1985
DOI: 10.1021/la00064a021
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Time dependence of surface enhanced Raman scattering at silver in the presence of underpotentially deposited lead and its implications for the roles of surface roughness

Abstract: sure (i.e., increasing the rate of the reaction) cannot alleviate this problem. The attainment of a limiting conversion due to isolation of active sites has been observed in many other solid-state polymerizations.23,24The dependence of conversion on polymerization pressure and annealing of the films prior to irradiation highlights the influence of morphology on gas-water interface polymerizations. The structural changes that occur in a monolayer of vinyl stearate upon polymerization can be understood by postul… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

1987
1987
2005
2005

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The EM mechanism has several experimental signatures: (1) surface-enhanced Raman excitation spectra (SERES) that depend sensitively on surface nanostructure, the optical dielectric response functions of the metal, and the dielectric constant of the medium surrounding the roughened metal surface; (2) the long-range (viz., a few nanometers) distance dependence; (3) weak dependence of the EF on the chemical identity of the adsorbate; and (4) the existence of surface-enhanced second harmonic generation (SESHG), surface-enhanced hyper-Raman scattering(SEHRS), , and other surface-enhanced spectroscopies (SES). In comparison, the involvement of the CHEM mechanism is manifested in a more subtle manner through (1) irreversible loss phenomena both in electrochemical-SERS (ECHEM-SERS) , and UHV-SERS; (2) laser excitation wavelength dependence in plots of SERS intensity vs electrode potential in ECHEM-SERS; , (3) observation of “first layer” SERS; , (4) strong dependence of the EF on the chemical identity of the adsorbate; (5) quenching of signals from “active sites” in UHV−SERS by submonolayer coverages of O 2 or Pd and in ECHEM-SERS by underpotential deposition (UPD) of submonolayer coverages of Tl, Cd, and Pb , on AgORC electrodes; and 6) thermal quenching of SERS of pyridine and H 2 O at AgORC electrodes. , …”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The EM mechanism has several experimental signatures: (1) surface-enhanced Raman excitation spectra (SERES) that depend sensitively on surface nanostructure, the optical dielectric response functions of the metal, and the dielectric constant of the medium surrounding the roughened metal surface; (2) the long-range (viz., a few nanometers) distance dependence; (3) weak dependence of the EF on the chemical identity of the adsorbate; and (4) the existence of surface-enhanced second harmonic generation (SESHG), surface-enhanced hyper-Raman scattering(SEHRS), , and other surface-enhanced spectroscopies (SES). In comparison, the involvement of the CHEM mechanism is manifested in a more subtle manner through (1) irreversible loss phenomena both in electrochemical-SERS (ECHEM-SERS) , and UHV-SERS; (2) laser excitation wavelength dependence in plots of SERS intensity vs electrode potential in ECHEM-SERS; , (3) observation of “first layer” SERS; , (4) strong dependence of the EF on the chemical identity of the adsorbate; (5) quenching of signals from “active sites” in UHV−SERS by submonolayer coverages of O 2 or Pd and in ECHEM-SERS by underpotential deposition (UPD) of submonolayer coverages of Tl, Cd, and Pb , on AgORC electrodes; and 6) thermal quenching of SERS of pyridine and H 2 O at AgORC electrodes. , …”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In general, these works had given the expected result: deposition of a less-SERS-active metal, specifically, lead [50,94,[152][153][154][155][156][157], aluminum [158], cadmium [152,159] (see also paper by Pettinger and Moerl in [34]), thallium [50,95,96,157,159,160], palladium [161][162][163], antimony (see paper by Liang et al in [36]), nickel and cobalt [164,165], and zinc [164] on SERS-active metals (in majority of cases, on silver) reduces SERS intensity on this metal or completely quenches it. However, deposition of a monolayer of thallium or lead on the surface of gold reduced SERS intensity by various adsorbates only by 2.5-4 times and deposition of a monolayer of mercury made practically no impact on SERS intensity of spectra for pyridine and ions of chloride, bromide, and thiocyanate, though it displaced line frequencies.…”
Section: Effect Of Metal Nature On Sers Characteristicsmentioning
confidence: 99%