Iris Hehn1, Swen Schuster2, Tobias Wächter2, Tarek Abu-Husein3, Andreas Terfort3, 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. 3. Institut für Anorganische und Analytische Chemie, Universität Frankfurt , Max-von-Laue-Straße 7, 60438 Frankfurt, Germany.
Abstract
Self-assembled monolayers (SAMs) containing embedded dipolar groups offer the particular advantage of changing the electronic properties of a surface without affecting the SAM-ambient interface. Here we show that such systems can also be used for continuously tuning metal work functions by growing mixed monolayers consisting of molecules with different orientations of the embedded dipolar groups. To avoid injection hot-spots when using the SAM-modified electrodes in devices, a homogeneous mixing of the two components is crucial. We show that a combination of high-resolution X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy with state-of-the-art simulations is an ideal tool for probing the electrostatic homogeneity of the layers and thus for determining phase separation processes in polar adsorbate assemblies down to inhomogeneities at the molecular level.
Self-assembled monolayers (SAMs) containing embedded dipolar groups offer the particular advantage of changing the electronic properties of a surface without affecting the SAM-ambient interface. Here we show that such systems can also be used for continuously tuning metal work functions by growing mixed monolayers consisting of molecules with different orientations of the embedded dipolar groups. To avoid injection hot-spots when using the SAM-modified electrodes in devices, a homogeneous mixing of the two components is crucial. We show that a combination of high-resolution X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy with state-of-the-art simulations is an ideal tool for probing the electrostatic homogeneity of the layers and thus for determining phase separation processes in polar adsorbate assemblies down to inhomogeneities at the molecular level.
Self-assembled monolayers (SAMs)
containing terminal polar groups are commonly used for changing the
work function of electrode materials.[1−12] This allows manipulating sample work functions, carrier injection
barriers, and/or the chemistry of the SAM–ambient interface.
The latter then impacts the growth of the active organic layer on
top of the SAM-covered electrode.[10,11,13−16] A possible complication is that changing terminal
polar groups simultaneously affects all these properties.[17−20] To overcome this problem, systems containing polar units embedded
into the molecular backbones are a promising alternative.[21] In this context, we have recently suggested
the use of aromatic, terphenyl-methanethiol derived SAMs in which
the central ring has been substituted by a 2,5-pyrimidine unit bearing
a sizable dipole moment of ∼2.3 D (cf., TP1-up and TP1-down
SAMs in Figure a).[22,23] An advantage of these molecules is that the embedded dipoles can
be used to control the interface electronic structure without introducing
any chemical or sterical constraints. TP1-up and TP1-down form well-ordered
layers on Au(111), and depending on the orientation of the pyrimidines,
they change the work function of the SAM-covered surfaces by ca. ±0.5
eV compared to a terphenylthiolate-based reference, as shown by Kelvin
probe measurements and ultraviolet photoelectron spectroscopy (UPS).[22]
Figure 1
(a) Chemical structures of the TP1, TP1-down, and TP1-up
molecules.
The orientation of the electric dipole moment of the embedded pyrimidine
groups is indicated by blue arrows. (b) Schematic of a TP1 SAM adsorbed
on a Au(111) substrate (equivalent to the structures of pure and mixed
TP1-up and TP1-down SAMs). The √3 × 3 (short dashed cyan
line), 2√3 × 3 (dashed red line), and 6√3 ×
3 (solid black line) surface unit cells were used to describe pure
films, homogeneous mixtures, and short-range phase separated structures.
The blue and green shaded areas indicate the TP1-up and TP1-down arrangement
in mixed SAMs. The situation in the striped (inhomogeneous) 50:50
mixture is indicated in the upper half of the figure, whereas the
lower half of the figure represents the checkerboard structure of
a homogeneous 50:50 mixture. The central molecules of each domain
of the striped structure are indicated by yellow ellipses.
(a) Chemical structures of the TP1, TP1-down, and TP1-up
molecules.
The orientation of the electric dipole moment of the embedded pyrimidine
groups is indicated by blue arrows. (b) Schematic of a TP1 SAM adsorbed
on a Au(111) substrate (equivalent to the structures of pure and mixed
TP1-up and TP1-down SAMs). The √3 × 3 (short dashed cyan
line), 2√3 × 3 (dashed red line), and 6√3 ×
3 (solid black line) surface unit cells were used to describe pure
films, homogeneous mixtures, and short-range phase separated structures.
The blue and green shaded areas indicate the TP1-up and TP1-down arrangement
in mixed SAMs. The situation in the striped (inhomogeneous) 50:50
mixture is indicated in the upper half of the figure, whereas the
lower half of the figure represents the checkerboard structure of
a homogeneous 50:50 mixture. The central molecules of each domain
of the striped structure are indicated by yellow ellipses.Going beyond homogeneous SAMs, mixed monolayers
consisting of molecules
containing differently oriented dipole moments allow a continuous
tuning of the system work function.[24−27] Also for those it is highly desirable
to achieve this work function tuning without compromising the properties
of the SAM–ambient interface. This has recently been elegantly
achieved using mixtures of carboranethiol isomers with varying molecular
dipoles.[11] There, the authors not only
observed a continuous tunability of the sample work function in mixed
monolayers but also achieved that with only very minor changes of
the measured water contact angles, surface energies, and thin film
growth mode on top of their SAMs.Here, we focus on mixed monolayers
of the embedded dipole molecules
TP1-up and TP1-down (vide supra), which have two distinct advantages
over the carboranethiols: (i) The dipolar units are even more strongly
shielded from the SAM–ambient interface by the terminal unsubstituted
phenyl ring (see Figure a). (ii) The X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) signal originating
from the outermost ring can be used as an efficient tool for probing
the distribution of the electrostatic potential within the SAM.[22,28] The latter allows us to directly probe the degree of phase separation
within the mixed monolayer (vide infra). This is absolutely crucial
for judging the suitability of mixed monolayers for manipulating charge-injection
barriers, because phase separation could potentially have highly undesired
consequences like the formation of local injection hot-spots. Here
we will demonstrate that a combination of XPS and quantum-mechanical
simulations enables the determination of the homogeneity of the mixed
SAMs at a molecular level.Mixed TP1-up/TP1-down SAMs were prepared
by coadsorption, using
the standard immersion procedure and varying the molar ratio of both
components in the mixed solutions. SAM-induced work function changes
were determined using a Kelvin probe and high-resolution XPS (HRXPS)
spectra were recorded at a synchrotron. To simulate the electronic
properties of the SAMs, we performed slab-type band-structure calculations
on periodic surfaces employing the VASP[29−32] code in conjunction with the
program GADGET[33] for geometry optimizations.
Simulated XP spectra were obtained employing the approach described
in ref (28), with the
variance of the individual Gaussian peaks chosen as 0.1 eV to reproduce
the experimental peak width of the pure TP1-up SAM. Further details
on the experimental and modeling methodology can be found in the Supporting Information.Consistent with
STM experiments on TP1-up, TP1-down, and TP1 monolayers,[22] a (√3 × 3) surface unit cell containing
two molecules was chosen for pure monolayers. The molecules were arranged
in a herringbone pattern. When homogeneously mixed SAMs were simulated,
a (2√3 × 3) unit cell containing four molecules was selected.
This allowed the realization of 75:25, 50:50, and 25:75 mixing ratios
(see Figure b, bottom
half). To simulate short-range phase separation,[34−36] we designed
a (6√3 × 3) surface unit cell containing six TP1-up and
six TP1-down molecules arranged such that they form homogeneous stripes
(see Figure b, top
half). Other shapes of short-range phase-separated structures that
would require significantly larger unit cells are computationally
not tractable. The qualitative conclusions described below, however,
also hold for other “shapes” of phase separation, as
can be shown by simple electrostatic considerations described in the Supporting Information. Long-range phase separation
corresponds to the coexistence of extended TP1-up and TP1-down domains.
Therefore, we modeled this situation by an appropriately weighted
superposition of the spectra of the neat films for both experimental
and simulated spectra.For mixed SAMs to be of practical use,
the first criterion is that
varying the mixing ratio allows a tuning of the SAM-induced work function
change, ΔΦ. Correspondingly, work function changes as
a function of the TP1-up to TP1-down mixing ratio are shown in Figure . In both simulations
and experiments we see a continuous evolution of ΔΦ with
mixing ratio resulting in an increase of the work function with increasing
the TP1-down fraction. In this context it needs to be stressed that
the compositions given for the experimental data points in Figure are the ones prevalent
in the solutions used to grow the films because direct determination
of the film composition after growth was not possible due to the chemically
very similar structures of TP1-up and TP1-down.
Figure 2
SAM-induced work function
change for a mixed TP1-up:TP1-down SAM
as a function of the mixing ratio compared to a TP1 reference SAM.
Blue triangles represent average values of two independent experiments
(see the Supporting Information for more
details); black circles denote simulations. Note that the mixing ratio
for the experiments refers to the composition of the solution from
which the SAM was grown (which deviates from the actual composition
on the surface; see main text for details); in contrast, the mixing
ratio in the simulations denotes the composition of the surface unit
cell. The blue dashed and the black dash–dotted lines are guides
to the eye.
SAM-induced work function
change for a mixed TP1-up:TP1-down SAM
as a function of the mixing ratio compared to a TP1 reference SAM.
Blue triangles represent average values of two independent experiments
(see the Supporting Information for more
details); black circles denote simulations. Note that the mixing ratio
for the experiments refers to the composition of the solution from
which the SAM was grown (which deviates from the actual composition
on the surface; see main text for details); in contrast, the mixing
ratio in the simulations denotes the composition of the surface unit
cell. The blue dashed and the black dash–dotted lines are guides
to the eye.In the simulations the
net shifts are somewhat larger than in the
experiments, which at least in part can be attributed to structural
imperfections like grain-boundaries (cf, discussion in ref (22)). At first glance more
surprising are the different shapes of the work function evolutions.
In the simulations, an essentially linear dependence on the mixing
ratio is obtained in spite of depolarization effects[37−39] prevalent in densely packed SAMs. A similar trend has been found
for tail-group substituted SAMs, and its origin is explained in ref (25). In the experiments, a
more “S-shaped” curve is observed. That is, even when
the mixing ratio in solution deviates from 50:50 (such as 75:25),
the absolute magnitudes of the measured work function change appears
comparably small. This is not a consequence of depolarization effects
as these would result in an opposite curvature. Instead, we attribute
it to a film composition on the surface deviating from that in solution,
which arises from an increased stability of a 50:50 mixed SAM due
to the stabilizing head-to-tail arrangement of neighboring dipoles.
This notion is consistent with our simulations, where we find that
the total system energy per molecule of the 50:50 mixture is 75 meV
lower than the 25:75 up:down mixture and 60 meV lower than the 75:25
mixture. Overall, this behavior is not surprising considering that
situations with surface coverage ratios deviating from concentrations
in solution have been repeatedly observed in the literature.[11,36,40,41] The symmetric shape of the experimentally observed work function
evolution with concentration in solution also implies that there is
no preferential deprotonation of either TP1-up or TP1-down on the
surface, which can be understood from the fact that the thiolate is
well separated from the pyrimidine by a phenyl and a methylene group.Having established that mixing TP1-up and TP1-down is a viable
strategy for changing the work function, it is crucial to determine
whether such mixtures are homogeneous or whether significant variations
of the local injection barrier are to be expected when using the SAM-covered
electrodes in (opto)electronic devices. Our Kelvin-probe measurements
are not suitable for that task because they average over large sample
areas. Looking for double-peak structures or shoulders in the secondary
cutoff region of photoelectron spectra[42] is also not ideal because this would again not reveal inhomogeneities
on the nanometer scale.[43] A potential solution
would be Kelvin-probe force microscopy measurements, but this technique
has also certain limitations;[44,45] therefore, in spite
of the recent progress,[46−50] it should be hardly possible to map the work function in SAMs with
molecular resolution. Thus, we need a technique that is capable of
locally determining the “electrostatic homogeneity”
of an adsorbate layer. In the following we will demostrate that HRXPS
serves that purpose with a capacity to reveal electrostatic sample
inhomogeneities occurring on the scale of ∼10 Å.As we have discussed recently, the binding energies measured in
HRXPS for adsorbate layers not only are determined by the immediate
chemical environments of the individual atoms but also crucially depend
on the local electrostatic energy.[28] For
example, in layers containing ordered assemblies of dipoles, the binding
energies for chemically identical species above and below those dipolar
sheets can be shifted by several hundred millielectronvolts because
of the dipole-induced discontinuities in the electrostatic energy,
often also referred to as collective electrostatic effects.[21,22,28] Similar electrostatically induced
energetic shifts have been observed for the valence region of polar
adsorbate layers.[51] In homogeneous TP1-up
and TP1-down SAMs we have measured [calculated] shifts of the C 1s
binding energies of the terminal rings amounting to −0.65 eV
(TP1-up) and +0.42 eV (TP1-down) [−0.73 eV (TP1-up), + 0.74
eV (TP1-down)] relative to a TP1 SAM not containing any embedded dipoles.[22] As the electrostatic shifts arise from the collective
superposition of the fields of the regularly arranged dipoles, this
shift has to decrease as soon as the net dipole density decreases,
which is exactly what we see in the simulations: for homogeneously
mixed SAMs (Figure a), there is (i) a continuous shift of the maximum of the main peak
to lower binding energies with increasing TP1-down content. This peak
is associated with core-level excitations in carbon atoms of the topmost
ring (c.f., ref (22) and calculated core-level binding energies contained in the Supporting Information). (ii) The full width
at half-maximum (fwhm) of the main peak does not change; and (iii)
the peak positions for a 50:50 mixed TP1-up:TP1-down SAM and a TP1
SAM are very close (cf., Figure a,b).
Figure 3
Normalized calculated XP spectra of pure and mixed TP1-up:TP1-down
SAMs. (a) Calculated XP spectra for pure TP1-up (black) and TP1-down
(cyan) SAMs as well as homogeneously mixed SAMs [at TP1-up to TP1-down
ratios of 75:25 (red), 50:50 (green), and 25:75 (blue)]. (b) Calculated
spectra for a TP1 reference SAM (dashed violet), the 50:50 striped
(inhomogeneous) mixture (dark green), and the simulated spectrum of
coexisting large TP1-up and TP1-down domains (gray) obtained by a
weighted superposition of the spectra of the pure TP1-up and TP1-down
SAMs. The orange curve displays the spectrum of the striped (inhomogeneous)
SAM, which was calculated considering only the two central molecules
of each domain to reduce edge effects (molecules highlighted by yellow
ellipses in Figure b). All spectra of panels a and b were obtained using a variance
of 0.1 eV to match experimental peak widths. (c) XP spectra of the
striped SAM (dark green and orange) and the TP1 reference SAM (dashed
violet) evaluated with a reduced variance of 0.03 eV to better visualize
the origin of the broadening.
Normalized calculated XP spectra of pure and mixed TP1-up:TP1-down
SAMs. (a) Calculated XP spectra for pure TP1-up (black) and TP1-down
(cyan) SAMs as well as homogeneously mixed SAMs [at TP1-up to TP1-down
ratios of 75:25 (red), 50:50 (green), and 25:75 (blue)]. (b) Calculated
spectra for a TP1 reference SAM (dashed violet), the 50:50 striped
(inhomogeneous) mixture (dark green), and the simulated spectrum of
coexisting large TP1-up and TP1-down domains (gray) obtained by a
weighted superposition of the spectra of the pure TP1-up and TP1-down
SAMs. The orange curve displays the spectrum of the striped (inhomogeneous)
SAM, which was calculated considering only the two central molecules
of each domain to reduce edge effects (molecules highlighted by yellow
ellipses in Figure b). All spectra of panels a and b were obtained using a variance
of 0.1 eV to match experimental peak widths. (c) XP spectra of the
striped SAM (dark green and orange) and the TP1 reference SAM (dashed
violet) evaluated with a reduced variance of 0.03 eV to better visualize
the origin of the broadening.The situation changes significantly as soon as phase separation
effects are considered (Figure b,c). For the striped structure at 50:50 mixing ratio representing
short-range phase separation, a significant increase of the fwhm of
the main peak compared to the homogeneous mixture is observed (i.e.,
the fwhm becomes 1.17 eV instead of 0.83 eV). As the obtained spectrum
is dominated by molecules at the edges of the domains, it is useful
to consider also the situation of the central TP1-up and TP1-down
molecules in the stripes (highlighted by yellow ellipses in Figure b; orange curve in Figure b). This corresponds
to disregarding the most pronounced edge effects. In that case, we
obtain a further broadening of the main peak to a fwhm of 1.46 eV,
where the maximum is rather a plateau indicating the onset of a double-peak
feature. The latter is better resolved when reducing the extrinsic
peak width, as shown in Figure c. The plot at reduced extrinsic broadening reveals that energetically
distinct peaks are also responsible for the broadening when considering
all molecules of the striped structure (see also calculated core-level
energies in the Supporting Information).The situation becomes most extreme when considering long-range
phase separation representing extended TP1-up and TP1-down islands
in which molecules are surrounded essentially only by identical neighbors
and electrostatic shifts become a maximum (gray curve in Figure b) resulting in two
clearly distinct peaks separated by 1.53 eV. The above considerations
show that even very short ranged inhomogeneities of the films result
in a broadening of the spectra as different molecules experience different
electrostatic environments. Here we take advantage of the fact that
XPS allows us to very locally probe the electrostatic environment
of certain atoms within a molecule. An in-depth discussion of the
shapes of the XPS spectra can be found in the Supporting Information.The different electrostatic
environments for the top rings become
apparent in Figure a, where the electrostatic energy of the electrons in the plane of
half of the molecules of the unit is shown for the striped phase.
The differences are best resolved (by the coloring and isodensity
lines) in the intermolecular regions left and right of the central
molecules of the stripes (marked by arrows). No such variations are
visible for the homogeneously mixed SAM shown in Figure b.
Figure 4
Electrostatic energy
of an electron plotted for the striped (inhomogeneous)
50:50 SAM (top panel) and the homogeneous 50:50 SAM (bottom panel)
in the plane containing the long molecular axes of half of the molecules
(aligned along the x-axis of the unit cell). Values
are given relative to the Fermi level of each system. The black isodensity
lines cover the energy interval from 3.5 to 4.3 eV (the same interval
in which the colors are varied) with lines drawn every 0.05 eV. To
depict the much stronger energy variations inside the SAM, red isodensity
lines are plotted, covering the range from 4.3 to 6.8 eV with a spacing
of 0.25 eV.
Electrostatic energy
of an electron plotted for the striped (inhomogeneous)
50:50 SAM (top panel) and the homogeneous 50:50 SAM (bottom panel)
in the plane containing the long molecular axes of half of the molecules
(aligned along the x-axis of the unit cell). Values
are given relative to the Fermi level of each system. The black isodensity
lines cover the energy interval from 3.5 to 4.3 eV (the same interval
in which the colors are varied) with lines drawn every 0.05 eV. To
depict the much stronger energy variations inside the SAM, red isodensity
lines are plotted, covering the range from 4.3 to 6.8 eV with a spacing
of 0.25 eV.What is even more striking
when comparing these two plots are the
fundamentally different energy landscapes right above the SAMs. While
the electrostatic energy is essentially constant directly above the
homogeneously mixed monolayer (Figure b), there are non-negligible potential variations above
the SAM in the striped phase extending several angstroms into the
region above the monolayer. This is relevant insofar as the potential
variations can be expected to increase for larger domain sizes. Moreover,
bearing in mind the exponential dependence of thermionic and tunneling
injection on barrier heights, they will have a non-negligible impact
on local charge carrier injection efficiencies, even when screening
in a subsequently adsorbed semiconductor layer might somewhat reduce
the effect.To identify the situation prevalent in the experimental
samples,
we finally compare the simulated XPS spectra to the results of the
HRXPS investigations on the mixed SAMs. These are shown in Figure a. They portray a
situation fully consistent with the theoretical predictions for homogeneously
mixed SAMs: (i) There is a continuous shift of the peak maximum with
mixing ratio. (ii) There are no traces of a double-peak structure.
The experimental spectra also bear no resemblance to the hypothetical
spectra for the coexistence of large domains (Figure b) that have been obtained by a weighted
superposition of the spectra measured for the single-component TP1-up
and TP1-down films (i.e., the experimental equivalents to the gray
curve in Figure b).
(iii) Finally, no peak broadening is observed in the mixed SAMs (cf., Table S2 containing the fwhms of the main peaks
of the simulated and measured spectra presented in the Supporting Information).
Figure 5
(a) Experimental C 1s
HRXPS spectra of the homogeneous TP1-up (blue),
TP1-down (red), and mixed TP1-up/TP1-down (black) monolayers acquired
at a photon energy of 350 eV and (b) weighted sums of the TP1-up and
TP1-down spectra, corresponding to a coexistence of large domains
in the mixed films. The percentages of the TP1-up and TP1-down molecules
in the solutions are color-coded and given at the respective spectra.
The vertical olive lines in panel a mark the positions of the dominant
emission. The thick horizontal bars between these lines mark the energy
shifts. The overall rigid shift between the experimental and simulated
(Figure ) spectra
is a consequence of the initial state method of calculating core level
energies and is not relevant for the present comparison.[52−55]
(a) Experimental C 1s
HRXPS spectra of the homogeneous TP1-up (blue),
TP1-down (red), and mixed TP1-up/TP1-down (black) monolayers acquired
at a photon energy of 350 eV and (b) weighted sums of the TP1-up and
TP1-down spectra, corresponding to a coexistence of large domains
in the mixed films. The percentages of the TP1-up and TP1-down molecules
in the solutions are color-coded and given at the respective spectra.
The vertical olive lines in panel a mark the positions of the dominant
emission. The thick horizontal bars between these lines mark the energy
shifts. The overall rigid shift between the experimental and simulated
(Figure ) spectra
is a consequence of the initial state method of calculating core level
energies and is not relevant for the present comparison.[52−55]Interestingly, the continuous
shift of the peak maxima in Figure a mimics the behavior
of the “S-shaped” work function curve in Figure . I.e., it is comparably small
for the 25:75 and 75:25 up:down mixtures relative to the 50:50 composition
and significantly larger between the 25:75 and 75:25 mixtures and
the respective pure films (mixing rations in experiments again referring
to the situation in the solutions used to grow the films). Bearing
in mind that the simulations predict a homogeneous shift of the peak
maximum at the varying film composition (Figure a), this once again points toward a different
composition of the films on the surface compared to the situation
in solution with the 50:50 mixture being energetically favored.Note that along with the dominant peak addressed above, the spectra
in Figure exhibit
some further minor peaks. These are the features at ∼284.8
and 285.6 eV. They are associated with the pyrimidine moiety which
are best perceptible in the spectrum of the pure TP1-down SAM as well
as the feature at ∼283.85 eV associated with the substrate-adjacent
phenyl ring which is best seen in the spectrum of the pure TP1-up
SAM (see the Supporting Information and
especially ref (22) for details). These features decrease in intensity and overlap with
other peaks upon mixing with either TP1-up or TP1-down.In conclusion,
we have shown that mixed monolayers consisting of
TP1-up and TP1-down molecules do not only allow a continuous tuning
of the sample work function in the far-field, i.e., when measuring
work function changes using a Kelvin probe. Much more importantly,
an in-depth analysis of the obtained high-resolution XPS spectra in
conjunction with suitable DFT-based simulations indicates that phase
separation is essentially absent in the films. This results in a very
smooth electrostatic energy already in the immediate vicinity of the
SAMs, which is a prerequisite for using such mixed SAMs for controlling
the injection barrier of electrodes in (opto)electronic devices.
Authors: J Nathan Hohman; Pengpeng Zhang; Elizabeth I Morin; Patrick Han; Moonhee Kim; Adam R Kurland; Patrick D McClanahan; Viktor P Balema; Paul S Weiss Journal: ACS Nano Date: 2009-03-24 Impact factor: 15.881