Nano-resolved sensing of 3D electromagnetic fields via single emitters' extreme variation of enhanced spontaneous emission

Arturo Susarrey-Arce; Bart van Dam; Cl\'ement Cabriel; Dirk Jonker; Ignacio Izeddin; Mario Zapata-Herrera; R. Margoth C\'ordova-Castro; Robert W. Boyd; Valentina Krachmalnicoff; Yannick De Wilde

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 8 references

Nano-resolved sensing of 3D electromagnetic fields via single emitters' extreme variation of enhanced spontaneous emission

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Single molecules on hollow gold nanocones map 3D light fields with about 14 nm resolution.

desk verdict A solid experimental advance in single-molecule lifetime mapping on scalable 3D plasmonic arrays, with a load-bearing but fixable soft spot: the unvalidated single-exponential decay assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.15095 v1 pith:CSVXQ5XF submitted 2025-06-18 physics.optics quant-ph

R. Margoth Córdova-Castro , Dirk Jonker , Clément Cabriel , Mario Zapata-Herrera , Bart van Dam , Yannick De Wilde , Robert W. Boyd , Arturo Susarrey-Arce

show 2 more authors

Ignacio Izeddin Valentina Krachmalnicoff

This is my paper · ORCID

classification physics.opticsquant-ph

keywords single-moleculefluorescencelifetimeimagingPurcellfactorlocaldensityofstateshollowplasmonicnanostructuressuper-resolutionmicroscopyspontaneousemissionenhancementnanoconesquantumsensing

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper reports a material platform and a measurement strategy for reading out the three-dimensional electromagnetic environment around individual molecules. The platform is a centimeter-scale square lattice of hollow gold truncated nanocones; the readout is far-field single-molecule fluorescence lifetime imaging, which localizes each emitter to about 14 nm while timing its decay. The paper's central claim is that each molecule's measured decay-rate enhancement equals the local Purcell factor and varies by one to two orders of magnitude with the molecule's position and dipole orientation inside, on, or near the cone. If true, the device works as a room-temperature source of fast single photons and as a non-invasive nanoscale sensor of vectorial field variations.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the hollow gold truncated nanocone, 140 nm base diameter, 90 nm top outer diameter, 70 nm top inner diameter, and 240 nm tall, repeated in a 250-nm square lattice at wafer scale. The tilted hollow geometry supports several plasmonic modes, including a longitudinal localized surface plasmon resonance that, under oblique illumination, creates a >600-fold simulated field enhancement on the top ring. The measurement machinery is single-molecule fluorescence lifetime imaging (smFLIM): an EMCCD localizes each photoactivated molecule's point-spread function to about 14 nm, while an array of single-photon avalanche diodes with time-correlated single-photon counting records its decay; the decay is fitted with a single exponential and normalized to the reference rate $\Gamma_0 = 0.3\,\mathrm{ns}^{-1}$ on glass in water to obtain the Purcell factor. A supercell procedure folds events from the periodic array into one unit cell, turning sparse single-molecule data into high-statistics maps of the local density of states.

What would settle it

Refit the stored single-molecule decay histograms with a two-exponential model and inspect the residuals: if a substantial fraction of molecules require a second decay component, the mono-exponential Purcell-factor maps are not point-wise local-density-of-states values. A second check is to compare molecules localized to the same sub-20-nanometer position with orthogonal dipole orientations, since the simulations predict a several-fold lifetime difference that would be absent if position alone, not orientation, controlled the rate.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that a single molecule attached near a hollow gold truncated nanocone decays at a rate set by its exact three-dimensional position and dipole orientation, and that this rate can be measured in the far field without a scanning probe. Across thousands of molecules folded into one 250-nm unit cell, the paper finds decay-rate enhancements from a fewfold to more than fiftyfold relative to molecules on glass in water, corresponding to lifetimes from nanoseconds down to picoseconds. The enhancement is strongest under oblique p-polarized illumination, when a longitudinal plasmonic mode concentrates the field on the top ring of the cone. Simulations with a classical electric dipole reproduce the ordering top ring > outer wall > cavity > base, show that non-radiative channels dominate the total local density of states, and still yield nearly fiftyfold radiative enhancement at the top ring. The authors conclude that the platform produces high, non-averaged single-molecule Purcell factors and enables nano-resolved three-dimensional field sensing together with controllable fast single-photon emission at room temperature.

Load-bearing premise

The whole lifetime-to-field mapping assumes that each molecule's fluorescence decay is a single exponential, so the one fitted rate equals the total spontaneous emission rate set by the local environment; if many molecules actually decay through several rates, the extracted lifetime maps would be biased averages rather than point-wise Purcell factors.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A centimeter-scale array of these nanocones can act as a room-temperature source of fast single photons, because molecular lifetimes are shortened to tens of picoseconds where the field is concentrated.
The decay-rate maps are a non-invasive far-field probe of the three-dimensional local density of optical states, resolving field variations at roughly 14 nm without a scanning tip.
Selectively filling the hollow cavity with polymer removes the intermediate-enhancement population, so the same device can be switched between two regimes: emitters only on the outer surface, or emitters both inside and outside.
Illumination angle becomes a control knob: oblique excitation selects the high-enhancement top-ring population, while normal excitation predominantly excites molecules near the base.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

A natural extension the paper does not carry out is to invert the lifetime maps to recover each molecule's dipole orientation, turning every emitter into a vectorial field probe rather than a scalar one.
The polymer-filling control suggests a practical route to deterministic emitter placement: if molecules could be anchored specifically to the top ring, the fraction of ultra-fast emitters would rise; targeted surface chemistry or template-assisted attachment are testable ways to try this.
Because the whole analysis rests on mono-exponential fitting, a direct test on the raw TCSPC histograms—fitting a two-component model and comparing goodness-of-fit—would either strengthen the Purcell-factor interpretation or require it to be revised to an average-rate interpretation.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Worth your attention. The paper does something genuinely new: it combines the authors' hollow nanocone platform with their single-molecule FLIM method to map position- and angle-dependent Purcell enhancement across a centimeter-scale array, at ~14 nm localization precision, with a polymer-fill control that cleanly removes molecules from the cavity. The core qualitative result—decay rates vary strongly with position and illumination angle, consistent with excitation of a longitudinal mode at oblique incidence—is likely correct. The FEM simulations are forward calculations with literature permittivity, no fitting to the data, so there's no circularity problem. The single-molecule controls (sparsity, discarding overlapping SPAD events, IRF convolution, maximum-likelihood fitting) are careful and credible.

The soft spot the stress-test note flags is real and I agree it's the main issue: every extracted decay rate assumes a single-exponential decay. The Methods say exactly that, and the paper reports no residuals, no goodness-of-fit, and no comparison with multi-exponential models. That matters most for the shortest lifetimes—the ones that anchor the extreme enhancement claims—since the IRF jitter is below 60 ps and the paper admits rates above 50 ns^-1 (20 ps) can't be resolved. If a molecule's decay is multi-exponential, the fitted rate is an ill-defined average and the lifetime-to-LDOS mapping is biased. There's also a nagging inconsistency: the abstract says "up to 100×" while the main text says "more than 50-fold," and no error bars appear on any decay rate. The polymer-fill interpretation also relies on post hoc selection of enhancement intervals. These are quantitative weaknesses, not fatal ones.

Who gets value: anyone working in single-molecule nanophotonics, super-resolution lifetime imaging, or quantum sensing with molecular emitters. The platform is reproducible and scalable, which is rare in this field. It deserves a serious referee—send it out—but the authors should be pushed to validate the decay model, report uncertainties, and reconcile the enhancement numbers before the more ambitious sensing claims are accepted. As it stands, I'd cite it for the platform and the qualitative maps, but not for the quantitative Purcell factors.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a room-temperature, single-molecule study of spontaneous-emission enhancement on a scalable 3D plasmonic platform: a square array of hollow gold truncated nanocones. The authors combine super-resolution localization (median precision ~14 nm) with time-correlated single-photon counting (TCSPC) to measure, molecule by molecule, the fluorescence decay rate and position, and they merge thousands of events into a single 250 nm supercell. They observe decay-rate enhancements that vary strongly with position on the nanostructure and with illumination angle, and they compare these measurements with finite-element LDOS simulations for discrete dipole positions and orientations. The central claim is that single molecules sense the 3D electromagnetic landscape through their modified spontaneous emission, with enhancement factors up to ~100 and potential for fast single-photon sources and nanoscale sensing.

Significance. If the quantitative claims survive scrutiny, the work is significant: it demonstrates a scalable, centimeter-scale 3D plasmonic platform with strong position- and orientation-dependent Purcell enhancement, and it applies a careful single-molecule methodology to correlate nanoscale position with decay rate over many thousands of emitters. The experimental controls are genuine strengths: sparse photoactivation to isolate single molecules, rejection of overlapping SPAD events, IRF convolution in the lifetime fits, maximum-likelihood estimation, drift stabilization on fiducial markers, and independent forward Maxwell simulations with literature permittivity. These elements make the paper a credible candidate for a high-impact result once the central lifetime-to-LDOS assumption is validated and the quantitative claims are made internally consistent.

major comments (4)

[Methods: 'Single-emitter fluorescence lifetime processing'; Eq. S(t) = S0 exp(-t/τ)] The central quantitative claim—that each extracted decay rate equals the local total spontaneous emission rate—rests entirely on the single-exponential decay model, but the paper reports no validation of this assumption. No residuals, goodness-of-fit values, or comparisons with bi-exponential or stretched-exponential models are given, and no tests for decay-rate variations with time or excitation intensity are reported. Room-temperature single molecules on metal surfaces can exhibit orientation fluctuations, spectral diffusion, and distance-dependent quenching, all of which produce multi-exponential decays; in that case the fitted mono-exponential rate is an ill-defined intensity-weighted average rather than a point measurement of the LDOS. Please provide per-molecule fit-quality statistics, representative fits with residuals, and an explicit test of whether a bi-exponential model improves the fit for a significant fraction of events; otherwise the reported Purcell factors and the claimed ~14 nm field-sensing resolution are not supported.
[Methods: 'Single-emitter fluorescence lifetime processing'; Figs. 3-4] No uncertainty estimates are provided for the fitted decay rates. The TCSPC histograms are built from a limited number of photons per molecule, and the maximum-likelihood fit therefore has finite variance; moreover, the claim that rates up to Γmax = 50 ns−1 can be recovered from a system with <60 ps FWHM jitter needs validation. Without per-event confidence intervals or at least a validated calibration, the histograms in Fig. 4 and the separation of enhancement intervals (20–30 vs >40) cannot be interpreted as real structure. I request error bars on the decay-rate maps or a Monte-Carlo/Cramér-Rao analysis of rate precision as a function of detected photons, together with a demonstration on a known short-lifetime sample that the deconvolution is unbiased.
[Abstract vs. main text; Fig. 3c; Fig. 4i-l] The quantitative headline is inconsistent: the abstract claims 'up to 100×' enhancement, while the main text reports 'more than 50-fold' (Fig. 3c) and refers to a maximum measurable rate Γmax = 50 ns−1, which with Γ0 = 0.3 ns−1 corresponds to ~166×. The text should state a single, well-defined maximum reliable enhancement with its uncertainty, and should explain how values near Γmax are distinguished from the temporal-resolution cutoff. As written, the reader cannot tell which number is the actual demonstrated enhancement.
[Fig. 6; 'Numerical Simulations'] The comparison between the measured decay-rate distributions and the LDOS simulations is only qualitative. The simulations are performed for four discrete positions and two or three dipole orientations, while the experiment averages over unknown molecular orientations and an unknown distribution of positions (including molecules on the outer wall and inside the cavity). The claim of '3D electromagnetic field sensing' would be substantially strengthened by a forward model that maps the simulated position- and orientation-dependent LDOS through the experimental detection and fitting procedure and compares the resulting predicted histograms to the measured ones, for example with a quantitative goodness-of-fit test. This is also needed to justify the interpretation of the 'bimodal' distributions in Fig. 4k,l.

minor comments (5)

[Throughout (Eq. in Methods)] The equation S(t)=S exp3! is garbled; it should read S(t) = S0 exp(−t/τ). Please correct the typeset equation.
[Methods: 'Single-emitter fluorescence lifetime processing'] The phrase 'fitting the decay rate histogram' is ambiguous: the decay rate is estimated from a decay curve (a time histogram), not from a histogram of rates. Please rephrase to avoid confusion with the rate histograms shown in Fig. 4.
[Abstract; Fig. 2] The abstract states 'billions of Purcell-enhanced single emitters integrated into a nanodevice,' but the experiments interrogate a sparse subset of molecules; please clarify that the platform can host such numbers rather than implying that billions were individually measured.
[References] Reference (55) is duplicated, and the composite entry mixes two distinct works (Nicholls et al. and Hongtao & Yang); please renumber and split the entries.
[Fig. S1 caption and main text] The spelling 'T albot' should be 'Talbot', and 'displaced' in the Fig. S1 caption should be 'displayed'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: measured lifetime maps and independent Maxwell simulations are separate, and self-citations are methodological tools rather than load-bearing imports of the claimed result.

full rationale

I walked the paper's derivation chain from fabrication through smFLIM measurements, super-resolution localization, lifetime extraction, and comparison with numerical simulation. The central claim is that single molecules on a 3D hollow plasmonic nanocone array show position- and orientation-dependent spontaneous-emission enhancement that can be mapped with ~14 nm localization precision. The measured quantity is the total decay rate extracted from TCSPC decays and normalized to a separately measured reference on glass (Gamma0 = 0.3 ns-1). No parameter of the experiment is fitted to the simulations, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction: the simulations are independent FEM solutions of Maxwell's equations with fixed geometry, Johnson and Christy gold permittivity, water/glass refractive indices, and specified dipole positions and orientations. The comparison between measured decay-rate enhancement maps and simulated LDOS curves is qualitative and is not used to tune any free parameter. The self-citations (refs 40, 43, 44 for the smFLIM instrumentation and data processing, ref 41 for the fabrication method) are methodological, machine-implemented tools that were developed earlier and are not invoked as evidence for the new physical result; citing them for the measurement technique does not make the current claim circular. The only fragile assumption I find, which is a correctness risk rather than circularity, is the mono-exponential decay model used to extract lifetimes: the Methods state that 'Decay rates were obtained by fitting the decay curves with a single-exponential model,' and the paper does not report residuals or multi-exponential tests. If the decays were multi-exponential, the extracted rate would be an ill-defined average and the lifetime-to-LDOS mapping would be biased. However, that concern does not reduce the derivation to its own inputs; it is an empirical modeling assumption that could be tested, and the simulations are not constructed from the measured decays. Under the review rule that self-citation is circular only when the load-bearing argument reduces to an unverified self-citation, none of the load-bearing steps exhibits self-definition, fitted-input-as-prediction, imported uniqueness, ansatz smuggling through citation, or renaming of a known result. Therefore the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on interpreting measured single-molecule lifetimes as LDOS-modified total decay rates and comparing them to forward FEM simulations. No free parameters are fitted to the target data; the reference rate Γ0=0.3 ns^-1 is a measured control. Several domain assumptions are load-bearing: single-exponential decay, point-dipole emission at about 4 nm from gold, random orientation, 10x10 array truncation, Johnson and Christy permittivity, and complete polymer blocking of the cavity. These are plausible but not independently verified within the paper.

assumptions (7)

domain assumption The measured decay rate Γt of each molecule equals its total spontaneous emission rate, which is directly proportional to the classical dipole power emission in the local environment (weak coupling, electric dipole approximation).
Invoked in the section '3D Variation of LDOS...' and following, where the Purcell factor is computed from a classical dipole and compared to measured lifetime enhancement.
domain assumption Each molecule is a point dipole at a fixed distance of about 4 nm from the gold surface, with a random orientation distribution.
Assumed for the FEM simulations (Methods: 'the dipole was placed... positioned 4 nm from the surface') and for interpreting the experimental distribution.
domain assumption The fluorescence decay of each single molecule is single-exponential, so a mono-exponential fit yields the total decay rate.
Stated in Methods: 'Decay rates were obtained by fitting the decay curves with a single-exponential model.' This is load-bearing for mapping LDOS.
domain assumption A 10x10 periodic array of HTCs accurately approximates the infinite array for a dipole at the center.
Methods: 'we simulated finite square arrays... a 10×10 lattice was used, which effectively approximates a semi-infinite array.'
domain assumption Johnson and Christy gold permittivity and the stated geometry reproduce the fabricated sample's optical response.
Methods: 'The permittivity of gold, as provided by Johnson and Christy, was used.' Slight fabrication variations are not propagated.
domain assumption The polymer fill completely blocks molecules from the inner cavity, as supported by SEM.
Used to interpret the difference between empty and filled cavities; SEM in Fig. S6 supports this, but molecular exclusion is inferred.
domain assumption Each detected PSF corresponds to a single molecule, enforced by photoactivation power and rejection of overlapping events.
Methods: conditions i) and ii) ensure single emitters per SPAD; if violated, data discarded.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Nano-resolved sensing of 3D electromagnetic fields via single emitters' extreme variation of enhanced spontaneous emission." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CSVXQ5XF

@misc{pith2026250615095,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Nano-resolved sensing of 3D electromagnetic fields via single emitters' extreme variation of enhanced spontaneous emission},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CSVXQ5XF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.15095}
}

read the original abstract

Controlling quantum light-matter interactions at scales smaller than the diffraction limit at the single quantum emitter level is a critical challenge to the goal of advancing quantum technologies. We introduce a novel material platform that enables precise engineering of spontaneous emission changes in molecular single emitters through 3D nanofields. This platform is based on a 3D hollow plasmonic nanomaterial arranged in a square lattice, uniformly scalable to the centimeter scale while maintaining unit cell geometry. This coupled system leads to billions of Purcell-enhanced single emitters integrated into a nanodevice. Using far-field single-molecule super-resolution microscopy, we investigate emission modifications at the single-emitter level, enabling molecular position sensing with resolution surpassing the diffraction limit. By combining the nanolocalization with time correlation single photon counting, we probe molecule per molecule enhanced quantum light-matter interactions. This 3D plasmonic geometry significantly enhances light-matter interactions, revealing a broad range of lifetimes -- from nanoseconds to picoseconds -- significantly increasing the local density of states in a manner that depends on both molecular position and dipole orientation, offering extreme position sensitivity within the 3D electromagnetic landscape. By leveraging these plasmonic nanostructures and our method for measuring single-molecule Purcell-enhanced nano-resolved maps, we enable fine-tuned control of light-matter interactions. This approach enables the on-demand control of fast single-photon sources at room temperature, providing a powerful tool for molecular sensing and quantum applications at the single-emitter level.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.15095 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** 3D Engineered electromagnetic environment (a-c) Images of the hollow gold truncated nanocone (HTC) fabricated on a square lattice with a period of 250 nm. (a) scanning electron microscopy (SEM) image showing the individual HCT and the array. (b) Transmission electron microscopy (TEM) section of a single structure. (c) Schematic summarizing the dimensions of the unit cell containing a single HTC. (d) The HTC square l… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Nano-resolved light-matter interaction maps. a) Schematic showing the simplistic version of the optical setup and the sample mounting. b) Principle of the smFLIM experiment: on each EMCCD frame, the emitting molecules are detected (dotted color squares) and localized to measure their positions, which are correlated to the decay rate curves detected by the different SPADs (top right insets). This allows the molecule-… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Spatial distribution of the measured decay rate enhancement on the supercell for empty and filled cavities, at normal and oblique illumination. (a) Representation of the post-processing steps to merge the acquired data in the 10 µm2 field of view (for clarity reasons, only a region of 2.5 µm, i.e. two SPADs, is displayed here) to a 250x250nm unit cell. (b) Schematic illustrating the normal and oblique illumination c… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Position dependence of spontaneous emission rate enhancement a-d) Spatial distributions of the measured decay rate enhancement of all the data, plotted as a supercell for different experimental conditions. Each dot represents a molecule, and the color and height encode…

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

8 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages

[41]

First, a resist pattern is generated on a substrate, enabling high-resolution control over the nanoscale dimensions of the structures

The DTL/SHL is proven useful as it benefits from the best aspects of the two lithography techniques, e.g., resolution, rapidness, patternability, cost-effectiveness, and a single mask layer. First, a resist pattern is generated on a substrate, enabling high-resolution control over the nanoscale dimensions of the structures. Our method employs a single pho...

work page 2000
[135]

& Krachmalnicoff, V

(44) Blanquer, G., Van Dam, B., Gulinatti, A., Acconcia, G., De Wilde, Y ., Izeddin, I. & Krachmalnicoff, V. Relocating Single Molecules in Super-Resolved Fluorescence Lifetime Images near a Plasmonic Nanostructure. ACS Photonics 2020, 7 (2), 393–400. (45) Hess, S. T ., Girirajan, T . P . K. & Mason, M. D. Ultra-High Resolution Imaging by Fluorescence Pho...

work page 2020
[163]

L., Horsley, S

(14) Barnes, W. L., Horsley, S. A. R. & Vos, W. L. Classical antennas, quantum emitters, and densities of optical states, J. Opt. 2020, 22, 073501. (15) Bouchet, D. & Carminati, R. Quantum dipole emitters in structured environments: a scattering approach: tutorial J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 2019, 36, 186-195. (16) Greffet, J.-J., Laroche, M. & Marquier, F. Impeda...

work page 2018
[291]

& Lodah, P

(3) Uppu, R., Midolo, L., Zhou, X., Carolan, J. & Lodah, P. Quantum-dot-based deterministic photon–emitter interfaces for scalable photonic quantum technology. Nat. Nanotechnol. 2021, 16, 1308–1317. (6) Arakawa, Y . & Holmes, M. J. Progress in quantum-dot single photon sources for quantum information technologies: A broad spectrum overview, Appl. Phys. Re...

work page 2021
[681]

(13) K. H. Drexhage, Progress in Optics, edited by E. Wolf, North Holland, Amsterdam, 1974, p

work page 1974
[2008]

& Van Hulst, N

(22) Novotny, L. & Van Hulst, N. Antennas for Light. Nat. Photonics 2011, 5 (2), 83–90. (23) Duan, H., Fernández-Domínguez, A. I., Bosman, M., Maier, S. A. & Yang, J. K. W. Nanoplasmonics: Classical down to the Nanometer Scale. Nano Lett. 2012, 12 ,3, 1683–1689. (24) Archambault, A., Marquier, F ., Greffet, J. & Arnold, C. Quantum theory of spontaneous an...

work page 2011
[2025]

Eliminating material constraints for nonlinearity with plasmonic metamaterials

(50) Neira, Andres D., et al. Eliminating material constraints for nonlinearity with plasmonic metamaterials. Nature communications 2015, 6 (1),

work page 2015
[7757]

Exploring near-field sensing efficiency of complementary plasmonic metasurfaces for immunodetection of tumor markers

(51) Li, Fajun, et al. Exploring near-field sensing efficiency of complementary plasmonic metasurfaces for immunodetection of tumor markers. Biosensors and Bioelectronics 2022, 203, 114038. (52) Nasir, M. E., Krasavin, A. V., Córdova-Castro, R. M., McPolin, C. P . T ., Bouillard, J. S. G., Wang, P. & Zayats, A. V. Mode Engineering in Large Arrays of Coupl...

work page 2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [41]

First, a resist pattern is generated on a substrate, enabling high-resolution control over the nanoscale dimensions of the structures

The DTL/SHL is proven useful as it benefits from the best aspects of the two lithography techniques, e.g., resolution, rapidness, patternability, cost-effectiveness, and a single mask layer. First, a resist pattern is generated on a substrate, enabling high-resolution control over the nanoscale dimensions of the structures. Our method employs a single pho...

work page 2000

[2] [135]

& Krachmalnicoff, V

(44) Blanquer, G., Van Dam, B., Gulinatti, A., Acconcia, G., De Wilde, Y ., Izeddin, I. & Krachmalnicoff, V. Relocating Single Molecules in Super-Resolved Fluorescence Lifetime Images near a Plasmonic Nanostructure. ACS Photonics 2020, 7 (2), 393–400. (45) Hess, S. T ., Girirajan, T . P . K. & Mason, M. D. Ultra-High Resolution Imaging by Fluorescence Pho...

work page 2020

[3] [163]

L., Horsley, S

(14) Barnes, W. L., Horsley, S. A. R. & Vos, W. L. Classical antennas, quantum emitters, and densities of optical states, J. Opt. 2020, 22, 073501. (15) Bouchet, D. & Carminati, R. Quantum dipole emitters in structured environments: a scattering approach: tutorial J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 2019, 36, 186-195. (16) Greffet, J.-J., Laroche, M. & Marquier, F. Impeda...

work page 2018

[4] [291]

& Lodah, P

(3) Uppu, R., Midolo, L., Zhou, X., Carolan, J. & Lodah, P. Quantum-dot-based deterministic photon–emitter interfaces for scalable photonic quantum technology. Nat. Nanotechnol. 2021, 16, 1308–1317. (6) Arakawa, Y . & Holmes, M. J. Progress in quantum-dot single photon sources for quantum information technologies: A broad spectrum overview, Appl. Phys. Re...

work page 2021

[5] [681]

(13) K. H. Drexhage, Progress in Optics, edited by E. Wolf, North Holland, Amsterdam, 1974, p

work page 1974

[6] [2008]

& Van Hulst, N

(22) Novotny, L. & Van Hulst, N. Antennas for Light. Nat. Photonics 2011, 5 (2), 83–90. (23) Duan, H., Fernández-Domínguez, A. I., Bosman, M., Maier, S. A. & Yang, J. K. W. Nanoplasmonics: Classical down to the Nanometer Scale. Nano Lett. 2012, 12 ,3, 1683–1689. (24) Archambault, A., Marquier, F ., Greffet, J. & Arnold, C. Quantum theory of spontaneous an...

work page 2011

[7] [2025]

Eliminating material constraints for nonlinearity with plasmonic metamaterials

(50) Neira, Andres D., et al. Eliminating material constraints for nonlinearity with plasmonic metamaterials. Nature communications 2015, 6 (1),

work page 2015

[8] [7757]

Exploring near-field sensing efficiency of complementary plasmonic metasurfaces for immunodetection of tumor markers

(51) Li, Fajun, et al. Exploring near-field sensing efficiency of complementary plasmonic metasurfaces for immunodetection of tumor markers. Biosensors and Bioelectronics 2022, 203, 114038. (52) Nasir, M. E., Krasavin, A. V., Córdova-Castro, R. M., McPolin, C. P . T ., Bouillard, J. S. G., Wang, P. & Zayats, A. V. Mode Engineering in Large Arrays of Coupl...

work page 2022