Tip-state control of rates and branching ratios in atomic manipulation

Nano Letters

Volumn 5, Issue 5, 2005, Pages 835-839

  Sloan, Peter A ^a,b   Palmer, Richard E ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BENZENE; BIOSENSORS; CELLS; CHEMICAL BONDS; CHLORINE; COLLOIDS; ELECTRIC FIELD EFFECTS; MICROSCOPES;

ATOMIC MANIPULATION; CHLOROBENZENE; MECHANICAL MANIPULATION; TIP-STATE CONTROLS;

SCANNING TUNNELING MICROSCOPY;

CHLOROBENZENE;

ARTICLE; CHEMISTRY; EVALUATION; METHODOLOGY; MICROMANIPULATION; MOTION; NANOTECHNOLOGY; SCANNING TUNNELING MICROSCOPY; STIMULATION;

CHLOROBENZENES; MICROCHEMISTRY; MICROMANIPULATION; MICROSCOPY, SCANNING TUNNELING; MOTION; NANOTECHNOLOGY; PHYSICAL STIMULATION;

EID: 19844364898     PISSN: 15306984     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1021/nl050142x     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Ho, W. J. Chem. Phys. 2002, 117, 11033.
2. Gimzewski, J. K.; Joachim, C. Science 1999, 283, 1683.
3. Joachim, C.; Gimzewski, J. K.; Aviram, A. Nature (London) 2000, 408, 541.
4. Hipps, K. W. Science 2001, 294, 536.
5. Kornilovitch, P. E.; Bratkovsky, A. M. Phys. Rev. B 2001, 64, 195413.
6. Emberly, E. G.; Kirczenow, G. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2003, 91, 188301.
7. Eigler, D. M.; Schweizer, E. K. Nature (London) 1990, 344, 524.
8. Bartels, L.; Meyer, G.; Rieder, K.-H. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1997, 79, 697.
9. Rosei, F.; Schunack, M.; Jiang, P.; Gourdon, A.; Laegsgaard, E.; Stensgaard, I.; Joachim, C.; Besenbacher, F. Science 2002, 296, 328.
10. Kobayashi, A.; Grey, F.; Williams, R. S.; Aono, M. Science 1993, 259, 1724.
11. Whitman, L. J.; Stroscio, J. A.; Dragoset, R. A.; Celotta, R. J. Science 1991, 251, 1206.
12. Salam, G. P.; Persson, M.; Palmer, R. E. Phys. Rev. B 1994, 49, 10655.
13. Ueba, H.; Persson, B. N. J. Surf. Sci. 2004, 566-568, 1.
14. Komeda, T.; Kim, Y.; Kawai, M.; Persson, B. N. J.; Ueba, H. Science 2002, 295, 2055.
15. Pascual, J. I.; Lorente, N.; Song, Z.; Conrad, H.; Rust, H.-P. Atawre (London) 2003, 423, 525.
16. Quaade, U. J.; Stokbro, K.; Lin, R.; Grey, F. Nanotechnology 2001, 12, 265.
17. Soukiassian, L.; Mayne, A. J.; Carbone, M.; Dujardin, G. Phys. Rev. B 2003, 68, 035303.
18. Chen, X. H.; Kong, Q.; Polanyi, J. C.; Rogers, D.; So, S. Surf. Sci. 1995, 340, 224.
19. A DC electrochemical etch of polycrystalline tungsten wire in 2 M NaOH was used to make the STM tip, followed by in-vacuum electron bombardment to remove any residual tungsten oxide layer.
20. Barrett, S. D. Image SXM, 2004, http://www.ImageSXM.org.uk.
21. Hansma, P. K.; Tersoff, J. J. Appl. Phys. 1987, 61, R1.
22. Chen, C. J. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1990, 65, 448.
23. Demuth, J. E.; Koehler, U.; Hamers, R. J. J. Microsc. 1988, 152, 299.
24. Dujardin, G.; Mayne, A.; Robert, O.; Rose, F.; Joachim, C.; Tang, H. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1998, 80, 3085.
25. Bartels, L.; Meyer, G.; Rieder, K.-H. Appl. Phys. Lett. 1997, 71, 213.
26. Lu, P. H.; Polanyi, J. C.; Rogers, D. J. Chem. Phys. 1999, 111, 9905.
27. Sloan, P. A.; Hedouin, M. F. G.; Palmer, R. E.; Persson, M. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2003, 91, 118301.
28. Palmer, R. E.; Sloan, P. A.; Xirouchaki, C. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London Ser. A 2004, 362, 1195.
29. Boland, J. J.; Villarrubia, J. S. Phys. Rev. B 1990, 41, 9865.
30. Alavi, S.; Rousseau, R.; Patitsas, S. N.; Lopinski, G. P.; Wolkow, R. A.; Seideman, T. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2000, 85, 5372.
31. Sloan, P. A.; Palmer, R. E. Nature (London) 2005, 434, 367.
32. Komeda, T.; Kim, Y.; Fujita, Y.; Sainoo, Y.; Kawai, M. J. Chem. Phys. 2004, 120, 5347.
33. No bright-tip dissociation was observed in these particular experiments as the low tunnelling currents used, typically < 50 pA (Figures 2E and F results are scaled to 100 pA), coupled with the low molecular coverage precluded any chance of inducing a dissociation event during the manipulation experiments.
34. Stipe, B. C.; Rezaei, M. A.; Ho, W.; Gao, S.; Persson, M.; Lundqvist, B. I. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1997, 78, 4410.
35. The bright-tip and dark-tip experiments of Figure 4 were performed with slightly different bias voltages, applying a correction factor determined from Figure 3A (3.3 ± 0.9) would lead to an even larger difference between the rates, 80 ± 20 for desorption and 140 ± 40 for dissociation.
36. Aviram, A.; Ratner, M. A. Chem. Phys. Lett. 1974, 29, 277.
37. Di Ventra, M.; Pantelides, S. T.; Lang, N. D. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2000, 84, 979.
38. Cao, Y.; Deng, J. F.; Xu, G. Q. J. Chem. Phys. 2000, 112, 4759.