Scanning force microscopy studies on molecular packing and friction anisotropy in thin films of tetranitrotetrapropoxycalix[4]arene

Langmuir

Volumn 14, Issue 10, 1998, Pages 2801-2809

  Schönherr, Holger ^a,b   Kenis, Paul J A ^a,c   Engbersen, Johan F J ^a,c   Harkema, Sybolt ^a,d   Hulst, Ron ^a,e   Reinhoudt, David N ^a,c   Vancso, G Julius ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TWENTE   (Netherlands)

^b Dept Poly Mat Sci and Technol ^*  (Netherlands)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TWENTE   (Netherlands)

^d Chemical Physics Laboratory

^e Laboratory of Chemical Analysis

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANISOTROPY; CRYSTAL ORIENTATION; CRYSTAL SYMMETRY; FRICTION; LATTICE CONSTANTS; MOLECULAR CRYSTALS; MOLECULAR STRUCTURE; MORPHOLOGY; NITROGEN COMPOUNDS; OPTICAL PROPERTIES; PHASE TRANSITIONS; SINGLE CRYSTALS;

TETRANITROTETRAPROPOXYCALIXARENE;

THIN FILMS;

EID: 0032070748     PISSN: 07437463     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1021/la971198c     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. For a recent review on calix[4]arenes see: Böhmer, V. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. Engl. 1995, 34, 713.
2. (a)Cobben, P. L. H. M.; Egberink, R. J. M.; Borner, J. G.; Bergveld, P.; Reinhoudt, D. N. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1992, 114, 10573.
3. (b) Lugtenberg, R. J. W.; Antonisse, M. M. G.; Egberink, R. J. M.; Engbersen, J. F. J.; Reinhoudt, D. N. J. Chem. Soc., Perkin Trans. 2 1996, 1937.
4. (c) Kimura, K.; Tsujimura, Y.; Yokoyama, M. Pure Appl. Chem. 1995, 67, 1085.
5. Linnane, P.; James, T. D.; Shinkai, S. J. Chem. Soc., Chem. Commun. 1995, 1997.
6. (a) Timmerman, P.; Nierop, K. G. A.; Brinks, E. A.; Verboom, W.; van Veggel, F. C. J. M.; van Hoorn, W. P.; Reinhoudt, D. N. Chem. Eur. J. 1995, 1, 124.
7. (b) Timmerman, P.; Verboom, W.; van Veggel, F. C. J. M.; van Duynhoven; J. P. M.; Reinhoudt, D. N. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. Engl. 1994, 33, 2345.
8. (a) Kelderman, E.; Heesink, G. J. T.; Derhaeg, L.; Verbiest, T.; Klaase, P. T. A.; Verboom, W.; Engbersen, J. F. J.; van Hulst, N. F.; Persoons, A.; Reinhoudt, D. N. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. Engl. 1992, 31, 1074.
9. (b) Kelderman, E.; Derhaeg, L.; Heesink, G. J. T.; Verboom, W.; Engbersen, J. F. J.; van Hulst, N. F.; Clays, K.; Persoons, A.; Reinhoudt, D. N. Adv. Mater. 1993, 5, 925.
10. (c) Kenis, P. J. A.; Noordman, O. F. J.; van Hulst, N. F.; Engbersen, J. F. J.; Reinhoudt, D. N.; Hams, B. H. M.; van der Vorst, C. P. J. M. Chem. Mater. 1997, 9, 596.
11. (a) Noordman, O. F. J.; van Hulst, N. F.; Böiger, B. J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 1995, 12, 2398.
12. (b) Kenis, P. J. A.; Noordman, O. F. J.; Engbersen, J. F. J.; van Hulst, N. F.; Reinhoudt, D. N. Polym. Mater. Sci. Eng. 1996 75, 317.
13. Kenis, P. J. A.; Noordman, O. F. J.; Schönherr, H.; Kerver, E. G.; Snellink-Ruël, B. H. M.; van Hummel, H. J.; Harkema, S.; van der Vorst, C. P. J. M.; Hare, J.; Picken, S.; Engbersen, J. F. J.; Vancso, G. J.; van Hulst, N. F.; Reinhoudt, D. N. Chem. Eur. J., in press.
14. For a recent review see: Magonov, S. N.; Whangbo, M. H. Surface Analysis with STM and AFM; VCH: Weinheim, 1996.
15. Schönherr, H.; Vancso, G. J.; Huisman, B.-H.; van Veggel, F. C. J. M.; Reinhoudt, D. N. Langmuir 1997, 13, 1567.
16. Chi, L.-F.; Anders, M.; Fuchs, H.; Johnston, R. R.; Ringsdorf, H. Science 1993, 259, 213.
17. Last, J. A.; Ward, M. D. Adv. Mater. 1996, 8, 730.
18. Mate, C. M.; McCelland, G. M.; Erlandsson, R.; Chiang, S. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1987, 59, 1942.
19. Overney, R. M.; Takano, H.; Fujihira, M.; Paulus, W.; Ringsdorf, H. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1994, 72, 3546.
20. (a) Nisman, R.; Smith, P.; Vancso, G. J. Langmuir 1994, 10, 1667.
21. (b) Smith, P. F.; Nisman, R.; Ng, C.; Vancso, G. J. Polym. Bull. 1994, 33, 459.
22. Vancso, G. J.; Förster, S.; Leist, H. Macromolecules 1996, 29, 2158.
23. Schönherr, H.; Vancso, G. J. Macromolecules 1997, 30, 6391.
24. Schönherr, H.; Vancso, G. J. Polym. Prepr., in press.
25. Verboom, W.; Durie, A.; Egberink, R. J. M.; Asfari, Z.; Reinhoudt, D. N. J. Org. Chem. 1992, 57, 1313.
26. #2 Molecular Modeling Software for Materials Research from BIOSYM/Molecular Simulations Inc. San Diego, CA, and Cambridge, U.K.
27. Schönherr, H.; Vancso, G. J. Polym. Prepr. 1996, 37, 612.
28. The phase transition was absent after storage of the sample for 2 months, which additionally proves its irreversibility. In accordance with this is the observation of the same phase transition in DSC of samples of unheated films, whereas no phase transition is observed for annealed films (150 °C). These samples are prepared by scratching of the material from the glass substrate with a scalpel knife.
29. The formation of a different crystal structure is evident from the dramatic change of the reflections upon passing through 140 °C. However, in the powder X-ray diffraction spectrum, the number of diffractions was too small to determine the unit cell of the crystalline phase obtained after annealing.
30. Unfortunately, the films were too thin to solve the structure by a single-crystal crystallography. Furthermore, film preparation via the melt is not possible because of decomposition above the melting point (310 °C).
31. The effect of the topography can be seen in domain I (Figure 4a). This can be observed in general when surfaces with edges are imaged.
32. Tamayo, J.; Garcia, R. Langmuir 1996, 12, 4430.
33. (a) Weisenhorn, A. L.; Hansma, P. K.; Albrecht, T. R.; Quate, C. F. Appl. Phys. Lett. 1989, 54, 2651.
34. (b) Weisenhorn, A. L.; Maivald, P.; Butt, H.-J.; Hansma, P. K. Phys. Rev. B 1992, 45, 11226.
35. For adhesion measurements with silicon nitride tips see: Berger, C. E. H.; van der Werf, K. O.; Kooyman, R. P. H.; de Grooth, B. G.; Greve, J. Langmuir 1995, 11, 4188.
36. (a) Frisbie, D.; Rozsnyai, L. F.; Noy, A.; Wrighton, M. S.; Lieber, C. M. Science 1994, 265, 2071.
37. (b) Noy, A.; Frisbie, D.; Rozsnyai, L. F.; Wrighton, M. S.; Lieber, C. M. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1995, 117, 7943.
38. (c) Vezenov, D. V.; Noy, A.; Rozsnyai, L. F.; Lieber, C. M. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1997, 119, 2006.
39. (a) Thomas, R. C.; Tangyunyong, P.; Michalske, T. A.; Crooks, R. M. J. Phys. Chem. 1994, 98, 4493.
40. (b) Akari, S.; Horn, D.; Keller, H.; Schrepp, W. Adv. Mater. 1995, 7, 549.
41. (c) Green, J.-B. D.; McDermott, M. T.; Porter, M. D.; Siperko, L. M. J. Phys. Chem. 1995, 99, 10960.
42. (d) Sinniah, S. K.; Steel, A. B.; Miller, C. J.; Reutt-Robey, J. E. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1996, 118, 8925.
43. Type I domains expose both nitro and propoxy groups (Figures 10 and 11), while optical microscopy suggests that the molecules in type II domains are lying on their sides. For type II domains in different orientations the observed complete extinction or transparency suggests a rotation perpendicular to the dipole axis. For the AFM force measurements the contact area between the tip and the sample surface has been assumed to be the same for both types of domains.
44. During cooling, the crystallized material may suffer from internal stress due to differences in the thermal expansion coefficient of the glass substrate and the annealed film of 1, which leads to periodic cracks whose directions have a defined relation with the crystal lattice.
45. Although more domains of type Ia, Ib, and II are visible, only three domains at the upper side are marked since a comparison of relative friction for domains that are not next to each other is unreliable because of the SFM plane-fitting procedure.
46. Due to difficulties in measuring the friction force quantitatively in line scans (similar as in (a) Liu, Y.; Wu, T.; Evans, D. F. Langmuir 1994, 10, 2241. (b) Xiao, X.; Hu, J.; Charych, D. H.; Salmeron, M. Langmuir 1996, 12, 235), which were caused by the sample topology, an alternative approach was used.
47. Due to difficulties in measuring the friction force quantitatively in line scans (similar as in (a) Liu, Y.; Wu, T.; Evans, D. F. Langmuir 1994, 10, 2241. (b) Xiao, X.; Hu, J.; Charych, D. H.; Salmeron, M. Langmuir 1996, 12, 235), which were caused by the sample topology, an alternative approach was used.
48. The inversion of friction contrast is indeed reversible. Damage to the sample surface was only observed once for a very sharp tip. For this probe, scanning at normal forces as low as ca. 50 nN led to a destruction of the sample surface.
49. (a) Snétivy, D.; Vancso, G. J.; Rutledge, G. C. Macromolecules 1992, 25, 7037.
50. (b) Glomm, B. H.; Grob, M. C.; Neuenschwander, P.; Suter, U. W.; Snétivy, D.; Vancso, G. J. Polym. Commun. 1994, 35, 878.
51. (c) Rutledge, G. C.; Snétivy, D.; Vancso. G. J. Studies of high performance fibers by atomic force microscopy and molecular simulation. In Atomic Force Microscopy/Scanning Tunneling Microscopy; Cohen, S. H., et al., Eds.; Plenum Press: New York, 1994; p 251.
52. The crystal structure is described in ref 7. Crystals were grown from chloroform/methanol in order to avoid inclusion of dichloromethane as observed earlier by Kelderman et al.: Monoclinic, C2/c, a = 14.83 Å, b = 16.64 Å, c = 17.48 Å. (Kelderman, E.; Derhaeg, L.; Verboom, W.; Engbersen, J. F. J.; Harkema, S.; Persoons, A.; Reinhoudt, D. N. Supramol. Chem. 1993, 2, 183.) These lattice distances differ considerably from the lattice distances found by SFM. This can be attributed to the presence of one dichloromethane molecule per calix[4]arene in the unit cell of the single crystal.
53. In the determination of the hexagonal lattice constant, a difference was observed in the average lattice constant in different directions. For example: 11.5 and 11.7 ± 0.3 Å for one set of micrographs and 11.4 and 11.7 ± 0.3 Å for another set of micrographs, recorded on a different day. Since the difference between the two lattice constants is smaller than the standard deviation, we report an average value of 11.6 ± 0.3 Å, although there is an experimental indication that the structure as observed in SFM is not perfectly hexagonal, in accordance with the (Oil) facet of the single-crystal X-ray structure.
54. A second hexagonal structure in accordance with the AFM results could be a modification of the ac face (010) in which one row of molecules is translated by half a molecule in the a direction (1/4a). However, this option is less probable due to the resulting steric hindrance of the neighboring calix[4]arene molecules in the b direction.
55. The fact that the (010) facet is formed epitaxially on top of the (011) facet can be explained by the similarity of the lattice distances as found by SFM [20.0 Å × 23.6 Å (010) and 20.3 Å × 23.4 Å (011)] and single-crystal X-ray diffraction [20.6 Å × 23.9 Å (010) and 19.4 Å × 23.9 Å (011)].
56. Although in the (011) facet the molecules are organized in a pseudohexagonal lattice, they are all oriented with the molecular dipole axis perpendicular to the a axis (similar to the (010) facet). Crystallographically, both facets possess rectangular symmetry, which results in the observed friction anisotropy.