The self-assembly of 1,3,5-benzenetribenzoic acid (BTB) molecules on both Cu(111) and epitaxial graphene grown on Cu(111) were studied by scanning tunneling microscopy (STM) and low-energy electron diffraction (LEED) under ultrahigh vacuum conditions. On Cu(111), the BTB molecules were found to mainly arrange in close-packed structures through H-bonding between the (partially) deprotonated carboxylic acid groups. In addition, porous structures formed by intact BTB molecules-and also based on H-bonding-were observed. On graphene grown on Cu(111) the BTB molecules mainly form porous structures accompanied by small patches of disordered close-packed structures. Upon annealing, BTB adsorbed on Cu(111) is fully deprotonated and arranges in the close-packed structure while in contrast on graphene/Cu(111) the porous network is exclusively formed. This shows that the molecular self-assembly behavior is highly dependent on the first substrate layer: one graphene layer is sufficient to considerably alter the interplay of molecule substrate and intermolecular interactions in favor of the latter interactions.
The self-assembly of 1,3,5-benzenetribenzoic acid (BTB) molecules on both Cu(111) and epitaxial graphene grown on Cu(111) were studied by scanning tunneling microscopy (STM) and low-energy electron diffraction (LEED) under ultrahigh vacuum conditions. On Cu(111), the BTB molecules were found to mainly arrange in close-packed structures through H-bonding between the (partially) deprotonated carboxylic acid groups. In addition, porous structures formed by intact BTB molecules-and also based on H-bonding-were observed. On graphene grown on Cu(111) the BTB molecules mainly form porous structures accompanied by small patches of disordered close-packed structures. Upon annealing, BTB adsorbed on Cu(111) is fully deprotonated and arranges in the close-packed structure while in contrast on graphene/Cu(111) the porous network is exclusively formed. This shows that the molecular self-assembly behavior is highly dependent on the first substrate layer: one graphene layer is sufficient to considerably alter the interplay of molecule substrate and intermolecular interactions in favor of the latter interactions.
Graphene is considered
as a wonder material due to its countless
outstanding properties,[1,2] which make it the candidate of
choice for numerous applications in areas ranging from photovoltaics
over sensing to electronics.[3−6] Because of its two-dimensional structure, graphene
generally will be in touch with other materials. For example, in the
field of graphene-based organic electronics, the interaction between
organic molecules and graphene is expected to play an important role
in the performance of these devices.[7−9] Therefore, an improved
understanding of the self-assembly of molecules on graphene becomes
of vital interest, also in view of industrial applications. So far,
experimental investigations of molecular self-assembly on graphene
have been mainly focused on commercially available molecules like
perylene-3,4,9,10-tetracarboxylic dianhydride (PTCDA),[10] perylene tetracarboxylic diimide (PTCDI),[11] pentacene,[12] and
further other molecules.[13−16] There have been also a number of theoretical studies
reported which often focus on the changes in the band structure of
graphene due to the adsorption of organic molecules with the goal
to identify a molecule which leads to the opening of a band gap at
the K point.[17−19] On the other hand, graphene is in contact with a
support layer, on which it either has been grown via chemical vapor
deposition (CVD) or placed via a transfer technique. Because of the
single-atom-thickness of graphene, adsorbed molecules will likely
“feel” the underlying substrate and thus, the molecular
layer formation as well as the electronic properties will depend on
both the interaction with graphene and the underlying substrate. For
example for graphene on Ru(0001), the adsorption of C60[20] and Fe phthalocyanine[21] as well as tetracyanoquinodimethane (TCNQ)[22] were found to be guided by the Moirè pattern which
graphene exhibits on Ru(0001). Moreover, for TCNQ on graphene/Ru(0001)
magnetic properties were found for the originally nonmagnetic TCNQ
molecules arising due to the influence of the Ru substrate. Therefore,
a comparative study of the molecular adsorption behavior on graphene
as well as on the supporting substrate of graphene will shed light
on the molecule/graphene interface properties.In this article,
we present a comparative study of the self-assembly
behavior of 1,3,5-benzenetribenzoic acid (BTB) on graphene grown on
Cu(111) and of BTB on bare Cu(111). Scanning tunneling microscopy
(STM) measurements showed that for BTB deposited on Cu(111) held at
room temperature hexagonal porous structures of small sizes coexist
with close-packed structures. While the molecules in the porous structures
are intact the ones in the close-packed structure have their carboxylic
acid groups deprotonated. Upon annealing at elevated temperatures,
all BTB molecules get deprotonated and only the close-packed structure
forms. On the other hand, when BTB is deposited on graphene the molecules
are mainly found to form the hexagonal porous network already observed
on Cu(111). Improved quality and increased size of the porous network
domains are achieved upon annealing at 365 K. Low energy electron
diffraction (LEED) measurements suggest that the porous network preferably
aligns along principal directions of the graphene lattice.
Experimental
Methods
Structural Characterization
The STM measurements were
performed at 77 K under ultrahigh vacuum conditions (base pressure
∼10–11 mbar) with a commercial low temperature
STM (Scienta Omicron GmbH). The STM tip was made from a mechanically
cut Pt/Ir wire. All bias voltages are given with respect to a grounded
tip. The STM images were acquired in constant current mode and were
analyzed with the WSxM software.[23] LEED
measurements were performed at room temperature.
Graphene Preparation
The Cu(111) surface was first
cleaned by repeated cycles of Ar+ sputtering (5.0 Messer)
and annealing (800 K) in ultrahigh vacuum and then transferred to
an ex-situ oven for the graphene growth. Graphene was grown by cracking
methane on the Cu(111) surface at around 1270 K. A detailed description
can be found in ref (24). After graphene was grown on Cu(111), the samples were transferred
back to the UHV system where they were degassed at 700 K for 30 min
to remove residual water and further adsorbates that might adsorbed
onto graphene during the short transfer of the sample through air.
Molecule Deposition
BTB with a purity of 98% was purchased
from Sigma-Aldrich. The structure of BTB is shown in Figure . Deposition of BTB was done in situ from a commercial molecule evaporator (OmniVac)
onto the sample kept at room temperature. Before depositing the molecules
onto Cu(111) and graphene, the BTB molecules were thoroughly degassed.
Figure 1
Structure
of 1,3,5-benzenetribenzoic acid. Carbon atoms are gray,
oxygen atoms red, and hydrogen atoms white.
Structure
of 1,3,5-benzenetribenzoic acid. Carbon atoms are gray,
oxygen atoms red, and hydrogen atoms white.
Results and Discussion
As shown in Figure , each BTB molecule has three
carboxylic acid groups forming an angle
of 120° with respect to each other. The carboxylic acid groups
can serve as both donor and acceptor for hydrogen bonds. Therefore,
BTB molecules are good candidates for the formation of H-bonded porous
networks structures. So far, the adsorption behavior of BTB has been
investigated on Ag(111) under UHV conditions[25] and on HOPG at the solid-liquid interface.[26−28] For both substrates
a hexagonal porous network has been observed. On Ag(111), in dependence
of the annealing temperature, two other more densely packed structures
have been observed which are based on the interaction of partially
deprotonated BTB molecules. On HOPG a so-called oblique structure
exhibiting a denser packing than the porous network has been found.
In our study, the BTB molecules formed two different assembly structures
upon deposition on Cu(111) held at room temperature (Figure a). A hexagonal porous network
and a close-packed structure were found to coexist. The BTB molecules
in the hexagonal porous network interact via double hydrogen bonding
between their carboxylic acid end groups similar to what has been
observed on Ag(111) and HOPG.[25,26] In Figure c, the tentative structure
model for a pore consisting of six BTB molecules is displayed. The
unit cell of the porous network was measured to be a = b = 3.2 ± 0.2 nm, with an angle θ
= 60 ± 1°. Besides the porous network, a close-packed structure
was also observed. The BTB molecules are oriented in the same direction
and the carboxylic acid groups point to the center of neighboring
BTB molecules. The unit cell of the close-packed structure was measured
to be a = b = 1.24 ± 0.11 nm
with an angle θ = 60 ± 1°. When building the structure
model, it turns out that the hydrogen atoms of the hydroxyl groups
are too close to the hydrogen atoms of the CH groups of neighboring
BTB molecules. This would result in repulsive interactions and prevent
the formation of a stable structure. Studies on related molecules
having carboxylic acid end groups showed that the hydroxyl groups
get deprotonated upon deposition on Cu surfaces.[29−32] Therefore, we suggest that the
BTB molecules in the close-packed structure are deprotonated. The
deprotonated carboxylic acid groups point to the center of neighboring
BTB molecules and two hydrogen bonds are formed between the oxygen
atoms of the COO group and hydrogen atoms of neighboring CH groups
(see structure model in Figure d). A close inspection of the STM images revealed that some
of the BTB molecules are partially deprotonated (see Supporting Information). Figure b displays an STM image taken for a sample
which was annealed at 385 K. The porous network structure disappeared
and only the same close-packed structure already observed for room
temperature preparation is present. It can be concluded, in accordance
with what is reported for related molecules,[29−32] that the deprotonation process
is enhanced upon annealing. For annealing BTB on Cu(111) at 385 K
all molecules are deprotonated and thus, the close-packed structure
is the only structure present after annealing.
Figure 2
(a) STM image (47 nm
× 47 nm, U = −1.5
V, I = 20 pA) for BTB deposited on Cu(111) held at
room temperature,. The molecules arrange in a close-packed structure
as well as a porous network. Both structures coexist on the surface.
(b) STM image (32 nm × 32 nm, U = −1
V, I = 20 pA) after annealing the sample at 385 K.
Now, only the close-packed structure is observed. (c) Tentative structural
model of the porous network formed by double hydrogen bonding between
neighboring molecules. The unit cell is marked in blue. (d) Tentative
structural model of the close-packed pattern formed by deprotonated
BTB molecules. The unit cell is marked in blue.
(a) STM image (47 nm
× 47 nm, U = −1.5
V, I = 20 pA) for BTB deposited on Cu(111) held at
room temperature,. The molecules arrange in a close-packed structure
as well as a porous network. Both structures coexist on the surface.
(b) STM image (32 nm × 32 nm, U = −1
V, I = 20 pA) after annealing the sample at 385 K.
Now, only the close-packed structure is observed. (c) Tentative structural
model of the porous network formed by double hydrogen bonding between
neighboring molecules. The unit cell is marked in blue. (d) Tentative
structural model of the close-packed pattern formed by deprotonated
BTB molecules. The unit cell is marked in blue.In a next step the influence of a graphene layer adsorbed
on the
Cu(111) surface on the adsorption behavior of BTB was investigated
and the findings are compared to BTB on Cu(111). Graphene was grown
on Cu(111) according to the procedure described in ref (24). The pristine graphene
sample was first checked by LEED and STM before depositing BTB onto
it. Figure a shows
the LEED pattern of graphene grown on Cu(111) taken at an energy of
74.5 eV. The Cu(111) reciprocal unit cell vectors are marked in blue.
The ring around the first order Cu(111) diffraction spots indicates
both the successful synthesis of graphene and its polycrystallinity.
The ring exhibits increased intensity in the vicinity of the first
order Cu(111) diffraction spots, suggesting a preferred orientation
of graphene with respect to the Cu lattice.[33,34]Figure b shows an
STM image for graphene on Cu(111). Atomic resolution as well as a
Moirè pattern originating from the lattice mismatch between
graphene and the underling Cu(111) surface can be observed.[35] Depending on the specific angles between the
principal directions of graphene and the Cu(111) surface, a number
of different periodicities for the Moirè patterns can be observed.[36−38]
Figure 3
(a)
LEED pattern of graphene grown on Cu(111) taken at an energy
of 74.5 eV. The light blue lines indicate the Cu directions. In the
inset, the diffraction features originating from Cu and graphene are
marked by a blue and red arrow, respectively. (b) STM image (18 nm
× 18 nm, U = −1.5 V, I = 10 pA) showing the Moirè pattern as well as atomic resolution
of graphene on Cu(111).
(a)
LEED pattern of graphene grown on Cu(111) taken at an energy
of 74.5 eV. The light blue lines indicate the Cu directions. In the
inset, the diffraction features originating from Cu and graphene are
marked by a blue and red arrow, respectively. (b) STM image (18 nm
× 18 nm, U = −1.5 V, I = 10 pA) showing the Moirè pattern as well as atomic resolution
of graphene on Cu(111).After the deposition of BTB onto graphene/Cu(111) held at
room
temperature, the sample was cooled down to 77 K for STM measurements.
In Figure a, a representative
STM image is displayed. The BTB molecules tend to arrange in a hexagonal
porous network, while to a smaller extent a close-packed and disordered
arrangement is also observed. Annealing the sample at 365 K resulted
in the (almost) exclusive formation of the hexagonal porous network
(Figure b). Compared
to the not annealed sample the average island size considerably increased,
now exhibiting long-range order. The high resolution STM image in Figure c reveals the detailed
structural arrangement of BTB on graphene/Cu(111). The arrangement
in a honeycomb structure is similar to what was observed on the Cu(111)
surface (Figure c).
Each pore consists of six BTB molecules and each BTB molecule interacts
with three neighboring BTB molecules via double hydrogen bonding.
The unit cell is rhombic and marked in blue in Figure c. The lattice parameters determined from
the STM data are a = b = 3.27 ±
0.15 nm and the angle θ = 60 ± 1° and each unit cell
contains two BTB molecules. Annealing at 365 K promoted the formation
of molecular islands with a larger size and long-range order. Thus,
it can be concluded that the mobility of the BTB molecules on the
graphene surface increased upon annealing resulting in a rearrangement
of the disordered areas into the porous network structure. During
this rearrangement upon annealing, H-bonds are broken and newly formed
until the thermodynamically stable phase, the porous network, is formed.
It should be noted that annealing at temperatures >365 K did not
result
in the formation of another structure. Therefore, annealing can be
used as an effective way to drive a self-assembled system into its
thermodynamically most stable phase by making use of its error correction
capability.
Figure 4
(a) STM image (75.5 nm × 75.5 nm, U = −2.1
V, I = 10 pA) for BTB deposited onto graphene/Cu(111)
held at room temperature. A porous network forms which exhibits several
disordered areas. (b) STM image (65 nm × 62 nm, U = −1.5 V, I = 10 pA) for submonolayer coverage
of BTB on graphene/Cu(111) after annealing at 365 K. The quality of
the porous network is highly improved. (c) High-resolution STM image
(7.7 nm × 7.7 nm, U = −1.5 V, I = 10 pA) of submonolayer coverage of BTB on graphene/Cu(111)
showing submolecular resolution for the individual BTB molecules.
The unit cell is drawn in blue.
(a) STM image (75.5 nm × 75.5 nm, U = −2.1
V, I = 10 pA) for BTB deposited onto graphene/Cu(111)
held at room temperature. A porous network forms which exhibits several
disordered areas. (b) STM image (65 nm × 62 nm, U = −1.5 V, I = 10 pA) for submonolayer coverage
of BTB on graphene/Cu(111) after annealing at 365 K. The quality of
the porous network is highly improved. (c) High-resolution STM image
(7.7 nm × 7.7 nm, U = −1.5 V, I = 10 pA) of submonolayer coverage of BTB on graphene/Cu(111)
showing submolecular resolution for the individual BTB molecules.
The unit cell is drawn in blue.To obtain information on the structural relation of the porous
network and the underlying graphene substrate, LEED measurements were
performed at room temperature after annealing at 365 K. The LEED pattern
of the porous network acquired at an energy of 70 eV is shown in Figure a. The ring-like
diffraction pattern of graphene is marked by a red arrow, one of the
first-order diffraction spots of the Cu(111) surface is indicated
by a blue arrow and the diffraction pattern originating from the porous
network is marked by a green arrow. The ring-like diffraction pattern
for graphene exhibits intensity variations which suggest that certain
graphene orientations with respect to the underlying Cu substrate
are preferred. The diffraction pattern arising from the BTB honeycomb
network is close to the (0,0) spot and consists of concentric rings
each having six clear spots (Figure b). This indicates that-similar to graphene-the porous
BTB network exhibits preferred orientations. Since the real space
lattice parameters of the Cu(111) surface and graphene are known,
the real space lattice parameter of the BTB network can be deduced,
it amounts to 3.27 nm. This is in very good agreement with the lattice
parameter obtained from STM. One of the principal Cu directions (blue
dashed line in Figure b) and one of the unit cell directions of the porous network are
parallel to each other. This can be inferred from the fact that a
diffraction spot of the BTB network is located on the blue dashed
line indicating a principal Cu direction. The diffraction pattern
of graphene and the porous network have the ring-like diffraction
pattern in common which, nevertheless, exhibits clear preferred directions.
This suggests that the porous BTB network follows the orientation
of graphene. On the other hand, if the porous BTB network would follow
the orientation of the Cu(111) surface, the ring-like diffraction
pattern present for the BTB network should not be observed.
Figure 5
(a) LEED pattern
(taken at a primary energy of 70 eV) of the porous
BTB network on graphene/Cu(111) after annealing at 365 K. The features
arising from the Cu surface, graphene and the BTB network are marked
in blue, red and green, respectively. (b) LEED pattern for the same
sample but taken at a primary energy of 16.6 eV. Now, the diffraction
pattern arising from the porous BTB network can be seen more clearly.
(a) LEED pattern
(taken at a primary energy of 70 eV) of the porous
BTB network on graphene/Cu(111) after annealing at 365 K. The features
arising from the Cu surface, graphene and the BTB network are marked
in blue, red and green, respectively. (b) LEED pattern for the same
sample but taken at a primary energy of 16.6 eV. Now, the diffraction
pattern arising from the porous BTB network can be seen more clearly.Our study shows that the adsorption
behavior of BTB on graphene
is quite different from the adsorption behavior on Cu(111). On Cu(111),
the BTB molecules get already partially deprotonated when deposited
on a sample held at room temperature and thus, cannot form long-range
ordered H-bonded networks-like the hexagonal porous network-based
on double hydrogen bonding between the carboxylic acid end groups.
Instead, the BTB molecules prefer to arrange in a close-packed structure.
Upon annealing at elevated temperatures, all end groups can be deprotonated
and the close-packed structure is exclusively formed. On the other
hand, for deposition on graphene held at room temperature the porous
network is the dominating assembly and only a few disordered patches
are found. Upon moderate annealing, the porous network can be exclusively
formed. This demonstrates that graphene can act as a buffer layer
to (partially) decouple the molecules from the metallic substrate
and to prevent the deprotonation. However, an influence from the metallic
Cu substrate is still present. This is the case because the BTB network
aligns with regard to the graphene lattice which in turn aligns with
regard to the principal Cu directions.
Conclusions
In
summary, a comparative study on the molecular self-assembly
of BTB on Cu(111) and graphene grown on Cu(111) was performed. On
Cu(111) a partial deprotonation of the molecules was observed resulting
in the coexistence of close-packed and porous structures at room temperature.
Upon annealing, the carboxylic acid end groups are completely deprotonated
and only the close-packed structure forms. In contrast, on graphene
no deprotonation of the end groups takes place. Already when BTB is
deposited onto graphene held at room temperature, the molecules primarily
assembled in a porous network, but also disordered close-packed structures
were found. With the help of moderate annealing, long-range ordered
domains of the porous network can be exclusively fabricated. LEED
measurements indicate that the orientation of the porous BTB network
follows the graphene lattice which in turn exhibits preferred orientations
with regard to the Cu(111) surface.Our study shows that graphene
can effectively serve as a decoupling
layer for the formation of long-range ordered self-assembled molecular
structures. On the one side the molecule substrate interaction is
reduced (molecular chemisorption to the metal is prevented which can
hinder the formation of self-assembled structures) while on the other
side the molecules still “feel” the metal underneath
the graphene layer. This influence of the metal can be used to tune
the molecular adsorption energy in dependence of the type of metal
used and offers the possibility to let the molecules and the metal
interact selectively.
Authors: Shern-Long Lee; Yuan Fang; Gangamallaiah Velpula; Fernando P Cometto; Magalí Lingenfelder; Klaus Müllen; Kunal S Mali; Steven De Feyter Journal: ACS Nano Date: 2015-11-09 Impact factor: 15.881
Authors: Lewis Gomez De Arco; Yi Zhang; Cody W Schlenker; Koungmin Ryu; Mark E Thompson; Chongwu Zhou Journal: ACS Nano Date: 2010-05-25 Impact factor: 15.881
Authors: Nico Schmidt; Jun Li; Stefano Gottardi; Juan Carlos Moreno-Lopez; Mihaela Enache; Leticia Monjas; Ramon van der Vlag; Remco W A Havenith; Anna K H Hirsch; Meike Stöhr Journal: Chemistry Date: 2019-03-12 Impact factor: 5.236