## 3 Results and Discussion
[56] deposited Ag NPs on monolayer MoS\({}_{2}\) phototransistor and obtained a very high R value and slow response time of 18.7 s, showing other strategy to induce photoconductive effect. The improvement was attributed to the localized surface plasmon resonance of Ag NPs with the increase of light absorption and carrier injection from Ag NPs to MoS\({}_{2}\) under illumination. Thus, we believe that, in our device, the surface plasmon resonance in the Ag NPs electrode is light excited and generates hot electrons via nonradiative decay plasmonic resonance, since the Ag NPs show a plasmonic resonance signal in the near-infrared region, as shown in Figure S3 in the supplementary file. The energy of the hot electrons may be greater than the small Schottky barrier between Ag NPs and MoS\({}_{2}\), and it can be injected into the MoS\({}_{2}\) multilayer generating a photocurrent [57; 58; 59]. Additionally, the effect of the MoS\({}_{2}\) phases (1T and 2H) on the electrical performances of hybrid PDs was compared by [PERSON] et al. [60] and results indicated that the metallic 1T phase exhibited a high \(R\) value. However, these devices showed low on/off ratios (<2) and slow response times (0.75 s) due to their metallic conducting nature similar to that of the graphene. On the other hand, the semiconducting 2H phase demonstrated lower \(R\) value and fast response time (<25 ms). Thus, we believe that our PDs built with MoS\({}_{2}\) synthesized at 200 \({}^{\circ}\)C for 120 min presented higher metallic phases than other devices built with materials synthesized for other temperatures and times, and that the hot electrons from Ag NPs could be contributing to the photocurrent improvement. Therefore, the contact between Ag NPs and the MoS\({}_{2}\) multilayer must convert from a small Schottky junction to an Ohmic-like contact when the device is illuminated, as observed in Au nanorods/Perovskite photoconductor [56; 61]. The device works as a light illuminated photoconductor, explaining the slow response time and high R compared to a similar device based on a MoS\({}_{2}\) synthesized by the conventional hydrothermal method [28; 55]. Figure 7 shows the dependence of the photocurrent (\(I_{on}\)-\(I_{off}\)) as a function of the light power on the photosensor synthesized at 200 \({}^{\circ}\)C for 120 min. Figure 7a shows a decrease in photocurrent behavior with decreasing light power intensity. This is an expected result, since with the decrease in the incident light power, there is a decrease in the number of photons reaching the sensor and, consequently, there is a decrease in the number of carriers promoted from the valence band to the conducting band of the MoS\({}_{2}\) nanostructures. With the decrease in the number of carriers in the conduction band, there is a decrease in the generated photocurrent (\(I_{\text{on}}\)-\(I_{\text{off}}\)). An analysis of the relationship between the generated photocurrent and the incident light power on the photodetector is showed in the inset of Figure 7a, where a fitting with power law is used (\(I=AP^{\theta}\)). Here \(A\) is a proportionality constant and \(\theta\) is the exponent that determines the relationship between the photogenerated current and the light source power. From the adjustment, a linear relationship is observed (\(\theta=1.1\pm 0.1\)). Similar behavior of the photocurrent with light intensity was observed for the single-layer MoS\({}_{2}\) phototransitor [54]. Figure 7b shows the relationship between responsivity/detectivity and the light source power used. Note that the highest responsivity and detectivity values (290 mA/W and 1.8 \(\times\) 10\({}^{9}\) Jones) occur for the power of 2 mW. In the range of 6 to 2 mW, the responsivity and detectivity values increase rapidly with decreasing power (these results indicate that for lower radiation intensity, in the \(\upmu\)W range, the photodetector can present very high responsivity values--these results are not showed here).