Anna Lombardi1, Angela Demetriadou2, Lee Weller1, Patrick Andrae1, Felix Benz1, Rohit Chikkaraddy1, Javier Aizpurua3, Jeremy J Baumberg1. 1. NanoPhotonics Centre, Cavendish Laboratory, University of Cambridge , Cambridge, CB3 0HE, U.K. 2. Centro de Física de Materiales, Centro Mixto CSIC-UPV/EHU, and Donostia International Physics Center (DIPC), Paseo Manuel Lardizabal 4, 20018 Donostia-San Sebastián, Spain; Blackett Laboratory, Department of Physics, Imperial College London, London SW7 2AZ, United Kingdom. 3. Centro de Física de Materiales, Centro Mixto CSIC-UPV/EHU, and Donostia International Physics Center (DIPC) , Paseo Manuel Lardizabal 4, 20018 Donostia-San Sebastián, Spain.
Abstract
The near-field and far-field spectral response of plasmonic systems are often assumed to be identical, due to the lack of methods that can directly compare and correlate both responses under similar environmental conditions. We develop a widely tunable optical technique to probe the near-field resonances within individual plasmonic nanostructures that can be directly compared to the corresponding far-field response. In tightly coupled nanoparticle-on-mirror constructs with nanometer-sized gaps we find >40 meV blue-shifts of the near-field compared to the dark-field scattering peak, which agrees with full electromagnetic simulations. Using a transformation optics approach, we show such shifts arise from the different spectral interference between different gap modes in the near- and far-field. The control and tuning of near-field and far-field responses demonstrated here is of paramount importance in the design of optical nanostructures for field-enhanced spectroscopy, as well as to control near-field activity monitored through the far-field of nano-optical devices.
The near-field and far-field spectral response of plasmonic systems are often assumed to be identical, due to the lack of methods that can directly compare and correlate both responses under similar environmental conditions. We develop a widely tunable optical technique to probe the near-field resonances within individual plasmonic nanostructures that can be directly compared to the corresponding far-field response. In tightly coupled nanoparticle-on-mirror constructs with nanometer-sized gaps we find >40 meV blue-shifts of the near-field compared to the dark-field scattering peak, which agrees with full electromagnetic simulations. Using a transformation optics approach, we show such shifts arise from the different spectral interference between different gap modes in the near- and far-field. The control and tuning of near-field and far-field responses demonstrated here is of paramount importance in the design of optical nanostructures for field-enhanced spectroscopy, as well as to control near-field activity monitored through the far-field of nano-optical devices.
Entities:
Keywords:
SERS; nanoparticle on mirror; plasmonics; sensing; ultrafast tunable lasers
The interaction
of light with
noble metal nanostructures excites collective electron oscillations
in the form of localized plasmonic resonances. As a result, such plasmonic
nanostructures are able to confine light within extremely small volumes,
millions of times smaller than a wavelength-sized box. Squeezing light
into such small regions creates near-thousand-fold field enhancements,
which are ideal for intense surface-enhanced Raman scattering (SERS),
thus allowing only a few atoms, molecules, or nano-objects to be directly
tracked.[1] So far, researchers have typically
assumed that both the localized near-field and radiated far-field
support their resonant behavior (i.e., strongest field enhancements)
at similar spectral wavelengths. As a result, optimization of SERS
has depended on measurements of the far-field scattering spectrum.Here we show that when the optical field is tightly confined by
nanoscale gaps, the resulting multiple order plasmon resonances supported
at different wavelengths interfere with each other differently to
build up the signal from the near- and far-fields. As a result, significant
spectral shifts are observed. We experimentally demonstrate this using
a spectral-scanning technique that simultaneously records dark-field
scattering spectra and tunable-pump SERS measurements on each nanostructure
individually. We utilize plasmonic constructs for this that provide
extremely robust nanoscale gaps,[2] using
Au nanoparticles separated from a bulk Au film by an ultrathin molecular
spacer, known as the nanoparticle-on-mirror (NPoM) geometry.[3−5] In contrast to the red-shifts always found in isolated nanoparticles,[6] the near-field NPoM resonance from SERS is found
to be always blue-shifted from the scattering peak. We explain this
through a transformation optics model that allows the decomposition
of the total signal into individual modes that show different radiative
properties. In particular the n = 1 and 2 modes interfere
constructively in the far-field, but destructively in the near-field.
From this understanding, our experiments also allow us to show that
the SERS background arises from a completely different process from
the SERS vibrational signal, as it follows instead the far-field spectral
enhancement. Our insights provide a solid intuition to predict how
near-fields behave within a wide variety of plasmonic nanoconstructs.Direct measurements of the near-field plasmonic enhancement spectra
either are probe-based techniques or must exploit nonlinear processes,
since only then do the evanescent fields contribute most strongly.
Probe-based techniques are not suitable for single NPoM measurements,
and second-harmonic generation is not very reliable for this task,
as it possesses both bulk and surface contributions and is thus very
sensitive to many additional aspects of nanoscale geometry. Third-harmonic
generation techniques[7] are also possible
but so far are primarily single-wavelength studies.[8−12] The other favorable process for this task is SERS,
but this has also been challenging because of the requirement for
wide tuning of the Raman pump laser, while ensuring high-contrast
tunable filtering of the scattered light from the background Rayleigh
pump scatter. As a result, most experiments work with arrays of nanoparticles[13] or use a limited number of excitation wavelengths
on individual nanostructures.[14−18] Alternative approaches with fixed excitation wavelength that attempt
to tune the plasmon resonance suffer uncontrolled changes in confinement
and enhancement.[8−12] Recent experiments[15] have managed to
deliver wavelength-scanned Raman and dark-field measurements on lithographically
defined plasmonic dimers in order to ascertain how quantum tunneling
affects the SERS amplitude. Lithography however generates considerable
uncertainty in the gap sizes and morphologies. Compared to such nanoparticle
dimers, the NPoM geometry guarantees much better control of gap size
between gold film and nanoparticle, higher reproducibility, and a
much simpler and robust nanoassembly procedure and has thus been recently
utilized in many experimental studies.[3−5] The well-defined architecture
also precisely defines the orientation of the optical fields and of
the molecules that are currently studied in SERS, and thus allows
precise comparison of the near- and far-field response.Our
experimental setup is optimized to realize both dark-field
microscopy and broadband-tunable SERS measurements on
the same single nanoparticle at the same time (Figure a). For dark-field
scattering spectroscopy white light is focused on the sample through
a high numerical aperture (NA = 0.8) 100× objective, and a cooled
spectrometer detects the scattering of single nanoparticles, which
are kept well spatially separated (coverage <1 μm–2).
Figure 1
(a) Broadband-tunable SERS spectroscopy coupled with dark-field
microscopy for single-nanoparticle studies, based on an AOPDF spectral
filter. (b) Scattering spectra from a single 60nm gold nanoparticle
on a gold mirror. A TPT self-assembled molecular monolayer is used
as a spacer. Inset: Dark-field image of a sample highlighting a nanoparticle
under study (red circle); scale bar is 1 μm. (c) Surface-enhanced
Raman spectra measured on (red) and off (black) a single nanoparticle.
Laser excitation wavelength is 630 nm. Inset: Gold nanoparticles on
a gold substrate, separated by a 1.4 nm TPT molecular spacer.
(a) Broadband-tunable SERS spectroscopy coupled with dark-field
microscopy for single-nanoparticle studies, based on an AOPDF spectral
filter. (b) Scattering spectra from a single 60nm gold nanoparticle
on a gold mirror. A TPT self-assembled molecular monolayer is used
as a spacer. Inset: Dark-field image of a sample highlighting a nanoparticle
under study (red circle); scale bar is 1 μm. (c) Surface-enhanced
Raman spectra measured on (red) and off (black) a single nanoparticle.
Laser excitation wavelength is 630 nm. Inset: Gold nanoparticles on
a gold substrate, separated by a 1.4 nm TPT molecular spacer.To realize broadband-tunable SERS
a sub-nanometer line-width-tunable
laser source is required. To create this, a 200 fs Ti:sapphire oscillator
pumps a femtosecond optical parametric oscillator to give tunable
output over visible and near-infrared wavelengths from 500 to 1040
nm (see Methods). The output is spectrally
narrowed below 1 nm using an acousto-optic programmable dispersive
broadband filter (AOPDF),[19] yielding fully
automated tuning with multi-milliwatt output powers. This Gaussian
beam is focused in an inverted microscope to a diffraction-limited
spot using the same 100× objective. For each excitation wavelength,
Rayleigh-scattered light is filtered out using a computer-controlled
translatable custom-built array of multiple linear variable long wave
pass (LP) filters with an overall optical density (OD) of 11, maximum
transmission of 80%, and cutoff spectral width of 10 nm. Stokes Raman
signals are recorded with a spectrometer and cooled EMCCD camera.
Calibration on bulk solids confirms this system is capable of Raman
measurements across the entire visible and infrared.For the
near-field measurements here, a p-terphenylthiol
(TPT) self-assembled molecular monolayer (SAM) is used as a nanoscale
spacer between the flat gold surface and 60 nm gold nanoparticles
placed on top. The gap thickness, which depends on the orientation
angle of the molecules on the gold surface, is found to be d = 1.4 ± 0.1 nm through phase-modulated ellipsometry
measurements, in good agreement with previous work.[1] Individual nanoparticles are first optically characterized
by dark-field spectroscopy (Figure b), which shows for all spectra a strong coupled plasmon
mode resonance in the near-infrared around 730 ± 20 nm. The <20
nm (fwhm) variation in spectral peak arises from the 10% distribution
of Au nanoparticle diameters. The tightly confined hot spot created
within the gap (lateral size (Rd)1/2 ≈
6.5 nm) is then an ideal situation to compare near- and far-field
spectra.When the laser (at pump wavelength λp = 630 nm
in Figure ) is focused
away from any Au nanoparticle, the Raman scattering from the molecular
SAM is below our detection noise level (Figure c, black). However, focusing on an NPoM elicits
hundreds of times stronger optical fields, greatly enhancing the SERS
signal of TPT molecules confined within the plasmonic nanogap (Figure c, red). Three dominant
vibrational lines are seen corresponding to a C–H rocking mode
(1080 cm–1) and to in-plane stretching of the benzene
rings (1256 and 1585 cm–1). The average laser power
at the sample is kept below 1 μW, which is needed to avoid any
shifts in the NPoM dark field spectra or any changes in SERS over
time (Supporting Information). Similar
SERS signals are obtained from each NPoM.(a) SERS spectra from
a single 60 nm nanoparticle tuning the excitation
laser from λp = 550 to 700 nm in 10 nm steps. (b)
Extracted SERS intensity of three TPT Raman peaks vs SERS peak (outgoing)
wavelength, compared to the normalized scattering spectrum (black)
of the same single gold NPoM (lines show Gaussian fits). (c) FDTD
simulations of scattering (black) and maximum near-field (red) for
a 60 nm gold NPoM placed on a gold mirror.By scanning the laser wavelength, we measure the plasmonic-induced
SERS enhancement from TPT to access the near-field spectrum of the
NPoM (Figure a). The
vibrational peaks do not shift with pump λp, but
their amplitudes show strong enhancements at λp =
640 nm (1585 cm–1 mode), λp = 650
nm (1256 cm–1 mode), and λp = 670
nm (1080 cm–1 mode) (Figure a). Control measurements show the plasmonic
origin of these resonances and imply SERS enhancement factors of ∼108 with NSERS = 200 molecules confined
within each hot spot (see Methods).
Figure 2
(a) SERS spectra from
a single 60 nm nanoparticle tuning the excitation
laser from λp = 550 to 700 nm in 10 nm steps. (b)
Extracted SERS intensity of three TPT Raman peaks vs SERS peak (outgoing)
wavelength, compared to the normalized scattering spectrum (black)
of the same single gold NPoM (lines show Gaussian fits). (c) FDTD
simulations of scattering (black) and maximum near-field (red) for
a 60 nm gold NPoM placed on a gold mirror.
Plotting the extracted experimental SERS enhancements ISERS(ν, λp) of each of the three
main TPT peaks against the outgoing wavelength (Figure b) shows they reach
their maxima close to the coupled mode observed in far-field scattering,
but are blue-shifted by ∼22 meV. This is contrary to the behavior
for isolated plasmonic nanoparticles, in which case the near-field
resonance is found to be red-shifted compared to the scattering.[6,20−22] This red-shift is associated with the damping of
a plasmonic resonance.[6,22] A localized surface plasmon can
be interpreted in terms of a driven damped oscillator. When damping
is present, the maximum oscillation amplitude occurs at a lower energy
than the natural frequency of the oscillator, while maximum dissipation
occurs at the natural frequency, giving a spectral red-shift. A more
complete description of the oscillator model describing plasmonic
resonances was discussed by Kats et al.[23] Blue-shifted near-field spectra were previously reported[24] for large nanoparticle arrays. Using single
nanostructures here confirms this behavior does not originate from
any sample inhomogeneity or periodic effect. Finite difference time
domain (FDTD) simulations of the maximum near-field and the scattering
far-field optical response of a single NPoM confirm this behavior
(Figure c) and show
it is a general property of all closely coupled plasmonic resonators
such as dimers (Supporting Information).
We note that the overall spectral shifts between simulation and experiment
here probably arise from faceting of the nanoparticle, which increases
the coupling and red-shifts the coupled plasmon resonance.[25,26]Results on a range of NPoMs show that the near-field resonance
is always blue-shifted from the far-field resonance by 4 to 55 meV
depending on the nanoparticle (Figure a). Different sized nanoparticles tune the coupled
mode, but in all cases ISERS follows a
Gaussian spectral profile with a ∼ 2-fold reduction in line
width compared to the corresponding resonant plasmonic mode in scattering.
This is also unexpected since both dark-field and Raman scattering
require each photon to couple in and to couple back out, both resonantly
enhanced by the plasmonic antenna.
Figure 3
(a) Evolution of SERS intensity of TPT
vibrational modes at 1585
cm–1 (red), 1256 cm–1 (green),
and 1080 cm–1 (blue) vs emitted Raman wavelength,
compared to scattering spectra (black) for four NPoMs (lines show
Gaussian fits). Also shown is SERS background around 1585 cm–1 (orange). (b) Calculated resonance shift Δλ = λnear-field – λscat for different
size nanoparticles in NPoM and different gap sizes. (c) Comparison
of wavelengths of peak SERS emission and the dark-field plasmon resonance,
for experiments (black) and simulations (orange). Polynomial fit of
experimental points is shown as a plain black line.
(a) Evolution of SERS intensity of TPT
vibrational modes at 1585
cm–1 (red), 1256 cm–1 (green),
and 1080 cm–1 (blue) vs emitted Raman wavelength,
compared to scattering spectra (black) for four NPoMs (lines show
Gaussian fits). Also shown is SERS background around 1585 cm–1 (orange). (b) Calculated resonance shift Δλ = λnear-field – λscat for different
size nanoparticles in NPoM and different gap sizes. (c) Comparison
of wavelengths of peak SERS emission and the dark-field plasmon resonance,
for experiments (black) and simulations (orange). Polynomial fit of
experimental points is shown as a plain black line.To understand the origin of this effect and the
spectral narrowing
of the near-field resonance, it is useful to separate out the contributions
from each plasmonic resonance supported in the gap, which thus requires
further theoretical insights.Contrary to an isolated nanoparticle,
when two plasmonic resonators
(here a nanoparticle and mirror) are coupled, the near-field enhancement
is heavily dependent on the physical geometry of the nanogap and on
the excited modes within it. By implementing a transformation optics
technique[27] (Supporting Information), we model the optical response of the gap modes,
both in the near-field and in their radiative emission. The transformation
optics technique is developed here in a two-dimensional system to
provide the key intuition to understand the nature and composition
of the fundamental modes. We find that the dipole-localized surface
plasmon polariton resonance (n = 1) strongly interferes
with the quadrupole mode (n = 2) (corresponding field
distributions in Figure S6 of the Supporting Information). This leads to similar field patterns around most of the nanoparticle,
but pronounced differences inside the gap (Figure a–d). Critically, they have opposite
phase, ϕn, in the near-field (i.e., destructive superposition, Figure e arrow), but they
radiate coherently to the far-field (i.e., constructive interference, Figure f). Hence, the second
gap mode shifts the far-field (σscat) resonance to
longer wavelengths (Figure d) and the near-field (SERS) to shorter wavelengths (Figure c).
Figure 4
(a) Simulation geometry, giving (b) distribution of fields
perpendicular
to NP surface for dipolar and quadrupolar modes labeled as n = 1, 2. (c, d) Spectral dependence of maximum field in
the gap (near-field) and scattering (far-field) for first few n. D is the diameter of the nanoparticle.
(e, f) Phase of n = 1, 2, 3 in the far-field (f)
and in the center of the gap (near-field, e).
Even higher-order
modes become more significant for extremely small
separations (<0.3 nm for the NPoM discussed here), where the nanoparticle
couples even stronger with the mirror. Their phase shifts alternate
with even/odd n in the near-field, but all modes
add coherently in the far-field, shifting σscat to
even longer wavelengths. Both experiment and simulations confirm this,
showing an increased blue-shift for coupled modes that are located
further in the infrared. As the nanoparticle moves away from the mirror,
the blue-shift observed in the coupled regime decreases until we reach
the decoupled regime (isolated nanoparticle) and a red-shift is observed
instead (Figure b),
in agreement with previous results. On the other hand, it has been
reported[28,29] that for geometrically more complex structures
(such as trimers), the field enhancement in the near-field shows a
maximum “in regions where there is no hint of a resonance
in the absorption/extinction”.[29] Such structures support multiple modes at nearby frequencies,
which commonly result in complex spectral shifts in the far-field
response. Our NPoM system provides a unique opportunity to isolate
a precise modal structure and perform a well-defined modal analysis
on a robust spectral composition, which is not typical in other SERS
systems. It should be noted that all theoretical calculations are
performed purely classically, ignoring nonlocality and electron spill-out
from the plasmonic metals; the basic concepts here will be little
altered by quantum effects for this range of particle–surface
separation distances.(a) Simulation geometry, giving (b) distribution of fields
perpendicular
to NP surface for dipolar and quadrupolar modes labeled as n = 1, 2. (c, d) Spectral dependence of maximum field in
the gap (near-field) and scattering (far-field) for first few n. D is the diameter of the nanoparticle.
(e, f) Phase of n = 1, 2, 3 in the far-field (f)
and in the center of the gap (near-field, e).Further insights can be extracted from the dependence of
the SERS
background on λp. This background contribution has
been highly debated in the literature,[30,31] with competing
explanations of plasmon luminescence, image molecules, and inelastic
electron scattering and from contamination, however, clarifying data
are still lacking. For each NPoM we extract the background in the
vicinity of the 1585 cm–1 peak and plot it as a
function of the emitted wavelength (Figure a open circles). This clearly shows the SERS
background does not match the spectral shape of the near-field enhancement
in the gap but closely follows the far-field optical scattering response
of the plasmonic NPoM, in both spectral position and line width. Recent
work[30,31] shows that much of the SERS background must
come from optical penetration inside the metal, where it can induce
inelastic scattering of the electrons. In the experiments here, molecules
are placed only in the gap (hence they probe only the near-fields),
while the n = 1, 2 modes localize the light around
the entire nanoparticle surface. Hence, our spectral-tuned measurements
thus prove that the SERS peaks and background must arise from different
sources, as also suggested by super-resolution imaging studies.[32] As a result, we prove that the SERS background
observed here has a component that tracks the far-field enhancement,
as well as an equally intense spectrally constant component arising
from the surrounding planar substrate.We have thus shown that
the clear identification and spectral separation
of the near- and far-field resonances can be achieved using precision
spectrally tuned SERS measurements on single nanoparticles. Both experiment
and theory agree in the resonance shifts and spectral widths, which
are found to be controlled by the coherent superposition between different
plasmon gap modes. In the spherical nanoparticle-on-mirror geometry
the dominant modes are the n = 1 and 2, which have
opposite phase in the near-field but the same phase in the far-field,
resulting in a blue-shift of the SERS peak compared to the dark-field
scattering and a 2-fold smaller resonance line width. This intuitive
understanding of how the resonance positions are determined is generally
applicable to coupled plasmonic systems. It also shows that the ever-present
SERS background does not come from the same spatial locations as the
near-field-controlled SERS peaks.
Methods
Sample Preparation
Gold substrates are prepared by
evaporating 100 nm gold (Kurt J. Lesker Company, PVD 200) on a silicon
(100) wafer (Si-Mat, Germany) with a rate of 1 Å/s. To obtain
atomically smooth films, a standard template stripping method is used:
silicon substrates are glued onto the freshly evaporated gold using
an epoxy glue (EpoTek 377),[33] and the resulting
gold/epoxy/silicon sandwich is peeled off the silicon wafer.Self-assembled monolayers of 1,1′,4′,1″-terphenyl-4-thiol
(Sigma-Aldrich, 97%) are formed by submerging the freshly template-stripped
substrates into a 1 mM solution in water-free ethanol (Sigma-Aldrich,
reagent grade, anhydrous) for 24 h. The samples are subsequently thoroughly
rinsed with ethanol and blown dry. Gold nanoparticles (BBI Solutions,
UK) are deposited by drop casting from the as-received solution. The
deposition time is adjusted in order to obtain the desired nanoparticle
coverage. The samples are rinsed with Milli-Q water in order to remove
any salt residues.
Ellipsometry
The thickness of the
self-assembled monolayers
is measured using both ellipsometry (Jobin-Yvon UVISEL spectroscopic
ellipsometer) and normalizing plasmon resonance spectroscopy.[34] For the ellipsometry measurements an angle of
incidence of 70° is used. The data are modeled and fitted using
a three-layer model. A thickness of 1.5 nm is determined with a refractive
index of n = 1.45.
Dark-Field Spectroscopy
Optical dark-field images are
recorded on a custom Olympus GX51 inverted microscope. Samples are
illuminated with a focused white light source (halogen lamp). The
scattered light is collected through a 100× dark-field objective
(LMPLFLN-BD, NA = 0.8) and analyzed with a fiber-coupled (50 μm
optical fiber) Ocean Optics QE65000 cooled spectrometer. We use a
standard diffuser as a reference to normalize white light scattering.
For each sample, we record optical spectra from 20 randomly selected
isolated nanoparticles.
Tunable SERS
An ultrafast laser
system based on a 200
fs Ti:sapphire oscillator (Spectra Physics MaiTai delivering 200 fs
pulses, fwhm 10 nm, at 80 MHz repetition rate) pumps a femtosecond
optical parametric oscillator (Spectra Physics Inspire). This light
source provides a tunable output over a wide range of visible and
near-infrared wavelengths from 500 to 1040 nm. The monochromaticity
of the output beam is reduced below 1 nm spectral bandwidth using
an acousto-optic programmable dispersive broadband filter (AOPDF,
Dazzler, Fastlite). Relying on interactions between a polychromatic
acoustic wave and a polychromatic optical wave in the bulk of a birefringent
crystal, it is fully automated across a wide wavelength range (500–900
nm), yielding average output powers of several milliwatts.SERS
experiments are performed on the same modified Olympus GX51 inverted
microscope used for dark-field spectroscopy. A monochromatic wavelength-tunable
laser beam is focused on the sample using a 100× objective (NA
= 0.8). Raman scattering is collected through the center of the objective
and analyzed with a Shamrock SR-303i fully automated spectrometer
coupled with an EMCCD camera water cooled to −85 °C. For
the current experiments we use a 600l/mm 650 nm blazed grating. Rayleigh
scattering is filtered out with a set of three long pass linear variable
filters (DELTA); this filtering system allows the detection of a minimum
Raman shift of about 400 cm–1 over the studied spectral
range. The system is calibrated using a silicon substrate as a reference.
Spectral acquisitions are taken using an integration time of 10 s
and an average laser power on the sample below 1 μW.The
enhancement factor per molecule (EF) is calculated for each
nanoparticle by integrating the Raman peak areas and taking the ratio
between SERS at 1585 cm–1 (ISERS) and the corresponding unenhanced signal from the bulk
powder (IR):where NSERS and NR are the estimated
number of molecules contributing
to SERS and Raman signals, respectively (Supporting Information). From a spot size of 0.4 μm and assuming
that NSERS = 200 molecules are confined
in each hot spot, we estimate the measured EF to be ∼108 for this excitation wavelength. We compare this to predictions
from numerical simulations of this geometry, which suggest EF = |Ep|2|ESERS|2 = 106–107, where |Ep| is
the field amplitude
enhancement at the incident laser wavelength, while |ESERS| is the field amplitude enhancement at the outgoing
wavelength (Stokes emission). By fitting Lorentzian lines to each
vibrational peak and subtracting the SERS backgrounds, the spectral
evolution ISERS(ν, λp) of the three main TPT peaks is extracted. Normalizing these to
the incident laser power (we separately confirm all signals are linear
in pump power), these are plotted as a function of the excitation
wavelength and directly compared to the dark-field spectrum of the
same nanoparticle (Figure b).
FDTD Simulation
The electromagnetic
response of the
nanoparticle on mirror geometry has been simulated by three-dimensional
FDTD calculations using Lumerical FDTD Solutions v8.9. The structure
has been modeled as a gold sphere of 60 nm diameter on top of a 200
nm thick gold layer, with a 1 nm thick dielectric sheet in between.
For the gold, we referred to the dielectric constants reported in
Johnson and Christy.[35] The gold nanoparticle
was illuminated with p-polarized plane waves from an angle of incidence
of θi = 55°. The scattered light was then collected
within a cone of half-angle θc = 53°, based
on the numerical aperture of the objective.
Authors: Kristin L Wustholz; Anne-Isabelle Henry; Jeffrey M McMahon; R Griffith Freeman; Nicholas Valley; Marcelo E Piotti; Michael J Natan; George C Schatz; Richard P Van Duyne Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2010-08-11 Impact factor: 15.419
Authors: Felix Benz; Rohit Chikkaraddy; Andrew Salmon; Hamid Ohadi; Bart de Nijs; Jan Mertens; Cloudy Carnegie; Richard W Bowman; Jeremy J Baumberg Journal: J Phys Chem Lett Date: 2016-06-03 Impact factor: 6.475