Fig. 2a–c as an example of the procedure realized for multiple frequencies and both heaters. The decrease in the mean optical power in Fig. 2a and the small features in the envelope of Fig. 2b are caused by slight misalignment and vibration of the input/output fibers as the heater power increases due to the thermal expansion of the chip. In a practical application, these features would not be present as the fiber would be permanently attached to the silicon chip. Combining the interferogram fit results for each heater, K(ν) follows a linear dependence with frequency (Fig. 2d) while γ_{ W } has a constant value (Fig. 2e), in agreement with the Eq. 14. The nonlinear term γ_{2} obtained separately for each heater has the same value within the experimental error, (101 ± 1) × 10^{−3} ps^{−1}, while ξ_{1} only slightly deviates for each heater, 0.22 ± 0.02 for H_{1} and 0.24 ± 0.01 for H_{2}, yielding 0.23 ± 0.02.
The current vs voltage (IV) curves depicted in Fig. 2f confirm the thermooptic origin of the measured nonlinearity and allow to understand the difference between κ_{τ,1} and κ_{τ,2}. The IV plots show a fairly linear behavior for both heaters, with resistances 15,876 kΩ for H_{1} and 15,162 kΩ for H_{2}, and indicates that any nonlinearity originating from the heaters is small compared to the nonlinearity intrinsic to the thermooptic effect. Moreover, the difference in electric resistance causes a difference in heater efficiency k_{ T } that explains the observed discrepancy in the measured κ_{ τ }’s. The heater efficiency is determined such that the temperature change at the waveguide level ΔT is related to the dissipated electric power W by ΔT = k_{ T }W, thus κ_{τ,i} = η_{1}k_{T,i}. The agreement in γ_{2} and ξ_{1} obtained independently for each heater indicates the two arms of the MZI are fairly similar, so that η_{1} can be considered the same. Using η_{1} ≈ 1.94 × 10^{−2}ps K^{−1} obtained from simulations (Supplementary Note 1), the heater efficiencies are estimated at k_{T,1} ≈ 18.5 K W^{−1} and k_{T,2} ≈ 20.6 K W^{−1}.
The interferometer transfer function T(ν) is obtained from the transmission spectrum of the MZI, as depicted in Fig. 2g, h. The optical power at the output of the MZI is
T(ν) is the envelope of the transmission oscillations and can be obtained by adjusting the experimental trace. It is recommended that the transmission spectrum be measured at a nonnull phase difference Δϕ so that T(ν) can be decoupled from the frequency dependence of the average power I_{0}(ν). In our case, the experimental transmission (black trace) represents the transmission spectrum of the passive device when none of the heaters are actuated. The oscillations have a freespectral range of 3.96 THz around 193.414 THz (32.7 nm around 1550 nm) originated from slight differences between the two arms incorporated as δL and δn(ν) as discussed in the previous section. The nonflat transmission of Fig. 2h is attributed to the nonideal response of the power splitter/combiner for frequencies higher than 194 THz. In practice, the limited bandwidth of these components will dictate the bandwidth of the SiFTS. For the specific yjunction design used here^{31}, operation over >25 THz (200 nm), excess loss lower than 0.3 dB and low reflection is expected.
Broadband spectrum recovery
The SiFTS is validated by recovering the spectrum of the amplified spontaneous emission (ASE) of a Cband erbiumdoped fiber amplifier (EDFA). The ASE provides a good test spectrum in the telecom band, suitable for testing with the available equipment in our lab. Also, the broad features of the ASE spectrum are suitable for this demonstration given the limited resolution achieved here (0.38 THz). The reference ASE spectrum, measured with a tabletop optical spectrum analyzer, is shown in Fig. 3a, and its theoretical ideal interferogram for a dispersionless, perfectly balanced SiFTS is depicted in Fig. 3b. The ASE presents two resolved peaks at 192.6 and 195.9 THz in addition to an unresolved peak at 194 THz, with total bandwidth around 7 THz (56 nm, 233.5 cm^{−1}).
The experimental interferogram is presented in Fig. 3c. The delay axis corresponds to the transformed delay \({\cal T}\) obtained using the parameters from Table 1. Positive delay corresponds to heater H_{1}, while negative delay corresponds to H_{2}. It spans \({\mathrm{\Delta }}{\cal T} = 2.13\) ps, corresponding to maximum dissipated powers around 2.6 and 2.5 W in heaters H_{1} and H_{2} and maximum temperature excursions around 54 and 46 K at the waveguide level.
A comparison between experimental and ideal interferograms shows some noticeable distinctions. The zero delay (maximum envelope amplitude) is shifted to around 0.172 ps and the interferogram envelope is asymmetric. These effects result from the nonzero contribution of φ(ν) in Eq. 9, which carries the contribution of the difference between arms, δL and δn(ν) (Supplementary Eq. 20). The zerodelay shift is caused by the firstorder in ν, while the envelope distortion is caused by highorder terms.
The difference between arms that cause these observable changes in the interferogram correspond to typical variations expected from the silicon photonics process, rather than strong differences due to a nonideal fabrication process. Considering the difference in arm length δL negligible, the zero delay is centered at
Using the known values for the other parameters, we estimate \(\delta \left( {n_{{\mathrm{eff}}}{\mathrm{}}_{\nu _0}} \right) + \nu _0\delta (\partial _\nu n) \approx 2 \times 10^{  3}\). This value agrees with the expected order of magnitude for effective index fluctuations due to chipscale variations in the silicon device layer thickness^{20,26}. The same is true for the differences in highorder dispersion terms.
The interferogram oscillations are highlighted in the insets of Fig. 3c, where a cosine oscillation at the ASE mean frequency (ν_{s} = 193.44 THz) is superposed (gray trace). In regions with a smooth envelope variation the interferogram oscillates at ν_{s} (bluecolored zoomin), while an additional phase is introduced as the envelope varies more abruptly (greencolored zoomin). The phase change due to envelope variations supports the interest of using a narrow laser source with almost flat envelope to calibrate the thermooptic nonlinearity, as the nonlinear fit would be compromised by such phase change.
The PSD obtained from the experimental interferogram and the effects of thermooptic nonlinearity (γ_{2}), dispersion (ξ_{1}), and MZI transfer function (T(ν)) are presented in Fig. 3d–f. The spectra were calculated using the mean value of the calibration parameters summarized in Table 1.
The PSD obtained directly form the asmeasured interferogram—with the delay axis corresponding to τ and without performing any correction—is presented in Fig. 3d. The TOC nonlinearity distorts, broadens, and shifts the PSD to higher frequencies as the interferogram oscillates faster with increasing delay.
After the optical delay axis of the interferogram is properly transformed to \({\cal T}\), the resulting PSD becomes very similar to the reference spectrum (Fig. 3e). Both resolved peaks are clearly identified and the unresolved peak is also present around 194 THz. However, since the spectrum has not been rescaled to the original frequency ν, it is broadened by the factor 1 + ξ_{1} around ν_{0}. In addition, since it has not been renormalized by T(ν), the high frequency peak appears attenuated relatively to the low frequency peak.
Failing to rescale the frequency axis according to Eq. 11 introduces a frequency error u − ν = ξ_{1}Δν that degrades the absolute frequency accuracy. In this demonstration, the effect is modest since the detuning of the peaks with respect to ν_{0} is small. The peak around 196 THz, for instance, is shifted by 0.5 THz, which is roughly half of its fullwidth at half maximum. Nonetheless, the effect can be very significant for frequencies further from ν_{0}.
The PSD corrected for the thermooptic nonlinearity, dispersion, and the MZI transfer function reproduces satisfactorily well the reference spectrum (Fig. 3f). This spectrum was obtained performing only the aforementioned corrections, with no additional data processing such as zerofilling or apodization of the interferogram. The experimental spectral resolution of δν = 0.38 THz (δσ = 12.7 cm^{−1}, δλ = 3.05 nm) is comparable to other onchip spectrometers aimed at broadband operation and it is sufficient for a large range of Raman and infrared (IR) absorption spectroscopy applications^{14,16}.
Discussion
The ultimate performance of the onchip SiFTS is quite promising considering recent advancements in silicon photonics design and fabrication. First, the window of operation for a given device will be dictated by the finite bandwidth of the waveguide optical power couplers/splitters. Such components offering flat optical response over tens of terahertz^{31,32,33} (hundreds of nanometers) and extremely low excess loss may allow SiFTS operating over large bandwidths. Second, fine spectral resolution could be achieved using long lowloss silicon waveguides fabricated in tight footprints^{28,34,35,36} combined with high temperature excursions endured by CMOScompatible silicon devices^{37}. Finally, the power efficiency can be significantly improved by applying suitable design changes. For instance, using Michelson interferometers^{38} instead of MZIs can double the optical path in a given footprint, while introducing heat isolating structures can significantly increase heating efficiency^{39,40}.
In addition to high performance, a valuable advantage of the SiFTS compared to other onchip spectrometer approaches is its robustness to fabrication variations. Although the interferogram is strongly affected by the difference in effective index between the arms of the MZI (Fig. 3c), as previously discussed, the PSD remains unaffected (Fig. 3f). This result is expected from our model since φ(u) is canceled calculating the PSD by taking the absolute value of the IFT (Eq. 10).
It is worth noticing that the presence of TOC nonlinearity and dispersion have an upside in the SiFTS performance. Ideally, one seeks to lower the resolution × dissipated power product, given by
in the case where the two effects are absent (κ_{ τ } is assumed to be identical for the two heaters). In the presence of ξ_{1} and γ_{2}, this product is modified to
and is effectively reduced, resulting in decreased power dissipation for a given resolution or, conversely, lower δν given a maximum power. In our case, the resolution of 0.38 THz is achieved dissipating a total power of 5.1 W, representing a 35% decrease in the power (6.9 W) that would be required to achieve this resolution if dispersion and thermooptic nonlinearity were absent.
In summary, we demonstrated the realization of a FTS with true time delay in silicon photonics. Considering the nonlinearity of the thermooptic effect as well as thermal expansion and dispersion, we derived simple corrections that effectively account for these effects and allow to use well established FT techniques to obtain accurate spectral responses. We showed how the SiFTS can be calibrated using a tunable laser source and we demonstrated the successful recovery of a broadband spectrum, resilient to fabrication variations. Our discussion proposes a simple approach to tackle the hurdles of doing FT spectrometry using dispersive integrated platforms with high temperature excursions that can be readily applied to other device geometries and extended silicon photonics platforms such as SiN and GeonSi, paving the way for robust, costeffective, and versatile FTbased portable spectrometers.
Methods
Fabrication
The SiFTS was fabricated in 15 × 15 mm^{2} dies from 250nmthick SOI wafers with 3 μm of buried oxide. All the fabrication steps correspond to standard CMOScompatible processes. The waveguides (550 nm wide) and input/output taper regions (150 nm wide at the tip) were patterned using electronbeam (ebeam) lithography with the negative tone resist hydrogen silsequioxane (HSQ). The separation between adjacent waveguides in the spiral sections is 5 μm centertocenter and the bending radius is 10 μm. After patterning, the waveguides are dry etched, the HSQ is striped with a dip in buffered oxide etch solution and the waveguides are covered by 1.5 μm of plasmaenhanced chemical vapor deposition (PECVD)deposited silicon oxide cladding. After the oxide deposition, the heaters are patterned on top of each arm using PMMA and the metals are deposited via sputtering in a liftoff process. The heaters consist of a serpentine nichrome (NiCr) trail of 6 μmwide 280 nmthick sections separated by 4 μm bordertoborder and totaling 17.33 mm in length. The NiCr heaters are terminated by 170 × 120 μm^{2} titaniumgold (Ti:Au, 5 nm:300 nm) pads. A second PECVD silicon oxide layer (500 nmthick) is deposited on top of the heaters and 100 × 100 μm^{2} windows are opened on top of the Ti:Au pads to allow electric contact. After fabrication, the devices are diced and the input/output facets are polished to mitigate optical losses.
Electrical and optical measurements
The calibration described in the main text was performed using a tunable laser source (Agilent 81600B) operating between 1460 and 1630 nm with optical power around 0 dBm. The EDFA broadband source (Amonics) delivered around 15 dBm of total optical power in the spectral range between 1528 and 1564 nm and was connected to an inline fiber polarizer. Light was coupled into and out of the device using polarization maintaining cleaved fibers, oriented to excite the quasiTE mode of the SOI waveguide. The output fiber was directly connected to an InGaAs powermeter. The coupling fibers were positioned using precise translation stages (Thorlabs NanoMax) driven by piezoelectric controllers. The fibers made physical contact with the sample, but were not permanently attached to it. The sample was mounted on top of a temperature stabilized station (20 °C). The heaters were driven using a sourcemeter (Keithley 2400) allowing for simultaneous precise current drive (up to 2.1 A) and voltage monitoring (up to 210 V). The electric contact with the sample was done using microprobes with 50 × 50 μm^{2} tips connected to the heater pads. The total parasitic series resistance of the electric apparatus was <4 ohm. All the equipment was connected to a computer and controlled via Matlab routines. The interferograms were measured sweeping the electric current from zero to 2 A using a nonlinear vector increasing with the square of the current such that the electric power vector would be linearly spaced. The interval between consecutive measurements was <0.5 s. Notice that a continuous current sweep was not employed only because the instruments used (Keithley 2400) did not support such continuous sweep.
Data availability
The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
References
 1.
Wan, N. H. et al. Highresolution optical spectroscopy using multimode interference in a compact tapered fibre. Nat. Commun. 6, 7762 (2015).
 2.
Redding, B., Liew, S. F., Bromberg, Y., Sarma, R. & Cao, H. Evanescently coupled multimode spiral spectrometer. Optica 3, 956–962 (2016).
 3.
Redding, B., Liew, S. F., Sarma, R. & Cao, H. Compact spectrometer based on a disordered photonic chip. Nat. Photonics 7, 746–751 (2013).
 4.
Subramanian, A. Z. et al. Silicon and silicon nitride photonic circuits for spectroscopic sensing onachip. Photonics Res. 3, B47–B59 (2015).
 5.
Ma, X., Li, M. & He, J. J. CMOScompatible integrated spectrometer based on echelle diffraction grating and MSM photodetector array. IEEE Photonics 5, 6600807 (2013).
 6.
Kyotoku, B. B. C., Chen, L. & Lipson, M. Subnm resolution cavity enhanced microspectrometer. Opt. Express 18, 102–107 (2010).
 7.
Florjaczyk, M. et al. Development of a slab waveguide spatial heterodyne spectrometer for remote sensing. Proc. SPIE 7594, 75940R (San Francisco, California, United States, 2010).
 8.
Nedeljkovic, M. et al. Midinfrared silicononinsulator Fouriertransform spectrometer chip. IEEE Photonics Technol. Lett. 28, 528–531 (2016).
 9.
Podmore, H. et al. Demonstration of a compressivesensing Fouriertransform onchip spectrometer. Opt. Lett. 42, 1440–1443 (2017).
 10.
Akca, B. I. Design of a compact and ultrahighresolution Fouriertransform spectrometer. Opt. Express 25, 1487–1494 (2017).
 11.
HerreroBermello, A. et al. Temperature dependence mitigation in stationary Fouriertransform onchip spectrometers. Opt. Lett. 42, 2239–2242 (2017).
 12.
Coarer, E. L. E. et al. Wavelengthscale stationarywave integrated Fouriertransform spectrometry. Nat. Photonics 1, 473–478 (2007).
 13.
Coutant, O., De Mengin, M. & Le Coarer, E. FabryPerot optical fiber strainmeter with an embeddable, lowpower interrogation system. Optica 2, 400–404 (2015).
 14.
Nie, X., Ryckeboer, E., Roelkens, G. & Baets, R. CMOScompatible broadband copropagative stationary Fourier transform spectrometer integrated on a silicon nitride photonics platform. Opt. Express 25, A409–A418 (2017).
 15.
Sabry, Y. M., Khalil, D. & Bourouina, T. Monolithic siliconmicromachined freespace optical interferometers on chip. Laser Photonics Rev. 9, 1–24 (2015).
 16.
Erfan, M. et al. Onchip microelectromechanical system Fourier transform infrared (MEMS FTIR) spectrometerbased gas sensing. Appl. Spectrosc. 70, 897–904 (2016).
 17.
Li, J., Lu, D.f. & Qi, Z.m. Miniature Fourier transform spectrometer based on wavelength dependence of halfwave voltage of a LiNbO_{3} waveguide interferometer. Opt. Lett. 39, 3923–3926 (2014).
 18.
Ferrari, M. & Quaresima, V. A brief review on the history of human functional nearinfrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) development and fields of application. Neuroimage 63, 921–935 (2012).
 19.
Reich, G. Nearinfrared spectroscopy and imaging: basic principles and pharmaceutical applications. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 57, 1109–1143 (2005).
 20.
Rahim, A. et al. Expanding the silicon photonics portfolio with silicon nitride photonic integrated circuits. J. Lightwave Technol. 35, 639–649 (2017).
 21.
Malik, A. et al. GeonSi and GeonSOI thermooptic phase shifters for the midinfrared. Opt. Express 22, 28479–28488 (2014).
 22.
Shen, L. et al. Midinfrared alloptical modulation in lowloss germaniumonsilicon waveguides. Opt. Lett. 40, 268–271 (2015).
 23.
Zhou, Z., Yin, B. & Michel, J. Onchip light sources for silicon photonics. Light Sci. Appl. 4, e358 (2015).
 24.
Crosnier, G. et al. Hybrid indium phosphideonsilicon nanolaser diode. Nat. Photonics 11, 297–300 (2017).
 25.
Volet, N. et al. Semiconductor optical amplifiers at 2.0µm wavelength on silicon. Laser Photonics Rev. 11, 1600165 (2017).
 26.
Zortman, Wa, Trotter, D. C. & Watts, M. R. Silicon photonics manufacturing. Opt. Express 18, 23598–23607 (2010).
 27.
Hochberg, M. & BaehrJones, T. Towards fabless silicon photonics. Nat. Photonics 4, 492–494 (2010).
 28.
Chrostowski, L. & Hochberg, M. Silicon Photonics Design (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2015).
 29.
Griffiths, P. R. The early days of commercial FTIR spectrometry: a personal perspective. Appl. Spectrosc. 71, 329–340 (2017).
 30.
Dong, B. et al. Nanosiliconphotonic Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectrometeronachip. In Conference on Lasers and ElectroOptics STu4I.1 (Optical Society of America, California, 2015).
 31.
Zhang, Y. et al. A compact and low loss Yjunction for submicron silicon waveguide. Opt. Express 21, 1310–1316 (2013).
 32.
Yun, H. et al. Broadband 2×2 adiabatic 3 dB coupler using silicononinsulator subwavelength grating waveguides. Opt. Lett. 41, 3041–3044 (2016).
 33.
Wang, Y., Gao, S., Wang, K. & Skafidas, E. Ultrabroadband and lowloss 3 dB optical power splitter based on adiabatic tapered silicon waveguides. Opt. Lett. 41, 2053–2056 (2016).
 34.
Dong, P. et al. Low loss shallowridge silicon waveguides. Opt. Express 18, 14474–14479 (2010).
 35.
Yurtsever, G., Weiss, N., Kalkman, J., van Leeuwen, T. G. & Baets, R. Ultracompact silicon photonic integrated interferometer for sweptsource optical coherence tomography. Opt. Lett. 39, 5228–5231 (2014).
 36.
Teng, C. C. et al. Fiberpigtailed silicon photonic sensors for methane leak detection. In Conference on Lasers and ElectroOptics AM3B.2 (Optical Society of America, California, 2017).
 37.
Sedky, S., Witvrouw, A., Bender, H. & Baert, K. Experimental determination of the maximum postprocess annealing temperature for standard CMOS wafers. IEEE Trans. Electron Devices 48, 377–385 (2001).
 38.
Patel, D. et al. Highspeed compact silicon photonic Michelson interferometric modulator. Opt. Express 22, 26788–26802 (2014).
 39.
Dong, P. et al. Low power and compact reconfigurable multiplexing devices based on silicon microring resonators. Opt. Express 18, 9852–9858 (2010).
 40.
Fang, Q. et al. Ultralow power silicon photonics thermooptic switch with suspended phase arms. IEEE Photonics Technol. Lett. 23, 525–527 (2011).
Acknowledgements
This work was performed in part at the San Diego Nanotechnology Infrastructure (SDNI) of UCSD, a member of the National Nanotechnology Coordinated Infrastructure, which is supported by the National Science Foundation (grant ECCS1542148). M.C.M.M.S. and N.C.F. acknowledge financial support from the São Paulo Research Foundation (2014/047482 and 2015/205256). M.C.M.M.S. acknowledges fruitful discussions with colleagues from Fainman’s group at UCSD and from the Device Research Laboratory at Unicamp.
Author information
Affiliations
Contributions
A.G. and Y.F. conceived and supervised the project. M.C.M.M.S. and A.G. developed the mathematical model. N.C.F. cosupervised the project mostly with the mathematical model development. M.C.M.M.S. performed simulations, fabricated the samples, and realized the experiments. All authors contributed to discussing the results and preparing the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing financial interests.
Additional information
Publisher's note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic supplementary material
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Souza, M.C.M.M., Grieco, A., Frateschi, N.C. et al. Fourier transform spectrometer on silicon with thermooptic nonlinearity and dispersion correction. Nat Commun 9, 665 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467018030046
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Further reading

Onchip polarizationinsensitive Fourier transform spectrometer
Optics Letters (2020)

Midinfrared dualcomb spectroscopy with roomtemperature bifunctional interband cascade lasers and detectors
Applied Physics Letters (2020)

Chirpedgrating spectrometeronachip
Optics Express (2020)

An integrated broadband spectrometer on thinfilm lithium niobate
Nature Photonics (2020)

High Resolution and UltraCompact OnChip Spectrometer Using Bidirectional EdgeInput Arrayed Waveguide Grating
Journal of Lightwave Technology (2020)
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.