Room Temperature Negative Differential Resistance through Individual Organic Molecules on Silicon Surfaces

Nano Letters

Volumn 4, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 55-59

  Guisinger, Nathan P ^a   Greene, Mark E ^a   Basu, Rajiv ^a   Baluch, Andrew S ^a   Hersam, Mark C ^a  

^a Northwestern University   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

2,2,6,6 TETRAMETHYL 1 PIPERIDINYLOXY; ORGANIC COMPOUND; PIPERIDINE DERIVATIVE; SILICON; STYRENE; UNCLASSIFIED DRUG;

ARTICLE; CHEMICAL PARAMETERS; DESORPTION; DEVICE; ELECTRON; MEASUREMENT; MOLECULE; NEGATIVE DIFFERENTIAL RESISTANCE; ROOM TEMPERATURE; SCANNING TUNNELING MICROSCOPY;

EID: 0842330466     PISSN: 15306984     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1021/nl0348589     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Aviram, A.; Ratner, M. A. Chem. Phys. Lett. 1974, 29, 277-283.
2. Service, R. F. Science 2001, 294, 2442-2443.
3. Reed, M. A.; Zhou, C.; Muller, J.; Burgin, T. P.; Tour, J. M. Science 1997, 278, 252-254.
4. 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, 1323-1325.
5. Metzger, R. M. J. Mater. Chem. 2000, 10, 55-62.
6. Collier, C. P.; Mattersteig, G.; Young, E. W.; Luo, Y.; Beverly, K.; Sampaio, J.; Raymo, F. M.; Stoddart, J. F.; Heath, J. R. Science 2000, 289, 1172-1175.
7. Donhauser, Z. J.; Mantooth, B. A.; Kelley, K. F.; Bumm, L. A.; Monnell, J. D.; Stapleton, J. J.; Price, D. W., Jr.; Rawlett, A. M.; Allara, D. L.; Tour, J. M.; Weiss, P. S. Science 2001, 292, 2303-2307.
8. Ramachandran, G. K.; Hopson, T. J.; Rawlett, A. M.; Nagahara, L. A.; Primak, A.; Lindsay, S. M. Science 2003, 300, 1413-1416.
9. Chen, J.; Reed, M. A.; Rawlett, A. M.; Tour, J. M. Science 1999, 286, 1550-1552.
10. Park, J.; Pasupathy, A. N.; Goldsmith, J. I.; Chang, C.; Yaish, Y.; Petta, J. R.; Rinkoski, M.; Sethna, J. P.; Abruña, H. D.; McEuen, P. L.; Ralph, D. C. Nature 2002, 417, 722-725.
11. Liang, W.; Shores, M. P.; Bockrath, M.; Long, J. R.; Park, H. Nature 2002, 417, 725-729.
12. Nitzan, A.; Ratner, M. A. Science 2003, 300, 1384-1389.
13. Lenfant, S.; Krzeminski, C.; Delerue, C.; Allan, G.; Vuillaume, D. Nano Lett. 2003, 3, 741-746.
14. Xue, Y.; Datta, S.; Hong, S.; Reifenberger, R.; Henderson, J. I.; Kubiak, C. P. Phys. Rev. B 1999, 59, R7852-R7855.
15. Fan, F. F.; Yang, J.; Cai, L.; Price, D. W., Jr.; Dirk, S. M.; Kosynkin, D. V.; Yao, Y.; Rawlett, A. M.; Tour, J. M.; Bard, A. J. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2002, 124, 5550-5560.
16. Lyo, I.-W.; Avouris, Ph. Science 1989, 245, 1369-1371.
17. Bedrossian, P.; Chen, D. M.; Mortensen, K.; Golovchenko, J. A. Nature 1989, 342, 258-260.
18. Ma, D. D. D.; Wang, Y. G.; Lu, L.; Lee, C. S.; Lee, S. T. Appl. Phys. Lett. 2002, 80, 1231-1233.
19. Avouris, Ph.; Lyo, I.-W.; Bozso, F.; Kaxiras, E. J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A 1990, 8, 3405-3411.
20. Lyding, J. W.; Skala, S.; Hubacek, J. S.; Brockenbrough, R.; Gammie, G. Rev. Sci. Instrum. 1988, 59, 1897-1902.
21. All calculations were carried out using HyperChem Release 7 (Hypercube, Inc., Gainesville, FL). The geometries of the individual TEMPO and styrene molecules were optimized at the level of B3LYP density functional theory using the polarized 6-31G* basis via the eigenvector following algorithm. The 4 x 4 x 1 Si(100) crystal was optimized using the MM+ molecular mechanics force field using the Polak-Ribiere conjugate-gradient algorithm. The 2 x 1 reconstruction was forced by allowing only the top layer of atoms to optimize their spacings after the original slab optimization. The resulting dimer spacing after MM optimization was 3.82 Å compared to a measured value of 3.85 Å. Hydrogen atoms were added to the periphery of the silicon slab to quench unpaired electrons. Styrene was bound to the most central dimer, while TEMPO was bound to the most central silicon atom. In both cases, the organic molecule and the silicon atoms to which each was bonded were allowed to relax to an energetic minimum via the MM+ force field and the PR algorithm.
22. Patitsas, S. N.; Lopinski, G. P.; Hul'ko, O.; Moffatt, D. J.; Wolkow, R. A. Surf. Sci. 2000, 457, L425-L431.
23. Hamers, R. J.; Avouris, Ph.; Bozso, F. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1987, 59, 2071-2074.
24. Alavi, S.; Rousseau, R.; Patitsas, S. N.; Lopinski, G. P.; Wolkow, R. A. ; Seideman, T. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2000, 85, 5372-5375.
25. Kruse, P.; Wolkow, R. A. Appl. Phys. Lett. 2002, 81, 4422-4424.
26. Hersam, M. C.; Guisinger, N. P.; Lyding, J. W. Nanotechnology 2000, 11, 70-76.
27. Rakshit, T.; Liang, G.-C.; Ghosh, A. W.; Datta, S. 2003, cond-mat/ 0305695.
28. The exact location of the molecular orbital energy level with respect to the substrate Fermi level will be a function of the degree of charge transfer between the molecule and the substrate. Consequently, the difference in the molecular orbital spacing with respect to the Fermi level in Figures 3A and 3D can be justified by assuming that the charge transfer depends on the substrate doping type.
29. Datta, S.; Tian, W.; Hong, S.; Reifenberger, R.; Henderson, J. I.; Kubiak, C. P. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1997, 79, 2530-2533.
30. Mathews, R. H.; Sage, J. P.; Sollner, T. C. L. G.; Calawa, S. D.; Chen, C. L.; Mahoney, L. J.; Maki, P. A.; Molvar, K. M. Proc. IEEE 1999, 87, 596-605.
31. van der Wagt, J. P. A.; Seabaugh, A. C.; Beam, E. A. IEEE Electron Device Lett. 1998, 19, 7-9.