Quantum Plasmonic Immunoassay Sensing

Ching Eng Png; Jia-Bin You; Lin Wu; Nuttawut Kongsuwan; Ortwin Hess; Ping Bai; Xiao Xiong

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 21 references

Quantum Plasmonic Immunoassay Sensing

T0 review · 4 major / 6 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 argues that a quantum emitter label strongly coupled to a gold dimer cavity converts a plasmonic immunoassay into a splitting-type sensor with up to 15-fold sensitivity and a concentration-independent signal, down to a single…

desk verdict A genuinely new strong-coupling immunoassay proposal with careful simulations, but the two headline claims—1500% sensitivity enhancement and concentration-independent detection down to a single analyte—are both overstated. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.03543 v1 pith:XOMZZCT3 submitted 2019-08-09 physics.optics physics.app-ph

Nuttawut Kongsuwan , Xiao Xiong , Ping Bai , Jia-Bin You , Ching Eng Png , Lin Wu , Ortwin Hess This is my paper · ORCID

classification physics.opticsphysics.app-ph

keywords quantumplasmonicsstrongcouplingimmunoassayRabisplittingplasmonicsensingsingle-moleculedetectionMaxwell-BlochFDTDsimulation

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

Plasmonic immunoassay sensors normally detect analytes by the shift of a resonance when a biomolecule binds. This paper proposes replacing the usual dielectric or metallic label with a quantum emitter that couples strongly to the plasmonic field of a gold hemisphere dimer, so the readout becomes the Rabi splitting of the coupled system instead of a single shift. Using realistic full-wave simulations with a two-level emitter model, the authors report a sensitivity enhancement of a factor of 14.2 (nearly 1500%) over label-free shifting sensors, and a figure of merit that stays near 0.360 as the surface density of antibody-antigen-antibody complexes falls, even for one emitter label. If correct, this would make plasmonic immunoassays work at the single-analyte limit and remove the need to calibrate against concentration.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is Rabi splitting: when the emitter-plasmon coupling rate $g$ exceeds half the decay-rate difference, $g > |\gamma-\kappa|/2$, the hybrid system develops two eigenfrequencies $\omega_\pm$, and the measurable splitting $\delta\omega = \mathrm{Re}\sqrt{(\Delta-i(\gamma-\kappa))^2+4g^2}$ becomes the sensing signal. The paper calls this a bi-directional shift because the single resonance is replaced by two peaks moving in opposite directions, and defines sensitivity as $(\delta\omega-|\Delta|)/N$ per analyte. The numerical machinery is a full-wave FDTD Maxwell-Bloch model that evolves the two-level emitter polarization self-consistently with the field, plus a figure of merit $FoM = \int |\sigma_{ext}-\sigma^0_{ext}|d\omega / \int \sigma^0_{ext}\,d\omega$ for multi-analyte spectra.

What would settle it

Take many single-analyte samples with emitter labels randomly positioned around a dimer, measure their extinction spectra without discarding any, and record the fraction showing two major peaks; if that fraction approaches zero as the number of analytes drops to one, and the mean figure of merit over all samples falls with concentration, the claimed concentration-independent single-analyte performance is contradicted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that strong coupling between a quantum emitter label and the plasmon-polariton modes of a gold hemisphere dimer changes the sensor output from a one-way resonance shift to a bidirectional Rabi splitting, and that this splitting-type readout outperforms classical label-free sensors by a factor of 14.2 while remaining essentially independent of analyte concentration. The paper demonstrates anti-crossing of the hybridized modes as the emitter resonance is swept, and uses photoluminescence spectra and polarization dynamics to confirm that the double-peak extinction signature really is strong coupling rather than interference. In multi-analyte statistical simulations with randomly placed complexes, the immunoassay figure of merit, defined as the integrated extinction change normalized to the empty dimer, stays around 0.360 for the strong-coupling class across decreasing surface densities, whereas the classical shifting-type figure of merit drops from 0.226 to 0.093. The authors thus claim a route to room-temperature single-molecule plasmonic biosensing.

Load-bearing premise

The concentration-independence claim holds only for spectra already classified as quantum, meaning a labeled complex happens to sit in the plasmonic hotspot; if strong coupling is not guaranteed at low concentration, the practical sensitivity depends on the unstated ability to control or identify hotspot occupation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A splitting-type immunoassay would make the sensor output a peak separation rather than a peak position, so it is less vulnerable to slow drifts of the illumination or the cavity resonance.
With emitter dipoles larger than the conservative 20 D used here, or with dimer gaps below 5 nm, the reported sensitivity enhancement would rise further.
The concentration-independent figure of merit in the strong-coupling class implies that, for spectra that already show splitting, calibration against analyte concentration may be unnecessary.
Confirmation that extinction splitting alone is insufficient (it can arise from interference) means practical devices should also measure photoluminescence or time-domain revivals to certify strong coupling.
The same protocol could be extended to detect quantum objects, such as electron spins in nanodiamonds, rather than classical antigens.

Reading between the lines

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

The quantum-classical classification in the statistical study is made after the spectrum is computed, so the flat figure of merit applies to events where strong coupling already happened; the paper does not quantify the probability of strong coupling at a given analyte concentration, so the practical single-analyte detection rate depends on an unstated ability to place or select a labeled complex
A useful experimental metric would be the fraction of spectra at each surface density that exhibit two major peaks; if that fraction falls with concentration, the advantage of the quantum readout is statistical post-selection rather than guaranteed single-molecule sensitivity.
The same splitting-based readout could be tested in open nanocube cavities or with artificial capture proteins, which would relax the fabrication constraints of few-nanometre gaps and make the scheme more accessible to biomolecules.

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

You should know two things upfront. The proposal is new and the simulations are careful. But the two headline numbers—nearly 1500% enhancement and concentration-independent detection down to a single analyte—are both stronger than what the evidence supports.

What is genuinely new: applying room-temperature nanoplasmonic strong coupling to a labeled immunoassay readout. The idea of using Rabi splitting as a bi-directional shift is neat, and the FoM for non-Lorentzian spectra is a reasonable tool. The numerical work is solid for a computational proposal: FDTD Maxwell-Bloch with self-interaction correction, a PL check to distinguish strong coupling from interference, and 30 random configurations per surface density. That is more than many proposals bother to do.

The main soft spot is the concentration-independence claim. In Fig. 4 the authors classify spectra into classical and quantum based on whether one or two major peaks appear. The quantum branch is flat because it is dominated by an emitter sitting in the hotspot. But as density drops, the chance that any emitter lands in that few-nanometer hotspot also drops. So the quantum FoM is a property of a post-selected subset, not of an unselected measurement. The paper never reports how many of the 30 samples per density fall in each class, nor the unconditional mean FoM. As written, "down to the single-analyte limit" means "if the single analyte happens to sit exactly at the hotspot," which is the condition that makes the measurement work, not a robust single-molecule detection claim.

Second, the 14.2x enhancement compares a shifting-type sensitivity (δω/N) to a splitting-type sensitivity ((δω-|Δ|)/N). That is comparing different observables, and the splitting number uses optimized parameters (μ=20D, d=2nm, emitter position). The label-free baseline is not optimized. So the number is optimistic, not a like-for-like comparison.

These are real caveats, but they are not fatal to the core idea. The coupled-mode formulas are standard and correctly applied. The PL check is a nice touch, and the paper is clearly written with figures that support the technical claims. The citation pattern looks appropriate, and the authors are honest about fabrication challenges.

Who benefits: anyone working on nanoplasmonic strong coupling or biosensing will find this a useful thought piece and a clear computational test of the idea. It deserves a serious referee. The right outcome is probably major revision: report the unconditional detection statistics or explicitly frame the result as conditional on the strong-coupling condition, and soften the sensitivity comparison.

Recommendation: send it out. It is a legitimate proposal with real soft spots, not a desk reject.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. This manuscript proposes a 'quantum plasmonic immunoassay' in which antibody-antigen-antibody complexes are labeled with a quantum emitter and placed in a gold hemisphere-dimer nanogap. The authors model the coupled system with a full-wave Maxwell-Bloch FDTD method and analyze single-emitter strong coupling via anti-crossing, photoluminescence, and time-domain dynamics. For the multi-analyte case they randomly distribute labeled complexes on the substrate, classify the resulting extinction spectra as classical (one major peak) or quantum (two major peaks), and define a spectral figure of merit (FoM). The central claims are (i) a sensitivity enhancement of up to ΓS = 14.2 relative to label-free shifting-type sensors and (ii) a concentration-independent FoM around 0.360 in the quantum regime, down to the single-analyte limit.

Significance. If substantiated, the proposal would be significant: it offers a concrete route to use room-temperature strong coupling as a bio-sensing readout, with a clear spectral signature (Rabi splitting) rather than a small resonance shift, and it explicitly targets the few- and single-analyte regime. The paper has notable strengths: the Maxwell-Bloch treatment includes self-consistent emitter-field dynamics, the anti-crossing analysis is standard and internally consistent, and the PL cross-check in Fig. 3 correctly warns that extinction splitting alone does not prove strong coupling. The simulations are described in sufficient detail to be reproduced in principle. However, the two headline claims rest on assumptions that are not yet validated: the comparison of two different sensitivity definitions and the post-selected definition of the quantum ensemble. The significance for single-molecule sensing is therefore prospective rather than established.

major comments (4)

[Sensitivity (Eqs. (3)-(5), Fig. 2b)] The headline enhancement ΓS = 14.2 is computed as S_split/S_shift, but the numerator and denominator measure different spectral observables: S_shift is the shift of a single resonance peak, while S_split is the splitting between two hybridized peaks. A ratio of two different definitions of 'frequency change per analyte' is not automatically a sensitivity enhancement; the authors should justify that a splitting of magnitude δω−|Δ| and a shift of magnitude δω present equivalent information to a sensor in the same noise and detection context, or re-report the comparison in terms of a common metric such as minimum detectable frequency change.
[Statistics and Figure of Merit (Fig. 4c)] The concentration-independence claim is conditional on post-selection: a spectrum is assigned to the quantum class only if it already shows two major peaks, i.e. if an emitter happens to sit in the dimer gap. Fig. 4c then averages the FoM over this selected class, so the flat quantum-branch value (around 0.360) does not describe the outcome of an unselected measurement at low concentration; the authors themselves note 'there is also the chance to find one or more of the complexes in the gap.' The probability that a randomly placed analyte lands in the hot-spot region decreases with surface density, so the unconditional sensor response and detection probability still degrade with concentration. Please report the fraction of samples in each class, the unconditional mean FoM, and the detection probability as a function of surface density, or revise the single-analyte claim.
[Statistics and Figure of Merit (Fig. 3a)] The quantum/classical classification in the statistical study relies solely on the presence of two major peaks in the extinction spectrum, yet Fig. 3a demonstrates that extinction splitting is not sufficient evidence of strong coupling (for d = 6 nm the extinction spectrum has two peaks while the PL spectrum has a single peak). Since the ensemble spectra are not cross-checked with the PL criterion, some samples classified as quantum may be in the weak-coupling/interference regime described by Ref. 47, which would bias the constant-FoM statistics. Please quantify how many of the 30 samples per density would satisfy the PL-based strong-coupling criterion, or justify that the extinction criterion is sufficient in the ensemble setting.
[Statistics and Figure of Merit (Eq. (6))] The concentration-independence conclusion is drawn from the FoM of Eq. (6), which is an integrated spectral change normalized by the empty-dimer extinction, not from the sensitivity S_split defined in Eq. (5). The paper's abstract and conclusion use 'sensitivity' for both, but a constant FoM for the selected quantum class does not establish that S_split (or any per-analyte detection metric) is concentration independent. Please either define the relationship between FoM and sensitivity explicitly or restrict the concentration-independence claim to the FoM quantity actually computed.

minor comments (6)

[Conclusion] The word 'anitibody' should be 'antibody'.
[Results and discussion, Sensitivity] The phrase '15-fold (ΓS = 14.2)' is internally inconsistent; 14.2 is a 14.2-fold enhancement, not a 15-fold one.
[Statistics and Figure of Merit, Eq. (6)] The integration limits in Eq. (6) are not specified; the 'whole spectral range' should be given explicitly.
[Supporting Information] The Supporting Information (Sections S1-S5, Figs. S5-S11) is referenced repeatedly but is not included in the arXiv version, which prevents verification of the statistical details.
[Statistics and Figure of Merit, Fig. 4c] The FoM = 0.3 threshold used to separate classical and quantum regimes is introduced without justification; the authors should state how it was chosen and test whether the conclusions are robust to its value.
[Fig. 1c caption] The phrase 'distribution inside the dimer' in the caption is unclear; please revise the caption for readability.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Post hoc definition of the 'quantum' class makes the concentration-independent FoM a selected-subensemble property, not an unconditional single-analyte prediction.

self definitional [Statistics and Figure of Merit (FoM); Fig. 4b–c; Abstract]
"Accordingly, we define the first group (or the shifting-type) and the second group (or the splitting-type) as the classical and quantum sensors, respectively. ... FoM in the quantum regime remains almost constant (∼0.360), because it dominantly results from the single emitter located at the plasmonic hotspot. This proves that, toward single-analyte detection, the strong-coupling immunoassay protocol unambiguously outperforms the shifting-type sensors."

The 'quantum sensors' are not an independent class; they are defined post hoc as simulated samples whose spectra show two major peaks, i.e., samples with an emitter in the dimer gap. The constant FoM is reported for exactly this selected class and explained by the same hotspot emitter that defined the class. Since every quantum sample contains a hotspot emitter by selection, the flat FoM versus surface density follows from the classification rule, not from the unconditional assay. The paper itself concedes that the probability of finding a complex in the gap increases with surface density, so at low density a random sample is usually classical.

full rationale

The FDTD/Maxwell-Bloch simulations, the anti-crossing spectra, the PL-based confirmation of strong coupling, and the 14.2-fold sensitivity enhancement are self-contained numerical results and do not reduce to their inputs. The circularity is localized to the statistical concentration-independence claim: the 'quantum' class is defined by the presence of two major peaks (an emitter at the hotspot), and the flat ~0.360 FoM is then reported for that selected class. Consequently, the headline claim of concentration-independent sensing 'down to the single-analyte limit' is a property of the post-selected quantum sub-ensemble rather than of the assay as run; the probability that a randomly placed single analyte falls into the few-nm hotspot is never quantified. This is a partial, construction-level circularity, so a score of 6 is appropriate rather than 8 or 10, because the sensitivity-enhancement and strong-coupling physics retain independent numerical content.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result rests on a set of chosen molecular and geometric parameters and on standard but approximate descriptions of the emitter and cavity (two-level Bloch model, two-mode coupling, QNM decomposition). No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)

Emitter transition dipole moment mu = 20 D (default); 5-100 D scanned
The reported 14.2x sensitivity enhancement is computed for mu=20 D, and Gamma_S grows with mu (Fig. 2d). The headline number is therefore conditional on this chosen molecular value.
Emitter resonance frequency omega_e = 2.03 eV in multi-analyte statistics; optimized per gap in Fig. 2b
The emitter frequency is tuned to maximize sensitivity enhancement (Section S2); the optimal value is offset from the 1.89 eV plasmon resonance by the Lamb shift.
Dimer gap d = 2 nm for the main single-analyte result; 2-6 nm studied
Sensitivity enhancement increases sharply as d decreases (Fig. 2d); d=2 nm is a challenging fabrication target.
Emitter linewidth 2Gamma = 26 meV
A fixed representative molecular linewidth; the strong coupling condition g > |gamma-kappa|/2 depends directly on this value.
Emitter position relative to the hemisphere = 1 nm from one hemisphere surface (optimized, Section S2)
Position is optimized to place the label in the hot spot; the sensitivity enhancement is sensitive to this placement.
FoM classification threshold = 0.3
Dotted line in Fig. 4c used after the fact to separate classical and quantum regimes; the flat quantum FoM is reported only for samples above this threshold.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Two-level emitter model with Maxwell-Bloch equations (Eqs. 7-9)
The quantum emitter is treated as a two-level system with phenomenological linewidth and relaxation; phonon sidebands, multilevel structure, and charge noise are neglected, which can matter at room temperature.
domain assumption Two-mode coupled-oscillator Hamiltonian for the hybridized system (Eq. 1)
The Rabi-splitting formula and the sensitivity expression assume one emitter mode coupled to one plasmon mode; contributions from higher-order plasmon modes and background scattering are not fully included in the analytic sensitivity.
domain assumption Quasi-normal mode decomposition gives coupling strength and decay rates from Purcell factors (Sections S3-S4)
Used to derive PL spectra and to identify strong coupling; QNM theory is approximate for open, lossy, dispersive cavities.
domain assumption Random analyte-emitter complexes with uniform surface density
Allows the statistical study but ignores transport, binding kinetics, steric hindrance, and non-specific adsorption, which the paper defers to future work.
ad hoc to paper Regime classification based on spectral line shape (one vs two major peaks) with FoM threshold 0.3
The labels classical and quantum are assigned after the spectrum is computed, so the concentration-independence claim is conditional on this classification.
ad hoc to paper The two sensitivity definitions S_shift and S_split measure the same analyte quantity and are comparable via Gamma_S
The 1500% enhancement is the ratio of a splitting-based observable to a shift-based observable; the comparison is only as valid as this equivalence.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum Plasmonic Immunoassay Sensing." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XOMZZCT3

@misc{pith2026190803543,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum Plasmonic Immunoassay Sensing},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XOMZZCT3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.03543}
}

read the original abstract

Plasmon-polaritons are among the most promising candidates for next generation optical sensors due to their ability to support extremely confined electromagnetic fields and empower strong coupling of light and matter. Here we propose quantum plasmonic immunoassay sensing as an innovative scheme, which embeds immunoassay sensing with recently demonstrated room temperature strong coupling in nanoplasmonic cavities. In our protocol, the antibody-antigen-antibody complex is chemically linked with a quantum emitter label. Placing the quantum-emitter enhanced antibody-antigen-antibody complexes inside or close to a nanoplasmonic (hemisphere dimer) cavity facilitates strong coupling between the plasmon-polaritons and the emitter label resulting in signature Rabi splitting. Through rigorous statistical analysis of multiple analytes randomly distributed on the substrate in extensive realistic computational experiments, we demonstrate a drastic enhancement of the sensitivity up to nearly 1500% compared to conventional shifting-type plasmonic sensors. Most importantly and in stark contrast to classical sensing, we achieve in the strong-coupling (quantum) sensing regime an enhanced sensitivity that is no longer dependent on the concentration of antibody-antigen-antibody complexes -- down to the single-analyte limit. The quantum plasmonic immunoassay scheme thus not only leads to the development of plasmonic bio-sensing for single molecules but also opens up new pathways towards room-temperature quantum sensing enabled by biomolecular inspired protocols linked with quantum nanoplasmonics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.03543 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Strong-coupling anti-crossing of emitter label(s) and plasmon-polaritons. (a) Spec [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Transition from the weak- to strong-coupling regime. (a) Spectrum of photolu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Multi-analyte detection with randomly distributed analyte-emitter complexes. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

21 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

[4]

A.; Keyser, U

(18) Kongsuwan, N.; Demetriadou, A.; Chikkaraddy, R.; Benz, F.; Turek, V. A.; Keyser, U. F.; Baumberg, J. J.; Hess, O.ACS Photonics 2018, 5, 186–191. (19) Altewischer, E.; Van Exter, M.; Woerdman, J.Nature 2002, 418,

work page 2018
[5]

(8) Tsakmakidis, K.; Hess, O.; Boyd, R.; Zhang, X.Science 2017,

work page 2017
[11]

(11) Purcell, E. M.Phys. Rev. 1946, 69, 681–681. (12) Väkeväinen, A.; Moerland, R.; Rekola, H.; Eskelinen, A.-P.; Martikainen, J.-P.; Kim, D.-H.; Törmä, P.Nano Lett. 2013, 14, 1721–1727. (13) Antosiewicz, T. J.; Apell, S. P.; Shegai, T.ACS Photonics 2014, 1, 454–463. (14) Zengin, G.; Wersäll, M.; Nilsson, S.; Antosiewicz, T. J.; Käll, M.; Shegai, T.Phys. ...

work page 1946
[12]

(26) Chang, D

(25) Vasa, P.; Lienau, C.ACS Photonics 2017, 5, 2–23. (26) Chang, D. E.; Sørensen, A. S.; Demler, E. A.; Lukin, M. D.Nat. Phys. 2007, 3,

work page 2017
[81]

J.Coherent Light-Matter Interactions in Monolayer Transition-Metal Dichalco- genides; Springer, 2018; pp 37–57

(46) Sie, E. J.Coherent Light-Matter Interactions in Monolayer Transition-Metal Dichalco- genides; Springer, 2018; pp 37–57. (47) Laussy, F. P.; del Valle, E.; Tejedor, C.Phys. Rev. B 2009, 79, 235325. (48) Melnikau, D.; Esteban, R.; Savateeva, D.; SÃąnchez-Iglesias, A.; Grzelczak, M.; Schmidt, M. K.; Liz-MarzÃąn, L. M.; Aizpurua, J.; Rakovich, Y. P.J. Ph...

work page 2018
[87]

A.; Kistner, C.; Schneider, C.; Strauss, M.; Höﬂing, S.; Forchel, A.; Langbein, W.Nat

(24) Kasprzak, J.; Reitzenstein, S.; Muljarov, E. A.; Kistner, C.; Schneider, C.; Strauss, M.; Höﬂing, S.; Forchel, A.; Langbein, W.Nat. Mater. 2010, 9,

work page 2010
[127]

(16) Liu, R.; Zhou, Z.-K.; Yu, Y.-C.; Zhang, T.; Wang, H.; Liu, G.; Wei, Y.; Chen, H.; Wang, X.-H.Phys. Rev. Lett. 2017, 118, 237401. (17) Groß, H.; Hamm, J. M.; Tufarelli, T.; Hess, O.; Hecht, B.Sci. Adv. 2018,

work page 2017
[241]

S.; Waks, E.Science 2018, 361, 57–60

(29) Sun, S.; Kim, H.; Luo, Z.; Solomon, G. S.; Waks, E.Science 2018, 361, 57–60. (30) Wild, D. The immunoassay handbook ; Elsevier,

work page 2018

Show all 21 references

[304]

21 (20) Gonzalez-Tudela, A.; Martin-Cano, D.; Moreno, E.; Martin-Moreno, L.; Tejedor, C.; Garcia-Vidal, F. J.Phys. Rev. Lett. 2011, 106, 020501. (21) Tame, M. S.; McEnery, K.; Özdemir, Ş.; Lee, J.; Maier, S.; Kim, M.Nat. Phys. 2013, 9,

2011
[329]

E.; Guo, G.-C.; Gong, Q.; Xiao, Y.-F

(22) Xu, D.; Xiong, X.; Wu, L.; Ren, X.-F.; Png, C. E.; Guo, G.-C.; Gong, Q.; Xiao, Y.-F. Adv. Opt. Photonics 2018, 10, 703–756. (23) Birnbaum, K. M.; Boca, A.; Miller, R.; Boozer, A. D.; Northup, T. E.; Kimble, H. J. Nature 2005, 436,

2018
[353]

L.; Aumont-Nicaise, M.; Moutel, S.; Desmadril, M.; Perez, F.; Gautreau, A.; van Tilbeurgh, H.; Minard, P., et al.Biosci

(50) Chevrel, A.; Urvoas, A.; de la Sierra-Gallay, I. L.; Aumont-Nicaise, M.; Moutel, S.; Desmadril, M.; Perez, F.; Gautreau, A.; van Tilbeurgh, H.; Minard, P., et al.Biosci. Rep. 2015, 35, e00223. (51) Yim, T. J.; Wang, Y.; Zhang, X.Nanotechnology 2008, 19, 435605. (52) Gurun...

2015
[358]

(9) Ding, S.-Y.; Yi, J.; Li, J.-F.; Ren, B.; Wu, D.-Y.; Panneerselvam, R.; Tian, Z.-Q.Nat. Rev. Mater. 2016, 1, 16021. (10) Arroyo, J. O.; Kukura, P.Nat. Photonics 2016, 10,

2016
[444]

L.; Hamm, J

(44) Wuestner, S.; Pusch, A.; Tsakmakidis, K. L.; Hamm, J. M.; Hess, O.Phys. Rev. Lett. 2010, 105, 127401. (45) Khitrova, G.; Gibbs, H.; Kira, M.; Koch, S. W.; Scherer, A.Nat. Phys. 2006, 2,

2010
[644]

(54) Taylor, J.; Cappellaro, P.; Childress, L.; Jiang, L.; Budker, D.; Hemmer, P.; Yacoby, A.; Walsworth, R.; Lukin, M.Nat. Phys. 2008, 4,

2008
[807]

K.; Pfeiﬀer, W.ACS Photonics 2017, 5, 240–248

(27) Hensen, M.; Heilpern, T.; Gray, S. K.; Pfeiﬀer, W.ACS Photonics 2017, 5, 240–248. (28) Tiecke, T.; Thompson, J. D.; de Leon, N. P.; Liu, L. R.; Vuletić, V.; Lukin, M. D. Nature 2014, 508,

2017
[810]

W.; Manson, N

(55) Doherty, M. W.; Manson, N. B.; Delaney, P.; Jelezko, F.; Wrachtrup, J.; Hollen- berg, L. C.Phys. Rep. 2013, 528, 1–45. (56) Fan, W.; Lawrie, B. J.; Pooser, R. C.Phys. Rev. A 2015, 92, 053812. (57) Lee, C.; Dieleman, F.; Lee, J.; Rockstuhl, C.; Maier, S. A.; Tame, M.ACS Ph...

2013
[908]

(7) Pickering, T.; Hamm, J.; Page, A.; Wuestner, S.; Hess, O.Nat. Commun. 2014,

2014
[2003]

C.; Hughes, S.; Pond, J.; Young, J

(61) Schelew, E.; Ge, R. C.; Hughes, S.; Pond, J.; Young, J. F.Phys. Rev. A 2017, 95, 063853. 24

2017
[2005]

(31) Wang, Y.; Dostalek, J.; Knoll, W.Anal. Chem. 2011, 83, 6202–6207. (32) Krishnan, S.; Mani, V.; Wasalathanthri, D.; Kumar, C. V.; Rusling, J. F. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2011, 50, 1175–1178. (33) Lyon, L. A.; Musick, M. D.; Natan, M. J.Anal. Chem. 1998, 70, 5177–5183. (34) H...

2011
[2012]

L.; Ren, X

(3) Xiong, X.; Zou, C. L.; Ren, X. F.; Liu, A. P.; Ye, Y. X.; Sun, F.-W.; Guo, G. C.Laser Photonics Rev. 2013, 7, 901–919. (4) Bermúdez-Ureña, E.; Gonzalez-Ballestero, C.; Geiselmann, M.; Marty, R.; Radko, I. P.; Holmgaard, T.; Alaverdyan, Y.; Moreno, E.; García-Vidal, F. J.; ...

2013
[7883]

J.; Stockman, M

20 (5) Bergman, D. J.; Stockman, M. I.Phys. Rev. Lett. 2003, 90, 027402. (6) Hill, M. T.; Gather, M. C.Nat. Photonics 2014, 8,

2003

Pith tools

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

[1] [4]

A.; Keyser, U

(18) Kongsuwan, N.; Demetriadou, A.; Chikkaraddy, R.; Benz, F.; Turek, V. A.; Keyser, U. F.; Baumberg, J. J.; Hess, O.ACS Photonics 2018, 5, 186–191. (19) Altewischer, E.; Van Exter, M.; Woerdman, J.Nature 2002, 418,

work page 2018

[2] [5]

(8) Tsakmakidis, K.; Hess, O.; Boyd, R.; Zhang, X.Science 2017,

work page 2017

[3] [11]

(11) Purcell, E. M.Phys. Rev. 1946, 69, 681–681. (12) Väkeväinen, A.; Moerland, R.; Rekola, H.; Eskelinen, A.-P.; Martikainen, J.-P.; Kim, D.-H.; Törmä, P.Nano Lett. 2013, 14, 1721–1727. (13) Antosiewicz, T. J.; Apell, S. P.; Shegai, T.ACS Photonics 2014, 1, 454–463. (14) Zengin, G.; Wersäll, M.; Nilsson, S.; Antosiewicz, T. J.; Käll, M.; Shegai, T.Phys. ...

work page 1946

[4] [12]

(26) Chang, D

(25) Vasa, P.; Lienau, C.ACS Photonics 2017, 5, 2–23. (26) Chang, D. E.; Sørensen, A. S.; Demler, E. A.; Lukin, M. D.Nat. Phys. 2007, 3,

work page 2017

[5] [81]

J.Coherent Light-Matter Interactions in Monolayer Transition-Metal Dichalco- genides; Springer, 2018; pp 37–57

(46) Sie, E. J.Coherent Light-Matter Interactions in Monolayer Transition-Metal Dichalco- genides; Springer, 2018; pp 37–57. (47) Laussy, F. P.; del Valle, E.; Tejedor, C.Phys. Rev. B 2009, 79, 235325. (48) Melnikau, D.; Esteban, R.; Savateeva, D.; SÃąnchez-Iglesias, A.; Grzelczak, M.; Schmidt, M. K.; Liz-MarzÃąn, L. M.; Aizpurua, J.; Rakovich, Y. P.J. Ph...

work page 2018

[6] [87]

A.; Kistner, C.; Schneider, C.; Strauss, M.; Höﬂing, S.; Forchel, A.; Langbein, W.Nat

(24) Kasprzak, J.; Reitzenstein, S.; Muljarov, E. A.; Kistner, C.; Schneider, C.; Strauss, M.; Höﬂing, S.; Forchel, A.; Langbein, W.Nat. Mater. 2010, 9,

work page 2010

[7] [127]

(16) Liu, R.; Zhou, Z.-K.; Yu, Y.-C.; Zhang, T.; Wang, H.; Liu, G.; Wei, Y.; Chen, H.; Wang, X.-H.Phys. Rev. Lett. 2017, 118, 237401. (17) Groß, H.; Hamm, J. M.; Tufarelli, T.; Hess, O.; Hecht, B.Sci. Adv. 2018,

work page 2017

[8] [241]

S.; Waks, E.Science 2018, 361, 57–60

(29) Sun, S.; Kim, H.; Luo, Z.; Solomon, G. S.; Waks, E.Science 2018, 361, 57–60. (30) Wild, D. The immunoassay handbook ; Elsevier,

work page 2018