| Literature DB >> 35808043 |
Maged F Alotaibi1, Yas Al-Hadeethi1, Pooja Lohia2, Sachin Singh3, D K Dwivedi3, Ahmad Umar4,5, Hamdah M Alzayed1, Hassan Algadi5,6, Sotirios Baskoutas7.
Abstract
In the traditional surface plasmon resonance sensor, the sensitivity is calculated by the usage of angular interrogation. The proposed surface plasmon resonance (SPR) sensor uses a diamagnetic material (Al2O3), nickel (Ni), and two-dimensional (2D) BlueP/WS2 (blue phosphorous-tungsten di-sulfide). The Al2O3 sheet is sandwiched between silver (Ag) and nickel (Ni) films in the Kretschmann configuration. A mathematical simulation is performed to improve the sensitivity of an SPR sensor in the visible region at a frequency of 633 nm. The simulation results show that an upgraded sensitivity of 332°/RIU is achieved for the metallic arrangement consisting of 17 nm of Al2O3 and 4 nm of Ni in thickness for analyte refractive indices ranging from 1.330 to 1.335. The thickness variation of the layers plays a curial role in enhancing the performance of the SPR sensor. The thickness variation of the proposed configuration containing 20 nm of Al2O3 and 1 nm of Ni with a monolayer of 2D material BlueP/WS2 enhances the sensitivity to as high as 374°/RIU. Furthermore, it is found that the sensitivity can be altered and managed by means of altering the film portions of Ni and Al2O3.Entities:
Keywords: Al2O; blue-phosphorus tungsten di-sulfide; nickel; sensitivity; surface plasmon resonance sensor
Year: 2022 PMID: 35808043 PMCID: PMC9268592 DOI: 10.3390/nano12132205
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nanomaterials (Basel) ISSN: 2079-4991 Impact factor: 5.719
Figure 1Sketch diagram of the proposed SPR biosensors.
Details of each layer of the proposed biosensor at 633 nm wavelength.
| Materials Used | Thickness (nm) | Refractive Index | References | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | CaF2 prism | 100 | 1.4329 | [ |
| 2 | Ag metal | 50 | 0.0803 + 1i × 4.234 | [ |
| 3 | Al2O3 | 20 | 1.7659 | [ |
| 4 | Nickel | 1 | 0.031957 + 1i × 2.693 | [ |
| 5 | BlueP/WS2 | 0.75 | 2.48 + 1i × 0.170 | [ |
| 6 | Sensing medium | 300 | 1.330 to 1.335 | This work |
Comparative study of the proposed SPR model.
| Device Structure | Assembling of Films |
|---|---|
| design 1 (Conventional SPR) | CaF2 crystal/Ag film/SM |
| design 2 | CaF2 crystal/Ag film/Al2O3/SM |
| design 3 | CaF2 crystal/Ag film/Al2O3/Ni/SM |
| design 4 (Proposed SPR) | CaF2 crystal/Ag film/Al2O3/Ni/BlueP/WS2/SM |
Figure 2SPR reflectance curves: (a) design 1; (b) design 2; (c) design 3; (d) design 4.
Comparative study of different proposed SPR sensors at a wavelength of 633 nm and Δn = 0.005.
| Device Structure | Δθ | Sensitivity | FWHM (deg) | DA (deg−1) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Structure 1 | 0.72 | 144 | 1.04677 | 0.95531 |
| Structure 2 | 1.48 | 296 | 2.05852 | 0.48578 |
| Structure 3 | 1.6 | 320 | 2.25936 | 0.44260 |
| Structure 4 | 1.87 | 374 | 2.75132 | 0.36346 |
The optimized thickness values of Al2O3 and Ni with respect to the other parameters such as ΔθSPR, S, DA, FOM, and FWHM.
| d(Al2O3) | d(Ni) | Δθ | S | DA | FWHM (deg) | FOM |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 14 | 1 | 1.11 | 222 | 0.5190 | 1.9265 | 127.910 |
| 16 | 1 | 1.25 | 250 | 0.4753 | 2.1035 | 148.560 |
| 18 | 1 | 1.51 | 302 | 0.6471 | 1.5451 | 295.122 |
| 20 | 1 | 1.87 | 374 | 0.3635 | 2.7502 | 254.293 |
| 14 | 3 | 1.26 | 252 | 0.4399 | 2.2728 | 139.698 |
| 16 | 3 | 1.45 | 290 | 0.4000 | 2.2499 | 168.219 |
| 18 | 3 | 1.67 | 334 | 0.3498 | 2.8582 | 195.150 |
| 20 | 3 | 1.06 | 212 | 0.3048 | 3.2808 | 68.4950 |
| 14 | 5 | 1.44 | 288 | 0.3746 | 2.6690 | 155.381 |
| 16 | 5 | 1.61 | 322 | 0.3333 | 2.9995 | 172.834 |
| 18 | 5 | 1.34 | 268 | 0.2803 | 3.5672 | 100.670 |
| 20 | 5 | 0.09 | 18 | 0.2376 | 4.2070 | 0.38506 |
Figure 3Variation of resonance angle vs. incident angle.
Figure 4Variation of FOM vs. different layer thicknesses of Al2O3.
Figure 5Variation of thickness of Ni vs. FWHM.
Figure 6Plot of DA vs. different layer thickness for Al2O3.
Figure 7Variation of the resonance angle with Ri for different sensor designs.
Figure 8(a) Variation of sensitivity vs. Al2O3 (nm). (b) Variation of sensitivity vs. Ni (nm).
Figure 9Penetration depth variation and transverse magnetic field.