Thomas C Taucher1, Iris Hehn1, Oliver T Hofmann1, Michael Zharnikov2, Egbert Zojer1. 1. Institute of Solid State Physics, NAWI Graz, Graz University of Technology , Petersgasse 16, 8010 Graz, Austria. 2. Angewandte Physikalische Chemie, Universität Heidelberg , Im Neuenheimer Feld 253, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany.
Abstract
The focus of the present article is on understanding the insight that X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) measurements can provide when studying self-assembled monolayers. Comparing density functional theory calculations to experimental data on deliberately chosen model systems, we show that both the chemical environment and electrostatic effects arising from a superposition of molecular dipoles influence the measured core-level binding energies to a significant degree. The crucial role of the often overlooked electrostatic effects in polar self-assembled monolayers (SAMs) is unambiguously demonstrated by changing the dipole density through varying the SAM coverage. As a consequence of this effect, care has to be taken when extracting chemical information from the XP spectra of ordered organic adsorbate layers. Our results, furthermore, imply that XPS is a powerful tool for probing local variations in the electrostatic energy in nanoscopic systems, especially in SAMs.
The focus of the present article is on understanding the insight that X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) measurements can provide when studying self-assembled monolayers. Comparing density functional theory calculations to experimental data on deliberately chosen model systems, we show that both the chemical environment and electrostatic effects arising from a superposition of molecular dipoles influence the measured core-level binding energies to a significant degree. The crucial role of the often overlooked electrostatic effects in polar self-assembled monolayers (SAMs) is unambiguously demonstrated by changing the dipole density through varying the SAM coverage. As a consequence of this effect, care has to be taken when extracting chemical information from the XP spectra of ordered organic adsorbate layers. Our results, furthermore, imply that XPS is a powerful tool for probing local variations in the electrostatic energy in nanoscopic systems, especially in SAMs.
A convenient
way of tuning the properties of a given substrate
is by covering it with covalently bonded self-assembled monolayers
(SAMs).[1−3] Such interface modifiers have been applied in numerous
ways, e.g., for controlling the wettability of surfaces,[4−6] for providing protection from corrosion,[7,8] for
enabling adhesion of biological cells,[9] as sensors,[10,11] for nanopatterning,[12−14] and in organic electronics. In the latter context, they were applied
for modifying electrode–semiconductor[15−22] and dielectric–semiconductor[23,24] interfaces.
SAMs were also used as active layers in organic transistors.[25−27] Of crucial importance for electronic applications are changes of
the substrate work function induced through SAMs bearing polar terminal
groups[15,16,23,28−31] or polar units embedded into the molecular backbones.[22,32−34] Embedded dipolar groups also directly impact the
electronic states within the SAMs and their alignment relative to
the Fermi level.[35,36]A common approach for characterizing
the properties of such SAMs
is X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS).[37,38] By means of chemical shifts (i.e., shifts in the core-level binding
energies induced by the immediate chemical environment of an atom),
it is possible to verify the chemical integrity of the SAM, to understand
details of its composition, and to explore its homogeneity.[39] Recently, in addition to chemical shifts, a
variety of factors affecting the XPS peak positions have been mentioned.[32,34,40−43] For ionic crystals it is known
that the Madelung energy needs to be taken into account to correctly
describe shifts in binding energies.[44,45] A related
effect of particular interest in the present case is that for SAMs
containing dipolar elements within the molecular backbones binding-energy
shifts can be associated with changes of the local electrostatic energy
due to potential shifts caused by the dipoles.[32,34] Indeed, collective electrostatic effects arising from the superposition
of the fields of periodically assembled dipoles have been discussed
extensively in the context of the valence electronic structure of
organic adsorbate layers.[46−48] They are also crucial for understanding
adsorbate-induced work-function changes,[29,46−50] and more recently, their exploitation as a tool for designing monolayers
with highly complex electronic properties has been suggested.[35] As XPS is very sensitive to such effects it
provides a highly valuable tool for characterizing the local electrostatic
energy in complex adsorbate structures. However, for such a task it
is absolutely crucial to understand how collective electrostatic effects
and chemical shifts interact to give rise to the finally measured
XPS signals.Consequently, the purpose of the present paper
is to obtain a coherent
understanding of the interplay between these two effects. This is
achieved by performing density functional theory (DFT) calculations
on carefully selected model SAMs and comparing the results to high-resolution
XPS (HRXPS) measurements.[32,51] In this way we show
that both chemical and collective electrostatic effects have to be
taken into account to fully interpret XP spectra. The presented results
imply that when chemically identical entities are incorporated into
complex adsorbate layers their XPS signature can serve as an efficient
probe for variations in the local energy landscape.
Investigated Systems
The interplay between chemical and
electrostatic shifts for core-level
energies is relevant far beyond the field of self-assembled monolayers
and applies to all systems in which assemblies of polar elements occur.
Still, their discussion is most straightforward for extended and typically
very well-ordered chemically bonded SAMs, where complications such
as core-hole screening effects become less relevant (vide
infra). Thus, we chose two SAMs, whose properties and chemical
integrity are very well characterized.[32,51] They belong
to the most established type of SAMs, namely substituted alkyl thiolates
on Au(111),[3] and therefore serve as prototypical
model systems for the present study. They comprise a partially fluorinated
alkyl thiolate and a similarly long alkyl thiolate containing a polar
ester group embedded into the aliphatic backbone. Their structures
and the used surface unit cells are shown in Figures and 2, respectively.
Their full experimental characterization is contained in the above-mentioned
references.
Figure 1
Chemical structures of (a) 12,12,13,13,14,14,15,15,16,16,17,17,18,18,19,19,19-heptadecafluorononadecane-1-thiolate
(F8H11SH) and pentyl-11-sulfanylundecanoate (C10EC5) bonded
to a Au(111) surface. The different background colors refer to C atoms
with chemically clearly distinct environments (see Results and Discussion section).
Figure 2
Pictures of the Au(111)/SAM interface for F8H11SH (a) and C10EC5
(b). The surface unit cell is indicated by the black parallelepiped,
showing the applied periodic boundary conditions used in the simulations
as well as the vacuum gap to decouple the periodic replicas in the z-direction (for details see main text).
Chemical structures of (a) 12,12,13,13,14,14,15,15,16,16,17,17,18,18,19,19,19-heptadecafluorononadecane-1-thiolate
(F8H11SH) and pentyl-11-sulfanylundecanoate (C10EC5) bonded
to a Au(111) surface. The different background colors refer to C atoms
with chemically clearly distinct environments (see Results and Discussion section).Pictures of the Au(111)/SAM interface for F8H11SH (a) and C10EC5
(b). The surface unit cell is indicated by the black parallelepiped,
showing the applied periodic boundary conditions used in the simulations
as well as the vacuum gap to decouple the periodic replicas in the z-direction (for details see main text).Both layers are bonded to Au(111) surfaces. The
choice of the partially
fluorinated alkyl thiolate (hereafter referred to as F8H11SH consistent
with ref (51)) is motivated
by the presence of five chemically different carbon species that can
be identified in high-resolution XP spectra.[51] This makes this SAM an ideal candidate for studying chemical shifts
and for benchmarking the applied methodology. The alkyl thiolate (hereafter
referred to as C10EC5 consistent with ref (32)) contains a polar ester group and is an example
of a system for which electrostatic shifts in the XP spectra have
been suggested.[32] An important aspect of
C10EC5, in which it conceptually differs from F8H11SH, is that the
alkyl chains above and below the ester group (blue and red in Figure a) are chemically
identical; i.e., there are two chemically equivalent segments of the
chains, which are separated by a dipole. In both refs (32) and (51) several chain lengths,
degrees of fluorination, and different ester positions have been investigated;
we chose the present systems because they are of comparable lengths.
Moreover, the C5 segment above the ester in C10EC5 is short enough
that in experiments an appreciable signal from the bottom chain can
still be detected (with similar intensities for the C5 and C10 segments
for a photon energy of 580 eV), while it is long enough to be well
ordered.[32]The F8H11SH SAMs on Au(111)
have been shown to grow in a commensurate
p(2 × 2) arrangement with one molecule in the unit cell.[51] This structure is also chosen in the present
study (cf. Figure ). In passing, we note that also a c(7 × 7) cell containing
17 molecules and noncommensurate structures have been reported.[52−55] These are not considered here. For the ester containing alkyl thiolates
we used a (3 × 2√3) unit cell containing four nonequivalent
molecules in a herringbone arrangement[56] in analogy to a structure commonly reported for nonsubstituted alkyl
thiolates.[57−62] The above choice of unit cells results in a molecular footprint, A, of 29.70 Å2 for F8H11SH and 22.27 Å2 for C10EC5. Note that the reduced packing density for the
F8H11SH SAM is a consequence of the larger size of the fluorine atoms
compared to the hydrogens. Accordingly, a chiral arrangement of the
CF2 groups is favored,[51] while
for all alkyl segments a coplanar, all-trans conformation
is obtained.For the reduced-coverage calculations of F8H11SH
a 4 × 4 supercell
was chosen, and all molecules but one were removed, yielding A = 475.2 Å2. This corresponds to a nominal
coverage Θ = 1/16. In the C10EC5 case, the unit cell was doubled
in the longer direction and quadrupled in the shorter one, and again
all molecules but one were removed. Nominally, this yields Θ
= 1/32 (note that here the primitive unit cell contained four molecules),
but as the packing density in the full coverage monolayer is significantly
higher, the molecular footprint increases only to 712.8 Å2. In this context it is important to note that we kept the
molecules fixed at the adsorption geometries of Θ = 1, in order
to isolate the impact of diluting the dipoles from the massive changes
of the molecular orientation occurring at low coverages, where alkyl
thiolates are known to lie flat on the Au substrate.[57]
Theoretical Methods
Computational
Details
We performed
slab-type band-structure calculations based on density functional
theory using the Vienna ab initio simulation package
(VASP v5.3.2)[63−66] and employing the Perdew–Burke–Ernzerhof (PBE) functional[67,68] in conjunction with the projector augmented-wave method (details
on the potentials are specified in the Supporting Information).[69,70] Long-range van der Waals interactions
were accounted for using the vdWSurf method[71] in the implementation of Al-Saidi et al.[72] The used cutoff energy for the plane-wave basis
set was 400 eV, and the total energy was converged to 10–6 eV. Γ-centered k-point meshes with 8 × 8 × 1 and
4 × 4 × 1 k-points were used for F8H11SH and C10EC5SAMs
at full coverage (bearing in mind the different sizes of the respective
surface unit cells). When increasing the unit-cell size, the k-point
mesh was scaled accordingly.In all simulations the surfaces
were represented by slabs consisting of five layers of Au to model
the Au(111) surface with the SAM adsorbed on only one side of the
slab. To avoid spurious surface relaxations, the Au lattice constant
was determined by applying the same methodology as used for calculating
the surfaces. It was found to be 4.141 Å, which is very close
to measured (4.079 Å[73]) and calculated
values (4.154 Å[74]) reported in the
literature. The geometry optimizations were started with thiolates
placed at fcc hollow sites of the Au(111) surface; periodic replicas
of the slab were decoupled by a vacuum gap of ca. 30 Å and a
self-consistently determined dipolar layer.[75] In the simulations, the two topmost layers of the Au slab were allowed
to relax, while the other three layers were fixed at the bulk geometry.
The geometry was optimized until the maximum residual force per atom
was smaller than 10–2 eV Å–1.The geometry update was performed via the GADGET[76] tool, which (i) enables the use of internal
coordinates
for describing the adsorbate layer and (ii) provides advanced algorithms[76] for the initial guess of the Hesse matrix, where
in the present work Fischer’s model[77] was applied. To sample the very rich configurational space of the
highly flexible midchain ester-functionalized alkyl thiolates, we
did a preoptimization using molecular dynamics (for details see the Supporting Information).
Calculating
XPS Core-Level Shifts
Relative XPS core-level shifts were
calculated within the initial-state
approach, which in VASP relies on a recalculation of the Kohn–Sham
eigenvalues of the core states subsequent to the self-consistent determination
of the charge density associated with the valence electrons.[78] Relative shifts of these energies are often
found to reproduce very well the experimentally obtained results.[79−81,29] In passing, we note that we compared
the results obtained using this approach to full-potential calculations
employing the FHI-aims code,[82] which yielded
quantitatively consistent core-level shifts (for details see the Supporting Information).For the present
systems, where we are primarily interested in core-level excitations
of atoms relatively far away from the metal surface, the initial-state
approach is preferable over the a priori more sophisticated
final state approaches.[83−90] In the latter, screening effects especially by the metal are considered
explicitly in the quantum-mechanical simulations. This is particularly
important for atoms very close to the metal surface, i.e., the sulfur
atoms[91] and the first few carbons. It would,
however, result in serious artifacts in the present case: Final-state
approaches rely on calculating the energy for a situation with one
or one-half of an electron (employing Slater’s transition state
theory[92]) excited from the core into the
valence region. In our systems, the unoccupied valence region is represented
by states in the metal right above EF.
This means that any carbon core-level excitation is associated with
a charge transfer from an atom within the SAM into the metal substrate
(i.e., over an appreciable distance especially for carbon atoms near
the surface of the SAM). This gives rise to a sizable dipole moment,
which would not pose a significant problem if the excitation happened
only in individual molecules (as in the experiments). Because of the
periodic boundary conditions, one, however, deals with an excitation-induced
large dipole in every unit cell, resulting in an artificial potential
gradient and in a shift of the core-level energies due to collective
electrostatic effects (vide supra). Hence, for including
screening effects via the final-state approach, one would need to
converge the size of the unit cell until the excitation-induced dipoles
are dilute enough such that the described artifacts become significantly
smaller than the shifts in core-level energies that one intends to
describe. This would require intractably large unit cells.As
in the here-applied initial-state approach the screening of
the core hole by the highly polarizable metal substrate is not directly
considered in the calculations of the core-level energies,[93,94] it needs to be accounted for by an electrostatic image charge model.[95,96] There the core-level energies including screening are expressed
(in atomic units) asHere, ε is the dielectric constant of
the SAM. We chose ε = 2.26 for both systems for the full coverage
case.[32] This approach neglects that the
SAMs are of only finite thickness, which is expected to have a negligible
effect on the results. Also direct screening effects within the dielectric
SAM are not accounted for. For the low coverage calculations ε
= 1.0 was used, since these calculations represent essentially isolated
molecules on the substrate. The constant z0 is the position of the image plane. It was set to 0.9 Å above
the average z-position of the top Au layer.[97,98]z is the position of the atom whose core level
is excited. The screening shifts core-level energies to less negative
values (smaller binding energies) and affects the atoms closest to
the substrate most. As the molecules we investigated consist of rather
long alkyl chains, the overall impact of screening on the XP spectra
is comparably small, since the atoms in the SAM far away from the
substrate, for which screening is least relevant, contribute most
strongly to the experimental signals. To compare the results of the
calculations directly to the experiments, we simulated XP spectra
by associating each C 1s core level with a Gaussian peak[99] centered at εC1s,screened and
subsequently summing over the contributions of all atoms weighted
by an exponential attenuation function to account for the finite escape
depth of the photoelectrons:[100]The individual weights w(d) depend on d, the vertical distance between atom i and the topmost
layer of atoms in the SAM, and the damping factor, λ. w0 is a scaling constant, which does not affect
the shape of the spectra. λ is given by[100]where Ekin is
the kinetic energy of the escaping electron, which is determined by
the energy of the incident photon (in our case 580 eV) minus the binding
energy of the electron (calculated C 1s energy). The empirical attenuation
factor β was chosen such that experimental relative peak heights
were reproduced by our calculations. We used β = 0.638 for esterSAMs and β = 0.55 for partially fluorinated SAMs, where the
smaller value in the latter case accounts for the stronger damping
due to the significantly increased electron density in the fluorinated
SAM.
Results and Discussion
XP Spectrum
of the Partially Fluorinated SAM
(F8H11SH): Dominance of Chemical Shifts
The calculated core-level
energies are shown together with the simulated and measured XP spectra
for densely packed F8H11SH SAMs in Figure . It is well established that calculated
core-level energies are better suited to reproduce core-level shifts
rather than absolute binding energies.[45,79−81] Therefore, while the core-level energies in the left panel of Figure are reported as
calculated, the simulated spectrum in the right panel of Figure is stretched by
a factor of 1.15 and shifted by 20.1 eV to align them with the experimental
curve. This is analogous to the strategy commonly applied when comparing
calculated energies of Kohn–Sham orbitals with experimentally
measured binding energies in the valence region.[101] In this context it needs to be stressed that while this
procedure improves the quantitative agreement between the measured
and simulated curves, it is by no means necessary for reproducing
the experimentally observed trends in our calculations.
Figure 3
DFT-calculated
(screened) C 1s core-level energies relative to
the Fermi energy for each carbon atom in a full coverage F8H11SH SAM
(left panel). The right panel shows the XP spectrum calculated from
the individual C 1s energies of the SAM (black). Additionally, the
measured HRXP spectrum[51] of a full coverage
F8H11SH SAM on Au(111) is shown (light blue). The measurements were
performed with an incident photon energy of 580 eV. Five Gaussian
peaks are fitted to the measured spectrum; the assignment of these
peaks is discussed in the main text. While the core-level energies
in the left panel are reported as calculated, the simulated spectrum
has been stretched by a factor of 1.15 and subsequently shifted by
20.1 eV (binding energy = [εC1s,screened – EF] × 1.15 + 20.1 eV). As a consequence
of that the left and right scales do not cover the same range of values.
The experimental spectrum is reprinted with permission from ref (51).
DFT-calculated
(screened) C 1s core-level energies relative to
the Fermi energy for each carbon atom in a full coverage F8H11SH SAM
(left panel). The right panel shows the XP spectrum calculated from
the individual C 1s energies of the SAM (black). Additionally, the
measured HRXP spectrum[51] of a full coverage
F8H11SH SAM on Au(111) is shown (light blue). The measurements were
performed with an incident photon energy of 580 eV. Five Gaussian
peaks are fitted to the measured spectrum; the assignment of these
peaks is discussed in the main text. While the core-level energies
in the left panel are reported as calculated, the simulated spectrum
has been stretched by a factor of 1.15 and subsequently shifted by
20.1 eV (binding energy = [εC1s,screened – EF] × 1.15 + 20.1 eV). As a consequence
of that the left and right scales do not cover the same range of values.
The experimental spectrum is reprinted with permission from ref (51).For understanding the details of the calculated as well as
measured
XP spectra, it is useful to identify groups of carbon atoms with chemically
different environments along the chain. In ref (51) five chemically distinct
carbon species have been assigned to various features of the high-resolution
XP spectra (cf. Figure ): (1) the terminal carbon atom bonded to three fluorine atoms giving
rise to the peak at the most negative binding energy (violet curve);
(2) the carbon atoms in the fluorinated segment having two fluorinated
carbon atoms as nearest neighbors and associated with the highest
intensity feature in the spectrum (green curve); (3) the other terminal
carbon atom in the fluorinated segment adjacent to the hydrocarbon
segment visible as an asymmetry of the line shape of the main peak
(yellow curve); (4) the terminal carbon atom of the hydrocarbon segment,
adjacent to the fluorinated segment (dark blue); and (5) the carbons
in the other CH2 groups with only CH2 carbons
and sulfur (see below) as neighbors causing the peak at least negative
binding energies (red curve). These assignments are fully confirmed
by a comparison between the simulated and measured spectra and by
tracing back the features in the simulated XP spectrum to the core
levels of individual carbon atoms in the left panel of Figure . The simulations also clearly
reveal a slightly shifted binding energy of the very first carbon
atom due to the bonding to the sulfur atom. Moreover, we observe increasingly
less negative core-level binding energies for the CH2 carbon
atoms upon approaching the metal surface, which is a consequence of
the increasing screening. The latter two effects are not resolved
in the experiments due to the close values of the binding energies
for the respective carbon atoms as well as the progressively strong
attenuation of the photoelectron signal for the atoms far from the
surface. Overall, the excellent agreement between theory and experiment
for the F8H11SH SAM confirms that the used methodology is capable
of reliably describing chemical shifts in photoemission for self-assembled
monolayers.
XP Spectrum of the Alkyl
Thiolate SAM Containing
an Embedded Ester Group (C10EC5): Significance of Electrostatic Shifts
As can be clearly seen in Figure , also for the C10EC5 SAM the main features of the
measured XP spectra, namely the relative peak positions and the relative
peak intensities, are very well reproduced in the simulations. The
peak associated with the carbonyl carbon (marked yellow in Figure ) at the most negative
binding energy is clearly resolved in the experiments. This is a consequence
of the modified chemical environment of that particular carbon atom
that is bonded to two oxygen atoms. Right next to it we find the peak
associated with the ether C (marked green in Figure ), which is still significantly chemically
shifted with respect to the emission from the carbon atoms in the
aliphatic chain segments, albeit to a lesser degree than for the carboxylic
C atom. As in the F8H11SH case, we find that the peak associated with
the first carbon directly bound to the sulfur docking group is slightly
shifted to more negative binding energies in the calculations. The
feature due to the terminal CH3 carbon is not resolved
as a separate peak in the simulated and measured XP spectra as the
associated shift is much smaller than for the CF3 carbon
in the F8H11SH example.
Figure 4
DFT-calculated (screened) C 1s core-level energies
relative to
the Fermi energy for each carbon atom in a full coverage C10EC5 SAM
(left panel). The reported C 1s energies and z-positions
are averaged over the four molecules in the unit cell. The impact
of this averaging is negligible, with typical (maximum) variations
on the order of 0.01 eV (0.1 eV). The right side of the figure shows
the XP spectrum calculated from the individual C 1s energies of the
same SAM (black). Additionally, the measured HRXP spectrum[32] of a full coverage C10EC5 SAM on Au(111) is
shown (light blue). The measurements were performed with an incident
photon energy of 580 eV. Four Gaussian peaks are fitted to the measured
spectrum; the assignment of the obtained peaks is discussed in the
main text. While the core-level energies in the left panel are reported
as calculated, the simulated spectrum has been stretched by a factor
of 1.15 and subsequently shifted by 20.1 eV (binding energy = [εC1s,screened – EF] ×
1.15 + 20.1 eV). As a consequence of that, the left and right scales
do not cover the same range of values. The experimental spectrum is
reprinted with permission from ref (32).
DFT-calculated (screened) C 1s core-level energies
relative to
the Fermi energy for each carbon atom in a full coverage C10EC5 SAM
(left panel). The reported C 1s energies and z-positions
are averaged over the four molecules in the unit cell. The impact
of this averaging is negligible, with typical (maximum) variations
on the order of 0.01 eV (0.1 eV). The right side of the figure shows
the XP spectrum calculated from the individual C 1s energies of the
same SAM (black). Additionally, the measured HRXP spectrum[32] of a full coverage C10EC5 SAM on Au(111) is
shown (light blue). The measurements were performed with an incident
photon energy of 580 eV. Four Gaussian peaks are fitted to the measured
spectrum; the assignment of the obtained peaks is discussed in the
main text. While the core-level energies in the left panel are reported
as calculated, the simulated spectrum has been stretched by a factor
of 1.15 and subsequently shifted by 20.1 eV (binding energy = [εC1s,screened – EF] ×
1.15 + 20.1 eV). As a consequence of that, the left and right scales
do not cover the same range of values. The experimental spectrum is
reprinted with permission from ref (32).While all these differences in core-level energies can be
understood
as a consequence of different chemical environments, this is not the
case for the shift between the two most prominent peaks of the spectrum
located around −285 eV. They can be unambiguously assigned
to the CH2 groups in the bottom and top segments of the
molecule (below and above the ester group). These two segments are
chemically equivalent, but still the associated average C 1s core-level
energies differ by as much as 0.86 eV. In passing, we note that this
difference is not caused by different degrees of screening of the
core holes in the upper and lower segments, as can be gauged by experiments
on nonsubstituted alkyl thiolate SAMs[102] and also from a simulation in which a difference of 0.71 eV is still
present when this screening is switched off.Thus, there must
be another origin for that shift in core-level
energies. As already suggested by Cabarcos et al.,[32] this has to be related to the regular arrangement of the
ester dipoles. Although the dipole moments originating from the polar
ester groups are strongly inclined relative to the surface normal,[32] their components perpendicular to the substrate
are still sizable. This can be shown by calculating the dipole moments
per molecule perpendicular to the film surface in hypothetical free-standing
SAMs arranged in the geometry the molecules adopt on the surface (but
after replacing the polar thiol group by a hydrogen to isolate the
polar contribution of the ester). The obtained perpendicular dipole
moments per molecule then amount to 0.51 D at full and to 0.76 D at
1/32 coverage. The smaller value at full coverage is the consequence
of well-known depolarization effects. The horizontal components of
the dipoles are compensated by a polarization of the metal (cf. mirror
charges).The individual electric fields originating from the
ester dipole
perpendicular to the substrate add up and cause a sharp drop in the
electrostatic energy.[47] The drop is very
strongly localized, as contrary to the situation of isolated dipoles,
electric fields decay rapidly in densely packed SAMs.[46] As also the core levels are strongly localized at individual
carbon atoms, their energies directly follow the dipole-induced change
of the electrostatic energy. This results in very different binding
energies of the core levels of the upper and lower alkyl segments
relative to the Fermi level of the metal and, consequently, in strongly
different kinetic energies of the photoelectrons. This is illustrated
schematically in Figure . In that sense, the core-level energies serve as very sensitive
probes of the local electrostatic energy within the SAM.
Figure 5
Schematic illustration
of the energy level alignment in the C10EC5
SAM. The core and valence levels of the bottom segment (1) and top
segment (2) of the molecules are separated by an ordered two-dimensional
array of dipoles. The associated shift in energy results in two different
measured electron kinetic energies at the detector (Ekin1 and Ekin2). The green arrows symbolize the XPS measurement process with the
incident photon energy hν. EF denotes the Fermi energy, which for zero bias is the
same at the sample and detector sides of the setup[37] in contrast to the vacuum energy Evac. The work function of the clean gold substrate is modified
by the applied SAM to the resulting value Φ. For the sake of
clarity, we assume an infinitely extended sample and detector; i.e.,
no distinction between the vacuum level directly above the sample
and at a distance much larger than the sample dimensions is made,
as this would not affect the differences in the kinetic energies of
the photoelectrons.
Schematic illustration
of the energy level alignment in the C10EC5
SAM. The core and valence levels of the bottom segment (1) and top
segment (2) of the molecules are separated by an ordered two-dimensional
array of dipoles. The associated shift in energy results in two different
measured electron kinetic energies at the detector (Ekin1 and Ekin2). The green arrows symbolize the XPS measurement process with the
incident photon energy hν. EF denotes the Fermi energy, which for zero bias is the
same at the sample and detector sides of the setup[37] in contrast to the vacuum energy Evac. The work function of the clean gold substrate is modified
by the applied SAM to the resulting value Φ. For the sake of
clarity, we assume an infinitely extended sample and detector; i.e.,
no distinction between the vacuum level directly above the sample
and at a distance much larger than the sample dimensions is made,
as this would not affect the differences in the kinetic energies of
the photoelectrons.Since this shift in the
electrostatic potential arises from the
collective superposition of the fields of the 2D arranged dipoles,
it is (i) directly proportional to the dipole density and (ii) expected
to diminish for individual dipoles, where instead of the highly localized[46] step in the electrostatic energy a much smaller
and smeared out shift in the binding energy of the core levels due
to the electric field of an individual dipole is to be expected.[47] This provides an efficient handle for testing
the above hypothesis that such electrostatic effects indeed impact
measured core-level energies: Upon reducing the coverage of the SAM
(with - in this computer-experiment - maintained geometry and dipole
orientation, vide supra), XPS core-level shifts induced
by collective electrostatic effects should decrease and for very low
coverages essentially disappear. In contrast, chemically induced shifts
ought to persist.
XP Spectra at Reduced Coverage:
Turning Off
Collective Electrostatic Effects
In the following, we discuss
core-level energies at strongly reduced coverages (cf. section ) for the C10EC5 and F8H11SH
systems. The evolution of the spectra for gradually reducing the coverage
can be found in the Supporting Information. A conceptually related situation, at least as far as the impact
of the ester dipoles is concerned, would be a homogeneously mixed
SAM consisting of a minority of C10EC5 molecules embedded into alkyl
thiolates.Figure a compares the core-level energies of C10EC5 molecules in full and
low coverage SAMs. The most important result of this comparison is
that for the low coverage SAM the shift between the core-level energies
of the upper and lower alkyl segments has essentially disappeared.
As a consequence, in the simulated XP spectra the main peak is no
longer the superposition of two clearly resolved maxima but is rather
dominated by a single feature. This very much supports the above hypothesis
that the shift in the full-coverage SAM is of purely electrostatic
origin. Consistent with this scenario, the carbonyl carbon and the
ether carbon core-level energies are still shifted with respect to
the rest of the chain, as the origin of that shift is mostly “chemical”
in nature.
Figure 6
Calculated C 1s core-level energies of (a) C10EC5 and (b) F8H11SH
in the full coverage SAMs (black) compared to the low-coverage situation
(red). The molecular geometries are kept the same at both coverages
(for further details see section ). The right plot shows the XP spectra calculated from
the individual 1s orbital energies of all carbons in the unit cell
plotted without shifting and stretching of the original data, as we
do not compare to experimental spectra here.
Calculated C 1s core-level energies of (a) C10EC5 and (b) F8H11SH
in the full coverage SAMs (black) compared to the low-coverage situation
(red). The molecular geometries are kept the same at both coverages
(for further details see section ). The right plot shows the XP spectra calculated from
the individual 1s orbital energies of all carbons in the unit cell
plotted without shifting and stretching of the original data, as we
do not compare to experimental spectra here.What still remains to be explained is why the positions of
all
C 1s core levels are shifted to smaller binding energies in the low-coverage
SAMs. This can again be traced back to collective electrostatic effects
(or rather the lack thereof) in the low-coverage situation: One must
not forget that also at the metal/SAM interface a significant dipole
is present (i) due to the thiolate group and (ii) as a consequence
of bonding-induced charge rearrangements. This second ordered dipole
layer causes a potential drop at the metal/SAM interface at full coverage.
This results in an electrostatic shift of the core-level energies
of all atoms situated above the docking group, i.e., all carbon atoms
within the SAM, for the same reasons as in the case of the ester dipole.
At low coverage that steplike change in the electrostatic energy diminishes
and is replaced by the much weaker potential energy modification due
to an individual dipole. Noteworthy, the rigid shift of the C 1s core
levels in the bottom segment far from the dipoles between the two
different coverages allows a determination of an upper limit for the
shift in the electrostatic energy due to the thiolates (including
the bonding to the metal), which for the present configuration of
the chains amounts to 1.25 eV. The reason for this value representing
only an upper limit is that it is affected also by differences in
the core-hole screening (cf. section ). When neglecting screening effects, the
shift is reduced to 0.94 eV.The above “electrostatic”
view is fully corroborated
by the electron electrostatic energy within the SAM at full and low
coverages, which is shown in Figure . There one clearly sees the significantly higher electrostatic
energy around the isolated molecule (right) compared to the densely
packed monolayer (left). What is also clearly resolved is that the
top and bottom segments of the C10EC5 molecule at low coverage experience
a very similar electrostatic environment, while there is a significant
shift in energy between the regions around the top and bottom segments
at full coverage; i.e., the polar ester groups induce a potential
energy step at high coverages, while the potential modifications associated
with the ester group are comparably local for the isolated molecule.
Figure 7
Calculated
electron electrostatic energy for the full coverage
C10EC5 SAM (molecular footprint of 22.3 Å2) shown
on the left and the low coverage C10EC5 SAM (molecular footprint of
712.8 Å2) shown on the right; the potential is plotted
in the plane containing the (essentially parallel) long molecular
axes of two (of the four) neighboring molecules in the unit cell.
The electrostatic energy is given with respect to the Fermi level
of each system.
Calculated
electron electrostatic energy for the full coverage
C10EC5 SAM (molecular footprint of 22.3 Å2) shown
on the left and the low coverage C10EC5 SAM (molecular footprint of
712.8 Å2) shown on the right; the potential is plotted
in the plane containing the (essentially parallel) long molecular
axes of two (of the four) neighboring molecules in the unit cell.
The electrostatic energy is given with respect to the Fermi level
of each system.When comparing the F8H11SH
high- and low-coverage SAMs a picture
evolves that is consistent with the above considerations (see Figure b): There is a rigid
shift of all C 1s core-level energies to lower binding energies in
the low-coverage case. Again, the reason is that the step in the electrostatic
energy due to the thiolates diminishes at low coverages. The effect
is somewhat smaller for the F8H11SH SAM (only 1.0 eV compared to 1.25
eV for the C10EC5 SAM). This is a consequence of (i) the lower density
of docking groups in the latter case (cf., section ) and (ii) the somewhat different docking
geometry for a situation with all molecules parallel (F8H11SH) compared
to a herringbone packing (C10EC5).[103]Interestingly, the differences in core-level energies for the two
coverages are smaller in the fluorinated section of the SAM. This
can be understood as the consequence of a small dipole component pointing
toward the surface that is localized in the interface region between
the fluorinated and nonfluorinated sections of the SAM (cf. molecular
dipole contribution in ref (104)). This causes a comparably small upward shift of the core-level
energies in the fluorinated section of the SAM; i.e., also in F8H11SH
electrostatic shifts do play a role, but they are very small compared
to the chemical shifts and therefore typically not accounted for when
interpreting the experiments. When reducing the coverage, these electrostatic
shifts again disappear explaining the smaller net shift to lower binding
energies in the fluorinated section of the SAM.
Conclusions
The considerations in this paper show that shifts
in the core-level
binding energies measured for thin organic films by X-ray photoelectron
spectroscopy are not only determined by the chemical environment of
the atoms of interest. Additionally, variations in the electrostatic
energy caused by collective electrostatic effects (albeit often overlooked)
play an equivalently important role. This is shown by a comparison
between experimental and theoretical XP spectra combined with an in-depth
analysis of the local electrostatic situation in two prototypicalthiolate-bonded self-assembled monolayers. As a consequence, great
care has to be taken when exclusively associating experimentally observed
changes in core-level binding energies with chemical changes occurring
in an adsorbate layer. Peak shifts of several tenths of an electronvolt
or more can be caused either by interfacial charge rearrangements
(here due to the bonding of the thiolates) or by polar groups incorporated
into the studied molecules. As a consequence, when using chemically
identical species in different spatial regions of an adsorbate (i.e.,
when ruling out chemical shifts), XPS can become a powerful tool for
probing local variations in the electrostatic energy, making it a
highly promising technique for studying nanoscopic electronic devices
even beyond its well-recognized capabilities.
Authors: S Kobayashi; T Nishikawa; T Takenobu; S Mori; T Shimoda; T Mitani; H Shimotani; N Yoshimoto; S Ogawa; Y Iwasa Journal: Nat Mater Date: 2004-04-04 Impact factor: 43.841
Authors: Mikko Salomäki; Tuomo Ouvinen; Lauri Marttila; Henri Kivelä; Jarkko Leiro; Ermei Mäkilä; Jukka Lukkari Journal: J Phys Chem B Date: 2019-03-12 Impact factor: 2.991
Authors: Robin Schürmann; Evgenii Titov; Kenny Ebel; Sergio Kogikoski; Amr Mostafa; Peter Saalfrank; Aleksandar R Milosavljević; Ilko Bald Journal: Nanoscale Adv Date: 2022-02-02