Talk:Surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spectroscopy, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.SpectroscopyWikipedia:WikiProject SpectroscopyTemplate:WikiProject SpectroscopySpectroscopy articles

Chemistry Start‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry 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.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry articles
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Somewhat off citations

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)[reply]

Also concerning the citations. It is mentioned that the there is an ideal thickness per experiment and while I am not debating this, the source (source 41 Bao et al.) mentioned there is not fitting. When looking only at the plot in the mentioned article, there seems to be a clear deposition time and thus thickness optimum, but when actually reading the article, it is mentioned it is mass thickness and not thickness. (Which is the total amount of added mass which corresponds to an average certain thickness if all was covered with a conformal smooth layer, which is not the case in this article.) They also explain that the influence they see/plot, most likely has to do with the substructure/roughness/isles formed during the non-conformal deposition and is thus not likely (conformal) material thickness related matter. So another source for this should be found. Lucasljk (talk) 11:07, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Applications, Move Oligonucleotide targeting

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

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)[reply]

Difficult to understand

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)[reply]

General Feedback

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:

Practical applications: the little bit on DNA and gold nanoparticles was worth waiting for - I'm just glad I made it that far! Whew!
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)[reply]

Who discovered SERS?

This article states that the SERS effect was first observed by Martin Fleischmann and his colleagues at the University of Southampton in 1973. The webpage of Richard P. Van Duyne at Northwestern University states that Professor Van Duyne is known for the discovery of SERS, while according to Wikipedia he only proposed a mechanism for the observed enhancement in 1977. It would be useful to clarify who is considered the discoverer of SERS. GP 165.124.145.50 (talk) 22:26, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article has a critical assessment of who discovered SERS (with refs for the counterpoint): 10.1098/rsnr.2008.0032 --Kkmurray (talk) 23:47, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nanites

Contact me at derikapplebee03 gmail.com What could be done about being manipulated or tortured threw ridicule and torment by someone who has access to this type of tech. Because I definitely have been and could use some help. 75.105.225.35 (talk) 08:20, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]