Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38273798›Full record

ReviewNanoscale2024

'When is a hotspot a good nanospot' - review of analytical and hotspot-dominated surface enhanced Raman spectroscopy nanoplatforms.

Mike Hardy, Pola Goldberg Oppenheimer

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Nanoscale, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Mike HardySchool of Chemical Engineering, College of Engineering and Physical Sciences, University of Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK. GoldberP@bham.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0242-8727
Pola Goldberg OppenheimerSchool of Chemical Engineering, College of Engineering and Physical Sciences, University of Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK. GoldberP@bham.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1014-4724

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Substrate development in surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy (SERS) continues to attract research interest. In order to determine performance metrics, researchers in foundational SERS studies use a variety of experimental means to characterize the nature of substrates. However, often this process would appear to be performed indiscriminately without consideration for the physical scale of the enhancement phenomena. Herein, we differentiate between SERS substrates whose primary enhancing structures are on the hundreds of nanometer scale (analytical SERS nanosubstrates) and those whose main mechanism derives from nanometric-sized gaps (hot-spot dominated SERS substrates), assessing the utility of various characterization methods for each substrate class. In this context, characterization approaches in white-light spectroscopy, electron beam methods, and scanning probe spectroscopies are reviewed. Tip-enhanced Raman spectroscopy, wavelength-scanned SERS studies, and the impact of surface hydrophobicity are also discussed. Conclusions are thus drawn on the applicability of each characterization technique regarding amenability for SERS experiments that have features at different length scales. For instance, while white light spectroscopy can provide an indication of the plasmon resonances associated with 10 s-100 s nm-scale structures, it may not reveal information about finer surface texturing on the true nm-scale, critical for SERS' sensitivity, and in need of investigation

Identifiers

PMID38273798
PMCPMC10868661

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.