OSA's Digital Library

Virtual Journal for Biomedical Optics

Virtual Journal for Biomedical Optics

| EXPLORING THE INTERFACE OF LIGHT AND BIOMEDICINE

  • Editors: Andrew Dunn and Anthony Durkin
  • Vol. 7, Iss. 12 — Dec. 19, 2012
« Show journal navigation

Periodic plasmonic enhancing epitopes on a whispering gallery mode biosensor

Stephen Arnold, Venkata Ramanaiah Dantham, Curtis Barbre, Bruce A. Garetz, and Xudong Fan  »View Author Affiliations


Optics Express, Vol. 20, Issue 24, pp. 26147-26159 (2012)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1364/OE.20.026147


View Full Text Article

Acrobat PDF (1912 KB)





Browse Journals / Lookup Meetings

Browse by Journal and Year


   


Lookup Conference Papers

Close Browse Journals / Lookup Meetings

Article Tools

Share
Citations

Abstract

We propose the attachment of a periodic array of gold nanoparticles (epitopes) to the equator of a Whispering Gallery Mode Biosensor for the purpose of plasmonically enhancing nanoparticle sensing in a self-referencing manner while increasing the capture rate of analyte to antibodies attached to these plasmonic epitopes. Our approach can be applied to a variety of whispering gallery mode resonators from silicon/silica rings and disks to capillaries. The interpretation of the signals is particularly simple since the optical phase difference between the epitopes is designed to be an integer multiple of π, allowing the wavelength shift from each binding event to add independently.

© 2012 OSA

1. Introduction

2. Possible plasmonic epitopes

The space group of the 1D structure with its band edge inter-optical phase difference of π is apparent in Fig. 1, however the point group can be picked from a variety of local plasmonic structures. Solid gold spherical particles are a poor choice since they have a modest intensity enhancement at their hot spots of only ~37x [7

7. S. I. Shopova, R. Rajmangal, S. Holler, and S. Arnold, “Plasmonic enhancement of a whispering-gallery-mode biosensor for single nanoparticle detection,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 98(24), 243104 (2011).

], whereas a core shell structure can develop a tenfold further enhancement as shown from the results of quasi-static calculations [13

13. R. D. Averitt, S. L. Westcott, and N. J. Halas, “Linear optical properties of gold nanoshells,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 16(10), 1824–1832 (1999).

] in Fig. 2(a)
Fig. 2 (a) Maximum electric field intensity enhancement at T or B, and the corresponding peak wavelength location of the dipole mode of a gold nanoshell 50 nm in diameter having a thickness ranging from 3.5 to 15 nm (inset). Note that the wavelength shift for an infinitesimally small bio-particle binding at T or B on a nanoshell grows by a factor of ~340. (b) Maximum field intensity enhancement at the tip (T or B) and the corresponding peak wavelength location of the plasmon mode of a gold ellipsoidal nanoparticle having an aspect ratio ranging from 1.0 to 4.2, calculated using quasi-static approximation [20]. Here 2b is 25 nanometers.
[6

6. V. R. Dantham, S. Holler, V. Kolchenko, Z. Wan, and S. Arnold, “Taking whispering gallery-mode single virus detection and sizing to the limit,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 101(4), 043704 (2012).

]. The intensity enhancements in this figure were calculated at the top (T) or bottom (B) of the depicted shell and show the tunability of the core-shell structure as the shell thickness is changed. As in most local plasmonic structures, the field enhancements increase as one moves from the center of the visible spectrum toward the near infrared due to the reduced imaginary component of gold’s permitivity in this region [7

7. S. I. Shopova, R. Rajmangal, S. Holler, and S. Arnold, “Plasmonic enhancement of a whispering-gallery-mode biosensor for single nanoparticle detection,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 98(24), 243104 (2011).

]. There are also nanoellipsoids [Fig. 2(b)] and nanorods [14

14. J. D. Swaim, J. Knittel, and W. P. Bowen, “Detection limits in whispering gallery biosensors with plasmonic enhancement,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 99(24), 243109 (2011).

,15

15. P. Zijlstra, P. M. R. Paulo, and M. Orrit, “Optical detection of single non-absorbing molecules using the surface plasmon resonance of a gold nanorod,” Nat. Nanotechnol. 7(6), 379–382 (2012).

] that can develop much larger enhancements, but will have to be carefully oriented; for TE excitation the orientation would be along a meridian with hotspots above and below the equator. This is experimentally possible by using micro/nanofabrication methods (such as photolithography and shadow masking, etc.) [16

16. W. Ahn, S. V. Boriskina, Y. Hong, and B. M. Reinhard, “Photonic-plasmonic mode coupling in on-chip integrated optoplasmonic molecules,” ACS Nano 6(1), 951–960 (2012).

19

19. I. M. White, J. Gohring, and X. Fan, “SERS-based detection in an optofluidic ring resonator platform,” Opt. Express 15(25), 17433–17442 (2007).

]. Specific detection can be achieved by functionalizing each epitope’s hot spot regions, i.e., with antibodies that exclusively allow binding of distinctive target analytes suspended in aqueous media.

3. Theory of one, two and N plasmonic epitopes

We start our analysis with a single plasmonic epitope on the equator of a microspheroid (Fig. 3
Fig. 3 Illustration of a WGM ring resonator with one epitope.
) in an attempt to verify the results of Zhu et al. [11

11. J. Zhu, Ş. K. Ozdemir, Y. F. Xiao, L. Li, L. He, D. R. Chen, and L. Yang, “On-chip single nanoparticle detection and sizing by mode splitting in an ultrahigh-Q microresonator,” Nat. Photonics 4(1), 46–49 (2010).

] before moving on to the necklace. We concentrate theoretically on the equatorial mode of an oblate axisymmetric microcavity. Without the plasmonic epitope or significant roughness we have a bare cavity in which two counterpropagating equatorial WGMs have identical resonance frequencies; they are degenerate. Since the microcavity is a high Q system, the modes of this system can be considered to be quasi-normal modes [21

21. E. S. C. Ching, P. T. Leung, and K. Young, “The role of quasinormal modes,” in Optical Processes In Microcavities, R. K. Chang, A. J. Campillo, eds. (World Scientific, 1996), pp. 1–75.

]. This allows for quantum analogs such as photonic atoms [22

22. S. Arnold, “Microspheres, photonic atoms, and the physics of nothing,” Am. Sci. 89, 414–421 (2001).

]. Such analogs compel one to borrow the theoretical machinery of quantum mechanics in order to describe high Q optical systems. For bound nanoplasmonic epitope perturbing a WGM, degenerate perturbation theory can be used to predict the eigenvalues and eigenstates of the system.

The oblateness of the spheroid lifts the2+1degeneracy of a sphere allowing the equitorial mode having a principle quantum number s, angular momentum quantum number , and a two fold degeneracy m=±to be excited through guided wave excitation. This equitorial WGM (Fig. 3) provides the simplest model for which a first order perturbation will not couple radial modes having different principle quantum numbers since their frequencies do not cross. First, we start to interpret the signal in the presence of a plasmonic epitope attached to the WGM ring (equator) at an angle φ1, as shown in Fig. 3; then we apply this theory to two epitopes and N epitopes, respectively. The N epitopes will first be considered as random and then periodic.

Our theory will apply the approach of Teraoka and Arnold [23

23. I. Teraoka and S. Arnold, “Resonance shifts of counterpropagating whispering-gallery modes: degenerate perturbation theory and application to resonator sensors with axial symmetry,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 26(7), 1321–1329 (2009).

]. We will briefly review the results of this paper before applying it to the case of periodic epitopes.

First we start with the bare cavity framework. By separating the Helmholtz equation the azimuthal differential equation for the equitorial TE mode, which is almost entirely polarized along the polar direction (θ) has the form:
1r22Eθφ2+k2Eθ=0,
(1)
where r is radial variable (~radius of the ring), k is the wave vector and Eθis the electric field. The solutions of the above Eq. take the form
Eθ~e±ikrφ.
(2)
The orbital boundary condition,
Eθ(φ+2πm)=Eθ(φ),
(3)
where integer m guarantees that m = kr. Bare WGM microcavities typically support both clockwise (cw) and counterclockwise (ccw) equitorial modes, which for the same m are degenerate in frequency. Using Eqs. (2) and (3), orthogonal basis vectors for these ccw and cw equatorial traveling waves are
|ccw>=E1θ(r,θ)2eimφ,and|cw>=E1θ(r,θ)*2eimφ,}
(4)
respectively, where E1θ(r,θ) is the semi-classical field amplitude associated with a single photon. Since our interest is in the TE equatorial mode, Eθ1*=Eθ1 [23

23. I. Teraoka and S. Arnold, “Resonance shifts of counterpropagating whispering-gallery modes: degenerate perturbation theory and application to resonator sensors with axial symmetry,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 26(7), 1321–1329 (2009).

]. The dielectric function of the cavity isε(r)and consequently the energy in either travelling wave ω=2<ccw|ε(r)|ccw>=2<cw|ε(r)|cw>, where the 2 accounts for an equal amount of electric and magnetic energy in the cavity, the matrix element requires integration over the cavity volume, and the usual conjugate relationship between the bra and ket is maintained. In order to return to a familiar result we will at first suppose that a perturbation to the cavity maintains the travelling wave. Having to polarize an added Rayleigh particle on the equator at position r1=(r1,π/2,φ1)with excess polarizability having a real part αexcorresponds to a dielectric perturbation αexδ(r-r1). This perturbation costs the cavity energy δω=<ccw|αexδ(r-r1)|ccw> [3

3. S. Arnold, M. Khoshsima, I. Teraoka, S. Holler, and F. Vollmer, “Shift of whispering-gallery modes in microspheres by protein adsorption,” Opt. Lett. 28(4), 272–274 (2003).

], for which the frequency shift of either travelling wave is
δω<ccw|αexδ(r-r1)|ccw>.
(5)
After the original presentation of Eq. (5) [3

3. S. Arnold, M. Khoshsima, I. Teraoka, S. Holler, and F. Vollmer, “Shift of whispering-gallery modes in microspheres by protein adsorption,” Opt. Lett. 28(4), 272–274 (2003).

], this first order perturbation in frequency of either of the traveling wave states has become known in the literature as g [11

11. J. Zhu, Ş. K. Ozdemir, Y. F. Xiao, L. Li, L. He, D. R. Chen, and L. Yang, “On-chip single nanoparticle detection and sizing by mode splitting in an ultrahigh-Q microresonator,” Nat. Photonics 4(1), 46–49 (2010).

,24

24. A. Mazzei, S. Götzinger, L. S. Menezes, G. Zumofen, O. Benson, and V. Sandoghdar, “Controlled Coupling of Counterpropagating Whispering-Gallery Modes by a Single Rayleigh Scatterer: A Classical Problem in a Quantum Optical Light,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 99(17), 173603 (2007).

]. Equation (5) is in a conveniently simple form by keeping Planck’s constant in place. However, because of our single photon approach is simply a place saver for the energy in the cavity divided by frequency. With converted in this way Eq. (5) can be evaluated using our basis states in Eq. (4) and the position r1=(r1,π/2,φ1) of the plasmonic epitope with the result [3

3. S. Arnold, M. Khoshsima, I. Teraoka, S. Holler, and F. Vollmer, “Shift of whispering-gallery modes in microspheres by protein adsorption,” Opt. Lett. 28(4), 272–274 (2003).

]:
δω=g=αex|E1θ(r1,π/2)|22ε(r)|E1θ(r)|2dVω.
(6)
It is important to understand that had we constructed our theory for Np photons g would not change since the intensities in the numerator and denominator scale together with Np. In what follows we will stick with the form in Eq. (5) by including . However, our description currently is not complete since the dielectric perturbation can couple the traveling wave states.

Coupling requires interaction between the ccw and cw states through degenerate perturbation theory. For a two state system one has to solve an eigenvalue equation involving a 2x2 matrix
(<ccw|αexδ(rr1)|ccw><ccw|αexδ(rr1)|cw><cw|αexδ(rr1)|ccw><cw|αexδ(rr1)|cw>)(accwacw)=δω(accwacw),
(7)
where accw and acw are amplitudes for being in a superposition state
|ν>=accw|ccw>+acw|cw>.
(8)
In the absence of an off-diagonal term we return to Eq. (5) as expected. Unique solutions are guaranteed by setting the determinant of the secular equations represented by Eq. (7) equal to zero.
|<ccw|αexδ(rr1)|ccw>δω<ccw|αexδ(rr1)|cw><cw|αexδ(rr1)|ccw><cw|αexδ(rr1)|cw>δω|=0.
(9)
The diagonal terms can be written as gδω, whereas the off-diagonal terms are quickly evaluated from Eqs. (4) since |cw>=|ccw>ei2mφand consequently the upper rt. element is gei2mφ1, since the perturbation is at azimuthal angle φ1. The matrix element on the lower left is just the conjugate of this, gei2mφ1. With these inputs Eq. (9) becomes
|gδωgei2Φ1ge+i2Φ1gδω|=0,
(10)
where Φ1=mφ1 is the optical phase at the epitope. The eigenvalues obtained from the determinant are
δω±=gg(i.e.δω+=0,δω=2g),
(11)
in agreement with Zhu et al. [11

11. J. Zhu, Ş. K. Ozdemir, Y. F. Xiao, L. Li, L. He, D. R. Chen, and L. Yang, “On-chip single nanoparticle detection and sizing by mode splitting in an ultrahigh-Q microresonator,” Nat. Photonics 4(1), 46–49 (2010).

]. The epitope clearly splits the degeneracy, and the magnitude of the splitting 2|g| depends only on the value of g. If g is a negative number, as it would be for an epitope having a polarizability which is positive, δω+is larger than δω. As we go forward the subscript + on the frequency shift will be assigned to the state maintaining the higher frequency for g < 0 (i.e. αex>0).

If another epitope is attached to the ring at an angleφ2, then the eigenvalues in the presence of the two epitopes are derived from the determinant
|(g1+g2)δω(g1ei2Φ1+g2ei2Φ2)(g1ei2Φ1+g2ei2Φ2)(g1+g2)δω|=0,
(16)
where Φ2=mφ2represents the optical phase of the wave at the second epitope. The eigenvalues of the system are
δω±=(g1+g2)g12+g22+2g1g2cos2(Φ1Φ2).
(17)
The total magnitude of the splitting (δω+δω) in the presence of two epitopes is 2g12+g22+2g1g2cos2(Φ1Φ2). This is consistent with the results in Ref [25

25. J. Zhu, Ş. K. Özdemir, L. He, and L. Yang, “Controlled manipulation of mode splitting in an optical microcavity by two Rayleigh scatterers,” Opt. Express 18(23), 23535–23543 (2010).

] and reveals that splitting magnitude is not only determined by the size, shape, and refraction index of the epitope, but also is strongly dependent on the phase difference between them (i.e., relative positions). If the second epitope is identical to the first epitope (g1 = g2 = g), then the total magnitude of the splitting is 4|g|cos(Φ1Φ2). This clearly indicates that the mode splitting disappears when the phase difference is π/2, which results from the fact that the two epitopes exert the same influence on each of the two standing wave modes. However, if the phase difference between any consecutive epitopes is π, this gives rise to the maximum splitting 4|g|. In order to get the eigenvectors, for simplicity Φ1and Φ2 are assumed to be 0 and π. The solution of the following equation provides the required eigenvectors;
(2g(δω)±2g2g2g(δω)±)(accwacw)±=0.
(18)
The relation between eigenvectors corresponding to the eigenvalues δω+=0 and δω=4g, respectively are accw=acwand accw=acw. By substituting these relations in the Eq. (8), we get the same mutually orthogonal wave functions given by Eqs. (14) and 15.

Suppose now that N epitopes are attached to the surface in random positions on the ring. Then the eigenvalues of the system are derived from the determinant
|(Ngδω)gj=1NeiΦjgk=1Ne+iΦk(Ngδω)|=0.
(19)
This equation can be written as
(Ngδω)2g2(N+j,kjkei(ΦkΦj))=0.
(20)
For random adsorption the ensemble average j,kjkei(ΦkΦj)0.

Therefore the eigenvalues of the system are δω±=NggNand the magnitude of splitting is 2|g|N. This is consistent with the results of Chantada et al. [26

26. L. Chantada, N. I. Nikolaev, A. L. Ivanov, P. Borri, and W. Langbein, “Optical resonances in microcylinders: response to perturbations for biosensing,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 25(8), 1312–1321 (2008).

].

Having shown that our theoretical approach is consistent with the results of others we now apply it to the case of periodic epitopes. If N identical epitopes are periodically attached to the ring in the presence of an optical phase difference ΔΦ between the consecutive epitopes, then the eigenvalues of the system are given by the following equation,
|(Ngδω)M12M12*(Ngδω)|=0,
(21)
where M12=gei2Φ1[1+ei2ΔΦ+ei4ΔΦ+.............+ei2(N2)ΔΦ+ei2(N1)ΔΦ]. The eigenvalues of this system are
δω±=Ng|M12|=Ngg|sin(NΔΦ)sin(ΔΦ)|,
(22)
When ΔΦ=π the eigenvalues are
δω±=NgNg(i.e.δω+=0,δω=2Ng)
(23)
The total magnitude of the splitting in this case is 2N|g|. This means, when the optical phase difference between consecutive epitopes is π, then frequency shift due to each epitope adds independently. In the presence of 10 epitopes, variation in the frequency shift as a function of ΔФ is shown in Fig. 4
Fig. 4 Variation of the frequency shift of the WGM in the presence of 10 epitopes adsorbed on a microcavity as a function of phase difference between the consecutive epitopes.
. It can be seen that maximum frequency shift is 20g at ΔФ = π due to the superposition of the travelling waves, and the average shift for all possible phase differences is 10g; this is exactly the shift produced by a travelling wave. The peak that appears at π is known as the first order peak and higher order peaks appear at integer multiples of π. The peak width is inversely proportional to N; in order to observe a significant splitting experimentally, the inter-epitopes phase difference must have an error of less than half of the peak width. If the position of each epitope is Gaussian-distributed around the correct position with standard deviation σ, the mode splitting will be reduced. For example, for an operating wavelength of 800 nm in silica, if σ/r = 0.025 μm/40 μm, the mode splitting becomes 90% of the full splitting. For a smaller σ of 0.015 μm, the fraction rises to 96%. If one epitope is missing, then the model fails. In practice, both issues can be dealt with by quality control and post-fabrication examination. We can also view the proposed periodic epitope system as a diffraction grating, with each epitope being the grating groove. It is well known that the grating sensitivity (resolution) depends upon the total number of grooves illuminated on the surface of the grating (N) and diffraction order (n). Although the sensitivity (magnitude of splitting) of the proposed epitope system is dependent on N like a diffraction grating, it is independent of n. In other words, the magnitude of the splitting is the same for all orders.

The eigenvectors for the N-periodic epitope system are given by the following Equation by assuming Φ1=0 and ΔΦ=π.
(Ng(δω)±NgNgNg(δω)±)(accwacw)±=0,
(24)
The relation between eigenvectors corresponding to the eigenvalues δω+=0 and δω=2Ng, respectively are accw=acwand accw=acw, provide the same mutually orthogonal wave functions given by Eqs. (14) and 15. The eigenstates of a system with 10 epitopes on a ring are shown in Fig. 5
Fig. 5 Two states of a WGM ring with 10 plasmonic epitopes. Here optical phase difference between the consecutive epitopes is π.
. It is clear that all epitopes are at anti-nodes (symmetric mode) in one case, resulting in the maximum frequency shift 20g. In the other case, all epitopes are at nodes (asymmetric mode), which results in no shift.

For N periodic epitopes, that are different from each other, then the eigenvalues of the system are given by the following equation,
|j=1Ngjδωei2Φ1j=1Ngjei2(j1)ΔΦei2Φ1k=1Ngkei2(k1)ΔΦj=1Ngjδω|=0,
(25)
when ΔΦ=π the eigenvalues of the system are

δω±=gjgjgk=NgNg(i.e.δω+=0,δω=2Ng).
(26)

In the case of mode splitting, along with the physical properties of the epitopes, the quality factor of the microcavity also plays a major role. To observe the mode splitting requires that its magnitude be considerably larger than the line width of WGM resonance. In the case of a cavity containing N particles, the observation of mode splitting requires
N|2g|>NΓe+Γ0|2g|>Γe+Γ0N,
(27)
where Γe is the spectral width due to the scattering and absorption losses of an epitope and Γ0 is the intrinsic resonance width of the bare cavity. Thus, increasing the value of N increases the possibility of observing the splitting.

In single dielectric nanoparticle (e.g., bio-nanoparticle) detection, if a dielectric analyte is adsorbed to any one of the epitopes then (N-1) epitopes have the same interaction with the microcavity (g) and one epitope which adsorbs the analyte particle has the different interaction (g). Here it is to be noted that g is the combined interaction of single dielectric analyte particle and epitope with the microcavity. The splitting now changes to 2(N1)g+2g. Similarly, if two dielectric nanoparticles are adsorbed each at the center of the dipole hot spots of two different epitopes (i.e., position T or B in Fig. 2), then the splitting becomes2(N2)g+4g, and so on. Here, the interactiongis proportional to the real part of effective polarizability Re[αeff]of a plasmonic-dielectric cluster. Suppose that an extremely small dielectric particle (i.e., a protein molecule) is attached to a spherical plasmonic epitope, thenRe[αeff]for transverse electric (TE) mode excitation can be estimated using the following analytical expression:
Re[αeff]αRep+|1+2αp4πε0εmap3|2αd,
(28)
where αRep is the real part of the excess polarizability of the plasmonic epitope, ε0and εm are the electric permittivities of the vacuum and relative permittivity of the surrounding medium, respectively, ap is the radius of the plasmonic epitope (e.g., solid gold sphere or gold shell structure as in Fig. 2), αd excess polarizability of the adsorbed dielectric particle, and the squared quantity on the right hand side is the intensity enhancement factor at the center of the hot spot.

Figure 6
Fig. 6 Comparison between the mode splitting magnitude upon adsorbing 8 randomly located viruses to a bare microsphere equator (black) with the additional splitting for binding the same viruses to periodic plasmonic nanoshell epitopes (N = 4) on a similar microsphere (red).
demonstrates the advantage of the periodic plasmonic epitope system with respect to sensing. We first start the discussion of this figure by considering adsorption onto the equator of a bare resonator (lower trace), and take our analyte to be the smallest aqueous borne RNA virus [MS2, 13.6 nm radius]. This discussion will be an extension of Ref [6

6. V. R. Dantham, S. Holler, V. Kolchenko, Z. Wan, and S. Arnold, “Taking whispering gallery-mode single virus detection and sizing to the limit,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 101(4), 043704 (2012).

] for which the radius of the silica resonator was 45μm and the unperturbed resonance occurs near a free space wavelength of 780nm [6

6. V. R. Dantham, S. Holler, V. Kolchenko, Z. Wan, and S. Arnold, “Taking whispering gallery-mode single virus detection and sizing to the limit,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 101(4), 043704 (2012).

]. To be consistent with Ref [6

6. V. R. Dantham, S. Holler, V. Kolchenko, Z. Wan, and S. Arnold, “Taking whispering gallery-mode single virus detection and sizing to the limit,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 101(4), 043704 (2012).

], we will talk of shifts, splittings and linewidth changes in wavelength terms. Adsorption on the silica equator is calculated to produce a resonance shift of 0.25 fm, well below the 2fm r.m.s. noise in Ref.6

6. V. R. Dantham, S. Holler, V. Kolchenko, Z. Wan, and S. Arnold, “Taking whispering gallery-mode single virus detection and sizing to the limit,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 101(4), 043704 (2012).

. The calculated splitting would be 2x0.25 = 0.5 fm, much smaller than the experimental linewidth of 1950fm (Q = 4x105). If 8 copies of the virus adsorbed randomly on the equator of this resonator the mean splitting for a statistical number of trials would be 2x0.25x8=1.4fm, still much smaller than the line width. Even if we increase the Q to ~4x106 (line width = 195 fm), a value easily within reach of such a microcavity [27

27. W. Kim, Ş. K. Özdemir, J. Zhu, and L. Yang, “Observation and characterization of mode splitting in microsphere resonators in aquatic environment,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 98(14), 141106 (2011).

], the splitting due to these 8 viruses would still not be seen. It is to be noted that the mode splitting due to the imperfections (Rayleigh scattering) will be present when the ring resonator has an extremely high Q-factor (~108). With a low Q-factor, such a splitting does not occur. In our case, because of the lossy metallic nanoparticles, our Q-factor is much lower (~106).

4. Discussion

Ultimately the above ideas are envisioned to be used for ring or disk resonators formed by micro and nanofabrication. The use of plasmonic epitopes easily recovers sensitivity lost due to lower Q factors, by providing a boost in signal strength [7

7. S. I. Shopova, R. Rajmangal, S. Holler, and S. Arnold, “Plasmonic enhancement of a whispering-gallery-mode biosensor for single nanoparticle detection,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 98(24), 243104 (2011).

]. Such a ring configuration is shown in Fig. 7
Fig. 7 A multiplexed ring resonator sensor on a chip.
.

Recent research shows that silicon nitride rings on silicon can provide a Q-factor above 106 in the near infrared [28

28. E. S. Hosseini, S. Yegnanarayanan, M. Soltani, and A. Adibi, “Ultra-high quality factor microdisk resonators for chip-scale visible integrated photonics,” in Frontiers in Optics (2008), p. FMG4.

30

30. M.-C. Tien, J. F. Bauters, M. J. R. Heck, D. T. Spencer, D. J. Blumenthal, and J. E. Bowers, “Ultra-high quality factor planar Si3N4 ring resonators on Si substrates,” Opt. Express 19(14), 13551–13556 (2011).

], where modes of plasmonic epitopes are easily excited, and single virus and protein detection can be anticipated. By using an array of ring resonators with each carrying different selective receptors, a lab on a chip multiplexed to the same laser can be anticipated.

Acknowledgments

S.A. and B.G. thank the NSF for supporting this work (Grant No. CBET 0933531). X.F. thanks the NSF for supporting this work (Grant No. CBET 1037097 and 1158638).

References and links

1.

M. S. Luchansky and R. C. Bailey, “High-Q Optical Sensors for Chemical and Biological Analysis,” Anal. Chem. 84(2), 793–821 (2012).

2.

Y. Sun and X. Fan, “Optical ring resonators for biochemical and chemical sensing,” Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 399(1), 205–211 (2011).

3.

S. Arnold, M. Khoshsima, I. Teraoka, S. Holler, and F. Vollmer, “Shift of whispering-gallery modes in microspheres by protein adsorption,” Opt. Lett. 28(4), 272–274 (2003).

4.

F. Vollmer, S. Arnold, and D. Keng, “Single virus detection from the reactive shift of a whispering-gallery mode,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 105(52), 20701–20704 (2008).

5.

S. Arnold, R. Ramjit, D. Keng, V. Kolchenko, and I. Teraoka, “MicroParticle PhotoPhysics illuminates viral biosensing,” Faraday Discuss. 137, 65–83 (2007) (discussion pp. 99–113).

6.

V. R. Dantham, S. Holler, V. Kolchenko, Z. Wan, and S. Arnold, “Taking whispering gallery-mode single virus detection and sizing to the limit,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 101(4), 043704 (2012).

7.

S. I. Shopova, R. Rajmangal, S. Holler, and S. Arnold, “Plasmonic enhancement of a whispering-gallery-mode biosensor for single nanoparticle detection,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 98(24), 243104 (2011).

8.

M. A. Santiago-Cordoba, S. V. Boriskina, F. Vollmer, and M. C. Demirel, “Nanoparticle-based protein detection by optical shift of a resonant microcavity,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 99(7), 073701 (2011).

9.

L. Novotny, R. X. Bian, and X. S. Xie, “Theory of nanometric optical tweezers,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 79(4), 645–648 (1997).

10.

S. Arnold, D. Keng, S. I. Shopova, S. Holler, W. Zurawsky, and F. Vollmer, “Whispering Gallery Mode Carousel- a photonic mechanism for enhanced nanoparticle detection in biosensing,” Opt. Express 17(8), 6230–6238 (2009).

11.

J. Zhu, Ş. K. Ozdemir, Y. F. Xiao, L. Li, L. He, D. R. Chen, and L. Yang, “On-chip single nanoparticle detection and sizing by mode splitting in an ultrahigh-Q microresonator,” Nat. Photonics 4(1), 46–49 (2010).

12.

W. Kim, Ş. K. Ozdemir, J. Zhu, L. He, and L. Yang, “Demonstration of mode splitting in an optical microcavity in aqueous environment,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 97(7), 071111 (2010).

13.

R. D. Averitt, S. L. Westcott, and N. J. Halas, “Linear optical properties of gold nanoshells,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 16(10), 1824–1832 (1999).

14.

J. D. Swaim, J. Knittel, and W. P. Bowen, “Detection limits in whispering gallery biosensors with plasmonic enhancement,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 99(24), 243109 (2011).

15.

P. Zijlstra, P. M. R. Paulo, and M. Orrit, “Optical detection of single non-absorbing molecules using the surface plasmon resonance of a gold nanorod,” Nat. Nanotechnol. 7(6), 379–382 (2012).

16.

W. Ahn, S. V. Boriskina, Y. Hong, and B. M. Reinhard, “Photonic-plasmonic mode coupling in on-chip integrated optoplasmonic molecules,” ACS Nano 6(1), 951–960 (2012).

17.

M. Chamanzar and A. Adibi, “Hybrid nanoplasmonic-photonic resonators for efficient coupling of light to single plasmonic nanoresonators,” Opt. Express 19(22), 22292–22304 (2011).

18.

M. Chamanzar, E. S. Hosseini, S. Yegnanarayanan, and A. Adibi, “Hybrid Plasmonic-photonic Resonators for Sensing and Spectroscopy,” CLEO/QELS San Francisco, CA. 2011, Paper QTuE4.

19.

I. M. White, J. Gohring, and X. Fan, “SERS-based detection in an optofluidic ring resonator platform,” Opt. Express 15(25), 17433–17442 (2007).

20.

D. Sarid and W. Challener, Modern introduction to surface plasmons: Theory of Mathematica modeling, and applications (Cambridge University Press, 2010), Chap. 9.

21.

E. S. C. Ching, P. T. Leung, and K. Young, “The role of quasinormal modes,” in Optical Processes In Microcavities, R. K. Chang, A. J. Campillo, eds. (World Scientific, 1996), pp. 1–75.

22.

S. Arnold, “Microspheres, photonic atoms, and the physics of nothing,” Am. Sci. 89, 414–421 (2001).

23.

I. Teraoka and S. Arnold, “Resonance shifts of counterpropagating whispering-gallery modes: degenerate perturbation theory and application to resonator sensors with axial symmetry,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 26(7), 1321–1329 (2009).

24.

A. Mazzei, S. Götzinger, L. S. Menezes, G. Zumofen, O. Benson, and V. Sandoghdar, “Controlled Coupling of Counterpropagating Whispering-Gallery Modes by a Single Rayleigh Scatterer: A Classical Problem in a Quantum Optical Light,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 99(17), 173603 (2007).

25.

J. Zhu, Ş. K. Özdemir, L. He, and L. Yang, “Controlled manipulation of mode splitting in an optical microcavity by two Rayleigh scatterers,” Opt. Express 18(23), 23535–23543 (2010).

26.

L. Chantada, N. I. Nikolaev, A. L. Ivanov, P. Borri, and W. Langbein, “Optical resonances in microcylinders: response to perturbations for biosensing,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 25(8), 1312–1321 (2008).

27.

W. Kim, Ş. K. Özdemir, J. Zhu, and L. Yang, “Observation and characterization of mode splitting in microsphere resonators in aquatic environment,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 98(14), 141106 (2011).

28.

E. S. Hosseini, S. Yegnanarayanan, M. Soltani, and A. Adibi, “Ultra-high quality factor microdisk resonators for chip-scale visible integrated photonics,” in Frontiers in Optics (2008), p. FMG4.

29.

A. Gondarenko, J. S. Levy, and M. Lipson, “High confinement micron-scale silicon nitride high Q ring resonator,” Opt. Express 17(14), 11366–11370 (2009).

30.

M.-C. Tien, J. F. Bauters, M. J. R. Heck, D. T. Spencer, D. J. Blumenthal, and J. E. Bowers, “Ultra-high quality factor planar Si3N4 ring resonators on Si substrates,” Opt. Express 19(14), 13551–13556 (2011).

OCIS Codes
(230.5750) Optical devices : Resonators
(240.6680) Optics at surfaces : Surface plasmons
(260.5740) Physical optics : Resonance
(280.1415) Remote sensing and sensors : Biological sensing and sensors
(140.3945) Lasers and laser optics : Microcavities

ToC Category:
Sensors

History
Original Manuscript: August 31, 2012
Revised Manuscript: October 25, 2012
Manuscript Accepted: October 31, 2012
Published: November 5, 2012

Virtual Issues
Vol. 7, Iss. 12 Virtual Journal for Biomedical Optics

Citation
Stephen Arnold, Venkata Ramanaiah Dantham, Curtis Barbre, Bruce A. Garetz, and Xudong Fan, "Periodic plasmonic enhancing epitopes on a whispering gallery mode biosensor," Opt. Express 20, 26147-26159 (2012)
http://www.opticsinfobase.org/vjbo/abstract.cfm?URI=oe-20-24-26147


Sort:  Author  |  Year  |  Journal  |  Reset  

References

  1. M. S. Luchansky and R. C. Bailey, “High-Q Optical Sensors for Chemical and Biological Analysis,” Anal. Chem. 84(2), 793–821 (2012).
  2. Y. Sun and X. Fan, “Optical ring resonators for biochemical and chemical sensing,” Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 399(1), 205–211 (2011).
  3. S. Arnold, M. Khoshsima, I. Teraoka, S. Holler, and F. Vollmer, “Shift of whispering-gallery modes in microspheres by protein adsorption,” Opt. Lett. 28(4), 272–274 (2003).
  4. F. Vollmer, S. Arnold, and D. Keng, “Single virus detection from the reactive shift of a whispering-gallery mode,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 105(52), 20701–20704 (2008).
  5. S. Arnold, R. Ramjit, D. Keng, V. Kolchenko, and I. Teraoka, “MicroParticle PhotoPhysics illuminates viral biosensing,” Faraday Discuss. 137, 65–83 (2007) (discussion pp. 99–113).
  6. V. R. Dantham, S. Holler, V. Kolchenko, Z. Wan, and S. Arnold, “Taking whispering gallery-mode single virus detection and sizing to the limit,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 101(4), 043704 (2012).
  7. S. I. Shopova, R. Rajmangal, S. Holler, and S. Arnold, “Plasmonic enhancement of a whispering-gallery-mode biosensor for single nanoparticle detection,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 98(24), 243104 (2011).
  8. M. A. Santiago-Cordoba, S. V. Boriskina, F. Vollmer, and M. C. Demirel, “Nanoparticle-based protein detection by optical shift of a resonant microcavity,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 99(7), 073701 (2011).
  9. L. Novotny, R. X. Bian, and X. S. Xie, “Theory of nanometric optical tweezers,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 79(4), 645–648 (1997).
  10. S. Arnold, D. Keng, S. I. Shopova, S. Holler, W. Zurawsky, and F. Vollmer, “Whispering Gallery Mode Carousel- a photonic mechanism for enhanced nanoparticle detection in biosensing,” Opt. Express 17(8), 6230–6238 (2009).
  11. J. Zhu, Ş. K. Ozdemir, Y. F. Xiao, L. Li, L. He, D. R. Chen, and L. Yang, “On-chip single nanoparticle detection and sizing by mode splitting in an ultrahigh-Q microresonator,” Nat. Photonics 4(1), 46–49 (2010).
  12. W. Kim, Ş. K. Ozdemir, J. Zhu, L. He, and L. Yang, “Demonstration of mode splitting in an optical microcavity in aqueous environment,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 97(7), 071111 (2010).
  13. R. D. Averitt, S. L. Westcott, and N. J. Halas, “Linear optical properties of gold nanoshells,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 16(10), 1824–1832 (1999).
  14. J. D. Swaim, J. Knittel, and W. P. Bowen, “Detection limits in whispering gallery biosensors with plasmonic enhancement,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 99(24), 243109 (2011).
  15. P. Zijlstra, P. M. R. Paulo, and M. Orrit, “Optical detection of single non-absorbing molecules using the surface plasmon resonance of a gold nanorod,” Nat. Nanotechnol. 7(6), 379–382 (2012).
  16. W. Ahn, S. V. Boriskina, Y. Hong, and B. M. Reinhard, “Photonic-plasmonic mode coupling in on-chip integrated optoplasmonic molecules,” ACS Nano 6(1), 951–960 (2012).
  17. M. Chamanzar and A. Adibi, “Hybrid nanoplasmonic-photonic resonators for efficient coupling of light to single plasmonic nanoresonators,” Opt. Express 19(22), 22292–22304 (2011).
  18. M. Chamanzar, E. S. Hosseini, S. Yegnanarayanan, and A. Adibi, “Hybrid Plasmonic-photonic Resonators for Sensing and Spectroscopy,” CLEO/QELS San Francisco, CA. 2011, Paper QTuE4.
  19. I. M. White, J. Gohring, and X. Fan, “SERS-based detection in an optofluidic ring resonator platform,” Opt. Express 15(25), 17433–17442 (2007).
  20. D. Sarid and W. Challener, Modern introduction to surface plasmons: Theory of Mathematica modeling, and applications (Cambridge University Press, 2010), Chap. 9.
  21. E. S. C. Ching, P. T. Leung, and K. Young, “The role of quasinormal modes,” in Optical Processes In Microcavities, R. K. Chang, A. J. Campillo, eds. (World Scientific, 1996), pp. 1–75.
  22. S. Arnold, “Microspheres, photonic atoms, and the physics of nothing,” Am. Sci. 89, 414–421 (2001).
  23. I. Teraoka and S. Arnold, “Resonance shifts of counterpropagating whispering-gallery modes: degenerate perturbation theory and application to resonator sensors with axial symmetry,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 26(7), 1321–1329 (2009).
  24. A. Mazzei, S. Götzinger, L. S. Menezes, G. Zumofen, O. Benson, and V. Sandoghdar, “Controlled Coupling of Counterpropagating Whispering-Gallery Modes by a Single Rayleigh Scatterer: A Classical Problem in a Quantum Optical Light,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 99(17), 173603 (2007).
  25. J. Zhu, Ş. K. Özdemir, L. He, and L. Yang, “Controlled manipulation of mode splitting in an optical microcavity by two Rayleigh scatterers,” Opt. Express 18(23), 23535–23543 (2010).
  26. L. Chantada, N. I. Nikolaev, A. L. Ivanov, P. Borri, and W. Langbein, “Optical resonances in microcylinders: response to perturbations for biosensing,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 25(8), 1312–1321 (2008).
  27. W. Kim, Ş. K. Özdemir, J. Zhu, and L. Yang, “Observation and characterization of mode splitting in microsphere resonators in aquatic environment,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 98(14), 141106 (2011).
  28. E. S. Hosseini, S. Yegnanarayanan, M. Soltani, and A. Adibi, “Ultra-high quality factor microdisk resonators for chip-scale visible integrated photonics,” in Frontiers in Optics (2008), p. FMG4.
  29. A. Gondarenko, J. S. Levy, and M. Lipson, “High confinement micron-scale silicon nitride high Q ring resonator,” Opt. Express 17(14), 11366–11370 (2009).
  30. M.-C. Tien, J. F. Bauters, M. J. R. Heck, D. T. Spencer, D. J. Blumenthal, and J. E. Bowers, “Ultra-high quality factor planar Si3N4 ring resonators on Si substrates,” Opt. Express 19(14), 13551–13556 (2011).

Cited By

Alert me when this paper is cited

OSA is able to provide readers links to articles that cite this paper by participating in CrossRef's Cited-By Linking service. CrossRef includes content from more than 3000 publishers and societies. In addition to listing OSA journal articles that cite this paper, citing articles from other participating publishers will also be listed.


« Previous Article  |  Next Article »

OSA is a member of CrossRef.

CrossCheck Deposited