Nanosized electrochemical cells operated by AFM conducting probes

Journal of Physical Chemistry B

Volumn 108, Issue 28, 2004, Pages 9882-9887

  Schneegans, Olivier ^a   Moradpour, Alec ^b   Boyer, Lionel ^a   Ballutaud, Dominique ^c  

^a UNIV PARIS SUD   (France)

^b UNIVERSITÉ PARIS SUD   (France)

^c LABORATOIRE DES SCIENCES DU CLIMAT ET DE L ENVIRONNEMENT   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ATOMIC FORCE MICROSCOPY; ELECTRIC CONDUCTIVITY; ELECTRON TRANSPORT PROPERTIES; MOLECULAR DYNAMICS; NANOSTRUCTURED MATERIALS; NANOTECHNOLOGY; ORGANIC COMPOUNDS; REDOX REACTIONS; SINGLE CRYSTALS; SUBSTRATES; SURFACE CHEMISTRY;

'DIP PEN' NANOLITHOGRAPHY (DPN); CONDUCTIVE PROBE ATOMIC FORCE MICROSCOPY (CP-AFM); ELECTROCHEMICAL CELLS;

ELECTROCHEMISTRY;

EID: 3543122974     PISSN: 15206106     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1021/jp048684a     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Kelley, T. W.; Granstrom, E. L.; Frisbie, C. D. Adv. Mater. 1999, 11, 261, and references therein.
2. Wold, D. J.; Frisbie, C. D. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2001, 123, 5549.
3. Wold, D. J.; Haag, R.; Rampi, M. A.; Frisbie; C. D. J. Phys. Chem. B 2002, 106, 2813.
4. Ishida, T.; Mizutani, W.; Aya, H.; Ogiso, H.; Sasaki, S.; Tokumoto, H. J. Phys. Chem. B 2002, 106, 5886.
5. (a) Cui, X. D.; Primak, A.; Zarate, X.; Tomfohr, J.; Sankey, O. F.; Moore, A. L.; Moore, T. A.; Gust, D.; Nagahara, L. A.; Lindsay, S. M. J. Phys. Chem. B 2002, 106, 8609.
6. (b) Ramachandran, G. K.; Tomfohr, J. K.; Li, J.; Sankey, O. F.; Zarate, X.; Primak, A.; Terazono, Y.; Moore, T. A.; Moore, A. L.; Gust, D.; Nagahara, L. A.; Lindsay, S. M. J. Phys. Chem. B 2003, 107, 6162.
7. Tanaka, I.; Kamiya, I.; Sakaki, H.; Qureshi, N.; Allen, S.; J., Jr.; Petroff, P. M. Appl. Phys. Lett. 1999, 74, 844.
8. See: (a) Dégardin, A. F.; Schneegans, O.; Houzé, F.; Caristan, E.; DeLuca, A.; Chrétien, P.; Boyer, L.; Kreisler, A. J. Physica C 2000, 341-348, 1965.
9. (b) Boxley, C. J.; White, H. S.; Gardner, C. E.; Macpherson, J. V. J. Phys. Chem. B 2003, 107, 9677.
10. Dai, H.; Wong, E. W.; Liebert, M., Science 1996, 272, 523.
11. (a) Li, Y.; Maynor, B. W.; Liu, J. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2001, 123, 2105.
12. (b) Agarwal, G.; Naik, R. R.; Stone, M. O., J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2003, 125, 7408.
13. (a) Avouris, P.; Hertel, T.; Martel, R. Appl. Phys. Lett. 1997, 71, 285.
14. (b) Bloess, H.; Staikov, G.; Schultze, J. W. Eleclochim. Acta. 2001, 47, 335.
15. See also: Lee, W.; Kim, E. R.; Lee, H. Langmuir 2002, 18, 8375.
16. Okada, Y.; Amano, S.; Kawabe, M.; Harris, J. S., Jr. J. Appl. Phys. 1998, 83, 7998.
17. (a) Lyuksyutov, S. F.; Vaia, R. A.; Paramonov, P. B.; Juhl, S.; Waterhouse, L.; Ralich, R. M.; Sigalov, G.; Sancaktar, E. Nature Materials, 2003, 2, 468.
18. (b) Hurley, P. T.; Ribbe, A. E.; Buriak, J. M. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2003, 125, 11334;
19. Hoeppener, S.; Maoz, R.; Sagiv, J. Nano Lett. 2003, 6, 761.
20. Schneegans, O.; Moradpour, A.; Houzé, F.; Angelova, A.; Henry de Villeneuve, C.; Allongue, P.; Chrétien, P. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2001, 123, 11486.
21. This figure is not intended to be a substantial representation of the actual probe-substrate vicinity, but rather a sketch of the electrochemical cell elements and a summary of the electrode reactions. Actually, the AFM probe somehow contacts the sample, but a precise description of this contact-involving certainly few water layers between the probe and the substrate-is presently difficult. Moreover, it is worth noting that: (i) the probe-sample contact implies a current corresponding to such a junction, (ii) this junction-current (not schematized in this figure) is superimposed to the current corresponding to the faradaic process schematized here (see the text for the evaluation of these currents).
22. Angelova, A.; Moradpour, A.; Auban-Senzier, P.; Akaaboune, N.-E.; Pasquier, C. Chem. Mater. 2000, 12, 2306.
23. see: Supporting Information Available
24. 2 range.
25. However, each wave is obtained only for the first forward scan; any subsequent scan at a fixed contact-point involves highly insulating contacts in both potential directions. The waves shown in Figure 2 are therefore recorded starting from zero bias, then changing the probe contact-point subsequently to each scan in either potential direction.
26. Lamache, M.; Wuryanto, S.; Benhamou, F. Electrochim. Acta 1985, 30, 817.
27. Only a single (solvent containing) TMTSF cation-radical 1: 1 perrhenate salt has ever been described, see: Kobayashi, H.; Kobayashi, A.; Sasaki, Y.; Saito, G.; Inokuchi, H. Bull. Chem. Soc. Jpn. 1983, 56, 2894.
28. 6 single crystal determined by XPS is found to deviate substantially from the bulk composition, as reflected by very important and systematic relative deviations of the surface composition from the nominal composition of the bulk; this rules out any quantitative surface-composition determination by XPS.; see: Sing, M.; Schwingenschlögl, U.; Claessen, R.; Dressel, M.; Jacobsen, C. S. Phys. Rev. B 2003, 67, 125402.
29. 13 bias in the negative direction yield severe sample surface-damages, such as disconnections of conducting fragments, or even probe degradations. A complicated and rather scan-to-scan irreproducible (i/V) behavior is obtained in the negative potential range, probably reflecting the same phenomena, and therefore only the scan-rate dependence of the oxidation wave is reported here.
30. -1 overlap almost completely with the (i/V) curve corresponding to this limit.
31. This bias-dependent effect is also different from one probe to another, and possibly depends on the probe's apex sharpness. Thus for some probes, no detectable dots are obtained at 2V even with 160ms pulse durations, whereas the smallest detected surface modifications are by contrast observed with 3V bias. It is worth noting that such a tip to tip variation does not account for the difference in the onset potential between the diamond probes and the platinum ones, shown above (see Figures 4 and 5); in fact, the same onset potential is obtained reproducibly using various platinum and diamond probes.
32. 33, (Z=1), see: Thorup, N.; Rindorf, G.; Soling, H.; Bechgaard, K. Acta Cryst. 1981, B37, 1236.
33. Avouris, P.; Martel, R.; Hertel, T.; Sandsrom, R. Appl. Phys. A. 1998, 66, 659.
34. Rozhok, S.; Piner, R.; Mirkin, C. A. J. Phys. Chem. B. 2003, 107, 751.
35. Increasing humidity to 80% does not significantly modify the size of the spots.
36. Zhang, L.; Macdonald, D. D.; Sikora, E.; Sikora, D. J. Electrochem. Soc. 1998, 145, 898.
37. S as well as the comments on the considered values for these parameters are given in Supporting Information Available.
38. Schneegans, O.; Moradpour, A.; Wang, K., manuscript in preparation.