Effect of chain length and the nature of the monolayer on the electrical behavior of hydrophobically organized gold clusters

Journal of Physical Chemistry B

Volumn 107, Issue 49, 2003, Pages 13567-13574

  Chaki, Nirmalya Kumar ^a   Aslam, M ^a   Gopakumar, T G ^a   Sharma, Jadab ^a   Pasricha, Renu ^a   Mulla, I S ^a   Vijayamohanan, K ^a  

^a NATIONAL CHEMICAL LABORATORY   (India)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COULOMB BLOCKADE; CURRENT VOLTAGE CHARACTERISTICS; ELECTRIC PROPERTIES; ELECTRONIC PROPERTIES; GOLD; HYDROPHOBICITY; MOLECULAR STRUCTURE; MONOLAYERS; PASSIVATION; PHOTOLITHOGRAPHY; SELF ASSEMBLY; VAN DER WAALS FORCES;

CHAIN LENGTH; CHARGING ENERGY; SELF ASSEMBLED MONOLAYERS;

NANOSTRUCTURED MATERIALS;

EID: 0347516325     PISSN: 15206106     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1021/jp035032y     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. (a) Pantelides, S. T.; Reed, M. A.; Murday, J. A.; Aviram, A. Molecular Electronics, Mater. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc. 1999; Vol. 582.
2. (b) Kuzmin, L. S.; Likharev, K. K. Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 1987, 26, 1387.
3. (c) Averin, D. V.; Likharev, K. K. In Single Electron Tunneling, Grabert, H., Devoret, M. H., Eds., Plenum: New York, 1992; p 311.
4. (a) Klein, D. L.; Roth, R.; Lim, A. K. L.; Alivisatos, A. P.; McEuen, P. L. Nature 1997, 389, 699.
5. (b) Andres, R. P.; Bein, T.; Dorogi, M.; Feng, S.; Henderson, J. I.; Kubiak, C. P.; Mahoney, W.; Osifchin, R. G.; Reifenberger, R. Science 1996, 272, 1323.
6. (c) Simon, U. Adv. Mater. 1998, 10, 1487.
7. (d) Feldheim, D. L.; Keatig, C. D. Chem. Soc. Rev. 1998, 27, 1.
8. (a) Ancona, M. G.; Kruppa, W.; Rendell, R. W.; Snow, A. W.; Park, D.; Boos, J. B. Phys. Rev. B 2001, 64, 033408.
9. (b) Wang, B.; Wang, H.; Li, H.; Zheng, C.; Hou, J. G. Phys. Rev. B 2000, 63, 035403.
10. (a) Dorogi, M.; Gomez, J.; Osifchin, R.; Andres, R. P.; Reifenberger, R. Phys. Rev. B 1995, 52, 9071.
11. (b) Amman, M.; Wilkins, R.; Ben-Jacob, E.; Maker, P. D.; Jaklevic, R. C. Phys. Rev. B 1991, 43, 1146.
12. Thomas, P. J.; Kulkarni, G. U.; Rao, C. N. R. Chem. Phys. Lett. 2000, 321, 163.
13. Chiquito, A. J.; Pusep, Y. A.; Mergulhao, S.; Galzerani, J. C.; Moshegov, N. T. Phys. Rev. B 2000, 61, 5499.
14. Hanna, A. E.; Tinkham, M. Phys. Rev. B 1991, 44, 5919.
15. Medeiros-Ribeiro, G.; Ohlberg, D. A. A.; Williams, R. S.; Heath, J. R. Phys. Rev. B 1999, 59, 1633.
16. (a) Aslam, M.; Mulla, I. S.; Vijayamohanan, K. Appl. Phys. Lett. 2001, 79, 689.
17. (b) Chaki, N.; Gopakumar, T. G.; Maddanimath, T.; Aslam, M.; Vijayamohanan, K. J. Appl. Phys. 2003, 94, 3663.
18. Aslam, M.; Mulla, I. S.; Vijayamohanan, K. Langmuir 2001, 17, 7487.
19. Bandyopadhyay, K.; Sastry, M.; Paul, V.; Vijayamohanan, K. Langmuir 1997, 13, 866.
20. Ulman, A. Thin Films - Self-Assembled Monolayers of Thiols, Academic Press: San Diego, 1998; pp 121-125.
21. Rampi, M. A.; Schueller, O. J. A.; Whitesides, G. M. Appl. Phys. Lett. 1998, 72, 1781.
22. Brust, M.; Walker, M.; Bethell, D.; Shiffrin, D. J.; Whyman, R. J. Chem. Soc., Chem. Commun. 1994, 801.
23. Snow, A. W.; Wohltjen, A. Chem. Mater. 1998, 10, 947.
24. Torigoe, K.; Esumi, K. J. Phys. Chem. B 1999, 103, 2862.
25. Holmlin, R. E.; Haag, R.; Chabinyc, M. L.; Ismagilov, R. F.; Cohen, A. E.; Terfort, A.; Rampi, M. A.; Whitesides, G. M. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2001, 123, 5075.
26. Dubois, J. G. A.; Gerritsen, J. W.; Shafranjuk, S. E.; Boon, E. J. G.; Schmid, G.; van Kempen, H. Europhys. Lett. 1996, 33, 279.
27. Hostetler, M. J.; Wingate, J. E.; Zhong, C. J.; Harris, J. E.; Vachet, R. W.; Clark, M. R.; Londono, J. D.; Green, S. J.; Stokes, J. J.; Wignall, G. D.; Glish, G. L.; Porter, M. D.; Evans, N. D.; Murray, R. W. Langmuir 1998, 14, 17.
28. Landauer, R. IBM J. Res. Dev. 1957, 1, 223.
29. McConnell, W. P.; Novak, J. P.; Brousseau, L. C. III; Fuierer, R. R.; Tenent, R. C.; Feldheim, D. L. J. Phys. Chem. B 2000, 104, 8925.
30. We have calculated the size and spacing of the AuMPCs using TEM negatives under an optical microscope. Nevertheless, our size and spacing calculations from TEM images are in good agreement with the calculated values despite the difficulties to get quantitative parameters from two-dimensional micrographs. This is mainly due to its disordered three-dimensional nature, where several assumptions are involved in calculating particle size, shape aspect ratio, etc. For instance, particles are assumed to have spherical geometry instead of their energy-minimized truncated icosahedra or dodecahedra geometry.