Table 1 Comparison of monolithic, all-polarization maintaining PQS fiber lasers based on nanomaterial saturable absorbers reported so far.
SA | Wavelength | Repetition rate | Pulse energy | Output power | Pulse duration | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Erbium-doped PQS fiber lasers | ||||||
Bi2Te3 | 1558.1 nm | 26.6–47.1 kHz | 17.8 nJ | 0.83 mW | 3.84–1.58 μs | |
Sb2Te3 | 1559 nm | 42.0–132.0 kHz | 152 nJ | 18.1 mW | 5.24–0.93 μs | |
rGO | 1564 nm | 104.0–116.0 kHz | 125 nJ | 14.6 mW | 3.85–1.85 μs | |
BTS | 1557.6 nm | 64.1–195.0 kHz | 692 nJ | 135.0 mW | 4–0.55 μs | This work |
BSTS | 1559.2 nm | 63.2–204.6 kHz | 652 nJ | 133.3 mW | 4–0.52 μs | This work |
Ytterbium-doped PQS fiber lasers | ||||||
Graphene | 1027 nm | 28.9–110.0 kHz | 141.8 nJ | 15.6 mW | 3.2–1.3 μs | |
BTS | 1030.9 nm | 45–129 kHz | 356 nJ | 37.0 mW | 2.77–1.09 μs | This work |
BSTS | 1029.8 nm | 32–108 kHz | 322 nJ | 33.9 mW | 2.85–0.96 μs | This work |
