4.6 Article

Comparison of the plasmonic performances between lithographically fabricated and chemically grown gold nanorods

Journal

PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY CHEMICAL PHYSICS
Volume 17, Issue 16, Pages 10861-10870

Publisher

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c5cp00715a

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Hong Kong RGC GRF [CUHK401511, 2130270]
  2. Hong Kong RGC
  3. Hong Kong Baptist University

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Noble metal nanostructures, especially gold nanocrystals, have attracted intensive interest due to their rich plasmonic properties and enormous potential technological applications. The preparation process of gold nanocrystals can strongly affect their plasmonic properties and therefore their performances in various applications. Chemically synthesized colloidal gold nanocrystals are usually employed in biomedical fields, while lithographically fabricated ones are highly preferred for constructing optical meta-structures. A detailed careful comparison of the plasmonic performances between lithographical and chemical metal nanostructures is strongly desired for using them for different applications. Herein, we experimentally measured and quantitatively compared the plasmonic properties, including longitudinal localized surface plasmon wavelengths (LLSPWs) and plasmon peak widths, scattering intensities, and local electric field enhancements, of lithographically fabricated and chemically grown gold nanorods. The lithographical nanorods exhibit much weaker scattering, largely broadened spectral widths, and considerably reduced electric field enhancements. Electrodynamic simulations suggest that the reduction in the plasmonic performance of the lithographical nanorods is caused mainly by the use of an adhesive metal layer and slightly by their polycrystalline nature. Our quantitative comparison results will be very helpful in guiding the selection of proper types of metal nanostructures for targeted technological applications.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available