Comparison of Electronic Transport Measurements on Organic Molecules

Advanced Materials

Volumn 15, Issue 22, 2003, Pages 1881-1890

  Salomon, Adi ^a   Cahen, David ^a   Lindsay, Stuart ^b   Tomfohr, John ^b   Engelkes, Vincent B ^c   Frisbie, C Daniel ^c  

^a WEIZMANN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE   (Israel)

^b ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ATOMIC FORCE MICROSCOPY; CARRIER CONCENTRATION; CHEMICAL BONDS; CONFORMATIONS; ELECTRIC CURRENTS; ELECTRODES; ELECTRON TUNNELING; ENERGY DISSIPATION; MOLECULES; MONOLAYERS; PARAFFINS;

ELECTRONIC TRANSPORT; ORGANIC MOLECULES;

MATERIALS SCIENCE;

EID: 0347591076     PISSN: 09359648     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/adma.200306091     Document Type: Review

References (81)

1. X. D. Cui, A. Primak, X. Zarate, J. Tomfohr, O. F. Sankey, A. L. Moore, T. A. Moore, D. Gust, G. Harris, S. M. Lindsay, Science 2001, 294, 571.
2. C. Dekker, Phys. Today 1999, 52, 22.
3. A. Dhirani, P.-H. Lin, P. Guyot-Sionnest, J. Chem. Phys. 1997, 106, 5249.
4. J. M. Beebe, V. B. Engelkes, L. L. Miller, C. D. Frisbie, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2002, 124, 11 268.
5. L. A. Bumm, J. J. Arnold, L. F. Charles, T. D. Dunbar, D. L. Allara, P. S. Weiss, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1999, 121, 8017.
6. R. E. Holmlin, R. Haag, M. L. Chabinyc, R. F. Ismagilov, A. Cohen, A. Terfort, M. A. Rampi, G. M. Whitesides, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2001, 123, 5075.
7. C. Joachim, J. Gimzewski, Chem. Phys. Lett. 1997, 265, 353.
8. J. G. Kushmerick, D. B. Holt, J. C. Yang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 2002, 89, 086 802.
9. P. L. McEuen, Phys. World 2000, 13, 31.
10. H. Park, A. K. L. Lim, A. P. Alivisatos, J. Park, P. L. McEuen, Appl. Phys. Lett. 1999, 75, 301.
11. J. Reichert, R. Ochs, D. Beckmann, H. B. Weber, M. Mayor, H. van Löhneysen. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2002, 88, 176 804.
12. Y. Selzer, A. Salomon, D. Cahen, J. Phys. Chem. B 2002, 106, 10 432.
13. K. Slowinski, R. V. Chamberlin, C. J. Miller, M. Majda, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1997, 119, 11 910.
14. K. Slowinski, H. K. Y. Fong, M. Majda, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1999, 121. 7257.
15. A. Vilan, A. Shanzer, D. Cahen, Nature 2000, 404, 166.
16. W. Y. Wang, T. Lee, M. A. Reed, Phys. Rev. B 2003, 68, 035 416.
17. We use current at low bias voltage because the lower the bias the smaller the possibilities for measurement artifacts, for extraneous effects on the results (from, e.g., series resistance effects), and for resonant tunneling.
18. 2.
19. Y. Selzer, M. A. Cabassi, D. L. Allara, personal communication, 2003.
20. S. Datta, Electronic Transport in Mesoscopic Systems, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2001.
21. C. Joachim, M. Magoga, Chem. Phys 2002, 281, 347.
22. This value was calculated for conjugated molecules. It is likely that for saturated molecules m* will be closer to 1.
23. J. G. Simmons, J. Appl. Phys. 1963, 34, 1793.
24. J. Taylor, M. Brandbyge, K. Stokobro, Phys. Rev. Lett. 2002, 89, 138 301.
25. A. Nitzan, M. Ratner, Science 2003, 300, 1384.
26. J. M. Seminario, C. E. De La Cruz, P. A. Derosa, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2001, 123, 5616.
27. J. K. Tomfohr, O. F. Sankey, Phys. Rev. B 2002, 64, 245 105.
28. Y. Selzer, A. Salomon, D. Cahen, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2002, 124, 2886.
29. Y.-L. Liu, H.-Z. Yu, ChemPhysChem 2002, 19, 799.
30. D. J. Wold, C. D. Frisbie, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2000, 122, 2970.
31. L. A. Bumm, J. J. Arnold, M. T. Cygan, T. D. Dunbar, T. P. Burgin, L. Jones, D. L. Allara, J. M. Tour, P. S. Weiss, Science 1996, 271, 1705.
32. J. G. Simmons, J. Appl. Phys. 1963, 34, 1793.
33. X. D. Cui, X. Zarate, J. Tomfohr, O. F. Sankey, A. Primak, A. L. Moore, T. A. Moore, D. Gust, G. Harris, S. M. Lindsay, Nanotechnology 2002, 13, 5.
34. X. D. Cui, A. Primak, X. Zarate, J. Tomfohr, O. F. Sankey, A. L. Moore, T. A. Moore, D. Gust, L. A. Nagahara, S. M. Lindsay, J. Phys. Chem. B 2002, 106, 8609.
35. C. D. Frisbie, unpublished.
36. B. Xu, N. J. Tao, Science 2003, 301, 1221.
37. J. G. Kushmerick, D. B. Holt, S. K. Pollack, M. A. Ratner, J. C. Yang, T. L. Schull, J. Naciri, M. H. Moore, R. Shashidar, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2002, 124, 10 654.
38. D. J. Wold, C. D. Frisbie, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2001, 123, 5549.
39. A. P. Labonte, Ph.D. Thesis, Purdue University 2002.
40. Y. Gu, B. Akhremitchev, G. C. Walker, D. H. Waldeck, J. Phys. Chem. B 1999, 103, 5220.
41. -1.
42. S. Tsury, A. Salomon, D. Cahen, unpublished.
43. M. N. Paddon-Row, M. J. Shephard, K. D. Jordan, J. Phys. Chem. 1993, 97, 1743.
44. C. Liang, M. D. Newton, J. Phys. Chem. 1993, 97, 3199.
45. Hole tunneling through organic molecules is the term commonly used to describe non-resonant tunneling via the HOMO of the molecule, whereas the term electron tunneling is used for tunneling via the LUMO.
46. If this is correct then the reason that for systems with two chemicontacts to the electrodes β indeed slowly decreases with applied voltage [33,34], would need to be ascribed to a suffer structure, and the recent results of Wang et al. [16] to the presence of a very small number of molecules in a geometrically restricted space.
47. K. Slowinski, R. V. Chamberlain II, R. Bilewicz, M. Majda, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1996, 118, 4709.
48. This finding that β does not appear to depend on the contact metal, although the barrier height could be expected to change with contact metal, suggests that charge transfer on contact positions the Fermi level approximately in the gap, as expected in the absence of strong chemical interactions [27].
49. Although different tunneling barriers result when Ag or Au contacts are used, the measured β values are the same for alkanethiol junctions, independent of the type of metal contacts. This occurs presumably because the Fermi level is well within the gap of the insulating molecule. The differences in the barrier height for tunneling are reflected in the contact resistances, rather than in the β value.
50. A.-S. Duwez, S. Di Paolo, J. Ghijsen, J. Riga, M. Deleuze, J. Delhalle, J. Phys. Chem. B 1997, 101, 884.
51. A.-S. Duwez, G. Pfister-Guillouzo, J. Delhalle, J. Riga, J. Phys. Chem. B 2000, 104, 9029.
52. D. R. Stewart, D. A. A. Ohlberg, P. A. Beck, C. N. Lau, R. S. Williams, unpublished.
53. A. Ulman, Chem. Rev. 1996, 96, 1533.
54. K. W. Hipps, Science 2001, 294, 536.
55. D. Cahen, G. Kodes, Adv. Mater. 2002, 14, 789.
56. This results in an additional potential drop, due to the difference in dielectric constant (actually, polarizability) of the molecule and that of vacuum.
57. n = 1, 3, 5, 7, 9.
58. We note that molecule-electrode interactions at the contact can be significant also in the absence of a formal chemical bond, as illustrated in the papers by Vilan et al. [59,60], There the interaction was ascribed to polarization of the spillover electron density, outside the metal electrode (cf., also Ishii et al. [61]).
59. A. Vilan, J. Ghabboun, D. Cahen, J. Phys. Chem. B 2003, 107, 6360.
60. A. Vilan, C. Pejoux, D. Cahen, Adv. Fund. Mater. 2002, 12, 795.
61. H. Ishii, K. Sugiyama, E. Ito, K. Seki, Adv. Mater. 1999, 11, 605.
62. E. A. Rhoderick, R. H. Williams, Metal-Semiconductor Contacts, 2nd ed., Clarendon, Oxford 1988.
63. 3 | Hg. Further-more there will probably be some difference in angles between the molecules and the electrodes.
64. M. A. Reed, C. Zhou, C. J. Muller, T. P. Burgin, J. M. Tour, Science 1997, 278, 252.
65. W. Tian, S. Datta, S. Hong, R. Reifenberger, J. Henderson, C. P. Kubiak, J. Chem. Phys. 1998, 109, 2847.
66. A. V. Tivanski, Y. He, H. Liu, G. C. Walker, D. H. Waldeck, unpublished.
67. C. Zhou, M. R. Deshpande, M. A. Reed, L. Jones, J. M. Tour, Appl. Phys. Lett. 1997, 71, 611.
68. D. J. Wold, R. Haag, M. A. Rampi, C. D. Frisbie, J. Phys. Chem. B 2002, 106, 2813.
69. A. M. Rawlett, T. J. Hopson, L. A. Nagahara, R. K. Tsui, G. K. Ramachandran, S. M. Lindsay, Appl. Phys. Lett. 2003, 81, 3043.
70. 9,10-Bis(20-para-mercaptophenyl)ethynyl anthracene.
71. M. Magoga, C. Joachim, Phys. Rev. B 1997, 56, 4722.
72. J. M. Seminario, A. G. Zacarias, J. M. Tour, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2000, 122, 3015.
73. H. Park, A. K. L. Lim, A. P. Alivisatos, J. Park, P. L. McEuen, Appl. Phys. Lett. 1999, 75, 301.
74. G. K. Ramachandran, J. K. Tomfohr, O. F. Sankey, J. Li, X. Zarate, A. Primak, Y. Terazano, T. A. Moore, A. L. Moore, D. Gust, L. A. Nagahara, S. M. Lindsay, J. Phys. Chem. B 2003, 107, 6162.
75. G. Leatherman, E. N. Durantini, D. Gust, T. A. Moore, A. L. Moore, S. Stone, Z. Zhou, P. Rez, Y. Z. Liu, A. M. Lindsay, J. Phys. Chem. B 1999, 103, 4006.
76. J. K. Tomfohr, O. F. Sankey, Phys. Status Solidi B 2002, 233, 59.
77. Single molecule currents, measured by break junction [78] and by CP-AFM under solvent [69] on the same molecule, are between 1.5 and 3 orders of magnitude lower.
78. J. Chen, W. Wang, M. A. Reed, A. M. Rawlett, D. W. Price, J. M. Tour, Appl. Phys. Lett. 2000, 77, 1224.
79. J. Chen, M. A. Reed, Chem. Phys. 2002, 287, 127.
80. A surprising result of this study of carotenoids is the close agreement between first-principles theory and the data. The only input to the theory lay in checking Hartree-Fock calculations to assure, that the measured bond alternation was reproduced. This simple approach yields an I-V curve quite close to what is measured (cf., Fig. 5a in Ramachandran et al. [74]). When Coulomb blockading is taken into account, using parameter values obtained by fitting alkane data for the same gold spheres, and using the calculated I-V curve to obtain the needed molecular resistance, agreement between theory and experiment is remarkable (cf., Fig. 5b in Ramachandran et al. [74]).
81. In one direction of the bias.