News Reader.info

Download PDF Article Open access Published: 26 February 2018 Light Emission from Plasmonic Nanostructures Enhanced with Fluorescent Nanodiamonds Jingyi Zhao1 na1, Yuqing Cheng1 na1, Hongming

Shen1, Yuen Yung Hui2, Te Wen1, Huan-Cheng Chang2, Qihuang Gong1,3 & …Guowei Lu  ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0646-69711,3 Show authors Scientific Reports volume 8, Article number: 3605

(2018) Cite this article

6085 Accesses

Metrics details

In the surface-enhanced fluorescence (SEF) process, it is well known that the plasmonic nanostructure can enhance the light emission of fluorescent emitters. With the help of atomic force

microscopy, a hybrid system consisting of a fluorescent nanodiamond and a gold nanoparticle was assembled step-by-step for in situ optical measurements. We demonstrate that fluorescent

emitters can also enhance the light emission from gold nanoparticles which is judged through the intrinsic anti-Stokes emission owing to the nanostructures. The light emission intensity,

spectral shape, and lifetime of the hybrid system were dependent on the coupling configuration. The interaction between gold nanoparticles and fluorescent emitter was modelled based on the

concept of a quantised optical cavity by considering the nanodiamond and the nanoparticle as a two-level energy system and a nanoresonator, respectively. The theoretical calculations reveal

that the dielectric antenna effect can enhance the local field felt by the nanoparticle, which contributes more to the light emission enhancement of the nanoparticles rather than the

plasmonic coupling effect. The findings reveal that the SEF is a mutually enhancing process. This suggests the hybrid system should be considered as an entity to analyse and optimise

surface-enhanced spectroscopy.

Open access 02 January 2024 Sub-nanometre resolution in single-molecule photoluminescence imaging Article 10 August 2020 Achieving low-power single-wavelength-pair nanoscopy with NIR-II

continuous-wave laser for multi-chromatic probes Article Open access 23 May 2022 Introduction

Surface-enhanced fluorescence (SEF), enhancing the light emission of fluorescent emitters with metallic nanostructures, is the key to many promising applications1,2. By placing the emitters

in the vicinity of metallic nanostructures, the luminescence can be greatly enhanced because of the plasmon resonance effect. Metallic nanostructures support localised surface plasmon (LSP)

modes, which gives rise to a marked enhancement of local electromagnetic fields and results in a strongly modified local density of optical states3,4. Metallic nanostructures known as

optical antennas can be involved in the excitation and emission process of the emitters4,5,6,7,8. The metallic nanostructures enable the modification of the emission intensity, lifetime,

directivity, and spectral shape5,9,10,11,12,13,14. Basic theories of the SEF process have been developed15,16,17. In the conventional theory of SEF, there is a lack of attention on how the

fluorescent emitters influence the behaviour of the metallic nanostructures. Most of the previous SEF theories often assume that the light emission of the metal nanostructures is negligible

or stable5,18,19,20; this approximation allows us to mostly understand SEF.

The SEF background was often simply subtracted as a stable signal when calculating the SEF enhancement factor. A deviation of the enhancement factor is inevitable if the emission from the

metal nanostructures changes owing to the presence of emitters. Furthermore, this approximation often hinders us from fully and accurately understanding the SEF spectral shape4,21,22,23.

Intrinsic light emission from metal nanostructures has been demonstrated as a complementary property to absorption and scattering24,25,26. Although the mechanism is still under debate, a

solid consensus is that the metal nanostructures can radiate at their LSP resonances after photon or electron excitation27,28. Such light emission (here, it is called photoluminescence (PL))

from the nano-metal can be correlated with the broad “background continuum” in the SEF process29,30.

The interactions between fluorescent emitters and metallic nanostructures has been extensively investigated experimentally31,32. Despite much progress, the changes in the light emission of

the plasmonic nanostructures influenced by the fluorescent emitters have often been ignored in previous studies. Access to experimental analysis of light emission of plasmonic nanostructures

during the SEF process has also proven elusive for a long time. This problem has not been addressed in many recent studies, probably because of the experimental challenge of isolating the

intrinsic emission signal of the metallic nanostructures; the PL of the metallic nanoparticles is usually broad and weak, and which often overlaps with the light emission of fluorescent

emitters. As a result, it is nontrivial to observe the changes of the intrinsic emission from the metallic nanoparticles during the SEF process. Here, we found that the difference in the

emission between the metal nanostructures and the fluorescent emitters can be distinguished through the anti-Stokes emission, which enabled us to circumvent previous experimental challenges.

Specifically, we performed optical measurements at the single particle level to avoid inhomogeneous average-broadened spectra. The light emission from the same gold nanoparticles and

nanodiamonds were recorded in situ and compared on the same substrate.

In this study, we experimentally demonstrate that the light emission from the gold nanostructures is not a constant signal and is enhanced when couple with fluorescent emitters. Not only can

the gold nanostructure enhance the light emission of the fluorescent emitters, as expected, but the emitters can also increase the light emission from the gold nanostructures. With the help

of an atomic force microscope (AFM), a single gold nanoparticle was manipulated step-by-step to approach a single fluorescent nanodiamond (FND) on a glass coverslip. The emission spectra

excited with a continuous-wave laser were recorded in situ and compared before and after coupling. We found that the emission from the gold nanoparticle can be distinguished from the SEF

hybrid spectra through its characteristic anti-Stokes emission because the FND does not present any anti-Stokes emission. According to the experimental results, the light emission from the

FND and gold nanoparticle both enhanced after coupling. The theoretical calculations reveal that both the plasmonic coupling effect and the dielectric nanoantenna effect contribute to the

enhancement of light emission from the nanoparticles. Specifically, the dielectric nanoantenna effect dominates the emission enhancements from the plasmonic nanostructures, as confirmed by

correlating the theoretical and experimental results.

We used gold nanoparticles (GNP) and gold nanorods (GNR) to couple with FND for the SEF, as shown in Fig. 1A,B. The representative PL spectrum of a free GNP (Fig. 1D) shows well-defined

emission bands rather than the broad continuum band usually associated with a rough thin film, which is a benefit for the analysis of the surface plasmon effect in SEF33. The emission

spectra of the FNDs and GNPs were both very stable (nonbleaching and nonblinking), as shown in Fig. 1C34, which is important for in situ comparison before and after coupling. Specifically,

as illustrated in Fig. 1D, the emission spectra of the FNDs dominate the range of Stokes components, but do not have any signal in the anti-Stokes range. In contrast, the emission spectra of

the GNPs have an obvious anti-Stokes band that decays exponentially as a function of photon energy. The one-photon luminescent anti-Stokes emission of metallic nanostructures has been

demonstrated in different metal nanostructures, although the mechanism is still the subject of much debate27,29,30,33,35. Interestingly, this anti-Stokes component allows us to differentiate

the intrinsic light emission of the GNPs from the SEF hybrid spectra. As shown in the inset of Fig. 1D, the intensity of the anti-Stokes emission from the coupling system increases in

comparison with that before coupling. The enhancement factor can be defined as I c /I uc , in which I c andI uc are the maximum of the PL spectra before and after coupling, respectively. For

the anti-Stokes emission, the intensity increased over 40% at a wavelength of 520 nm. There have been numerous reports in the literature about the coupling phenomena of nanodiamonds and

plasmonic structures31,32, but the anti-Stokes emission has been seldom discussed. Because the anti-Stokes emission is solely owing to the GNP in the present system, this implies that the

FND enhances the light emission from the GNPs. The same measurements were performed for the GNR and FND coupling system, as shown in Fig. S1A. The intensity of the spectrum of the coupled

GNR and FND system in the Stokes range increased compared to that before coupling, and even compared to the sum of the intensities in the free GNR and FND spectra. The spectral peak of the

SEF undergoes a redshift compared to that of the free FND spectrum. For the anti-Stokes component, the intensity of the SEF was also enhanced compared with that of the GNR before coupling.

Moreover, the lifetime of the SEF system was also investigated, as shown in Fig. S1B. The lifetime of the free GNR was less than 1 ps, which was faster than the instrument response. The

lifetime curves of the free FND can be fitted with two exponential components. Consequently, the lifetime curve of the GNR–FND coupling system contains three exponential components, the

coupling between the GNR and FND results in a shorter lifetime of one component owing to the FND. The spectra of the GNRs, FNDs, and their hybrids showed excitation polarisation dependent

characteristics as indicated in the supplemental materials. To demonstrate the enhancement of anti-Stokes emission definitely, we measured overall PL spectra of a nanorod before and after

coupling with a nanodiamond under different excitation polarisations. Then, we choose two maximum spectra respectively from two series of the spectra (before coupling and after coupling) for

comparison, hence, the excitation polarisation effect was excluded indirectly. We also excluded the influences of the excitation power fluctuation and the uncertainty owing to the optical

path drifts, which is depicted in Figs S2 and 3. Hence, the SEF phenomena is a mutually enhancing process owing to the interaction between the fluorescent emitters and the gold

nanostructures. To calculate the SEF enhancement factor and understand the SEF spectral shape, the change of the light emission from the metal nanostructures must be considered.

Scheme of nano-manipulation and representative in situ optical measurements. (A) Scheme of the AFM manipulation method, (B) representative AFM images during the assembly process. (C) Time

trace of the PL intensity of a gold nanoparticle and a nanodiamond. (D) The PL spectra of a free GNP (dark blue) and a free FND (red) before coupling and the SEF spectrum (black) after

coupling. The inset shows a magnification of the area showing the anti-Stokes component.

Furthermore, as shown in Figs 1D and 2A, the SEF spectral shape in the Stokes range is totally different from that of free FND or free GNP. It is well-known that the plasmonic nanostructures

enable the modification of the emission spectral shape4. Ringler et al. have developed an empirical formula to correlate the scattering and luminescence spectral shape of GNP dimers and dye

molecules systems11. Based on their work, we show that the emission from the GNP should be taken into account to fully understand the SEF spectra. We supposed that a SEF spectrum S SEF

contains three components: two direct emissions S GNR , S FND are from the GNR and FND separately, and one indirect emission (S gc ) is owing to the optical antenna coupling effect, i.e., S

SEF  = S GNR + S FND + S gc . The direct emission S GNR , based on the following quantum model, is inelastic decay radiation of the plasmon resonance of the GNR. The indirect emission S gc

can be understood as a process of elastic radiation by the antenna after coupling energy from excited states of the fluorescence emitters11. We assumed that the coupling rate Γ g between the

FND and the GNR is less than the internal phonon decay rate of the FND and the frequency-dependent Γ g is strongly related to the LSP resonance, i.e., \({{\rm{\Gamma }}}_{g} \sim

\,{\hat{{\rm{S}}}}_{SCA}\) (the hybrid scattering spectrum)6,12,36. Then, we obtained the three components by fitting the SEF spectrum using

\({{\rm{S}}}_{SEF}={I}_{1}{{\rm{S}}}_{GNR0}+{I}_{2}{{\rm{S}}}_{FND0}+{g}_{c}{\hat{{\rm{S}}}}_{SCA}{\hat{{\rm{S}}}}_{FND0}\), in which the terms with a 0 subscript are the spectra before

coupling, \(\hat{{\rm{S}}}\) is the normalised spectrum, and I1,I2,and g c are the fitting constant parameters. Figure 2A shows the experimental spectra of SGNR0 and SFND0 before coupling,

and the S SEF increasing in both the Stokes and anti-Stokes region after coupling. The fitting results are summarised in Fig. 2B. The direct emission from the GNR and the FND increased by

40% and 140% respectively, and the indirect emission photons by the antenna effect was approximately 43% of the whole SEF spectra. Therefore, the emission from the metallic nanostructures

can no longer be omitted or assumed to be constant when calculating the SEF enhancement factor. All three components determine the final SEF spectral shape. However, the integrated intensity

of the anti-Stokes emission of the GNR is relatively small; thus, the total modification of the emitted power differs only by a few percent, which indicates that the emission from the metal

is necessary to accurately and fully understand the SEF spectral shape. The SEF spectrum of the GNP-FND system shown in Fig. S4 was analysed in the same way as that of the GNR-FND system in

Fig. 2B. The SEF spectra was modified by the GNP antenna effect, and the direct emission from the GNP dominated the SEF spectra near the excitation due to the GNP’s LSP resonance

band.

A complete analysis of the three components of the SEF spectrum and coupling-configuration-dependent SEF spectra. (A) The PL spectra of a free GNR (black) and a free FND (red) before

coupling, the SEF spectrum (blue) and scattering spectrum (green) after the coupling of GNR and FND. (B) Fitting spectra for I1SGNR0, I2SFND0, and

\({g}_{c}{\hat{{\rm{S}}}}_{SCA}{\hat{{\rm{S}}}}_{FND0}\). (C) Configuration-dependent SEF spectra of the hybrid. The spectra of a free GNR (blue) and a free FND (red) before coupling, and

three SEF spectra of three different configurations, as indicated by the AFM and schematic images. The inset shows the lifetime curves of the config. 1 and config. 3 configurations for

comparison.

In addition, we showed that the SEF spectral shape, intensity, and lifetime vary for different coupling configurations between the GNR and FND6,37. The distance between the FND and GNR

before coupling was several micrometres, which was enough to isolate them by optics. However, the exact distance between the FND and GNR after coupling could not be determined, with an error

of approximately 10 nm. Figure 2C shows the SEF spectra of a GNR and FND hybrid system with a different configuration obtained through AFM nanomanipulations. It is well known that the

coupling rate Γ g (i.e., being related with the Purcell factor) is dependent on separation and orientation of the emitter with respect to the antenna36,38. Then, the indirect emission S gc

intensity is dependent on the coupling strength, i.e., the coupling configuration. The Purcell factor distribution can be similar to the near-field distribution of the GNR36. When the FND

was closer to the GNR end, the spectral maximum increased and redshifted more, and the lifetime was shorter. Because the coupling strength increased, the indirect emission component

increased, which significantly modified the spectral shape. Another factor is that the FND as a dielectric particle would increase the local effective index felt by the GNR, resulting in a

redshift of the LSP resonance as well as the SEF spectra39. We noted that the fluorescence of nanodiamond is excitation polarisation dependent, the polarisation contributions can be excluded

roughly by comparing the spectra of nanodiamond of the same excitation polarisation before and after coupling because the nanodiamonds were always fixed in the experiments. Here, we

demonstrate that the SEF process is strongly dependent on the coupling configurations.

To understand the physical origin of the enhancement of direct emission from the gold nanoparticles, we give a theoretical description of the interactions based on the concept of a quantised

optical cavity, as shown in Fig. 3A. The GNR and FND hybrid was modelled as an entity consisting of a two-level atom and a nanoresonator cavity. We considered a FND interacting with a GNR

separated by a distance. There is no direct electron tunnelling between the GNR and FND. The coupling mechanism is owing to dipole–dipole interaction. The artificial hybrid system is excited

with a quasi-continuous-wave laser beam with frequency ω ex polarised along the system axis. Considering the GNR as a plasmonic resonator, the Hamiltonian of the LSP resonator with mode a

at ω c is described as H c  = ω c a†a. Considering the FND as a two-energy-level atom system, the Hamiltonian is written as \({H}_{m}={\omega }_{g}\,|g\rangle \langle g|+{\omega

}_{e}|e\rangle \langle e|\), in which the energy difference between \(|g\rangle \) and \(|e\rangle \) is ω em  = ω e −ω g . Specifically, we define σ− = \(|g\rangle \)\(\langle e|\),σ+  = 

\(|e\rangle \)\(\langle g|\) as the transition operators. Therefore, the free Hamiltonian of the whole system without any interaction is written as: H0 = H c + H m  = ω c a†a + ω g

\(|g\rangle \) \(\langle g|\) + ω e \(|e\rangle \) \(\langle e|\). The interaction Hamiltonian is described as: \({H}_{I}=g({a}^{\dagger }{\sigma }_{-}+a{\sigma }_{+})+{\mu

}_{1}{E}_{1}({a}^{\dagger }{e}^{-i{\omega }_{ex}t}+a{e}^{i{\omega }_{ex}t})+{\mu }_{2}{E}_{2}({\sigma }_{+}{e}^{-i{\omega }_{ex}t}+{\sigma }_{-}{e}^{i{\omega }_{ex}t})\), in which the first

term demonstrates that the LSP mode couples with states \(|g\rangle \) and \(|e\rangle \), and g is the coupling constant. The second and the third terms show that the excitation

electromagnetic field couples with the LSP mode and states \(|g\rangle \) and \(|e\rangle \), respectively. μ1 and μ2 are the corresponding coupling constants. E1 and E2 are the respective

localised electromagnetic field amplitudes that the GNR and the atom feel. Hence, the Hamiltonian of this system is given by H = H0 + H I . The dynamics of these modes can be solved by the

equations \(\dot{a}=i[H,a]-\kappa a=(-i{\omega }_{c}-\kappa )a-ig{\sigma }_{-}-i{\mu }_{1}{E}_{1}{e}^{-i{\omega }_{ex}t}\) and \({\dot{\sigma }}_{-}=i[H,{\sigma }_{-}]\) \(-\,\gamma {\sigma

}_{-}=(-i{\omega }_{em}-\gamma ){\sigma }_{-}+iga{\sigma }_{z}+i{\mu }_{2}{E}_{2}{\sigma }_{z}{e}^{-i{\omega }_{ex}t}\), where κ and γ are the total decay of the cavity and the atom,

respectively. σ z  = \(|e\rangle \) \(\langle e|\) − \(|g\rangle \) \(\langle g|\), which represents the difference between the level occupation numbers of states \(|e\rangle \) and

\(|g\rangle \). Details of the solution are shown in the supplemental materials. We assume that \(g\ll k-\gamma \) because the SEF process is a weak coupling system37,40,41,42. This is

supported by the experimental data

, whereby the frequency of the zero-phonon line of the FND does not shift after coupling with the GNR.

Scheme of the interaction between a FND and a GNR and theoretical analysis of the influence of the dipole coupling effect and local field of the dielectric particle. Simulated spectra of a

resonator (black dash) and an atom (black dot) for g = 0, and corresponding spectra (solid curves) after coupling for g = 10 meV (A) the applied electromagnetic field E induces polarisations

that causes dipole–dipole coupling Γ g between the resonator and the atom and light emission \({\Gamma }_{r}^{LSP}\) from the GNR including both elastic and inelastic radiation processes.

(B) Local field felt by the GNR for E1 = E0, i.e., without the dielectric nanoantenna effect (C) for E1 = 1.1E0 owing to the induced field of the polarised FND. The inset in (B) presents an

enlarged view of the enhanced emission of the resonator.

For g = 0, which suggests no coupling between the GNR and FND, we obtained two Lorentz-shape spectra, a narrow peak for the atom and a broad band for the nanoresonator. When the coupling

effect occurs (e.g., g = 10 meV) and the atom undergoes an enhanced excitation field owing to the plasmonic near field of the nanorod, then it is set as E2 = 1.5E0. At first, we assume that

the presence of the nanodiamond does not influence the local field felt by the GNR, i.e., E1 = E0. Then, the emission from the nanoresonator increases slightly (less than 10%), as shown in

Fig. 3B. This can be explained that total dipole moment of the NV cements in the FND is smaller than that of the GNP which resulting in low energy transfer rate, and that the inelastic

plasmon radiation efficiency of the GNP is also very low. Hence the plasmon emission intensity due to the energy coupling from the FND should be low leading to small increasing. However, the

enhancement of direct emission from the GNP can be over 40% in the above experiment. Then, the coupling effect cannot fully explain the total change. Therefore, we increased E1 and set it

asE 1 = 1.1E0, i.e., the presence of the FND increases the local field felt by the GNR. We obtained a considerable enhancement of the nanoresonator emission, as shown in Fig. 3C. This

implied that the induced field produced by the polarisation of the FND increased the local field intensity felt by the GNR. A dielectric nanoparticle (DNP) as a non-plasmonic nanoantenna

should be the main factor for the enhanced emission from a gold nanoparticle43. More details about the theoretical model is discussed in the supplemental materials.

The dielectric nanoantenna effect is supported by the finite-difference time-domain (FDTD) numerical calculations shown in Fig. 4A–C. The DNP presents an enhanced local field that can

increase the EM field felt by the GNR. Hence, in the SEF process, the light emission from the atom and nanoresonator both increase simultaneously. The plasmonic antenna effect and the

dielectric nanoantenna effect contribute to this mutual enhancement. The influence of radiative directivity on the light collection efficient was negligible. As shown in Fig. 4D, the

emission patterns of a GNR was simulated using the FDTD method. The patterns were almost the same before and after coupling with a DNP. The presence of DNP (i.e., increasing of the effective

index for upper half-space) decreases the electromagnetic flux toward the glass substrate by less than 1% compared with that of the free GNR. So far, the theoretical results reveal that the

plasmonic coupling effect can significantly enhance light emission from the emitter; it also results in a slight enhanced emission from the GNPs through the plasmon decay radiation. The

enhancement of local field felt by the GNP should dominate the enhanced emission from the gold nanoparticles.

Field distributions (X–Z plane) of (A) a GNR with a DNP, (B) only a DNP, and (C) only a GNR. (B) The DNP with a diameter of 40 nm and refractive index of 2.3 in the FDTD calculations; the

averaged field felt by the GNR (white dot range) is higher than the external excitation filed. (C) Near-field EM distribution around a GNR (60 nm×120 nm) at a wavelength of 532 nm. The white

dot range shows the region of the DNP. (D) Ratio of emission flux from a GNR toward a glass substrate to total flux with (black dot) or without (green solid) the DNP as a function of

wavelength. The inset in (D) shows representative emission patterns toward a glass substrate or air as indicated at a wavelength of 680 nm.

In summary, we have demonstrated experimentally and theoretically that gold nanoparticles and fluorescent nanodiamonds mutually enhance their light emission when they are coupled for the SEF

process. The light emission of the metal nanostructures should be considered for quantifying the SEF enhancement factor and for understanding the SEF spectral shape. These findings

contribute to full and deep understanding of the SEF process. The SEF background arising from the metallic nanostructure is not noise or a constant background. The light emission from the

metallic nanostructure is another indicator of the interaction strength between the metallic nanostructure and the emitter. The observation introduces a new perspective in the field of

surface-enhanced spectroscopy to fully understand SEF process. For instance, the mutual interaction is also effective in surface-enhanced Raman scattering44. The coupling system for

surface-enhanced spectroscopy should be considered as a hybrid entity to analyse and optimise.

In our experiments, FNDs with a nominal size of 35 nm were prepared by radiation damage of type-Ib diamond powders containing several nitrogen vacancy centers45. The GNPs with diameter of

approximately 80 nm and GNRs with size of approximately 60 nm × 100 nm were synthesised through a seed-mediated wet chemical method46. A dilute aqueous solution containing both the FNDs and

GNRs was cast onto a silane-functionalised glass coverslip. Then, the nanoparticles were immobilised, with an average spacing of several micrometres for single particle-level investigations.

We characterised the system optically with a micro-spectroscopy system using an inverted optical microscope combined with an AFM, as shown schematically in Fig. 1A. A continuous-wave laser

at a wavelength of 532 nm passing through an objective lens was used to excite the samples, and the fluorescent emission was recorded through the same objective lens. The light emission was

recorded in situ before and after coupling. Moreover, the fluorescence signal from the same particles could be switched to an avalanche photodiode, the lifetime and time trace were analysed

with a TCSPC module (PicoHarp 300, PicoQuant). In this case, a picosecond laser diode operating at a wavelength of 480 nm with a repeat rate of 10 MHz was implemented for the fluorescence

lifetime measurements. By AFM nanomanipulation, the GNPs were moved to approach the FNDs step-by-step, as shown in Fig. 1B31,47,48,49,50. In addition, the scattering spectra of the same GNPs

was obtained in situ by the white light total internal reflection dark field method. Furthermore, the three-dimensional FDTD method was employed to simulate the emission flux, emission

patterns, and electromagnetic field distribution of the nanostructures51. The calculations of the far-field radiation pattern were based on the near-field-to-far-field (NFTFF) transformation

method. For the NFTFF calculations, we chose a large transformation plane (2 μm × 2 μm) placed 20 nm beneath the air/glass interface to collect most of the flux directed to the substrate.

In the simulations, the mesh size was 1 nm to match the memory resources and computation time. The optical dielectric function of gold was modelled using the Drude–Lorentz dispersion

model52. The refractive indices of the material were set to 1.0 for air and 1.49 for the glass substrate.

References Moskovits, M. Surface-enhanced spectroscopy. Rev. Mod. Phys. 57, 783 (1985).

Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

Fort, E. & Grésillon, S. Surface enhanced fluorescence. J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 41, 013001 (2008).

Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

Acuna, G. P. et al. Fluorescence enhancement at docking sites of DNA-Directed self-assembled nanoantennas. Science 338, 506 (2012).

Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Pelton, M. Modified spontaneous emission in nanophotonic structures. Nat. Photon. 9, 427 (2015).

Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

Anger, P., Bharadwaj, P. & Novotny, L. Enhancement and quenching of single-molecule fluorescence. Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 113002 (2006).

Article  ADS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Vecchi, G., Giannini, V. & Gomez Rivas, J. Shaping the fluorescent emission by lattice resonances in plasmonic crystals of nanoantennas. Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 146807 (2009).

Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Gerber, S. et al. Tailoring light emission properties of fluorophores by coupling to resonance-tuned metallic nanostructures. Phys. Rev. B 75, 073404 (2007).

Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

Akselrod, G. M. et al. Probing the mechanisms of large Purcell enhancement in plasmonic nanoantennas. Nat. Photon. 8, 835 (2014).

Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

de Leon, N. P. et al. Tailoring light-matter interaction with a nanoscale plasmon resonator. Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 226803 (2012).

Article  ADS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Galloway, C. M., Etchegoin, P. G. & Le, R. E. C. Ultrafast nonradiative decay rates on metallic surfaces by comparing surface-enhanced Raman and fluorescence signals of single molecules.

Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 063003 (2009).

Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Ringler, M. et al. Shaping emission spectra of fluorescent molecules with single plasmonic nanoresonators. Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 203002 (2008).

Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Karaveli, S. & Zia, R. Spectral tuning by selective enhancement of electric and magnetic dipole emission. Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 193004 (2011).

Article  ADS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Russell, K. J., Liu, T.-L., Cui, S. & Hu, E. L. Large spontaneous emission enhancement in plasmonic nanocavities. Nat. Photon. 6, 459 (2012).

Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

Pompa, P. P. et al. Metal-enhanced fluorescence of colloidal nanocrystals with nanoscale control. Nat. Nanotech. 1, 126 (2006).

Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

Andrew, P. & Barnes, W. L. Energy transfer across a metal film mediated by surface plasmon polaritons. Science 306, 1002 (2004).

Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Sun, G., Khurgin, J. B. & Soref, R. A. Practical enhancement of photoluminescence by metal nanoparticles. Appl. Phys. Lett. 94, 101103 (2009).

Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

Schlather, A. E., Large, N., Urban, A. S., Nordlander, P. & Halas, N. J. Near-field mediated plexcitonic coupling and giant Rabi splitting in individual metallic dimers. Nano Lett. 13, 3281

(2013).

Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Yang, J., Perrin, M. & Lalanne, P. Analytical formalism for the interaction of wwo-level quantum systems with metal nanoresonators. Phys. Rev. X 5, 021008 (2015).

Google Scholar 

Kinkhabwala, A. et al. Large single-molecule fluorescence enhancements produced by a bowtie nanoantenna. Nat. Photon. 3, 654 (2009).

Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

Johansson, P., Xu, H. & Käll, M. Surface-enhanced Raman scattering and fluorescence near metal nanoparticles. Phys. Rev. B 72, 035427 (2005).

Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

Darby, B. L., Auguié, B., Meyer, M., Pantoja, A. E. & Le Ru, E. C. Modified optical absorption of molecules on metallic nanoparticles at sub-monolayer coverage. Nat. Photon. 10, 40 (2015).

Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

Dong, Z. C. et al. Generation of molecular hot electroluminescence by resonant nanocavity plasmons. Nat. Photon. 4, 50 (2010).

Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

Cho, C. H., Aspetti, C. O., Park, J. & Agarwal, R. Silicon coupled with plasmon nanocavities generates bright visible hot luminescence. Nat. Photon. 7, 285 (2013).

Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

Yorulmaz., M., Khatua, S., Zijlstra, P., Gaiduk, A. & Orrit, M. Luminescence quantum yield of single gold nanorods. Nano Lett. 12, 4385 (2012).

Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Cheng, Y. et al. Luminescence quantum yields of gold nanoparticles varying with excitation wavelengths. Nanoscale 8, 2188 (2016).

Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Carles, R. et al. Plasmon-resonant Raman spectroscopy in metallic nanoparticles: Surface-enhanced scattering by electronic excitations. Phys. Rev. B 92, 174302 (2015).

Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

Haug, T., Klemm, P., Bange, S. & Lupton, J. M. Hot-electron intraband luminescence from single hot spots in noble-metal nanoparticle films. Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 067403 (2015).

Article  ADS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Dulkeith, E. et al. Plasmon emission in photoexcited gold nanoparticles. Phys. Rev. B 70, 205424 (2004).

Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

Hugall, J. T. & Baumberg, J. J. Demonstrating photoluminescence from Au is electronic inelastic light scattering of a plasmonic metal. Nano Lett. 15, 2600 (2015).

Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Huang, J., Wang, W., Murphy, C. J. & Cahill, D. G. Resonant secondary light emission from plasmonic Au nanostructures at high electron temperatures created by pulsed-laser excitation. PNAS

111, 906 (2014).

Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Schietinger, S., Barth, M., Alchele, T. & Benson, O. Plasmon-enhanced single photon emission from a nanoassembled metal-diamond hybrid structure at room temperature. Nano Lett. 9, 1694

(2009).

Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Hui, Y. Y. et al. Tip-enhanced sub-diffraction fluorescence imaging of nitrogen-vacancy centers in nanodiamonds. Appl. Phys. Lett. 102, 013102 (2013).

Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

He, Y. et al. Surface enhanced anti-Stokes one-photon luminescence from single gold nanorods. Nanoscale 7, 577 (2015).

Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Fu, C. C. et al. Characterization and application of single fluorescent nanodiamonds as cellular biomarkers. PNAS 104, 727 (2007).

Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Neupane, B., Zhao, L. Y. & Wang, G. F. Up-conversion luminescence of gold nanospheres when excited at nonsurface plasmon resonance wavelength by a continuous wave laser. Nano Lett. 13, 4087

(2013).

Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Lu, G. et al. Single-molecule spontaneous emission in the vicinity of an individual gold nanorod. J. Phys. Chem. C 115, 15822 (2011).

Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Ming, T., Chen, H., Jiang, R., Li, Q. & Wang, J. Plasmon-controlled fluorescence: beyond the intensity enhancement. J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 3, 191 (2012).

Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Hartling, T., Reichenbach, P. & Eng, L. M. Near-field coupling of a single fluorescent molecule and a spherical gold nanoparticle. Opt. Express 15, 12806 (2007).

Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Alaverdyan, Y. et al. Spectral tunability of a plasmonic antenna with a dielectric nanocrystal. Opt. Express 19, 18175 (2011).

Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Ni, W., Ambjornsson, T. S., Apell, P., Chen, H. & Wang, J. Observing plasmonic-molecular resonance coupling on single gold nanorods. Nano Lett. 10, 77 (2010).

Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Zhang, W., Govorov, A. O. & Bryant, G. W. Semiconductor-metal nanoparticle molecules: Hybrid excitons and the nonlinear Fano effect. Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 146804 (2006).

Article  ADS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Ridolfo, A., Di Stefano, O., Fina, N., Saija, R. & Savasta, S. Quantum plasmonics with quantum dot-metal nanoparticle molecules: influence of the Fano effect on photon statistics. Phys. Rev.

Lett. 105, 263601 (2010).

Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Caldarola, M. et al. Non-plasmonic nanoantennas for surface enhanced spectroscopies with ultra-low heat conversion. Nat. Commun. 6, 7915 (2015).

Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Cheng, Y. et al. Enhanced light emission from plasmonic nanostructures by molecules. J. Phys. Chem. C 121, 23626 (2017).

Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Chang, Y. R. et al. Mass production and dynamic imaging of fluorescent nanodiamonds. Nat. Nanotech. 3, 284 (2008).

Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Zhang, T. et al. Single Bipyramid plasmonic antenna orientation determined by direct photoluminescence pattern imaging. Adv. Opt. Mater. 1, 335 (2013).

Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

Shen, H. et al. Directional fluorescence emission from a compact plasmonic-diamond hybrid nanostructure. Laser & Photon. Rev. 10, 647 (2016).

Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Junno, T., Deppert, K., Montelius, L. & Samuelson, L. Controlled manipulation of nanoparticles with an atomic-force microscope. Appl. Phys. Lett. 66, 3627 (1995).

Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

Kim, S., Shafiei, F., Ratchford, D. & Li, X. Controlled AFM manipulation of small nanoparticles and assembly of hybrid nanostructures. Nanotech. 22, 115301 (2011).

Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

Benson, O. Assembly of hybrid photonic architectures from nanophotonic constituents. Nature 480, 193 (2011).

Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Oskooi, A. F. et al. Benson O. Assembly of hybrid photonic architectures from nanophotonic constituents. Comp. Phys. Commun. 181, 687 (2010).

Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

Johnson, P. B. & Christy, R. W. Optical Constants of the noble metals. Phys. Rev. B 6, 4370 (1972).

Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

This work was supported by the National Key Basic Research Program of China (grant no. 2013CB328703) and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant nos 61422502, 11374026,

61521004, 11527901).

Jingyi Zhao and Yuqing Cheng contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations State Key Laboratory for Mesoscopic Physics & Collaborative Innovation Center of Quantum Matter, Department of Physics, Peking University, Beijing, 100871, China

Jingyi Zhao, Yuqing Cheng, Hongming Shen, Te Wen, Qihuang Gong & Guowei Lu

Institute of Atomic and Molecular Sciences, Academia Sinica, Taipei, 104 Taiwan, China

Yuen Yung Hui & Huan-Cheng Chang

Collaborative Innovation Center of Extreme Optics, Shanxi University, Taiyuan, Shanxi, 030006, China

Qihuang Gong & Guowei Lu

AuthorsJingyi ZhaoView author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Yuqing ChengView author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Hongming ShenView author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Yuen Yung HuiView author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Te WenView author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Huan-Cheng ChangView author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Qihuang GongView author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Guowei LuView author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

G.W.L. designed the original ideas presented in this work and built the experimental setup. J.Y.Z. and H.M.S. carried out the optical measurements. Y.Y.H. and H.C.C. prepared the

nanodiamonds, and T.W. prepared the gold nanoparticles. Y.Q.C. developed and performed the theoretical calculations. The manuscript was jointly written by G.W.L., J.Y.Z., and Q.H.G. All

authors discussed the results and the manuscript.

Corresponding author Correspondence to Guowei Lu.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Publisher's note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

materialsRights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or

format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or

other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in

the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the

copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this articleCite this article Zhao, J., Cheng, Y., Shen, H. et al. Light Emission from Plasmonic Nanostructures Enhanced with Fluorescent Nanodiamonds. Sci Rep 8, 3605 (2018).

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-22019-z

Download citation

Received: 07 November 2017

Accepted: 15 February 2018

Published: 26 February 2018

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-22019-z

Share this article Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Get shareable link Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Copy to clipboard Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative