4.5 Review

Experimental tests of surface-enhanced Raman scattering: Moving beyond the electromagnetic enhancement theory

期刊

JOURNAL OF RAMAN SPECTROSCOPY
卷 52, 期 2, 页码 310-322

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jrs.6014

关键词

absolute SERS enhancement; electromagnetic enhancement; plasmon; polarization; SERS

资金

  1. H2020 European Research Council [772108]
  2. European Research Council (ERC) [772108, 639739]
  3. European Research Council (ERC) [772108] Funding Source: European Research Council (ERC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The electromagnetic enhancement theory has successfully explained the fundamental properties of SERS and optimized the strongest enhancement, but there are still shortcomings in predictions, requiring further development of the SERS theory, particularly in studying the role of plasmonic enhancement in inelastic light scattering.
The electromagnetic enhancement theory describes surface-enhanced Raman scattering (SERS) as a Raman effect that takes place in the near-field of a plasmonic nanostructure. The theory has been very successful in explaining the fundamental properties of SERS, modelling the performance of different metals as enhancing materials and optimizing SERS hotspots for strongest possible enhancement. Over the last decade, a number of carefully designed experimental studies have examined predictions of the electromagnetic theory like the size and shape of SERS hotspots, the absolute magnitude of the enhancement and the width of the SERS resonance. Although the overall picture was quite satisfactory, the theory failed to predict key aspects of SERS, for example, the absolute magnitude of the plasmonic enhancement. We scrutinize these experiments and review them focusing on the results that require going beyond the electromagnetic enhancement theory. We argue that the results of these experiments create the need to develop the theory of SERS further, especially the exact role of plasmonic enhancement in inelastic light scattering.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据