Abstract
At high intensities, light–matter interactions are controlled by the electric field of the exciting light. For instance, when an intense laser pulse interacts with an atomic gas, individual cycles of the incident electric field ionize gas atoms and steer the resulting attosecond-duration electrical wavepackets1,2. Such field-controlled light–matter interactions form the basis of attosecond science and have recently expanded from gases to solid-state nanostructures3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18. Here, we extend these field-controlled interactions to metallic nanoparticles supporting localized surface plasmon resonances. We demonstrate strong-field, carrier-envelope-phase-sensitive photoemission from arrays of tailored metallic nanoparticles, and we show the influence of the nanoparticle geometry and the plasmon resonance on the phase-sensitive response. Additionally, from a technological standpoint, we push strong-field light–matter interactions to the chip scale. We integrate our plasmonic nanoparticles and experimental geometry in compact, micro-optoelectronic devices that operate out of vacuum and under ambient conditions.
Similar content being viewed by others
Main
Moving from low to high optical intensity, photoemission goes from photon-driven to field-controlled. Consider illuminating a metallic surface with an infrared femtosecond laser pulse with electric field F(t) = F0A(t)cos(ωt + φ), where F0 is the peak field, A(t) is the normalized pulse envelope, ω is the carrier frequency, and φ is the carrier-envelope phase (CEP). When the pulse interacts with the metallic surface, electrons are excited out of the metal and into the surrounding vacuum. At typical incident intensities, this photoemission process is photon-driven: emission is dictated by the pulse’s photon energy, that is, ℏω, and photon flux, that is, the pulse’s intensity envelope ∝|F0A(t)|2. At high intensities, this photoemission process resembles field-controlled tunnelling. The strong electric field of the pulse deflects the binding potential of the metallic surface and drives electron tunnelling through the distorted barrier. This tunnelling occurs over a timescale , where WF is the workfunction of the surface, m is the electron mass, and e is its charge19,20. With sufficiently strong F0, τt becomes shorter than the characteristic cycle time of the exciting laser light (τt < τcyc = 1/ω), and individual cycles of the driving electric field eject subcycle electrical bursts from the metal and steer these ultrafast currents through the surrounding vacuum6,8; in this strong-field regime, photoemission is controlled by the driving optical electric field and, accordingly, by the CEP, φ.
In recent years, metallic nanotips have emerged as platforms to non-destructively investigate photoemission in the strong-field regime. When a nanotip is illuminated by a femtosecond laser pulse, the incident field is locally enhanced at the apex of the tip. Due primarily to the tip’s sharp geometry, the field enhancement is typically <10, and the temporal profile of the enhanced field, Ftip(t), approximately follows that of the instantaneous incident field21,22. With typical incident intensities, Ftip(t) can drive strong-field processes: photoemission current yields and photoelectron energy spectra from nanotips have shown strong-field characteristics3,4,5,7,10,11,14,15, and exciting nanotips with phase-stabilized laser pulses, CEP-sensitive signatures have been observed5,14.
Compared with nanotips, metallic nanoparticles offer higher field enhancements as well as additional resonant and geometric degrees of freedom. When a laser pulse illuminates a metallic nanoparticle, the incident field can resonantly drive collective oscillations of the particle’s conduction electrons23,24. These localized surface plasmon resonances yield dramatically enhanced local fields, and similar to nanotips, metallic nanoparticles have shown strong-field behaviours in their photoemission currents and energy spectra9,12,13,16,17,18.
Here, we report the first measurements of CEP-sensitive, strong-field photoemission from metallic nanoparticles. We integrate arrays of metallic nanoparticles into micro-optoelectronic devices, and illuminating the nanoparticles with near-infrared laser pulses, we observe large photoemission currents up to ≈30 nA with CEP-sensitive modulations up to ≈1.5 pA (all under ambient conditions). Investigating resonant and off-resonant arrays of rod- and triangle-shaped particles, we explore the influence of the nanoparticles’ resonant and geometric degrees of freedom on the CEP-sensitive response, and the results are well explained by a quasi-static tunnelling model. From a practical, technological standpoint, our measurements are informative for designs of future ultrafast, ultrabright nanostructured photocathodes, and our devices could provide a route towards chip-scale, CEP-sensitive photodetectors. From a more general perspective, this work takes a step towards pushing optical-field-controlled, attosecond science and technology from elaborate laboratory settings to on-chip devices operating in ambient conditions.
In Fig. 1 we illustrate our experimental geometry. Figure 1a shows an example device: the device resembles a microscale phototube, that is, a vacuum tube with an optically excited emitter or photocathode. The emitter consists of an array of gold nanoparticles resting on a 60-nm-thick layer of transparent, conducting indium tin oxide (ITO) and separated from an ITO collector, or anode, by a ≈5 μm gap. In Fig. 1b, we provide an optical microscope image of one of our devices and electron micrographs of example nanorod and nanotriangle emitters. In our experiments, we investigate fourteen different nanoparticle emitter devices: eight arrays of differently sized nanotriangles and six arrays of differently sized nanorods. The measured optical extinction spectra for each array are plotted in Fig. 1c and show localized surface plasmon resonances with resonant wavelengths, λres, ranging from 895 nm to 1,256 nm. Further device fabrication and characterization details are provided in Supplementary Section I.
In our experiments we illuminate our nanoparticle emitters with femtosecond laser pulses. With a repetition rate of fR = 78 MHz, these femtosecond pulses have a cos2-shaped envelope with a full-width at half-maximum duration of 10 fs, a tunable pulse energy, EP, up to 200 pJ, and a centre wavelength of λ = 1,177 nm (further laser source details are provided in Supplementary Section II). The femtosecond pulses are tightly focused to an incident peak field of 1.2 V nm−1 (at EP = 200 pJ) and drive large photoemission currents from the nanoparticles. These currents are pulled across the emitter–collector gap by a positive bias voltage applied to the collector, VC = VBIAS. (The bias voltages applied to the emitter and collector are denoted VE and VC respectively, and similarly, the currents entering these electrodes are labelled IE and IC). We should note that the mean-free path of few-electronvolt electrons in ambient air is on the order of a few hundred nanometres, and prior demonstrations of field-emitting electronic devices in ambient conditions have typically used emitter–collector gaps below this length scale25,26,27,28. However, in our devices, the photoemission physics occurs within the confined spatial range of each nanoparticle’s enhanced local field, that is, within ∼10 nm. Additionally, the emitter–collector gap is sufficiently small for the emitted electrons to reliably transit the gap without being captured by the ambient air29. Therefore, the device operation is largely unaffected by the ambient conditions. Further discussion regarding ambient operation is included in Supplementary Section III.
In a first experiment, we record the photoemission current as the incident pulse energy is changed. Figure 2a displays IE, measured at VBIAS = 30 V, as a function of EP for the nanotriangle and nanorod arrays shown in Fig. 1b. We fit the low-pulse-energy section of the curve to the conventional multiphoton photoemission form, IMP ∝ |F0|2N, where F0 is the incident peak field. We find N = 5.4 and 6.1 for the nanorods and nanotriangles respectively (with a photon energy of ≈1.1 eV and the workfunction of gold, WF = 5.1 eV, we expect N ≈ 5). In Fig. 2a, we see that as EP increases, the photoemission curves bend over and depart from the multiphoton form: the emission enters the strong-field regime. (A complete discussion of space-charge limitations and associated measurements and calculations are provided in Supplementary Section IV.)
In the strong-field regime, we expect the emission process to resemble tunnelling. Transition into this regime is marked by the Keldysh (or adiabaticity) parameter, , where FP is the enhanced peak field, that is, FP = gF0, where g is the field enhancement and F0 is the incident peak field. In the adiabatic or quasi-static regime, when γ < 1, the photoemission current approximately follows the static field-emission rate driven by the instantaneous value of the enhanced laser field. Here, we take the static field-emission rate to be given by the Fowler–Nordheim form30, , where Fd.c. < 0 is the applied static field (IFN(Fd.c.) = 0 for Fd.c. > 0). Using this form, the emitter current from the nanoparticles in the strong-field regime can be described as:
In the above, TR = 1/fR, and Fnp(t; φ) is the localized, enhanced field at the emitting nanoparticles (written here as a function of φ). If we assume that the emission is dominated by the peak of Fnp(t; φ), we can approximate equation (1) as IE ∝ IFN(FP), where, as before, FP = gF0 is the enhanced peak field. Fitting this simplified expression to the data in Fig. 2a, we can extract experimental estimates for the field enhancement; we find g ≈ 32 for both the nanorod and nanotriangle emitter data displayed. Further information concerning this fitting is included in Supplementary Section IV.
The experimentally extracted field enhancements predict large peak fields at the nanoparticles. For the data displayed in Fig. 2a, the predicted peak fields are ≈40 V nm−1. Previous strong-field investigations with metallic nanoparticles have shown similar extracted field enhancements12,13,17,18 and peak fields9,12,13, and these high peak fields could lead to nanoparticle damage via electromigration or field evaporation17,31. However, over 10 min of continuous illumination, we observe current fluctuations of only ≈2%, and subsequent inspection of the emitters reveals minimal damage. Further information on device damage is included in Supplementary Section III.
Having demonstrated strong-field operation, we next investigate the CEP-sensitive response of the photoemission. The incident laser pulses are CEP-stabilized: from pulse to pulse, φ shifts by a fixed amount δφ, such that φ circles 2π in phase at the carrier-envelope offset frequency fCEO = fR × δφ/2π = 2 kHz. In the inset of Fig. 2a, we plot a measurement of the spectrum of the emitter current IE(f) from the nanotriangle and nanorod arrays in Fig. 1b (green and black curves respectively). The nanotriangle current shows a pronounced modulation at fCEO with an amplitude of IE(f = fCEO) = 1.45 pA and a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of 16 dB measured with a resolution bandwidth (RBW) of 1 Hz, while the nanorods show no fCEO response.
To confirm the CEP sensitivity, we investigate the phase response of the fCEO-sensitive signal from the nanotriangles. As illustrated in Fig. 2b, we slide a barium fluoride wedge through the incident laser pulse train. Due to the mismatched group and phase velocities in the glass wedge, the CEP of a pulse traversing the wedge will shift by θ. This phase shift is dependent on the amount of glass traversed and is therefore a function of the wedge insertion; we write θ(lw), where lw is the length of wedge inserted relative to some reference position. For our laser parameters, we expect that θ(lw = 10 mm) = 58.3°. Monitoring the phase of the fCEO-sensitive signal relative to the local oscillator that the fCEO is locked to, we incrementally insert the wedge in steps of 10 mm. In Fig. 2b, we show 160 measurements of θ; every 20 measurements we shift the wedge by an additional 10 mm. We see that the phase increments as expected. Fitting a regular staircase shape to the data, we find that θ(lw = 10 mm) ≈ 54.9° ± 11.3°, where the ±11.3° deviation derives from looking at the r.m.s. deviation of the phase from the fit, Δθr.m.s. (see inset of Fig. 2b).
Having confirmed CEP sensitivity from the nanotriangles, let us now consider the nanorods. In the strong-field regime, photoemission is dictated not only by the strength, but also by the direction of the driving optical field: emission occurs when the driving optical field bends the binding potential downwards. Consider Fig. 3a; in the strong-field regime, the nanoparticles will only emit when the field points into the gold surface (when the potential is bent downwards), so the nanotriangles, with significant field enhancement only at their apex, emit during the red half-cycles, while the nanorods, with significant field enhancement at both ends, emit during both red and blue half-cycles. From the perspective of a simple one-dimensional emission model such as that presented in equation (1), each nanorod resembles two nanotriangles with their apices pointed in opposite directions. When illuminated by a laser pulse with CEP φ, that is, when illuminated with field F(t, φ), a nanorod’s photoemission response equals the sum of a nanotriangle’s response to F(t, φ) and −F(t, φ). Noting that F(t, φ + π) = −F(t, φ), we can write IErod(φ) = IEtri(φ) + IEtri(φ + π), where IErod and IEtri are the emitter currents from the nanorods and nanotriangles respectively. Since IEtri(φ) is periodic with period 2π (the field is periodic in φ with period 2π), we see that IErod(φ) is periodic with period π. This implies that while the nanotriangles can show a CEP response at every harmonic of fCEO, the nanorods show a response only at even harmonics of fCEO. Therefore, the field-direction sensitivity of strong-field photoemission inhibits the CEP-dependent response of the nanorods at fCEO, just as we observe.
To further confirm our findings, we repeat the experiments outlined in Fig. 2 for seven other differently sized nanotriangle emitters and five other differently sized nanorod emitters. Specifically, we measure IE as a function of EP for each nanoparticle emitter type (see Supplementary Section IV for the measurements and extracted field enhancements); we measure the fCEO response from each nanoparticle type; and we measure the phase-stepping response of the fCEO-sensitive signals (see Supplementary Section V for further details). The results (plotted versus the resonant wavelength of the tested nanoparticle arrays) are displayed in Fig. 3b. We do not see an fCEO response for any of the five nanorod arrays while we see strong fCEO signals for all seven of the nanotriangle arrays. In the bottom panel of Fig. 3b, we display the results of the phase-stepping experiments on each nanotriangle emitter array.
Next, we compare the predictions of the quasi-static tunnelling model (equation (1)) to the experimental data. To estimate the near-field Fnp(t, φ) in equation (1), we start with our cos2-shaped model laser pulses and filter them with the localized surface plasmon resonances; specifically, we filter them with the oscillator model fits to these resonances32. The resulting plasmon-broadened fields are then normalized to the incident peak field and multiplied by the experimentally retrieved field enhancement factors. Inserting these estimates for Fnp(t, φ) into equation (1) and integrating over the focused spot area, we arrive at an estimate for the total emission current as a function of φ. Further details on the model are included in the Supplementary Section VI.
In Fig. 3c we compare the results of our model to the experiment. For comparison, we look at the CEP ‘sensitivity’, which we define as IE(f = fCEO)/IE(f = 0), that is, as the current in the fCEO-sensitive signal divided by the average current. The orange and blue data points in Fig. 3c are the predicted CEP sensitivities for 10 fs and 14 fs cos2 pulses respectively (the 14 fs pulse corresponds to adding one additional optical cycle to the measured pulse duration). The sensitivity trends downwards as the resonant wavelength of the nanotriangles increases, that is, as the overlap of the plasmon resonance with the source spectrum (1–1.4 μm wavelength) increases. This trend is expected: when the resonance overlaps with the source spectrum, its filtering effects are the strongest, and Fnp(t, φ) is broadened relative to the incident field. Overall, from Fig. 3c, we see that the quasi-static tunnelling model gives reasonable predictions for the experimentally recorded sensitivity despite neglecting electron re-scattering effects, non-adiabatic emission, and detailed structure in the temporal and spatial profiles of the enhanced field.
As a last remark, we consider the application of our devices as CEP-sensitive photodetectors. The idea of using strong-field photoemission for CEP detection dates back two decades33, and recently, researchers have demonstrated chip-scale CEP detectors leveraging related physics34. To stabilize the fCEO of a laser oscillator, a SNR of ∼30 dB (RBW > 30 kHz) is typically required. Although falling short of this mark, our SNR could be dramatically improved by using a stereo collector arrangement. Currently, our detection electronics are limited by a large offset current. Arranging collector electrodes in a stereo, or balanced, configuration, for example, placing oppositely facing nanotriangle emitters on either side of a gap, we could eliminate this offset and significantly boost the SNR. Such detectors might allow direct fCEO stabilization and provide information about the absolute phase of the incident laser pulses.
Data availability.
The data that support the plots within this paper and other findings of this study are available from the corresponding author on request.
References
Corkum, P. B. Plasma perspective on strong-field multiphoton ionization. Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 1994–1997 (1993).
Krausz, F. & Ivanov, M. Attosecond physics. Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 163–234 (2009).
Bormann, R., Gulde, M., Weismann, A., Yalunin, S. V. & Ropers, C. Tip-enhanced strong-field photoemission. Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 147601 (2010).
Schenk, M., Krüger, M. & Hommelhoff, P. Strong-field above-threshold photoemission from sharp metal tips. Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 257601 (2010).
Krüger, M., Schenk, M. & Hommelhoff, P. Attosecond control of electrons emitted from a nanoscale metal tip. Nature 475, 78–81 (2011).
Yalunin, S. V., Gulde, M. & Ropers, C. Strong-field photoemission from surfaces: theoretical approaches. Phys. Rev. B 84, 195426 (2011).
Herink, G., Solli, D. R., Gulde, M. & Ropers, C. Field-driven photoemission from nanostructures quenches the quiver motion. Nature 483, 190–193 (2012).
Krüger, M., Schenk, M., Förster, M. & Hommelhoff, P. Attosecond physics in photoemission from a metal nanotip. J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 45, 074006 (2012).
Schertz, F., Schmelzeisen, M., Kreiter, M., Elmers, H.-J. & Schönhense, G. Field emission of electrons generated by the near field of strongly coupled plasmons. Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 237602 (2012).
Keathley, P. D. et al. Strong-field photoemission from silicon field emitter arrays. Ann. Phys. 525, 144–150 (2013).
Park, D. J. et al. Strong field acceleration and steering of ultrafast electron pulses from a sharp metallic nanotip. Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 244803 (2012).
Dombi, P. et al. Ultrafast strong-field photoemission from plasmonic nanoparticles. Nano Lett. 13, 674–678 (2013).
Nagel, P. M. et al. Surface plasmon assisted electron acceleration in photoemission from gold nanopillars. Chem. Phys. 414, 106–111 (2013).
Piglosiewicz, B. et al. Carrier-envelope phase effects on the strong-field photoemission of electrons from metallic nanostructures. Nat. Photon. 8, 37–42 (2014).
Swanwick, M. E. et al. Nanostructured ultrafast silicon-tip optical field-emitter arrays. Nano Lett. 14, 5035–5043 (2014).
Hobbs, R. G. et al. High-density Au nanorod optical field-emitter arrays. Nanotechnology 25, 465304 (2014).
Hobbs, R. G. et al. High-yield, ultrafast, surface plasmon-enhanced, Au nanorod optical field electron emitter arrays. ACS Nano 8, 11474–11482 (2014).
Kusa, F., Echternkamp, K. E., Herink, G., Ropers, C. & Ashihara, S. Optical field emission from resonant gold nanorods driven by femtosecond mid-infrared pulses. AIP Advances 5, 077138 (2015).
Keldysh, L. V. Ionization in the field of a strong electromagnetic wave. Sov. Phys. JETP 20, 1307–1314 (1965).
Büttiker, M. & Landauer, R. Traversal time for tunneling. Phys. Rev. Lett. 49, 1739–1742 (1982).
Martin, Y. C., Hamann, H. F. & Wickramasinghe, H. K. Strength of the electric field in apertureless near-field optical microscopy. J. Appl. Phys. 89, 5774–5778 (2001).
Arbouet, A., Houdellier, F., Marty, R. & Girard, C. Interaction of an ultrashort optical pulse with a metallic nanotip: a Green dyadic approach. J. Appl. Phys. 112, 053103 (2012).
Giannini, V., Fernández-Domínguez, A. I., Heck, S. C. & Maier, S. A. Plasmonic nanoantennas: fundamentals and their use in controlling the radiative properties of nanoemitters. Chem. Rev. 111, 3888–3912 (2011).
Biagioni, P., Huang, J.-S. & Hecht, B. Nanoantennas for visible and infrared radiation. Rep. Prog. Phys. 75, 024402 (2012).
Wong, T. K. S. & Ingram, S. G. Observational of Fowler–Nordheim tunnelling at atmospheric pressure using Au/Ti lateral tunnel diodes. J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 26, 979–985 (1993).
Driskill-Smith, A. A. G., Hasko, D. G. & Ahmed, H. Nanoscale field emission structures for ultra-low voltage operation at atmospheric pressure. Appl. Phys. Lett. 71, 3159–3161 (1997).
Brimley, S., Miller, M. S. & Hagmann, M. J. Field emission in air and space-charge-limited currents from iridium–iridium oxide tips with gaps below 100 nm. J. Appl. Phys. 109, 094510 (2011).
Han, J.-W., Oh, J. S. & Meyyappan, M. Vacuum nanoelectronics: back to the future?—Gate-insulated nanoscale vacuum channel transistor. Appl. Phys. Lett. 100, 213505 (2012).
Dogariu, A., Shneider, M. N. & Miles, R. B. Versatile radar measurement of the electron loss rate in air. Appl. Phys. Lett. 103, 224102 (2013).
Murphy, E. L. & Good, R. H. Jr Thermionic emission, field emission, and the transition region. Phys. Rev. 102, 1464–1473 (1956).
Plech, A., Kotaidis, V., Lorenc, M. & Boneberg, J. Femtosecond laser near-field ablation from gold nanoparticles. Nat. Phys. 2, 44–47 (2006).
Lamprecht, B., Krenn, J. R., Leitner, A. & Aussenegg, F. R. Resonant and off-resonant light-driven plasmons in metal nanoparticles studied by femtosecond-resolution third-harmonic generation. Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 4421–4424 (1999).
Xu, L. et al. Route to phase control of ultrashort light pulses. Opt. Lett. 21, 2008–2010 (1996).
Paasch-Colberg, T. et al. Solid-state light-phase detector. Nat. Photon. 8, 214–218 (2014).
Acknowledgements
We thank O. D. Mücke for helpful comments and J. Daley for assistance in device fabrication. This work was supported by the United States Air Force Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR) through grant FA9550-12-1-0499, the Center for Free-Electron Laser Science at DESY, and The Hamburg Center for Ultrafast Imaging: Structure, Dynamics and Control of Matter at the Atomic Scale, an excellence cluster of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. W.P.P. acknowledges earlier support from an NSF graduate research fellowship; P.D.K. acknowledges support from an NDSEG graduate fellowship; and R.G.H. acknowledges support for the device fabrication work from the Center for Excitonics, an Energy Frontier Research Center funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Basic Energy Sciences under award number DE-SC0001088. We thank A. Chu and J. Wanapun for additional support.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
W.P.P. and F.X.K. conceived of the experimental concept. W.P.P. and R.G.H. fabricated the devices. W.P.P. constructed the laser source and experimental apparatus and carried out the measurements. W.P.P. developed the model, and W.P.P., R.G.H., P.D.K., K.K.B. and F.X.K. interpreted the results and composed the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing financial interests.
Supplementary information
Supplementary information
Supplementary information (PDF 2013 kb)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Putnam, W., Hobbs, R., Keathley, P. et al. Optical-field-controlled photoemission from plasmonic nanoparticles. Nature Phys 13, 335–339 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/nphys3978
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nphys3978
This article is cited by
-
Sub-cycle multidimensional spectroscopy of strongly correlated materials
Nature Photonics (2024)
-
Real-time tracking of coherent oscillations of electrons in a nanodevice by photo-assisted tunnelling
Nature Communications (2024)
-
Controlling Plasmonic Field Enhancement via the Interference of Orthogonal Plasmonic Modes
Plasmonics (2024)
-
Subcycle surface electron emission driven by strong-field terahertz waveforms
Nature Communications (2023)
-
Carrier-envelope phase on-chip scanner and control of laser beams
Nature Communications (2023)