2017
DOI: 10.1002/smll.201703307
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Integrating Sub‐3 nm Plasmonic Gaps into Solid‐State Nanopores

Abstract: Plasmonic nanopores combine the advantages of nanopore sensing and surface plasmon resonances by introducing confined electromagnetic fields to a solid-state nanopore. Ultrasmall nanogaps between metallic nanoantennas can generate the extremely enhanced localized electromagnetic fields necessary for single-molecule optical sensing and manipulation. Challenges in fabrication, however, hamper the integration of such nanogaps into nanopores. Here, we report a top-down approach for integrating a plasmonic antenna … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

1
41
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 38 publications
(42 citation statements)
references
References 33 publications
1
41
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Sequencing approaches based on tunneling require positioning a pore between two electrodes . Plasmonic devices with interfaced pores require positioning pores at the optimal distance (10–20 nm) from nanoantennas in order to maximize plasmonic coupling . In devices utilizing nanofluidic confinement (e.g., nanochannels, nanocavities) pores need to be aligned with etched sub 100 nm features .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Sequencing approaches based on tunneling require positioning a pore between two electrodes . Plasmonic devices with interfaced pores require positioning pores at the optimal distance (10–20 nm) from nanoantennas in order to maximize plasmonic coupling . In devices utilizing nanofluidic confinement (e.g., nanochannels, nanocavities) pores need to be aligned with etched sub 100 nm features .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[4,5] Plasmonic devices with interfaced pores require positioning pores at the optimal distance (10-20 nm) from nanoantennas in order to maximize plasmonic coupling. [6][7][8][9][10] In devices utilizing nanofluidic confinement (e.g., nanochannels, nanocavities) pores need to be aligned with etched sub 100 nm features. [11][12][13]45,46] In addition to producing pores, our AFM based approach can exploit multiple scanning modalities (topographic, chemical, electrostatic) to map the device prior to pore production and so align pores precisely to existing features.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the past decades, a considerable amount of attention has been paid to produce extremely concentrated and strong electric fields on plasmonic nanostructures . This largely owes to their superior ability in nonlinear optics, optical trapping, single‐molecule analysis, surface plasmon (SP) enhanced spectroscopy . To achieve the extremely concentrated and strong electric fields, lots of efforts are contributed to fabricate kinds of plasmonic structures, revealing that sub‐10 nm nanogap and nanotip are the two key characteristics .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Despite their importance, fabrication of sub‐5 nm NGEs remains a great technological challenge . Existing NGE‐manufacturing methods can be typically classified into two strategies: physical methods based on planar nanofabrication techniques and chemical methods based on noble metal nanoparticles. Most chemical methods are suitable for creating sub‐1 nm NGEs but limited to a relatively narrow range of applications owing to the contamination induced by linker molecules, the shell‐filled gaps, and/or the restrictions derived from metal nanoparticle size.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Most chemical methods are suitable for creating sub‐1 nm NGEs but limited to a relatively narrow range of applications owing to the contamination induced by linker molecules, the shell‐filled gaps, and/or the restrictions derived from metal nanoparticle size. Physical methods, including direct patterning techniques, breaking‐/cracking‐based methods, and controllable deposition, are fundamentally limited by the basic planar nanofabrication techniques. Particularly, direct patterning techniques variously suffer from high equipment costs, low throughput, and poor scalability to large sizes.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%