Structural investigation of monolayers prepared by deposition of (CH3S)2 on the (111) face of single-crystal gold

Journal of Physical Chemistry B

Volumn 106, Issue 45, 2002, Pages 11771-11777

  Danişman, Mehmet F ^a   Casalis, Loredana ^a,b   Bracco, Gianangelo ^a,c   Scoles, Giacinto ^a  

^a PRINCETON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b SINCROTRONE TRIESTE   (Italy)

^c UNIVERSITY OF GENOA   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADSORPTION; ATOMIC FORCE MICROSCOPY; CHEMISORPTION; GOLD; HYDROCARBONS; LOW ENERGY ELECTRON DIFFRACTION; SCANNING TUNNELING MICROSCOPY; SELF ASSEMBLY; SINGLE CRYSTALS; SUPERLATTICES; X RAY DIFFRACTION ANALYSIS;

DISSOCIATIVE ADSORPTION;

MONOLAYERS;

EID: 0037079158     PISSN: 10895647     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1021/jp0257911     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Ulman, A. Chem. Rev. 1996, 96, 1533.
2. Schreiber, F. Prog. Surf. Sci. 2000, 65, 151.
3. Scherer, J.; Vogt, M.R.; Magnussen, O.M.; Behm, R.J. Langmuir 1997, 13, 7045.
4. Schon, J.H.; Meng, H.; Bao, Z. Nature 2001, 413, 713.
5. Ulman, A. An Introduction to Ultrathin Organic Films; Academic Press: New York, 1991.
6. Swallen, J.D.; Allara, D.L.; Andrade, J.D.; Chandross, E.A.; Garoff, S.; Israelachvili, J.; McCarthy, T.J.; Murray, R.; Pease, R.F.; Rabolt, J.F.; Wynne, K.J.; Yu, H. Langmuir 1987, 3, 932.
7. Alves, C.A.; Smith, E.L.; Porter, M.D. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1992, 114, 1222.
8. Widrig, C.A.; Alves, C.A.; Porter, M.D. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1991, 113, 2805.
9. Dubois, L.H.; Zegarski, B.R.; Nuzzo, R.G. J. Chem. Phys. 1993, 98, 678.
10. Fenter, P.; Eberhardt, A.; Eisenberger, P. Science 1994, 266, 1216.
11. Fenter, P.; Eberhardt, A.; Liang, K.S.; Eisenberger, P. J. Chem. Phys 1997, 106, 1600.
12. Camillone III, N.; Leung, T.Y.B.; Scoles, G. Surf. Sci. 1997, 373, 333.
13. Schwartz, P.; Schreiber, F.; Eisenberger, P.; Scoles, G. Surf Sci. 1999, 423, 208.
14. Camillone III, N.; Chidsey, C.E.D.; Eisenberger, P.; Fenter, P.; Li, J.; Liang, K.S.; Liu, G.Y.; Scoles, G. J. Chem. Phys. 1993, 99, 744.
15. Poirier, G.E.; Tarlov, M. J. Langmuir 1994, 10, 2853.
16. Delamarche, E.; Michel, B.; Gerber, C.; Anselmatti, D.; Guntherodt, H.J.; Wolf, H.; Ringsdorf, H. Langmuir 1994, 10, 2869.
17. Dishner, M.H.; Hemminger, J.C.; Feher, F. J. Langmuir 1997, 13, 2318.
18. Voets, J.; Gerritsen, J.W.; Grimberge, R.F.P.; Van Kempen, H. Surf. Sci. 1998, 399, 316.
19. Yourdshahyan, Y.; Zhang, H.K.; Rappe, A.M. Phys. Rev. B 2001, 63, 081405(R).
20. Gronbeck, H.; Curioni, A.; Andreoni, W. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2000, 122, 3839.
21. Hayashi, T.; Morikawa, Y.; Nozoye, H. J. Chem. Phys. 2001, 114, 7615.
22. Vargas, M.C.; Giannozzi, P.; Selloni, A.; Scoles, G. J. Phys. Chem. B 2001, 105, 9509.
23. Nuzzo, R.G.; Zegarski, B.R.; Dubois, L.H. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1987, 109, 733.
24. Ishida, T.; Motamoto, S.; Mizutami, W.; Motomatsu, M.; Tokumato, H.; Hokhari, H.; Azehera, H.; Fujihara, M. Langmuir 1997, 13, 3262.
25. Heister, K.; Allara, D.L.; Bahnck, K.; Frey, S.; Zharnikov, M.; Grunze, M. Langmuir 1999, 15, 5440.
26. Noh, J.; Hara, M. Langmuir 2000, 16, 2045.
27. Farias, D. Autonomas University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain. Private communication, 2001.
28. Camillone, N. Ph.D. Thesis, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, 1994.
29. Schwartz, P. Ph.D. Thesis, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, 1998.
30. Poelsema, B.; Comsa, G. Scattering of Thermal Energy Atoms from Disordered Surfaces; Springer-Verlag: Berlin, 1989.
31. To calculate the decay in the specular intensity of curve 1, the second of the reported equations was employed because, in this case, the average domain size is smaller than the transfer width which is evidenced by the broad diffraction peaks shown in Figure 2. For curve 3 instead, the first equation was employed because the width of the (-2, 0) diffraction peak is equal to the instrument-limited width (∼2.2°) within the computational uncertainties. Actually, the peak widths shown in Figure 2b are broadened by the oft-azimuth peaks and/or the tails of the neighboring on-azimuth peaks, which increases the uncertainty in the fitting procedure. The relatively high width of (-4, 0) peak of structure 3 is likely to be caused by the second kind of peaks, which, because of their very low intensities, could not be included in the fitting procedure.
32. Camillone, N., III; Eisenberger, P.; Leung, T.Y.B.; Schwartz, P.; Scoles, G.; Poirier, G.E.; Tarlov, M.J. J. Chem. Phys. 1994, 101, 11031.
33. Gerlach, R.; Polanki, G.; Rubahn, H.-G. Appl. Phys. A 1997, 65, 375.
34. Redhead, P. Vacuum 1965, 12, 103.
35. Lavrich, D.J.; Wetterer, S.M.; Bernasek, S.L.; Scoles, G. J. Phys. Chem 1998, 102, 3456.
36. Wetterer, S.M.; Lavrich, D.J.; Cummings, T.; Bernasek, S.L.; Scoles, G. J. Phys. Chem. 1998, 102, 9267. The errors in this model can be as much as 8.6% for thiol molecules; the error given in the text is calculated by assuming an error of 5%.
37. Molina, L.M.; Hammer, B. Chem. Phys. Lett. 2002, 360, 264.
38. Nuzzo, R.G.; Dubois, L.H.; Allara, D.H. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1990, 112, 558.
39. We are collaborating with the group of D. Farias of the Autonomas University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain, and plan to address this problem again in a future publication.