Adsorption behavior of Lander molecules on Cu(110) studied by scanning tunneling microscopy

Journal of Chemical Physics

Volumn 117, Issue 13, 2002, Pages 6259-6265

  Schunack, M ^a   Rosei, F ^a   Naitoh, Y ^a   Jiang, P ^b   Gourdon, A ^b   Laegsgaard E ^a   Stensgaard, I ^a   Joachim, C ^b   Besenbacher, F ^a  

^a AARHUS UNIVERSITY   (Denmark)

^b CEMES CNRS   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADSORPTION; ANNEALING; CALCULATIONS; CONFORMATIONS; COPPER; LOW TEMPERATURE EFFECTS; NANOSTRUCTURED MATERIALS; ORGANIC COMPOUNDS; QUANTUM THEORY; SCANNING TUNNELING MICROSCOPY; SURFACE PROPERTIES;

ADSORPTION CONFORMATION; ELASTIC SCATTERING QUANTUM CHEMISTRY; FLAT SURFACE TERRACES; LANDER MOLECULES;

MOLECULAR DYNAMICS;

EID: 0036806472     PISSN: 00219606     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1063/1.1498475     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. J. K. Gimzewski, S. Modesti, and R. R. Schlittler, Phys. Rev. Lett. 72, 1036 (1994).
2. T. A. Jung, R. R. Schlittler, J. K. Gimzewski, H. Tang, and C. Joachim, Science 271, 181 (1996).
3. J. K. Gimzewski, C. Joachim, R. R. Schlittler, V. Langlais, H. Tang, and I. Johannsen, Science 281, 531 (1998).
4. M. Böhringer, K. Morgenstern, W.-D. Schneider, M. Wühn, Ch. Wöll, and R. Berndt, Surf. Sci. 444, 199 (2000).
5. J. V. Barth, J. Weckesser, C. Cai, P. Günther, L. Bürgi, O. Jeandupeux, and K. Kern, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl. 39, 1230 (2000).
6. S. Datta, W. Tian, S. Hong, R. Reifenberger, J. I. Henderson, and C. P. Kubiak, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 2530 (1997).
7. C. Joachim, J. K. Gimzewski, and A. Aviram, Nature (London) 408, 541 (2000).
8. Z. J. Donhauser, B. A. Mantooth, K. F. Kelly et al. Science 292, 2303 (2001).
9. X. D. Cui, A. Primak, X. Zarate et al. Science 294, 571 (2001).
10. T. Yokoyama, S. Yokoyama, T. Kamikado, Y. Okuno, and S. Mashiko, Nature (London) 413, 619 (2001).
11. A. R. Pease, J. O. Jeppesen, J. F. Stoddart, Y. Luo, C. P. Collier, and J. R. Heath, Acc. Chem. Res. 34, 433 (2001).
12. M. Schunack, L. Petersen, A. Kühnle, E. Lægsgaard, I. Stensgaard, I. Johannsen, and F. Besenbacher, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 456 (2001).
13. M. Schunack, E. Lægsgaard, I. Stensgaard, I. Johannsen, and F. Besenbacher, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl. 40, 2623 (2001).
14. J. Weckesser, C. Cepek, R. Fasel, J. V. Barth, F. Baumberger, T. Greber, and K. Kern, J. Chem. Phys. 115, 9001 (2001).
15. T. A. Jung, R. R. Schlittler, and J. K. Gimzewski, Nature (London) 386, 696 (1997).
16. F. Moresco, G. Meyer, K.-H. Rieder, H. Tang, A. Gourdon, and C. Joachim, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 672 (2001).
17. T. Zambelli, H. Tang, J. Lagoute, S. Gauthier, A. Gourdon, and C. Joachim, Chem. Phys. Lett. 348, 1 (2001).
18. V. J. Langlais, R. R. Schlittler, H. Tang, A. Gourdon, C. Joachim, and J. K. Gimzewski, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 2809 (1999).
19. P. Sautet and C. Joachim, Phys. Rev. B 38, 12238 (1988).
20. P. Sautet and C. Joachim, Chem. Phys. Lett. 185, 23 (1991).
21. F. Besenbacher, Rep. Prog. Phys. 59, 1737 (1996).
22. E. Lægsgaard, L. Österlund, P. Thostrup, P. B. Rasmussen, I. Stensgaard, and F. Besenbacher, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 72, 3537 (2001).
23. Similar shapes of the Lander molecules were observed on Cu(001) (Ref. 33).
24. P. Sautet and M.-L. Bocquet, Phys. Rev. B 53, 4910 (1996).
25. M. Schunack, T. R. Linderoth, F. Rosei, E. Lægsgaard, I. Stensgaard, and F. Besenbacher, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 156102 (2002).
26. F. Rosei, M. Schunack, P. Jiang, A. Gourdon, E. Lægsgaard, I. Stensgaard, C. Joachim, and F. Besenbacher, Science 296, 328 (2002).
27. O. B. Christensen and K. B. Jacobsen, Phys. Rev. B 45, 6893 (1992).
28. J. K. Nørskov, K. W. Jacobsen, P. Stoltze, and L. B. Hansen, Surf. Sci. 283, 277 (1993).
29. eV for the effective NN three-body interaction for Cu (Ref. 27).
30. For the nanostructure at the step it is only the build-up of the first row (1-7) which costs energy (0.04 eV per atom mainly due to NNN changes), while the second row basically does not lead to energy changes compared to the kink-site adsorption site.
31. This implies that moving kink atoms (κ) to the positions (1) and (8) requires a large formation energy of 0.28 and 0.24 eV, respectively, while the other atoms (2-7) and (9-14) encounter the same energetic situation as the equivalent atoms in the nanostructure at steps (2-7) and (9-14).
32. It is also more likely to grow a nanostructure at a step, since the supply of Cu atoms is much larger than on a terrace, where only diffusing adatoms are available.
33. J. Kuntze and R. Berndt (private communication).