Casey A. Norville, Kyle Z. Smith, and Jeremy M. Dawson, "Parametric optimization of visible wavelength gold lattice geometries for improved plasmon-enhanced fluorescence spectroscopy," Appl. Opt. 59, 2308-2318 (2020)
We report the exploitation of spectroplasmonics for innovations in optical transducer development, specifically in the well-established application of labeled fluorescent analytes known as fluorescence spectroscopy. Presented herein are comprehensive analyses of nanoscale plasmonic lattice feature geometries using finite-difference time-domain software to determine the largest surface electric ($E$) field enhancement resulting from localized surface plasmon resonance for reducing the limit of detection of plasmon-enhanced fluorescence. This parametric optimization of the critical dimensions of the plasmon resonance of noble metal nanostructures will enable improved excitation and emission enhancement of fluorophores used in visible wavelength fluorescence spectroscopy.
You do not have subscription access to this journal. Cited by links are available to subscribers only. You may subscribe either as an Optica member, or as an authorized user of your institution.
You do not have subscription access to this journal. Figure files are available to subscribers only. You may subscribe either as an Optica member, or as an authorized user of your institution.
You do not have subscription access to this journal. Article tables are available to subscribers only. You may subscribe either as an Optica member, or as an authorized user of your institution.
You do not have subscription access to this journal. Equations are available to subscribers only. You may subscribe either as an Optica member, or as an authorized user of your institution.
Shown in parentheses are the number of data sets recorded from each $a$ and $t$ sweep for each $l$.
Table 4.
Optimal Parameters Determined from the Parametric Analyses Performed, Including -Field Enhancement Factors, -Field Intensities, , and Where Peak Enhancement Was Observed for the Four Nanopillar Feature Geometries, Respectively
Feature Geometry
or (nm)
(nm)
(nm)
Enhancement ()
Intensity ()
(nm)
(nm)
Cylinders
50
375
5
18.27
333.79
300–800
744
Squares
50
325
80
22.87
523.04
300–800
588
Stars
75
350
30
18.73
350.81
300–800
599
Triangles
75
275
80
19.45
378.30
300-800
617
Table 5.
Peak -Field Enhancement Factors, -Field Intensities, , and for the Four Optimized Nanopillar Feature Geometries, Respectively
Feature Geometry
or (nm)
(nm)
(nm)
Enhancement ()
Intensity ()
(nm)
(nm)
Cylinders
50
375
5
51.98
2701.92
700–800
701
Squares
50
325
80
211.10
44,563.21
550–650
614
Stars
75
350
30
335.39
112,486.45
550–650
625
Triangles
75
275
80
251.52
63,262.31
550–650
648
Tables (5)
Table 1.
Comparison of Reported -field Intensities and Resonance Conditions of Select SPP- and LSP-Supporting Metal Nanostructures Modeled in Simulation
Shown in parentheses are the number of data sets recorded from each $a$ and $t$ sweep for each $l$.
Table 4.
Optimal Parameters Determined from the Parametric Analyses Performed, Including -Field Enhancement Factors, -Field Intensities, , and Where Peak Enhancement Was Observed for the Four Nanopillar Feature Geometries, Respectively
Feature Geometry
or (nm)
(nm)
(nm)
Enhancement ()
Intensity ()
(nm)
(nm)
Cylinders
50
375
5
18.27
333.79
300–800
744
Squares
50
325
80
22.87
523.04
300–800
588
Stars
75
350
30
18.73
350.81
300–800
599
Triangles
75
275
80
19.45
378.30
300-800
617
Table 5.
Peak -Field Enhancement Factors, -Field Intensities, , and for the Four Optimized Nanopillar Feature Geometries, Respectively