Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-2r2wp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-11T04:11:31.377Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Laser-induced damage threshold comparison of untreated, antireflection-coated and antireflection-microstructured LiGaS2 nonlinear crystals – ERRATUM

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2026

Andrey A. Bushunov Open the ORCID record for Andrey A. Bushunov [Opens in a new window] ,
Polina D. Kharitonova Open the ORCID record for Polina D. Kharitonova [Opens in a new window] ,
Yan M. Voronkovich ,
Alexander G. Papashvili ,
Dmitrii A. Nazarov ,
Sergei N. Smetanin ,
Sergei E. Sverchkov ,
Boris I. Galagan ,
Alina A. Goloshumova  and
Sergey I. Lobanov
...Show all authors
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content. As you have access to this content, full HTML content is provided on this page. A PDF of this content is also available in through the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Information

Type
Erratum
Information
High Power Laser Science and Engineering , Volume 14 , 2026 , e38
Check for updates
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2026. Published by Cambridge University Press in association with Chinese Laser Press

When this article was published in High Power Laser Science and Engineering it contained a display error in Figure 5. The correct version of Figure 5 can be found below.

Figure 5

LIDT test with 2.09 μm, 149 ns pulses: (a) LIDT measurement data; (b) typical damage site of the ARM, focused on the surface, in which there is no damage at the surface; (c) typical damage site of the ARM, focused on the volumetric damage, in the same spot as for (b); (d) typical catastrophic damage site of the ARC; (e) typical catastrophic damage site of the ARC, with polarization contrast applied.

A five-panel graphic containing a line graph of laser-induced damage probability and four microscopic photos of material damage sites. See long description.
Figure 5 Long description

The graphic is divided into five panels labeled a through e.

Panel a is a line graph showing Damage probability in percent on the y-axis from 0 to 100, and Fluence in Joules per centimeter-squared on the x-axis from 0 to 28. Three data series are plotted with linear fits:

- A R C-Li G a S sub 2 represented by green circles shows a steep linear increase from 1 to 5 Joules per centimeter-squared.

- A R M-Li G a S sub 2 represented by red squares shows a linear increase from 8 to 24 Joules per centimeter-squared.

- Untreated Li G a S sub 2 represented by blue triangles shows a linear increase from 10 to 22 Joules per centimeter-squared.

A text box indicates lambda equals 2090 nanometers and 149 nanoseconds.

Panel b is a microscopic photo of an A R M surface showing a dark, blurred subsurface damage spot with a 200 micrometer scale bar.

Panel c is a microscopic photo of the same spot as panel b but focused on the volumetric damage, revealing a sharp, dark fracture network with radial cracks and a 150 micrometer scale bar.

Panel d is a microscopic photo of an A R C catastrophic damage site showing a large circular crater with a dark vertical fracture through the center and a 200 micrometer scale bar.

Panel e is a microscopic photo of the same site as panel d using polarization contrast, highlighting iridescent stress patterns around the central fracture with a 150 micrometer scale bar.

The publisher apologises for this error.

References

Bushunov, A. A., Kharitonova, P. D., Voronkovich, Y. M., et al. Laser-induced damage threshold comparison of untreated, antireflection-coated and antireflection-microstructured LiGaS2 nonlinear crystals. High Power Laser Science and Engineering 14, e17 (2026). doi:https://doi.org/10.1017/hpl.2025.10104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Figure 5 LIDT test with 2.09 μm, 149 ns pulses: (a) LIDT measurement data; (b) typical damage site of the ARM, focused on the surface, in which there is no damage at the surface; (c) typical damage site of the ARM, focused on the volumetric damage, in the same spot as for (b); (d) typical catastrophic damage site of the ARC; (e) typical catastrophic damage site of the ARC, with polarization contrast applied.Figure 5 long description.