| Literature DB >> 24980150 |
V G Kravets1, R Jalil1, Y-J Kim2, D Ansell1, D E Aznakayeva1, B Thackray1, L Britnell1, B D Belle1, F Withers1, I P Radko3, Z Han3, S I Bozhevolnyi3, K S Novoselov1, A K Geim1, A N Grigorenko1.
Abstract
Plasmonics has established itself as a branch of physics which promises to revolutionize data processing, improve photovoltaics, and increase sensitivity of bio-detection. A widespread use of plasmonic devices is notably hindered by high losses and the absence of stable and inexpensive metal films suitable for plasmonic applications. To this end, there has been a continuous search for alternative plasmonic materials that are also compatible with complementary metal oxide semiconductor technology. Here we show that copper and silver protected by graphene are viable candidates. Copper films covered with one to a few graphene layers show excellent plasmonic characteristics. They can be used to fabricate plasmonic devices and survive for at least a year, even in wet and corroding conditions. As a proof of concept, we use the graphene-protected copper to demonstrate dielectric loaded plasmonic waveguides and test sensitivity of surface plasmon resonances. Our results are likely to initiate wide use of graphene-protected plasmonics.Entities:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24980150 PMCID: PMC4076691 DOI: 10.1038/srep05517
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Testing graphene-protected Cu as a plasmonic material.
(a) Refractive index of copper films extracted using spectroscopic ellipsometry. (b) Schematic of a typical graphene-protected sample. (c) ATR scheme for surface plasmon resonance measurements. (d) Schematics of a dielectric loaded plasmon polariton waveguide.
Figure 2Comparison of the SPR in protected and non-protected copper films.
(a) SPR ellipsometric reflection Ψ for a fresh unprotected sample as a function of wavelength (tan(Ψ)exp(iΔ) = r/r, where r and r are reflection coefficients for p- and s-polarizations, respectively). The thickness of the copper film was 43.5 nm. (b) p-polarized intensity reflection R for the same sample as a function of wavelength. (c, d) Same measurements as in (a) and (b), respectively, after 30 days. The inset in (c) emphasizes the degradation of the SPR with time. (e, f) Same as the above but for graphene-protected Cu and half a year. The inset in (e) shows the stability of graphene protected SPR with time.
Figure 3Stability of graphene-protected SPR.
(a) Spectral dependence of the SPR measured at 49° in air for freshly fabricated unprotected Cu (black curve), Cu protected with a single graphene layer (red) and Cu with a double layer protection (blue). The Cu thickness d = 43.5 nm. The inset shows results of our modelling for this experiment. (b) Fresh unprotected sample in contact with water. (c) Same as (b) after 24 hours in water. (d) Graphene-protected sample in water after half a year. A large SPR shift compared to (b) is connected with the usage of SPR resonance of longer wavelengths which becomes more pronounced after graphene transfer. (e) SPR ellipsometric reflection for a fresh unprotected silver film (d = 60 nm). (f) The same film covered with graphene.
Figure 4Sensitivity of copper SPR.
(a) SPR curves at different levels of graphene hydrogenation. (b) Spectral dependence of the ellipsometric phase Δ for different hydrogenation levels. The inset shows the corresponding Raman spectra. (c) SPR curves in two different liquids. The coupling prism has refractive index n = 1.8. The inset shows results of our modelling for (c). (d) The spectral dependence of the phase for the two liquids.
Figure 5Waveguides using graphene-protected copper.
(a) Schematics of DLSPPW. (b) Microscopy image of the fabricated waveguides. (c) CCD image of the light propagation along the waveguide. (d) The dependence of the transmitted light intensity on waveguide's length.