Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 44 references

Terahertz sensing of 7nm dielectric film with bound states in the continuum metasurfaces

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper reports that a quasi-bound-state terahertz metasensor can detect a 7 nm germanium film through differential amplitude and phase signals.

desk verdict A promising quasi-BIC THz sensing demonstration whose headline 7 nm claim needs sturdier experimental support before it is taken as quantitative. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.03662 v1 pith:VRF5WZTW submitted 2019-08-10 physics.optics physics.app-ph

Yogesh Kumar Srivastava , Rajour Tanyi Ako , Manoj Gupta , Madhu Bhaskaran , Sharath Sriram , Ranjan Singh This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.opticsphysics.app-ph
keywords terahertzsensingboundstatesinthecontinuumquasi-BICmetasurfacethin-filmFanoresonancecyclicolefincopolymertime-domainspectroscopy
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 claims that a terahertz metasurface supporting a quasi-bound state in the continuum (quasi-BIC) can sense a 7 nm thick dielectric film, a thickness roughly 43,000 times smaller than the resonance wavelength. The sensor is an asymmetric split-ring array on a low-loss, flexible cyclic olefin copolymer (COC) substrate, and detection uses differences in transmitted amplitude and phase between coated and uncoated devices. The authors argue that conventional resonance-frequency-shift sensing fails at such small analyte volumes because the frequency shift becomes too small to measure, whereas the differential amplitude and phase signals remain easily detectable. If the claim holds, it offers a route to terahertz sensing of nanometer-scale films without nanofabricated field-confinement structures, and on bendable substrates suitable for wearable devices.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the quasi-BIC Fano resonance of a double-gap terahertz asymmetric split ring (TASR) metasurface, where shifting one capacitive gap off the symmetry axis turns a symmetry-protected bound state into a leaky, high-Q quasi-BIC. The sharp resonance confines and enhances the electric field in micron-scale gaps, so a few-nanometer analyte overlayer perturbs the transmission amplitude and phase enough to be read out. The readout method, taken from Al-Naib, subtracts the coated-device transmission amplitude and phase from the uncoated-device response; this differential signal replaces the small resonance-frequency shift used in conventional sensing. The low refractive index and low loss of the cyclic olefin copolymer substrate keep the resonance sharp and increase the fractional field overlap with the analyte.

What would settle it

Measure the actual germanium thickness on the same samples by atomic force microscopy or ellipsometry, and measure an identical uncoated TASR metasurface as a control using the same differential protocol. If the film is thicker than a few nanometers, is patchy, or if the amplitude and phase differences appear for a control sample that has no analyte, the reported 7 nm sensitivity claim is not supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that symmetry-broken terahertz asymmetric split-ring resonators (TASRs) exhibit a sharp quasi-BIC Fano mode whose strongly confined capacitive-gap fields make the transmitted amplitude and phase sensitive to a 7 nm germanium overlayer. In simulation the 7 nm film produces a peak-to-peak transmission change of 0.11 and phase change of 36.5 degrees; in measurement the values are 0.05 and 9.2 degrees, both clearly above the noise floor. The authors also report that the same structure on COC gives about 1.75 times the refractive-index sensitivity (0.28 per RIU versus 0.16 per RIU) and about 5.68 times the phase sensitivity of the identical design on Kapton. These results are presented as demonstrating that quasi-BIC metasurfaces on low-index, low-loss flexible substrates, combined with differential amplitude-phase readout, extend terahertz thin-film sensing to deep-subwavelength thicknesses.

Load-bearing premise

The entire 7 nm claim rests on the assumption that the germanium layer is uniformly 7 nm thick across the measured 20 mm by 20 mm array and that the observed changes in transmission amplitude and phase come only from that film, rather than from sample-to-sample variation or baseline drift in the terahertz measurements.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A 7 nm overlayer produces a measurable differential amplitude and phase signal, so terahertz sensing can work at analyte thicknesses far below one wavelength without exotic nanoconfinement.
  • Resonance-frequency shift alone misses thin films; the differential readout recovers them, meaning existing THz-TDS setups can be used with shorter scans than frequency-shift sensing requires.
  • The COC-based sensor is flexible, free-standing, and mechanically robust, so the same design can be wrapped or bent for wearable terahertz sensing.
  • Compared with a Kapton-substrate version, the COC device shows about 1.75 times higher amplitude sensitivity and about 5.68 times higher phase sensitivity per refractive index unit.
  • The quasi-BIC resonance quality factor is set by the asymmetry parameter d, so the same platform can be tuned to balance sharpness and experimental detectability.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The differential amplitude-phase method is not tied to the specific TASR geometry; any high-Q quasi-BIC metasurface on a low-index substrate should show a similar sensitivity gain, so the approach could be transferred to all-dielectric metasurfaces or other flexible low-loss polymers.
  • Because the phase signal benefits even more than the amplitude signal from the low-index substrate, phase readout may be the better route for pushing detection below 7 nm, a testable claim that the paper's own numbers support but do not state.
  • The reported roughly 0.05 amplitude change for 7 nm implies a thickness calibration curve; if the response is roughly linear down to the noise floor, the ultimate detectable thickness could be estimated by repeating the measurement on a thickness gradient rather than discrete depositions.
  • The claim would be strengthened by a half-coated control: coating only part of the array would separate genuine analyte response from run-to-run variations in the terahertz reference.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports a terahertz quasi-bound-state-in-the-continuum (quasi-BIC) metasurface sensor fabricated on a flexible cyclic olefin copolymer (COC) substrate. Using a differential amplitude-and-phase method, the authors claim to sense a 7 nm germanium film, corresponding to a deep subwavelength thickness of λ/43000. The work includes CST simulations and THz-TDS measurements for Ge thicknesses of 7, 20, and 40 nm, and compares the sensitivity of the COC-based metasurface with an identical structure on a Kapton substrate. The central claim is that the amplitude/phase subtraction technique enables detection of few-nanometer dielectric films that would produce only marginal frequency shifts in conventional THz-TDS.

Significance. If the 7 nm sensing claim is quantitatively robust, this work is a significant demonstration of deep-subwavelength dielectric film detection at terahertz frequencies, with potential impact on wearable and label-free THz sensing. The paper has clear strengths: it uses a symmetry-broken quasi-BIC design with a well-defined asymmetry parameter, it provides a systematic simulated-versus-measured comparison for three film thicknesses, it introduces a differential amplitude/phase readout that is faster than frequency-shift tracking, and it explicitly defines a sensitivity metric for the substrate comparison. The qualitative agreement between simulations and measurements for ΔT and Δφ supports the physical mechanism. However, the quantitative support for the specific 7 nm claim is incomplete, as detailed in the major comments.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 'Terahertz transmission spectra' and Figure 2(b)] The measured 7 nm Ge resonance shift is 3 GHz, which is exactly the stated frequency resolution of the 320 ps time scan. A shift equal to the nominal resolution cannot be distinguished from a frequency-bin artifact without repeated scans, a longer time window, or a higher-resolution measurement. Since the abstract's headline claim is the 7 nm thickness, this frequency-shift evidence is insufficient on its own. The differential ΔT and Δφ signals in Figure 3(b,d) are more compelling, but their magnitudes differ from simulation by factors of about 2 to 4 (|ΔT| 0.05 vs 0.11; Δφ 9.2° vs 36.5°). The authors attribute this to limited resolution and fabrication quality, but no quantitative uncertainty or repeatability analysis is provided, so the measured signal is not quantitatively anchored to the simulated 7 nm response.
  2. [Acknowledgments (AFM thickness measurement)] The only experimental verification of the 7 nm film thickness is a brief acknowledgment that an Atomic Force Microscopy measurement was performed by a colleague. No AFM data, no thickness uncertainty, no area mapping, and no before/after deposition comparison are presented in the main text or figures. Because the central claim is a specific 7 nm Ge thickness, and because the ΔT/Δφ signals are compared against simulations for exactly 7 nm, the absence of any shown thickness characterization is a load-bearing gap. The authors should present the AFM measurement (or an equivalent thickness calibration) with a stated uncertainty and demonstrate uniformity across the 20 mm × 20 mm array.
  3. [Section 'To overcome the difficulty...' and Figure 3] The differential spectra in Figure 3(b,d) are computed by subtracting the response of a coated metasurface from that of an uncoated metasurface. These are physically separate samples, so any sample-to-sample variation in fabrication (e.g., metal thickness, gap dimensions, substrate thickness or index), substrate positioning, or beam alignment contributes directly to the reported ΔT and Δφ. No control experiment (such as the same sample measured before and after deposition, or repeated measurements on multiple nominally identical sample pairs) is reported. Without such a control, the attribution of the measured ΔT/Δφ uniquely to a uniform 7 nm Ge film is not secured. This is a standard experimental requirement for a quantitative sensing claim and should be addressed with added data.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and text] The phrase '7 nm thin-film' should be '7 nm-thick film' for grammatical clarity; similar hyphenation issues appear elsewhere (e.g., 'nanometer scale thin analyte').
  2. [Section 'To overcome the difficulty...' and Figure 4] The sensitivity comparison between COC and Kapton substrates (0.28/RIU vs 0.16/RIU) is based on a simulated refractive-index sweep with a single experimental verification point (40 nm Ge). The error bars on the measured |ΔT| values are not given, and the simulated lines in Figure 4(c) are not accompanied by experimental n-sweep data. Please clarify whether the experimental points in the insets of Figure 4(a,b) are single measurements or averaged over multiple samples.
  3. [Supplementary Material] The text repeatedly refers to 'section 2 of the supplementary material' for fabrication details and 'section 5' for phase sensitivity, but the supplementary material is not included in the manuscript under review. Please ensure the supplementary file is complete and referenced correctly.
  4. [Figure 1(c)] The Q-factor plot would benefit from error bars or at least a statement of how many simulations were averaged, since the divergence at d = 0 is a central part of the BIC argument.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the 7 nm sensing claim rests on measured THz-TDS spectra compared with independent CST simulations, not on a fitted parameter or self-citation chain.

full rationale

The central claim is that a quasi-BIC TASR on COC senses a 7 nm Ge film. This is supported by measured transmission amplitude and phase of uncoated and Ge-coated metasurfaces (Figs. 2-3) and by independent CST simulations parametrized by the known deposited thickness and a dielectric constant of 16. The ΔT and Δϕ curves are defined as differences between simulated or measured spectra, not as outputs of a fit to the same data; the measured peak-to-peak values (0.05 and 9.2°) are compared with, rather than forced to match, the simulated values (0.11 and 36.5°), and the authors explicitly attribute the quantitative mismatch to limited resolution and fabrication quality. The sensitivity metric (0.28/RIU) is a defined quantity computed from simulated spectra, not a hidden prediction extracted from the experiment. The quasi-BIC concept and TASR geometry are drawn from prior work, including the authors' own refs 22, 35, 40, but those citations supply the device concept and already-established Q-factor behavior rather than the sensing result itself, and the same physics is also anchored in external BIC and Fano literature (refs 32-34). No equation in the paper reduces the claimed prediction to its own inputs, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The absence of AFM thickness data and control/repeatability experiments in the main text is an experimental-support and validation concern, not a circularity concern. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained with respect to circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on accurate fabrication and simulation of a known device, not on new theoretical postulates. No new particles or material constants are invented. The key unvalidated input is the 7 nm Ge thickness and the absence of noise analysis around the detection.

free parameters (1)
  • Asymmetry parameter d = 10 µm
    Chosen by hand as a design trade-off between Q factor and measurable transmission; it sets the quasi-BIC linewidth but is not fitted to the sensing outcome.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption CST Microwave Studio simulations accurately model the fabricated gold metasurface on COC.
    All simulated transmission, Q factor, ΔT, and Δφ curves rely on this; no convergence or mesh details are given in the main text.
  • domain assumption COC material parameters (n=1.53, tanδ ~0.004-0.0006) from the cited literature are correct for the fabricated substrate.
    The low-loss substrate is central to the claimed sensitivity; the parameters are taken from references, not measured here.
  • domain assumption Germanium overlayer acts as a uniform dielectric film with ε=16 at THz frequencies.
    The high contrast of Ge is what makes 7 nm visible; non-uniformity or a different permittivity would change the interpretation.
  • domain assumption The 7 nm thickness measured by AFM, acknowledged but not shown, is accurate.
    The central claim depends on the reported thickness; the AFM measurement is only mentioned in the acknowledgments.
  • domain assumption Quasi-BIC Q-factor divergence at d=0 and the symmetry-breaking leakage model (refs 32-35) apply to this planar split-ring design.
    The resonance interpretation and the choice of d=10 µm follow from this BIC theory, which is treated as established.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Terahertz sensing of 7nm dielectric film with bound states in the continuum metasurfaces." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VRF5WZTW

@misc{pith2026190803662,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Terahertz sensing of 7nm dielectric film with bound states in the continuum metasurfaces},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VRF5WZTW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.03662}
}
read the original abstract

Fingerprint spectral response of several materials with terahertz electromagnetic radiation indicates that terahertz technology is an effective tool for sensing applications. However, sensing few nanometer thin-film of dielectrics with much longer terahertz waves (1 THz = 0.3 mm) is challenging. Here, we demonstrate a quasi-bound state in the continuum (BIC) resonance for sensing of nanometer scale thin analyte deposited on a flexible metasurface. The large sensitivity originates from strong local field confinement of the quasi-BIC Fano resonance state and extremely low absorption loss of a low-index cyclic olefin copolymer substrate. A minimum thickness of 7 nm thin-film of germanium is sensed on the metasurface, which corresponds to a deep subwavelength length scale of {\lambda}/43000, where {\lambda} is the resonance wavelength. The low-loss, flexible and large mechanical strength of the quasi-BIC micro structured metamaterial sensor could be an ideal platform for developing ultrasensitive wearable terahertz sensors.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.03662 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Tonouchi, Nature Photonics 1, 97 (2007)

    M. Tonouchi, Nature Photonics 1, 97 (2007)

    work page 2007

  2. [2]

    Ferguson and X.-C

    B. Ferguson and X.-C. Zhang, Nature Materials 1, 26 (2002)

    work page 2002

  3. [3]

    Withayachumnankul, G

    W. Withayachumnankul, G. M. Png, X. Yin, S. Atakaramians, I. Jones, H. Lin, B. S. Y. Ung, J. Balakrishnan, B. W. Ng, B. Ferguson, S. P. Mickan, B. M. Fischer and D. Abbott, Proceedings of the IEEE 95 (8), 1528-1558 (2007)

    work page 2007

  4. [4]

    M. C. Kemp, P. F. Taday, B. E. Cole, J. A. Cluff, A. J. Fitzgerald and W. R. Tribe, presented at the AeroSense 2003, 2003 (unpublished)

    work page 2003

  5. [5]

    J. Chen, Y. Chen, H. Zhao, G. J. Bas tiaans and X. C. Zhang, Optics Express 15 (19), 12060-12067 (2007)

    work page 2007

  6. [6]

    H.-B. Liu, Y. Chen, G. J. Bastiaans and X. C. Zhang, Optics Express 14 (1), 415-423 (2006)

    work page 2006

  7. [7]

    B. M. Fischer, M. Walther and P. U. Jepsen, Physics in Medicine & Biology 47 (21), 3807 (2002)

    work page 2002

  8. [8]

    S. J. Park, J. T. Hong, S. J. Choi, H. S. Kim, W. K. Park, S. T. Han, J. Y. Park, S. Lee, D. S. Kim and Y. H. Ahn, Scientific Reports 4, 4988 (2014)

    work page 2014

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    W. Xu, L. Xie and Y. Ying, Nanoscale 9 (37), 13864-13878 (2017)

    2017

  2. [10]

    D. R. Smith, J. B. Pendry and M. C. K. Wiltshire, Science 305 (5685), 788 (2004)

    2004

  3. [11]

    Y. Chen, I. A. I. Al-Naib, J. Gu, M. Wang, T. Ozaki, R. Morandotti and W. Zhang, AIP Advances 2 (2), 022109 (2012)

    2012

  4. [12]

    N. Liu, M. Mesch, T. Weiss, M. Hentschel and H. Giessen, Nano Letters 10 (7), 2342- 2348 (2010)

    2010

  5. [13]

    K. V. Sreekanth, S. Sreejith, S. Han, A. Mishra, X. Chen, H. Sun, C. T. Lim and R. Singh, Nature Communications 9 (1), 369 (2018)

    2018

  6. [14]

    H. Im, H. Shao, Y. I. Park, V. M. Peterson, C. M. Castro, R. Weissleder and H. Lee, Nature Biotechnology 32, 490 (2014)

    2014

  7. [15]

    C. Wu, A. B. Khanikaev, R. Adato, N. Arju, A. A. Yanik, H. Altug and G. Shvets, Nature Materials 11, 69 (2011)

    2011

  8. [16]

    N. Liu, T. Weiss, M. Mesch, L. Langguth, U. Eigenthaler, M. Hirscher, C. Sönnichsen and H. Giessen, Nano Letters 10 (4), 1103-1107 (2010)

    2010

  9. [17]

    A. V. Kabashin, P. Evans, S. Pastkovsky, W. Hendren, G. A. Wurtz, R. Atkinson, R. Pollard, V. A. Podolskiy and A. V. Zayats, Nature Materials 8, 867 (2009)

    2009

  10. [18]

    N. Born, I. Al -Naib, C. Jansen, R. Singh, J. V. Moloney, M. Sch eller and M. Koch, Advanced Optical Materials 3 (5), 642-645 (2015)

    2015

  11. [19]

    J. F. O’Hara, R. Singh, I. Brener, E. Smirnova, J. Han, A. J. Taylor and W. Zhang, Optics Express 16 (3), 1786-1795 (2008)

    2008

  12. [20]

    J. N. Anker, W. P. Hall, O. Lyandres, N. C. Shah, J. Zhao and R. P. Van Duyne, Nature Materials 7, 442 (2008)

    2008

  13. [21]

    Al -Naib, Journal of King Saud University - Science, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jksus.2018.11.011

    I. Al -Naib, Journal of King Saud University - Science, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jksus.2018.11.011

    2018 doi

  14. [22]

    Singh, W

    R. Singh, W. Cao, I. Al-Naib, L. Cong, W. Withayachumnankul and W. Zhang, Applied Physics Letters 105 (17), 171101 (2014)

    2014

  15. [23]

    C. Wu, A. B. Khanikaev, R. Adato, N. Arju, A. A. Yanik, H. Altug and G. Shvets, Nat Mater 11 (1), 69-75 (2012)

    2012

  16. [24]

    Y. K. Srivastava, L. Cong and R. Singh, Applied Physics Letters 111 (20), 201101 (2017)

    2017

  17. [25]

    Gupta, Y

    M. Gupta, Y. K. Srivastava, M. Manjappa and R. Singh, Applied Physics Letters 110 (12), 121108 (2017)

    2017

  18. [26]

    Al-Naib, IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Quantum Electronics 23 (4), 1 (2017)

    I. Al-Naib, IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Quantum Electronics 23 (4), 1 (2017)

    2017

  19. [27]

    H.-R. Park, X. Chen, N.-C. Nguyen, J. Peraire and S.-H. Oh, ACS Photonics 2 (3), 417- 424 (2015). 11

    2015

  20. [28]

    K. Shih, P. Pitchappa, L. Jin, C.-H. Chen, R. Singh and C. Lee, Applied Physics Letters 113 (7), 071105 (2018)

    2018

  21. [29]

    Withayachumnankul, J

    W. Withayachumnankul, J. F. O’Hara, W. Cao, I. Al -Naib and W. Zhang, Optics Express 22 (1), 972-986 (2014)

    2014

  22. [30]

    Suzuki, T

    T. Suzuki, T. Kondo, Y. Ogawa, S. Kamba and N. Kondo, IEEE Sensors Journal 13 (12), 4972-4976 (2013)

    2013

  23. [31]

    Reinhard, K

    B. Reinhard, K. M. Schmitt, V. Wollra b, J. Neu, R. Beigang and M. Rahm, Applied Physics Letters 100 (22), 221101 (2012)

    2012

  24. [32]

    C. W. Hsu, B. Zhen, A. D. Stone, J. D. Joannopoulos and M. Soljačić, Nature Reviews Materials 1, 16048 (2016)

    2016

  25. [33]

    C. W. Hsu, B. Zhen, J. Lee, S. -L. Chua, S. G. Johnson , J. D. Joannopoulos and M. Soljačić, Nature 499, 188 (2013)

    2013

  26. [34]

    Koshelev, S

    K. Koshelev, S. Lepeshov, M. Liu, A. Bogdanov and Y. Kivshar, Physical Review Letters 121 (19), 193903 (2018)

    2018

  27. [35]

    Cong and R

    L. Cong and R. Singh, Advanced Optical Materials 0 (0), 1900383 (2019)

    2019

  28. [36]

    L. M. Diaz-Albarran, E. Lugo-Hernandez, E. Ramirez-Garcia, M. A. Enciso -Aguilar, D. Valdez-Perez, P. Cereceda-Company, D. Granados and J. L. Costa-Krämer, Microelectronic Engineering 191, 84-90 (2018)

    2018

  29. [37]

    Pavanello, F

    F. Pavanello, F. Garet, M.-B. Kuppam, E. Peytavit, M. Vanwolleghem, F. Vaurette, J.- L. Coutaz and J.-F. Lampin, Applied Physics Letters 102 (11), 111114 (2013)

    2013

  30. [38]

    Nielsen, H

    K. Nielsen, H. K. Rasmussen, A. J. L. Adam, P. C. M. Planken, O. Bang and P. U. Jepsen, Optics Express 17 (10), 8592-8601 (2009)

    2009

  31. [39]

    D’Angelo, Z

    F. D’Angelo, Z. Mics, M. Bonn and D. Turchinovich, Optics Express 22 (10), 12475- 12485 (2014)

    2014

  32. [40]

    L. Cong, M. Manjappa, N. Xu, I. Al-Naib, W. Zhang and R. Singh, Advanced Optical Materials 3 (11), 1537-1543 (2015)

    2015

  33. [41]

    A. E. Miroshnichenko, S. Flach and Y. S. Kivshar, Reviews of Modern Physics 82 (3), 2257-2298 (2010)

    2010

  34. [42]

    Luk'yanchuk, N

    B. Luk'yanchuk, N. I. Zheludev, S. A. Maier, N. J. Halas, P. Nordlander, H. Giessen and C. T. Chong, Nature Materials 9, 707 (2010)

    2010

  35. [43]

    P. D. Cunningham, N. N. Valdes, F. A. Vallejo, L. M. Hayden, B. Polishak, X.-H. Zhou, J. Luo, A. K. Y. Jen, J. C. Williams and R. J. Twieg, Journal of Applied Physics 109 (4), 043505-043505-043505 (2011)

    2011

  36. [44]

    Y. K. Srivastava, M. Manjappa, L. Cong, W. Cao, I. Al-Naib, W. Zhang and R. Singh, Advanced Optical Materials 4 (3), 457-463 (2016). 12 Figure 1 13 Figure 1: Nanometer-scale thin film sensing with quasi-BIC Fano resonance. a) Optical image of the fabricated TASR metamaterial ....

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.