Polymers, Plasmons, and Patterns: Mechanism of Plasmon-Induced Hydrosilylation on Silicon
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Directed assembly for nanopatterning on semiconductor surfaces is of interest as a cost-effective approach for lithography on silicon, which is complementary to photolithography. In this work, self-assembly of block copolymers is used to produce nanoscale hexagonal arrays of gold hemispheroids, which are then incorporated into an optically transparent, flexible PDMS stamp. These “plasmonic stamps” can then be used to drive hydrosilylation of alkenes and alkynes on hydride-terminated silicon surfaces upon illumination with low-intensity green light [which corresponds with the absorption of the localized surface plasmon resonance (LSPR) of the gold nanostructures]. The resulting hexagonal arrays of nanoscale alkyl or alkenyl patches mirror the spacing of gold nanoparticles in the parent plasmonic stamp. Close examination of the hydrosilylated patches reveals that they are not continuous across the 20–30 nm diameter patches but instead display an annular motif, which closely resembles the plasmonic electric field (E-field) distribution of the gold hemispheroids embedded within the stamp. The localized surface plasmon appears to drive the hydrosilylation reaction on the silicon surface via formation of electron–hole pairs within the silicon, or injection of hot holes. The yield of hydrosilylation is, however, strongly influenced by the doping of the silicon, and the distance between the plasmonic stamp and the silicon surface. A more nuanced mechanism is thus proposed, involving band bending at the metal–insulator–semiconductor junction, where plasmonically injected/generated holes are swept toward the surface. The accumulation of holes at the silicon surface is the key element of the mechanism, as this step is followed by nucleophilic attack of the alkene or alkyne, to produce the silicon–carbon bond.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".