Their high oscillator strength and large exciton binding energies make single-walled carbon nanotubes (SWCNTs) highly promising materials for the investigation of strong light-matter interactions in the near infrared and at room temperature. To explore their full potential, high-quality cavities-possibly with nanoscale field localization-are required. Here, we demonstrate the room temperature formation of plasmon-exciton polaritons in monochiral (6,5) SWCNTs coupled to the subdiffraction nanocavities of a plasmonic crystal created by a periodic gold nanodisk array. The interaction strength is easily tuned by the number of SWCNTs that collectively couple to the plasmonic crystal. Angle- and polarization resolved reflectivity and photoluminescence measurements combined with the coupled-oscillator model confirm strong coupling (coupling strength ∼120 meV). The combination of plasmon-exciton polaritons with the exceptional charge transport properties of SWCNTs should enable practical polariton devices at room temperature and at telecommunication wavelengths.
Their high oscillator strength and large exciton binding energies make single-walled carbon nanotubes (SWCNTs) highly promising materials for the investigation of strong light-matter interactions in the near infrared and at room temperature. To explore their full potential, high-quality cavities-possibly with nanoscale field localization-are required. Here, we demonstrate the room temperature formation of plasmon-exciton polaritons in monochiral (6,5) SWCNTs coupled to the subdiffraction nanocavities of a plasmonic crystal created by a periodic gold nanodisk array. The interaction strength is easily tuned by the number of SWCNTs that collectively couple to the plasmonic crystal. Angle- and polarization resolved reflectivity and photoluminescence measurements combined with the coupled-oscillator model confirm strong coupling (coupling strength ∼120 meV). The combination of plasmon-exciton polaritons with the exceptional charge transport properties of SWCNTs should enable practical polariton devices at room temperature and at telecommunication wavelengths.
Light–matter interaction is a key aspect of future photonic
and optoelectronic devices. Control over the coupling strength between
emitters and a cavity allows for the observation of various physical
phenomena from spontaneous emission enhancement via the Purcell effect
(in the weak coupling regime)[1] to Bose–Einstein
condensation,[2−4] room-temperature electrically pumped polariton lasing,[5] an all-optical polariton transistor,[6] and nonclassical light generation[7] in the strong coupling regime. The relation between the
average dissipation rate in the system (γ) and the exciton–cavity
energy exchange rate—called the Rabi splitting (ℏΩ)—leads
to a transition from the weak (γ > ℏΩ) to the
strong (γ < ℏΩ) coupling regime. The Rabi splitting
can be controlled by the number of emitters (N) that
collectively couple to the cavity, their oscillator strength (f), and the cavity mode volume (Vm) as ℏΩ ∝ .For typical Fabry-Pérot cavities
the large mode volumes are challenging for applications requiring
miniaturization and/or operation on the single emitter level in low-energy
optoelectronic devices.[8] As an alternative
to that, 2D plasmonic crystals supporting hybrid photonic–plasmonic
nanocavities have been recently used to investigate and exploit strong
light–matter coupling.[9−14] Plasmonic crystals represent a class of structures formed by periodically
patterned metallic structures, e.g., nanoparticle or nanohole arrays,
and combine the advantages of high quality factors of conventional
photonic cavities and the nanoscale field localization of plasmons.
The characteristic period of these structures is comparable to the
wavelength of the plasmon resonances (e.g., local plasmon resonances,
LPRs) that allows diffractive or waveguide coupling to create surface
lattice resonances (SLRs) or quasi-guided modes, respectively. In
order to tailor the dissipation rate and field confinement, the photon–plasmon
composition of the final modes is varied via the periodicity and size
or shape of the metallic nanostructures.[15]With regard to suitable materials, strong light–matter
interaction at room temperature requires a large exciton binding energy
and hence is limited to large bandgap inorganic semiconductors, e.g.,
GaN[5,16] and ZnO,[17] monolayered
MoS2[18] or MoSe2,[19] or organic materials with their strongly bound
Frenkel excitons.[2,3] Recently, we reported that semiconducting
single-walled carbon nanotubes (SWCNTs)[20] in microcavities also show strong light–matter coupling and
thus formation of exciton–polaritons at room temperature.
Their unique optoelectronic properties offer a number of key advantages.
First, SWCNTs exhibit a small Stokes shift and narrow excitonic transitions
(∼20–40 meV),[21] which is
a result of their large exciton oscillator strength.[22,23] Second, the high exciton binding energy (∼300 meV)[24] and exceptional charge transport properties
of SWCNTs[25] as well as their chirality-dependent
excitonic transition energies[26] offer the
opportunity for broadly tunable electrically pumped polariton devices
at room temperature. Finally, as narrow-bandgap semiconductors (first
excitonic transition: Eex ∼ 0.5–1.3
eV) SWCNTs are also attractive candidates for emission in the telecommunication
wavelength range and for investigation of the ultrastrong coupling
regime, for which Rabi splitting is comparable to the uncoupled transition
energies.[27−30] The full potential of ultrastrong coupling is still unexplored,
but it is considered to lead to new intriguing phenomena such as quantum
vacuum radiation[31] and quantum phase transitions.[32] The integration of SWCNTs with plasmonic crystals
may also present an important step toward the long-standing goal of
achieving an electrically pumped carbon-based (plasmon)–exciton
polariton laser. It was recently reported that an admixture of the
plasmonic component in compound plasmon-exciton polaritons (PEPs)
reduces their effective mass and facilitates room temperature quantum
condensation because the critical temperature for condensation is
inversely proportional to the effective mass.[12,33]Previously, we demonstrated that in the weak coupling regime
semiconducting (6,5) SWCNTs coupled to plasmonic crystals can be turned
into broadband tunable emitters by exploiting the Purcell effect.[1] Here, we explore the evolution of plasmon-exciton
interactions in the strong coupling regime by increasing the number
of SWCNTs coupled to square lattice plasmonic crystals. Using the
coupled-oscillator model we describe the experimentally observed angle-dependent
reflectivity and photoluminescence (PL) data. We find a coupling strength
of up to ∼120 meV, which corresponds to light–matter
interaction approaching the ultrastrong coupling regime.Thin
films of polymer-wrapped (6,5) SWCNTs[21] were deposited on plasmonic crystals. The plasmonic crystals were
composed of periodic arrays of gold nanodisks (NDs) with square symmetry,
a pitch of a = 670 nm and a total area of 100 ×
100 μm2. To vary the number of SWCNTs coupling to
the nanocavities of our plasmonic crystals, we drop-cast different
amounts of a highly concentrated toluene dispersion of polymer-wrapped
(6,5) SWCNTs onto the ND arrays. This procedure yielded SWCNTs layers
with final thicknesses between 100 and 300 nm (see Supporting Information for details). In order to ensure the
homogeneity of the dielectric environment that is required for the
far-field coupling of the LPRs,[1,34] the SWCNT layers were
covered with poly(methyl methacrylate) producing a thickness of the
SWCNTs/PMMA layer of 250–350 nm. The final composition of our
samples is illustrated in Figure a. To verify that even SWCNTs that were located 300
nm away from the NDs efficiently couple to the nanocavities of the
ND array and thus will contribute to the expected collective coupling,
we simulated the 3D mode profile of the SLRs (at λ = 1035 nm)
as shown in Figure b. Although the field intensity is largest close to the NDs, there
are regions with substantial field intensity extending up to 300 nm
in the Y-direction. The extended field penetration
into the surrounding medium is a distinct property of hybrid photonic–plasmonic
SLRs compared to purely localized LPRs.[35]
Figure 1
(a)
Schematic sample layout consisting of a glass substrate, gold nanodisk
array, a layer of random (6,5) SWCNTs, and a PMMA film. (b) Field
intensity enhancement distribution at λ = 1035 nm around a single
gold nanodisk (diameter 170 nm) in a periodic array with 670 nm pitch.
(c) Absorption spectra of SWCNTs layers with thickness of 100 (black
line), 200 (blue), and 300 nm (red). (d) Scanning electron micrograph
of a periodic array of gold nanodisks (670 nm pitch and diameter 160–180
nm). The inset shows the Brillouin zone of the plasmonic crystal with
a square lattice. (e) Theoretical band structure of the plasmonic
crystal with pitch a = 670 nm in an environment with
refractive index n = 1.5. (f) Experimental angle-resolved
reflectivity of plasmonic crystal without SWCNTs including fitted
dispersion curves of upper and lower surface lattice resonances (U-SLRs/L-SLRs;
white lines).
(a)
Schematic sample layout consisting of a glass substrate, gold nanodisk
array, a layer of random (6,5) SWCNTs, and a PMMA film. (b) Field
intensity enhancement distribution at λ = 1035 nm around a single
gold nanodisk (diameter 170 nm) in a periodic array with 670 nm pitch.
(c) Absorption spectra of SWCNTs layers with thickness of 100 (black
line), 200 (blue), and 300 nm (red). (d) Scanning electron micrograph
of a periodic array of gold nanodisks (670 nm pitch and diameter 160–180
nm). The inset shows the Brillouin zone of the plasmonic crystal with
a square lattice. (e) Theoretical band structure of the plasmonic
crystal with pitch a = 670 nm in an environment with
refractive index n = 1.5. (f) Experimental angle-resolved
reflectivity of plasmonic crystal without SWCNTs including fitted
dispersion curves of upper and lower surface lattice resonances (U-SLRs/L-SLRs;
white lines).Figure c shows the absorbance spectra of three SWCNTs
films with different thicknesses. The spectra are dominated by the
E22 and E11 transitions of (6,5) SWCNTs at λ
= 575 nm and λ = 1000 nm, respectively, confirming the presence
of mainly a single SWCNT species. The line width of the E11 transition is only 48 meV. The E11 absorbance increases
superlinearly with the thickness of the SWCNT layer (see Supporting Information Figure S1), indicating
a densification of the SWCNT layer during the successive drop-casting
process, which is favorable for improving coupling to the nanocavities.
The emission of our SWCNT layers is also dominated by the exciton
transitions of (6,5) SWCNTs (line width γex = 47
meV; see photoluminescence-excitation map in Supporting Information Figure S2).The scanning electron micrograph
of the electron-beam lithographically fabricated NDs (area 100 ×
100 μm2) in Figure d illustrates the square symmetry of the array and
shape of NDs (slightly elliptic, with diameter 160–180 nm).
The square lattice was selected as it represents one of the simplest
cases of a 2D periodic structure facilitating interpretation of the
band structure of the plasmon–exciton polaritons. The corresponding
first Brillouin zone is shown in the inset of Figure d, where the three high-symmetry points (Γ,
X, M) are indicated. The pitch of the ND array was chosen such that
the spectral position of the Γ-point was at approximately λ
= 1005 nm (λ ≈ surrounding medium refractive index ×
pitch) and thus at the minimum detuning with the E11 transitions
of the (6,5) SWCNTs at 1000–1010 nm. The theoretical dispersion
relations of the plasmonic crystal along the Γ–M and
Γ–X direction are shown in Figure e. The polar angle scale (i.e., sin(θ))
is used for direct correlation with the experimental angle-dependent
optical response. The dispersion shows that the nanocavity modes are
related to the (±1,0) and orthogonal (0,±1) Rayleigh anomalies
(RAs). The corresponding relation is given by[36]where k0 is the free space wavevector, n the refractive index in the region surrounding the ND array, and i, j are the RAs orders, e.g., 0, ±1,
±2, and so forth. The azimuthal angles for the Γ–M
and Γ–X directions are φ = 0 and φ = π/4,
respectively. As one can see, some modes are degenerate, e.g. (0,
±1) for the Γ–X direction and the pairs (−1,
0), (0, −1) and (+1, 0), (0, +1) for the Γ–M direction.Upon coupling of the LPRs supported by the gold NDs to these diffraction
orders the hybrid photonic–plasmonic SLRs appear. The corresponding
energy exchange leads to the renormalization of the final nanocavity
modes. In order to investigate the band structure of the SLRs, we
performed angle-resolved reflectance measurements of a sample without
SWCNTs for φ = 0 and φ = π/4 (Figure f). We used a Fourier imaging configuration
where the orientation of the entrance slit of the spectrometer defined
the plane of detection and thus the azimuthal angle (see Supporting Information for details). The dispersion
extracted from the reflectivity data (i.e., maximum intensity for
each angle of detection) was fitted to a coupled-oscillator model
(white lines), taking into account the dispersion of the RAs and spectral
position of the LPRs along the shorter or longer axis of the NDs (see
Methods and Supporting Information, Figure
S3). For the Γ-point and thus the in-plane wavevector component k∥ = 0 both curves split and form a photonic
stop band that indicates coupling between two RAs and lifting of the
degeneracy.[37,38] We note that, for the coupled-oscillator
model used to fit SLRs dispersion, we only used data for the lower
SLR branch (L-SLRs). No reliable experimental data can be extracted
for the upper SLR branch (U-SLRs) due to the Fano-like interaction
between broad LPRs and narrow RAs, which results in extremely weak
reflectivity for the U-SLRs. This also led to the slight discrepancies
(∼10 nm at Γ-point) in the fitted curves for the Γ–M
and Γ–X directions.Upon introducing the SWCNTs
to these nanocavities the excitons effectively couple to the upper
and lower SLRs (U-/L-SLRs) and form upper, middle, and lower plasmon–exciton
polaritons (U-/M-/L-PEP) as illustrated in Figure a. To demonstrate this experimentally, we
performed angle-resolved reflectivity and PL measurements on ND arrays
coated with SWCNT layers of different thicknesses (see Supporting Information for details). Additionally,
the transverse-electric (TE) or transverse-magnetic (TM) light polarization
were selected to discriminate the spectral features as depicted in Figure b.
Figure 2
(a) Schematic illustration
of plasmon–exciton polariton creation (U-PEP, M-PEP, and L-PEP)
via interaction of excitons with surface-lattice resonances (U-SLR
and L-SLR). (b) Scheme of detection configuration probing the band
structure of the plasmon–exciton polaritons (φ = 0 and
φ = π/4 for Γ–X and Γ–M, respectively).
Angle- and polarization-resolved photoluminescence spectra with increasing
thickness of the SWCNT layer (100, 200, and 300 nm, from left to right)
for (c) φ = 0 and (d) φ = π/4. Dispersion curves
of uncoupled SLRs and exciton states (white dotted lines) were used
to fit the experimental maxima in the coupled-oscillator model yielding
the plasmon–exciton polariton branches (solid lines). White
and red arrows indicate secondary spectral features and (±1,
±1) Rayleigh anomalies, respectively.
(a) Schematic illustration
of plasmon–exciton polariton creation (U-PEP, M-PEP, and L-PEP)
via interaction of excitons with surface-lattice resonances (U-SLR
and L-SLR). (b) Scheme of detection configuration probing the band
structure of the plasmon–exciton polaritons (φ = 0 and
φ = π/4 for Γ–X and Γ–M, respectively).
Angle- and polarization-resolved photoluminescence spectra with increasing
thickness of the SWCNT layer (100, 200, and 300 nm, from left to right)
for (c) φ = 0 and (d) φ = π/4. Dispersion curves
of uncoupled SLRs and exciton states (white dotted lines) were used
to fit the experimental maxima in the coupled-oscillator model yielding
the plasmon–exciton polariton branches (solid lines). White
and red arrows indicate secondary spectral features and (±1,
±1) Rayleigh anomalies, respectively.Figure c
and d presents the angle- and polarization-resolved PL for samples
with SWCNT layers of different thicknesses (h = 100,
200, and 300 nm) for φ = 0 and φ = π/4, respectively
(see Supporting Information Figure S4 for
the reflectivity data). The common dispersionless spectral feature
at λ = 1000–1020 nm corresponds to the excitonic emission
of the SWCNTs with an increased Stokes shift for thicker layers. This
signal corresponds to the share of SWCNTs not coupled to the nanocavities.
In order to estimate the coupling strength between excitons and SLRs
(white dotted lines in Figure c and d), we extracted PL maxima and fitted those to the eigenvalues
of the effective Hamiltonian:[12]where the
diagonal terms Eex, EU-SLR(θ), and EL-SLR(θ) correspond to the uncoupled exciton, the upper, and the
lower SLRs states, respectively. The off-diagonal terms VU-SLR and VL-SLR represent exciton-SLR coupling energies and are used as the fitting
parameters. In order to allow the fit to converge, we also included
an additional coupling term VU-L reflecting interaction between U-SLR and L-SLR. Although its value
increases for thicker SWCNT films (up to ∼80 meV) and thus
seems to be affected by the excitons, the mechanism of this coupling
is not clear yet as the direct exciton-SLR coupling is already included
as VU-SLR and VL-SLR. The resulting dispersion curves for the
M-PEP and L-PEP show a reasonably good fit (Figure c,d, left and middle, white solid lines).
For the sample with the thinnest SWCNT layer (Figure c,d, left) only the L-PEP branch can be resolved
due to the weak far-field response of the U-SLRs as discussed above.
The same applies to the reflectivity data (see Supporting Information, Figure S4). However, for the thicker
SWCNT layers (Figure c,d, middle and right), the M-PEP, which originates from splitting
of the U-SLR, is also visible, while the U-PEP remains undetectable.
In addition, the TE-polarized M-PEPs at φ = π/4 show an
apparent bending behavior for |sin(θ)| > 0.4. The data are
not taken into account during the fitting procedure, since they originate
from the (±1, ±1) RAs that are clearly visible in this range
of the uncoupled state (indicated with red arrows in Figure d). It is also important to
note that the U-SLR for TE polarization at φ = 0 and TE/TM at
φ = π/4 as well as the associated U-PEP and M-PEP at sin(θ)
= 0 are optically inactive due to the symmetry of the field distribution
around the NDs.[38,39] However, they can be changed
from dark to bright by varying the ND shape and pitch of the array.[10] The same effect also prevents an observation
of these states in TM polarization for all angles of detection. This
behavior has an important implication for lasing because it corresponds
to the reduction of radiative losses as highlighted recently.[33]We note that our model does not include
nontrivial spectral features (indicated with white arrows in Figure c, middle and right)
for the TE-polarized M-PEP at large angles (that is |sin(θ)| > 0.3), and thus
these data points were excluded from the fit. These features are more
pronounced in a sample with the larger exciton-SLRs detuning, i.e.,
ND array pitch a = 830 nm (see Supporting Information, Figure S5). As for their origin we
have to take into account that this branch-like feature is optically
inactive at small angles as is the TE-polarized M-PEP. A closer look
also reveals that it is convex (i.e., d2λ/d2k < 0) which resembles the TM-polarized M-PEP.
It seems that although the TE-polarized dipoles should not be able
to couple to the orthogonal RAs this process is possible due to the
one-dimensional structure and strongly anisotropic polarizability
of the SWCNTs.[40] In other words, for the
random network of SWCNTs the off-diagonal terms in the polarizability
tensor are nonzero and thus cross-coupling between TE- and TM-polarized
LPRs and RAs is allowed. The discussed SWCNTs-mediated TE-TM cross-coupling
mechanism is probably also responsible for the lifted degeneracy of
the L-PEPs for φ = π/4 (Figure d, middle and right). For samples with higher
SWCNT concentrations the L-PEP branch splits into TE and TM-polarized
emission where the slight secondary appearances indicated with white
arrows are visible.To quantify and visualize the changes of
band structure of the PEPs for different amounts of SWCNTs more clearly, Figure a and b summarize
the dispersion curves and the experimental data used for the fit at
φ = 0 and φ = π/4, respectively. The energy separation
between U-PEP and M-PEP for the angle at which Eex equals EU-SLR progressively
increases with increasing thickness of the SWCNT film from around
25 to 300 meV. In general, a good correlation is found between the
calculated PEP dispersions and the experimental data despite the simple
coupled-oscillator model used here. However, there are some deviations
of the TE-polarized emission of the L-PEP for the sample with the
thickest nanotube layer (Figure c,d right). The main fitting simplification causing
these imperfections is the constant mode profile (and thus coupling
strength) for different angles over a large spectral range as well
as its overlap with the optically anisotropic SWCNTs layer. Moreover,
the discussed SWCNT-mediated interaction between TE-TM-polarized PEPs
was not included in the model.
Figure 3
Summary of plasmon–exciton polariton
dispersion curves (U-/M-/L-PEPs) with experimental data points used
for the fits (evenly spaced data was excluded for clarity) for (a)
φ = 0 and (b) φ = π/4.
Summary of plasmon–exciton polariton
dispersion curves (U-/M-/L-PEPs) with experimental data points used
for the fits (evenly spaced data was excluded for clarity) for (a)
φ = 0 and (b) φ = π/4.The dependence of the coupling strength on the number of
SWCNTs in the layer helps to justify the collective effects and thus
strong light–matter interaction. Figure shows a summary of the exciton-USLR coupling
term in eq for φ
= 0 and φ = π/4 (open and solid symbols) and for TE (black)
and TM (red) polarization (see Supporting Information, Figure S7 for a summary of all coupling terms, i.e., VU-SLR, VL-SLR, and VU-L). The data are presented
as a function of the square root of the effective absorbance = , where the halved absorbance () is proportional to the average number of SWCNTs oriented in one
direction and the field intensity enhancement factor (⟨EF⟩)
is the average over the whole volume of SWCNTs around the gold NDs
(see Supporting Information, Figure S6).
The latter characterizes the spatial overlap between the SWCNTs and
the mode volume of SLRs, or in other words the efficiency with which
SWCNTs couple to the SLRs. An enhancement factor of 1 (i.e., no enhancement)
is subtracted to exclude the unphysical increase in coupling for a
thick layer. The observed trends show a clear dependence on the thickness
of the SWCNTs layer as expected for the strong coupling regime. The
error bars in Figure reflect the uncertainty and variation of the layer thickness. The
additional horizontal dashed lines indicate the boundaries between
the three coupling regimes, i.e., weak, strong, and ultrastrong. The
transition from weak to strong coupling can be approximately defined[18] via the coupling strength (V) as , where γex and γSLR are the line widths of the excitonic transitions (γex = 47 meV) and SLRs (γSLR = 55 meV), respectively.
For the sample with the smallest amount of SWCNTs, the estimated values
are in the transition region, while strong coupling is clearly present
for the sample with the thicker layer. The larger spread of values
for the thinnest layer is explained by the lack of the experimental
data for the M-PEPs. With respect to this, it may be also more reliable
to illustrate the transition between regimes via the coupling term
between exciton and L-SLRs. Although this nanocavity mode is slightly
detuned compared to the U-SLRs, the coupling strength still indicates
a strong coupling regime (see Supporting Information, Figure S7). Increasing the amount of SWCNTs around the gold NDs
further, leads to another transition, from strong to ultrastrong coupling
(V > 0.1Eex). Although
the ultrastrong coupling regime was not reached completely and no
new effects were observed, further increase of the coupling strength
may reveal interesting phenomena. This could be achieved, for example,
via the incorporation of SWCNTs with a larger diameter and thus smaller
transition energies or by aligning the carbon nanotubes in one direction[41,42] and thus increasing their effective density. The need of a large
number of SWCNTs for the observation of collective strong light–matter
coupling explains the lack of corresponding effects in previous reports
dealing with single SWCNTs or relatively thin films coupled to microcavities.[43−47]
Figure 4
Coupling
strength between excitons and upper surface lattice resonance as a
function of the square root of the effective absorbance (i.e., taking
into account the E11 absorbance and volume-averaged
coupling efficiency) for TE (black) and TM (red) polarized light and
detection at φ = 0 (open symbols) and φ = π/4 (solid).
Transition regions of weak-to-strong and strong-to-ultrastrong coupling
regime are indicated with horizontal, dashed lines. Least squares
fit to the values is presented with dotted lines. For representation
of all coupling strengths see Supporting Information S7.
Coupling
strength between excitons and upper surface lattice resonance as a
function of the square root of the effective absorbance (i.e., taking
into account the E11 absorbance and volume-averaged
coupling efficiency) for TE (black) and TM (red) polarized light and
detection at φ = 0 (open symbols) and φ = π/4 (solid).
Transition regions of weak-to-strong and strong-to-ultrastrong coupling
regime are indicated with horizontal, dashed lines. Least squares
fit to the values is presented with dotted lines. For representation
of all coupling strengths see Supporting Information S7.In summary, we have shown the
progressive increase from the weak to the strong and up to the ultrastrong
coupling regime between (6,5) SWCNTs and plasmon polaritons supported
by a periodic gold nanodisk array. Aside from exploring SWCNTs as
a promising material for strong light–matter coupling at room
temperature, our hybrid plasmon–exciton polariton structures
could be easily integrated in optoelectronic devices (e.g., light-emitting
field-effect transistors)[48] and possibly
lead to electrically pumped polariton lasing. The appearance of spatial
coherence between emitters (e.g., SWCNTs) coupled to plasmonic crystals[10] may potentially enable observation of the plasmonic
Dicke effect[49] and the generation of entanglement
between emitters.[50] Finally, the development
of practical quantum technologies and low-power/energy optoelectronic
components requires a strong coupling regime at the single emitter-photon
level and thus will take advantage of SWCNTs with their large oscillator
strength and high charge carrier mobilities.
Authors: Wenjing Liu; Bumsu Lee; Carl H Naylor; Ho-Seok Ee; Joohee Park; A T Charlie Johnson; Ritesh Agarwal Journal: Nano Lett Date: 2016-01-25 Impact factor: 11.189
Authors: G Günter; A A Anappara; J Hees; A Sell; G Biasiol; L Sorba; S De Liberato; C Ciuti; A Tredicucci; A Leitenstorfer; R Huber Journal: Nature Date: 2009-03-12 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: A I Väkeväinen; R J Moerland; H T Rekola; A-P Eskelinen; J-P Martikainen; D-H Kim; P Törmä Journal: Nano Lett Date: 2013-12-13 Impact factor: 11.189
Authors: A Jeantet; Y Chassagneux; C Raynaud; Ph Roussignol; J S Lauret; B Besga; J Estève; J Reichel; C Voisin Journal: Phys Rev Lett Date: 2016-06-17 Impact factor: 9.161
Authors: R Miura; S Imamura; R Ohta; A Ishii; X Liu; T Shimada; S Iwamoto; Y Arakawa; Y K Kato Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2014-11-25 Impact factor: 14.919
Authors: Jianxi Liu; Weijia Wang; Danqing Wang; Jingtian Hu; Wendu Ding; Richard D Schaller; George C Schatz; Teri W Odom Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2019-03-08 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Po-Hsun Ho; Damon B Farmer; George S Tulevski; Shu-Jen Han; Douglas M Bishop; Lynne M Gignac; Jim Bucchignano; Phaedon Avouris; Abram L Falk Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2018-11-20 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Jan M Winkler; Freddy T Rabouw; Aurelio A Rossinelli; Sriharsha V Jayanti; Kevin M McPeak; David K Kim; Boris le Feber; Ferry Prins; David J Norris Journal: Nano Lett Date: 2018-12-17 Impact factor: 11.189