Simultaneously understanding the geometric and electronic structure of anthraceneselenolate on Au(111): A combined theoretical and experimental study

Journal of Physical Chemistry C

Volumn 114, Issue 6, 2010, Pages 2677-2684

  Track, Anna M ^a,b   Rissner, Ferdinand ^a   Heimel, Georg ^c   Romaner, Lorenz ^a,d   Käfer, Daniel ^e   Bashir, Asif ^f   Rangger, Gerold M ^a   Hofmann, Oliver T ^a   Bučko, Tomáš ^g   Witte, Gregor ^h   Zojer, Egbert ^a  

^a GRAZ UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Austria)

^b UNIVERSITY OF GRAZ   (Austria)

^c HUMBOLDT UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^d UNIVERSITY OF LEOBEN   (Austria)

^e RUHR UNIVERSITY BOCHUM   (Germany)

^f MAX PLANCK INSTITUT FÜR EISENFORSCHUNG GMBH   (Germany)

^g UNIVERSITY OF VIENNA   (Austria)

^h PHILIPPS UNIVERSITY MARBURG   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ELECTRONIC PROPERTIES; ELECTRONIC STRUCTURE; MOLECULES; ORGANIC POLYMERS; SELF ASSEMBLED MONOLAYERS; ULTRAVIOLET PHOTOELECTRON SPECTROSCOPY; WORK FUNCTION;

BAND STRUCTURE CALCULATION; CONJUGATED ORGANIC MOLECULES; EXPERIMENTAL VALUES; MODEL APPROACH; MORPHOLOGICAL STRUCTURES; ORDERED STRUCTURES; ORGANIC ELECTRONICS; WORK FUNCTION MODIFICATION;

DENSITY FUNCTIONAL THEORY;

EID: 77249131757     PISSN: 19327447     EISSN: 19327455     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1021/jp9102756     Document Type: Article

References (79)

1. Schreiber, F. Prog. Surf. Sci. 2000, 65, 151.
2. Ulman, A. Chem. Rev. 1996, 96, 1533.
3. Love, J. C.; Estroff, L. A.; Kriebel, J. K.; Nuzzo, R. G.; Whitesides, G. M. Chem. Rev. 2005, 105, 1103.
4. Laibinis, P. E.; Whitesides, G. M. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1992, 114, 1990.
5. Beake, B. D.; Leggett, G. J. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 1999, 1, 3345.
6. Shimura, T.; Aramaki, K. Corros. Sci. 2007, 49, 1378.
7. Ishii, H.; Sugiyama, K.; Ito, E.; Seki, K. Adv. Mater. 1999, 11, 972.
8. Alloway, D. M.; Hofmann, M.; Smith, D. L.; Gruhn, N. E.; Graham, A. L.; Colorado, R.; Wysocki, V. H.; Lee, T. R.; Lee, P. A.; Armstrong, N. R. J. Phys. Chem. B 2003, 107, 11690.
9. Zehner, R. W.; Parsons, B. F.; Hsung, R. P.; Sita, L. R. Langmuir 1999, 15, 1121.
10. Campbell, I. H.; Kress, J. D.; Martin, R. L.; Smith, D. L.; Barashkov, N. N.; Ferraris, J. P. Appl. Phys. Lett. 1997, 71, 3528.
11. Bumm, L. A.; Arnold, J. J.; Cygan, M. T.; Dunbar, T. D.; Burgin, T. P.; Jones, L.; Allara, D. L.; Tour, J. M.; Weiss, P. S. Science 1996, 271, 1705.
12. Elbing, M.; Ochs, R.; Koentopp, M.; Fischer, M.; von Hanisch, C.; Weigend, F.; Evers, F.; Weber, H. B.; Mayor, M. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2005, 102, 8815.
13. Jiang, P.; Morales, G. M.; You, W.; Yu, L. P. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2004, 43, 4471.
14. Akkerman, H. B.; Blom, P. W. M.; de Leeuw, D. M.; de Boer, B. Nature 2006, 441, 69.
15. Cyganik, P.; Buck, M.; Strunskus, T.; Shaporenko, A.; Wilton-Ely, J.; Zharnikov, M.; Wöll, C. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2006, 128, 13868.
16. Smits, E. C. P.; Mathijssen, S. G. J.; van Hal, P. A.; Setayesh, S.; Geuns, T. C. T.; Mutsaers, K.; Cantatore, E.; Wondergem, H. J.; Werzer, O.; Resel, R.; Kemerink, M.; Kirchmeyer, S.; Muzafarov, A. M.; Ponomarenko, S. A.; de Boer, B.; Blom, P. W. M.; de Leeuw, D. M. Nature 2008, 455, 956.
17. Frey, S.; Stadler, V.; Heister, K.; Eck, W.; Zharnikov, M.; Grunze, M.; Zeysing, B.; Terfort, A. Langmuir 2001, 17, 2408.
18. Cyganik, P.; Buck, M.; Azzam, W.; Wöll, C. J. Phys. Chem. B 2004, 108, 4989.
19. Käfer, D.; Witte, G.; Cyganik, P.; Terfort, A.; Wöll, C. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2006, 128, 1723.
20. Rangger, G. M.; Romaner, L.; Heimel, G.; Zojer, E. Surf. Interface Anal. 2008, 40, 371.
21. Romaner, L.; Heimel, G.; Zojer, E. Phys. Rev. B 2008, 77, 045113.
22. Zharnikov, M.; Frey, S.; Rong, H.; Yang, Y. J.; Heister, K.; Buck, M.; Grunze, M. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2000, 2, 3359.
23. Heister, K.; Rong, H. T.; Buck, M.; Zharnikov, M.; Grunze, M.; Johansson, L. S. O. J. Phys. Chem. B 2001, 105, 6888.
24. Chaki, N. K.; Aslam, M.; Gopakumar, T. G.; Sharma, J.; Pasricha, R.; Mulla, I. S.; Vijayamohanan, K. J. Phys. Chem. B 2003, 107, 13567.
25. Heimel, G.; Romaner, L.; Bredas, J. L.; Zojer, E. Langmuir 2008, 24, 474.
26. Dishner, M. H.; Hemminger, J. C.; Feher, F. J. Langmuir 1997, 13, 4788.
27. Shaporenko, A.; Cyganik, P.; Buck, M.; Terfort, A.; Zharnikov, M. J. Phys. Chem. B 2005, 109, 13630.
28. Shaporenko, A.; Cyganik, P.; Buck, M.; Ulman, A.; Zharnikov, A. Langmuir 2005, 21, 8204.
29. Käfer, D.; Bashir, A.; Witte, G. J. Phys. Chem. C 2007, 111, 10546.
30. Bashir, A.; Käfer, D.; Müller, J.; Wöll, C.; Terfort, A.; Witte, G. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2008, 47, 5250.
31. Heimel, G.; Romaner, L.; Bredas, J. L.; Zojer, E. Surf. Sci. 2006, 600, 4548.
32. Heimel, G.; Romaner, L.; Bredas, J. L.; Zojer, E. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2006, 96, 196806.
33. Heimel, G.; Romaner, L.; Zojer, E.; Bredas, J. L. Nano Lett. 2007, 7, 932.
34. Mason, R. Acta Crystallogr. 1964, 17, 547.
35. Kresse, G.; Furthmüller, J. Phys. Rev. B 1996, 54, 11169.
36. Kresse, G.; Hafner, J. Phys. Rev. B 1993, 47, 558.
37. Kresse, G.; Hafner, J. Phys. Rev. B 1993, 48, 13115.
38. Kresse, G.; Hafner, J. Phys. Rev. B 1994, 49, 14251.
39. Perdew, J. P.; Chevary, J. A.; Vosko, S. H.; Jackson, K. A.; Pederson, M. R.; Singh, D. J.; Fiolhais, C. Phys. Rev. B 1992, 46, 6671.
40. Blöchl, P. E. Phys. Rev. B 1994, 50, 17953.
41. Monkhorst, H. J.; Pack, J. D. Phys. Rev. B 1976, 13, 5188.
42. Methfessel, M.; Paxton, A. T. Phys. Rev. B 1989, 40, 3616.
43. Barth, J. V.; Brune, H.; Ertl, G.; Behm, R. J. Phys. Rev. B 1990, 42, 9307.
44. Darling, S. B.; Rosenbaum, A. W.; Wang, Y.; Sibener, S. J. Langmuir 2002, 18, 7462.
45. Käfer, D.; Bashir, A.; Dou, X.; Witte, G.; Müllen, K.; Wöll, C. Adv. Mater. 2009.
46. Morikawa, Y.; Hayashi, T.; Liew, C. C.; Nozoye, H. Surf. Sci. 2002, 507, 46.
47. Bilic, A.; Reimers, J. R.; Hush, N. S. J. Chem. Phys. 2005, 122, 094708.
48. Nara, J.; Higai, S.; Morikawa, Y.; Ohno, T. Appl. Surf. Sci. 2004, 237, 433.
49. Neugebauer, J.; Scheffler, M. Phys. Rev. B 1992, 46, 16067.
50. Bucko, T.; Hafner, J.; Angyan, J. G. J. Chem. Phys. 2005, 122, 124508.
51. Csaszar, P.; Pulay, P. J. Mol. Struct. 1984, 114, 31.
52. Ceperley, D. M.; Alder, B. J. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1980, 45, 566.
53. Perdew, J. P.; Zunger, A. Phys. Rev. B 1981, 23, 5048.
54. Yu, M.; Bovet, N.; Satterley, C. J.; Bengio, S.; Lovelock, K. R. J.; Milligan, P. K.; Jones, R. G.; Woodruff, D. P.; Dhanak, V. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2006, 97, 166102.
55. Chaudhuri, A.; Lerotholi, T. J.; Jackson, D. C.; Woodruff, D. P.; Dhanak, V. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2009, 102, 126101.
56. Tersoff, J.; Hamann, D. R. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1983, 50, 1998.
57. Tersoff, J.; Hamann, D. R. Phys. Rev. B 1985, 31, 805.
58. In this context, one, however, has to keep in mind that this does not exactly reflect the experimental observation, due to the deviations in level alignment between theory and experiment resulting from the underestimation of the energy gap by GGA based DFT discussed in more detail when comparing the experimental UPS spectrum and the calculated density of states.
59. Kokalj, A. Comput. Mater. Sci. 2003, 28, 155.
60. Cossaro, A.; Mazzarello, R.; Rousseau, R.; Casalis, L.; Verdini, A.; Kohlmeyer, A.; Floreano, L.; Scandolo, S.; Morgante, A.; Klein, M. L.; Scoles, G. Science 2008, 321, 943.
61. The mirror domain of motif A, where the backbones are tilted in the opposite way relative to the Se-C bond, is not exactly symmetry equivalent to motif A due to the ABC stacking along the Au[111] direction. Since the differences are found only in the second Au row, which is found to have an only minor impact on the SAM-adsorption energetics (compare, for example, the very small differences in fcc and hcp docking sites), this motif will not be separately considered here.
62. Oehzelt, M.; Resel, R.; Nakayama, A. Phys. Rev. B 2002, 66, 174104.
63. Oehzelt, M.; Heimel, G.; Resel, R.; Puschnig, P.; Hummer, K.; Ambrosch-Draxl, C.; Takemura, K.; Nakayama, A. J. Chem. Phys. 2003, 119, 1078.
64. Hummer, K.; Puschnig, P.; Ambrosch-Draxl, C. Phys. Rev. B 2003, 67, 184105.
65. 19 which is a reasonable assumption considering the possible packing arrangements shown in Figure 1. An analytical relationship between the resulting tilt angle and the molecular twist angle has been derived for the symmetric case (i.e., a herringbone arrangement) in ref 19.
66. Jensen, F. Introduction to Computational Chemistry; Wiley: New York, 2006.
67. In this context, we note that because of the molecular tilt relative to the surface sample normal, the STM data provide only a 2D projection of the aromatic backbone planes which can differ slightly from the true herringbone angle.
68. Heimel, G.; Romaner, L.; Zojer, E.; Bredas, J.-L. Acct. Chem. Rev. 2008, 41, 721.
69. BD has no impact on the net work-function change as explicitly shown in: Heimel, G.; Romaner, L.; Zojer, E.; Brédas, J. L. Proc. SPIE 2008, 6999, 699919.
70. Natan, A.; Kronik, L.; Haick, H.; Tung, R. T. Adv. Mater. 2007, 19, 4103.
71. Cornil, D.; Olivier, Y.; Geskin, V.; Cornil, J. Adv. Funct. Mater. 2007, 17, 1143.
72. Romaner, L.; Heimel, G.; Ambrosch-Draxl, C.; Zojer, E. Adv. Funct. Mater. 2008, 18, 3999.
73. Berkebile, S.; Puschnig, P.; Koller, G.; Oehzelt, M.; Netzer, F. P.; Ambrosch-Draxl, C.; Ramsey, M. G. Phys. Rev. B 2008, 77, 115312.
74. Marom, N.; Kronik, L. Appl. Phys. A: Mater. Sci. Process. 2009, 95, 159.
75. Kümmel, S.; Kronik, L. Rev. Mod. Phys. 2008, 80, 3.
76. Allen, M. J.; Tozer, D. J. Mol. Phys. 2002, 100, 433.
77. Magid, I.; Burstein, L.; Seitz, O.; Segev, L.; Kronik, L.; Rosenwaks, Y. J. Phys. Chem. C 2008, 112, 7145.
78. Segev, L.; Salomon, A.; Natan, A.; Cahen, D.; Kronik, L.; Amy, F.; Chan, C. K.; Kahn, A. Phys. Rev. B 2006, 74, 165323.
79. Perebeinos, V.; Newton, M. Chem. Phys. 2005, 319, 159.