Chiral Seeded Growth of Gold Nanorods Into Fourfold Twisted Nanoparticles with Plasmonic Optical Activity

Adv. Mater. 2023, 35, 2208299 DOI: 10.1002/adma.202208299 After publication of the original article, an inconsistency was identified by the authors, regarding the use of definitions of handedness and circularly polarized light (CPL), employed for electromagnetic modeling and circular dichroism (CD) measurements. Such an inconsistency requires correction of some figures and one of Supporting Movies. Circular polarization of light can be referred to as right-handed or left-handed. However, historically, two opposing conventions exist for such definitions.[1] The convention used by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) defines handedness from the point of view of the source (also called “source view”). This definition involves pointing one's thumb away from the source, parallel to wave propagation, and then aligning finger curling with the temporal rotation of the field at a space point. Conversely, the convention used by the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) defines handedness from the point of view of the receiver (also called as “detector's view”). This process involves directing the thumb towards the source and against wave propagation, with finger-curls matching the field's spatial rotation. In the published version of the article, the IUPAC convention was used for experimental measurements, whereas the IEEE convention was used in electromagnetic simulations and therefore the signs of simulated and experimental CD spectra (e.g., Figure 4) should be opposite. On the other hand, when analyzing the consequence of this mistake, it was found that the input models used for the calculation of CD spectra and electric field enhancement maps in the same Figure 4 had opposite geometrical handedness to the electron tomography image in Figure 3, which was obtained from the same sample/nanoparticle. Upon careful examination of potential sources of this anomaly, transformation of tomography reconstruction data into MATLAB-friendly files was found to have resulted in an inversion of the image, as (x,y,z) → (x,−y,z), and thus reversal of chirality. As a result, the calculation employed the IEEE convention (opposite to experimental IUPAC convention) on the enantiomer corresponding to the real particle, so that the experimental and simulated spectra find excellent agreement in both spectral shape and sign. Corrected figures that preserve the geometrical handedness of the experimental nanoparticles in the simulation models, while using the IUPAC convention of CPL handedness, are hereby provided: Figure 4, Figure S10, the table of contents (TOC) image, and Movie S2, Supporting Information are corrected. Movie S2 is replaced in the Supporting Information published with the article. The other corrected figures are found below. The Supporting Information text file is also replaced, to include the revised Figure S10. It should be noted that these corrections do not alter any of the conclusions in the published manuscript. The authors apologize for any inconvenience this might have caused. TOC image. Additionally, a mistake was also identified in Figure 7 where an erroneous correspondence was proposed for the enantiomers of cysteine and the resulting twisted chiral Au nanorods. It should be noted that cysteine is a special case among amino acids, for which L-Cys corresponds to R-Cys (and D-Cys to S-Cys). The correct version is provided below.