Talk:Surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Spectroscopy (Rated Stub-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spectroscopy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spectroscopy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Somewhat off citations[edit]

I'm not going to edit this as I don't have time to hunt down better sources, but a few factual errors worth noting - It isn't E^4, it's |E(w_incident)|^2 |E(w_stokes)|^2 - this is mentioned in the same citation actually. If someone changes it, they should probably hunt done something to point out the E^4 claim is an approximation that's often used. I will also add that the line "Particles that are too large allow the excitation of multipoles, which are nonradiative. As only the dipole transition leads to Raman scattering, the higher-order transitions will cause a decrease in the overall efficiency of the enhancement." is provably false. First, none of the proofs showing the SERS effect from a quantum-mechanical effect care to any great extent where the field is from (the electromagnetic ones do mind you). Additionally, not only are there a wide class of SERS substrates which employ non-radiative modes for enhancement purposes (particularly the colloidal gold and silver particles, whose gap mode is non-radiative), but there are many bright multipolar modes which have been used in mesoscopic particles. The larger class of silver-flowers and the gold meatball particles by Halas et al. both couple to bright quadrupolar modes for SERS. The original source for this claim is an off hand remark in one review paper, and although that certainly is a source, it is hardly convincing evidence without data. Anyway, as you can see, I'm much too close to this to respond without some bias, so I'll leave it alone for now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.75.16 (talk) 12:53, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Applications, Move Oligonucleotide targeting[edit]

Submitted the Edit MycoGeiger (talk) 08:26, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I am planning on adding a section with information as to how SERS can be used and was curious if there was a specific reason why Oligonucleotide targeting was under "Surfaces" instead of "Applications" MycoGeiger (talk) 16:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Difficult to understand[edit]

Can someone explain this in more simple terms?

I would appreciate more visual aids to elaborate on both the electromagnetic explanation (physical explanation) and charge-transfer complex (chemical explanation). I barely understand what charge-transfer complex means, but I have no idea how that links to SERS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.126.187.239 (talk) 09:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

General Feedback[edit]

As noted above the article is fairly solid. I think it would benefit from a few improvements, if there is anyone out there up to the challenge:

  1. Practical applications: the little bit on DNA and gold nanoparticles was worth waiting for - I'm just glad I made it that far! Whew!
  2. Clean up for style: things like "This initial publication has been cited over 2400 times" don't impress me. I understand the importance of a good impact factor, but that just sounds like "mine is bigger than yours"!

--Graham Proud (talk) 05:08, 26 August 2013 (UTC)