English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Our Comment [Sivan et al., Science 2019] (as well as its longer version[Dubi, Un, & Sivan, ArXiv 2019], and the supporting theoretical studies [Dubiand Sivan, ArXiv 2018]) on recent attempts to distinguish thermal andnon-thermal ("hot carrier") contributions to plasmon-assisted photocatalysis[Zhou et al., Science 2018] initiated a re-evaluation process of previousliterature on the topic within the nano-plasmonics and chemistry communities.The Response of Zhou et al. attempts to defend the claims of the originalpaper.  In this manuscript, we show that the Response presents additional data thatfurther validates our central criticism: inaccurately measured temperatures(that are lower than the actual temperature of the catalyst) led Zhou et al. toincorrectly claim conclusive evidence of non-thermal effects. We identify flawsin the experimental setup (e.g. the use of the default settings for the thermalcamera and incorrect positioning of the thermometer) that may have led Zhou etal. to make such claims. We further show that the Response contains severalfactual errors and does not address the technical problems we identified withthe data acquisition in [Zhou et al., Science 2018]. We demonstrate that boththe Response and the original paper contain additional faults, for example, inthe power determination and in the normalization of the rate to the catalystvolume, and exhibit misconceptions regarding the thermo-optic response of metalnanostructures. The burden of proof required by the proposal of a novelphysical mechanism has simply not been met, especially when the existing datacan be modeled exquisitely by conventional theory.

Eppur si riscalda -- and yet, it (just) heats up: Further Comments on  "Quantifying hot carrier and thermal contributions in plasmonic  photocatalysis"