Perfluoropentacene (PFP) is an organic material that has been widely studied over the last years and has already found applications in organic electronics. However, fundamental physical questions, such as the structural formation and the preferential orientation of the molecules during deposition on metal surfaces, are still not fully understood. In this work, we report on a unique in-plane molecular reorientation during the completion of the first monolayer of PFP on the Ag(110) surface. To characterize the molecular alignment, we have monitored the deposition process in real time using polarization-dependent differential reflectance spectroscopy and reflectance anisotropy spectroscopy. Abrupt changes in the optical signals reveal an intricate sequence of reorientation transitions of the PFP molecules upon monolayer completion and during the formation of the second monolayer, eventually leading to a full alignment of the long molecular axis along the [001] direction of the substrate and an enhanced structural ordering. Scanning tunneling microscopy and low-energy electron diffraction confirm the observed molecular reorientation upon monolayer compression and provide further details on the structural and orientational ordering of the PFP monolayer before and after compression.
Perfluoropentacene (PFP) is an organic material that has been widely studied over the last years and has already found applications in organic electronics. However, fundamental physical questions, such as the structural formation and the preferential orientation of the molecules during deposition on metal surfaces, are still not fully understood. In this work, we report on a unique in-plane molecular reorientation during the completion of the first monolayer of PFP on the Ag(110) surface. To characterize the molecular alignment, we have monitored the deposition process in real time using polarization-dependent differential reflectance spectroscopy and reflectance anisotropy spectroscopy. Abrupt changes in the optical signals reveal an intricate sequence of reorientation transitions of the PFP molecules upon monolayer completion and during the formation of the second monolayer, eventually leading to a full alignment of the long molecular axis along the [001] direction of the substrate and an enhanced structural ordering. Scanning tunneling microscopy and low-energy electron diffraction confirm the observed molecular reorientation upon monolayer compression and provide further details on the structural and orientational ordering of the PFP monolayer before and after compression.
One of the many advantages of organic
thin layers is that their
optical and electronic properties can be systematically modified by
molecular design. Several properties like dipole orientation, charge
injection, optical absorption, etc. depend strongly on the film structure
and on the orientation of the molecules with respect to the underlying
substrate. It has been shown that the molecular stacking strongly
affects the performance of organic devices, such as field effect transistors[1,2] and organic light-emitting diodes.[3,4] During the
deposition of the first monolayer of organic molecules onto a substrate
surface, the structural arrangement will be governed by the delicate
balance between molecule–molecule and molecule–substrate
interactions.[5] Therefore, the study of
the structural arrangement of thin molecular films on well-ordered
substrates is expected to provide important insight into the structure–property
relationship of organic layers.One approach to probe processes
occurring at surfaces or interfaces
is optical spectroscopy. Because of its nondestructive nature, optical
spectroscopy has been widely applied to study optical, electronic,
and even structural properties of molecular thin films and their interfaces
with inorganic materials.[6−10] If light is used as a probe, surface sensitivity can be substantially
enhanced by eliminating the optical response of the bulk. This is
commonly achieved by applying differential techniques, such as differential
reflectance spectroscopy (DRS), also known as surface differential
reflectance spectroscopy, or by reflectance anisotropy spectroscopy
(RAS), also known as reflectance difference spectroscopy. While RAS
measures the difference of the complex reflectivity coefficients for
light polarized along two orthogonal crystallographic directions of
a surface,[11] DRS measures the temporal
change of the reflectance of a surface upon physical or chemical modification.[12] DRS can be applied on any surface, whereas RAS
is restricted to anisotropic samples. The two techniques also differ
by their geometrical configuration. While RAS is typically applied
very close to normal incidence (θ ≲ 2°), DRS can
be acquired close to normal incidence or at oblique incidence (where
the angle of incidence θ is significantly different from zero).
With DRS, one can also obtain information on the anisotropy of a surface
if linearly polarized light is used. Even in the case of an isotropic
sample, the Fresnel equations predict a different reflectance for
oblique incidence depending on whether the polarization of light is
either perpendicular (s) or parallel (p) to the plane of incidence. As a result, off-normal DRS will produce
different signals for s- and p-polarization,
which can be measured independently in a polarization-dependent DRS
(pol-DRS) setup.[13,14]Several groups have demonstrated
that the growth of organic thin
films on various substrates can be monitored successfully by DRS.[6,10,15−18] Similarly, single-wavelength
kinetic RAS measurements have been used to monitor the epitaxial growth
of inorganic semiconductors[19−21] and organic molecules on anisotropic
metal surfaces in real time.[7,22−24]In this work, we report on the evolution of the molecular
alignment
of perfluoropentacene (PFP) on Ag(110) surfaces during the formation
of the first two monolayers (ML). For this purpose, we employ two
complementary optical techniques: DRS and RAS. The data obtained from
the optical measurements reveal an intricate sequence of reorientation
transitions of the molecules upon compression of the first and condensation
of the second monolayer. These observations are further corroborated
by scanning tunneling microscopy (STM) imaging and low-energy electron
diffraction (LEED).
Experiment
Perfluoropentacene (PFP)
is the fully fluorinated derivate of pentacene
(PEN). It has similar physical dimensions as PEN but an enhanced electron
mobility in the thin-film phase of more than 0.2 cm2/V
s.[25] The optical properties of PFP molecules
in solution[26] and of PFP thin films on
different insulating substrates have been studied extensively during
the last years by ellipsometry, photoluminescence, absorption, and
DRS.[26−30] It was found that PFP molecules tend to grow in an upright orientation
on semiconductor and insulating substrates,[26,29] whereas they are flat-lying on metallic substrates.[31,32] From the literature[24] and previous experiments,[26] it is known that the optical absorption of isolated
PFP molecules in the UV–vis spectral range is dominated by
three main optical transitions: (i) the S0 → S1 transition (highest occupied molecular orbital–lowest
unoccupied molecular orbital transition) located at 1.99 eV with a
transition dipole moment oriented along the short axis of the molecule
(M) and vibronic replicas at 2.16 and 2.33 eV; (ii)
the S0 → S3 transition located at 2.72
eV, which is excited by light polarized along the long molecular axis
(L) and has a known vibronic replica at 2.87 eV;
and (iii) the S0 → S7 transition at 4.25
eV, which is also polarized along the long molecular axis.The
RAS and pol-DRS experiments reported below were carried out
in situ in two different ultrahigh vacuum (UHV) chambers with base
pressures below 3 × 10–10 mbar. Prior to the
deposition of the organic molecules, the two Ag(110) single-crystal
surfaces were cleaned by several cycles of Ar+ sputtering
(900 V, ≈3.8 μA/cm2) for 30 min and subsequent
annealing at 650 K for 5–10 min. The PFP molecules were evaporated
from quartz crucibles, which were kept at a constant temperature of
458–468 K during the deposition. The specific temperature set
point depends on the evaporator and the targeted deposition rate.
During thin-film deposition, the substrates were kept at room temperature.In the sample configuration used in the present experiments, the
RAS signal is given bywhere r[1̅10] and r[001] denote the complex reflection
coefficients for light polarized along the two main crystallographic
axes in the fcc(110) surface plane, namely [1̅10] and [001],
respectively. The measured Δr/r̅ spectrum is directly related to the optical anisotropy (Δϵ
= ϵ[1̅10] – ϵ[001])
of the sample with respect to these two orthogonal crystallographic
axes of the substrate.[11,33] The measurements were carried
out with a home-built RAS instrument. In this setup, the light beam
from a xenon lamp is first linearly polarized such that the polarization
axis is oriented at an angle of 45° with respect to the main
crystallographic axes of the substrate surface, as marked by an orange
arrow in the inset of Figure a. The change in the polarization state of the light after
reflection from the sample is determined through a combination of
a photoelastic modulator operated at a frequency of 50 kHz and a fixed
analyzer. The first and second harmonic of the signal are then spectrally
resolved and detected using a grating monochromator and a photomultiplier
tube, yielding the imaginary and real part of Δr/r̅, respectively.
Figure 1
(a) Real part of the
RA spectrum of the pristine Ag(110) surface.
Inset: top view of the sample orientation with respect to the polarization
vector of the incident light (orange arrow) in the RAS setup. (b)
RA spectra acquired during the deposition of 5.5 ML of PFP. Inset:
close-up of the energy region between 1.6 and 3.0 eV. (c, d) pol-DR
spectra for p- and s-polarized light,
respectively, recorded during the deposition of 5.5 ML of PFP. The
insets in (c) show the configuration for pol-DRS with the orientation
of the s (blue)- and the surface-projected p-polarization (red) components of the incident light, as
well as a schematic of a single PFP molecule with its long (L) and short (M) symmetry axes.
(a) Real part of the
RA spectrum of the pristine Ag(110) surface.
Inset: top view of the sample orientation with respect to the polarization
vector of the incident light (orange arrow) in the RAS setup. (b)
RA spectra acquired during the deposition of 5.5 ML of PFP. Inset:
close-up of the energy region between 1.6 and 3.0 eV. (c, d) pol-DR
spectra for p- and s-polarized light,
respectively, recorded during the deposition of 5.5 ML of PFP. The
insets in (c) show the configuration for pol-DRS with the orientation
of the s (blue)- and the surface-projected p-polarization (red) components of the incident light, as
well as a schematic of a single PFP molecule with its long (L) and short (M) symmetry axes.On the other hand, the signal measured with DRS
is defined aswhere R(E, t) and R(E,
0) are the reflectances of the sample at time t and
at a reference time t = 0, respectively, and E = ℏω denotes the photon energy. The pol-DRS
measurements were performed in a UHV chamber that allows the simultaneous
characterization by photoelectron emission microscopy (PEEM).[10,13] In this chamber, the incoming light beam has an angle of incidence
of θ ≈ 65° with respect to the surface normal and
the sample is oriented so that the s-polarized and p-polarized light are parallel to the [001] and the [1̅10]
direction of the Ag(110) substrate, respectively. A schematic representation
of the reflection geometry for the pol-DRS experiments is shown in
the inset of Figure c. In our home-built pol-DRS setup, a superquiet Hamamatsu Xe lamp
is used for illumination. The s- and p-polarized components of the reflected light are separated by an
angle of 60° via a Glan-Thompson polarizing prism and are collected
simultaneously by two Ocean Optics STS-VIS spectrometers covering
a spectral range from 1.55 to 3.54 eV (800–350 nm).[13]Besides the in situ optical characterization
during growth, the
structure and morphology of the deposited PFP thin films were investigated
at a sample temperature of 110 K using a variable temperature scanning
tunneling microscope and at room temperature using low-energy electron
diffraction (LEED).
Results and Discussion
Prior to
the deposition, the surface quality of the Ag(110) substrate
was checked by RAS. In Figure a, the real part of the RA spectrum for the pristine Ag(110)
surface is shown. We observe the characteristic RAS line shape of
a clean and flat Ag(110) surface, i.e., a small peak at 1.7 eV (surface
state transition) and a strong negative peak at 3.9 eV.[34,35] These features corroborate the high quality of the silver surface.The RA spectra acquired during the deposition of up to 5.5 monolayers
(ML) of PFP are depicted in Figure b. Besides the strong silver resonance around 3.9 eV,
distinct spectral features at 1.7, 2.7, 2.85, and 4.2 eV emerge upon
deposition, which can be attributed to the absorption of the PFP molecules.[26,27] The inset in Figure b shows a close-up of the RA spectra in the energy range from 1.5
to 3.0 eV for easier comparison with the pol-DR spectra shown in Figure c,d. The negative
peak in the RA spectra at 1.7 eV is also observed in the p-polarized DR spectra (p-DRS), whereas the transitions
at ≈2.7 and ≈2.85 eV are prominent only in the s-polarized DR spectra (s-DRS). This is
perfectly consistent with the definition of the RAS signal in eq and the known orthogonal
orientation of the transition dipole moments of the corresponding
optical excitations. The PFP-related peak at 1.7 eV in the RAS and p-DR spectra only appears after the completion of the third
monolayer. As can be inferred from PEEM experiments,[36] the filling of the third monolayer corresponds to the completion
of the wetting layer, after which three-dimensional (3D) nucleation
of PFP crystallites sets in. The appearance of the low-energy transition
after completion of the wetting layer points to an enhanced oscillator
strength of the M-oriented optical excitation, e.g.,
due to a different stacking of the molecules within the 3D crystallites.
Its origin, however, is still under debate.[26,29] On the other hand, the optical transition at ≈2.7 eV and
its vibronic replica at ≈2.85 eV, characteristic of flat-lying
molecules, develop in the RA and the s-DR spectra
throughout the entire growth, albeit changing in intensity and the
exact spectral position, as discussed in detail below.Considering
that the optical transition S0 →
S3 around 2.7 eV is excited by light polarized along the
long axis (L) of the molecule,[31,37] the evolution of this particular transition during deposition provides
information on the in-plane alignment of the molecules on the Ag(110)
surface. Consequently, we have plotted in Figure a,b the transients of the pol-DRS signals
at 2.7 eV together with the RAS transient recorded at the same photon
energy but in a different growth experiment in the other UHV chamber.
The RAS signal evolves in four steps, characterized by distinct changes
in the slope, in perfect correlation with the pol-DRS transients.
These reproducible changes in the slopes also allow us to rescale
the deposition rates of the two experiments. During the deposition
of the first monolayer, the RAS signal increases almost linearly with
PFP coverage, manifesting an increase in the optical anisotropy upon
deposition of the molecules. Starting from a coverage of 0.7 ML, the
RAS and the pol-DRS transients deviate from this linear behavior and
undergo a remarkably abrupt zigzag change, which ends with the completion
of the first monolayer. Then, the RAS signal increases almost linearly
again, with characteristic but smoother changes of the slope upon
completion of the second and third monolayer. According to eq , we can infer from the
positive slope of the RAS transient and the orientation of the transition
dipole moment of the S0 → S3 transition
along the long molecular axis (L) that the deposited
PFP molecules must be preferentially aligned with their long axis
parallel to the [001] direction of the Ag(110) substrate. The smoothly
varying slope of the RAS and pol-DRS transients after the completion
of the third ML indicates the transition from a layer-by-layer (two-dimensional
(2D)) to a 3D island growth mode, i.e., a Stranski–Krastanov
growth with a 3 ML thick wetting layer.[7,10,38] This growth scenario is also in accordance with PEEM
results.[36]
Figure 2
Transients of the pol-DRS and RAS signals
for a photon energy of
2.7 eV: (a) for the entire growth process and (b) for the initial
growth up to a nominal coverage of 2 ML.
Transients of the pol-DRS and RAS signals
for a photon energy of
2.7 eV: (a) for the entire growth process and (b) for the initial
growth up to a nominal coverage of 2 ML.The two DRS transients shown in Figure a follow a very similar behavior as the RAS
signal but with negative sign. This is expected because upon deposition
of PFP, the reflectance of the sample (DRS) decreases as the ultrathin
PFP layer absorbs the light, whereas the optical anisotropy (RAS)
increases with increasing PFP coverage. The fact that the (negative)
amplitudes of the p-DRS and s-DRS
signals both increase linearly during the initial growth of PFP suggests
that the molecules initially arrange in a flat-lying configuration
with either an oblique or more than one azimuthal orientation in the
surface plane, while the positive slope of the RAS transient reveals
that a molecular alignment toward the [001] direction is preferred.In fact, for the scattering geometry depicted in the inset of Figure c, the (negative) s-polarized DR signal is proportional to the projection
cos2(ϕ), if the long molecular axis of a PFP molecule
is rotated by an azimuthal angle ϕ against the [001] direction
of the substrate, whereas the (negative) p-polarized
DRS signal is proportional to sin2(ϕ). However, at
off-normal incidence, the relative weight w of the p-polarized and s-polarized DRS signals
also depends on the angle of incidence θ, the anisotropic dielectric
function of the adlayer, and the substrate dielectric function ϵAg.In the energy range around 2.7 eV, we can assume
that the PFP molecules
only absorb light polarized along the long axis of the molecules (L) such that the orthogonal components of the dielectric
function along the in-plane (M) and normal (S) axes of the molecules are real valued.[18] Furthermore, the imaginary part of the Ag substrate in
this energy range is also much smaller than its (negative) real part
(ϵAg(2.7 eV) = – 7.5 + 0.25i)[39] and can thus be neglected in a first-order
approximation. Under these conditions, the thin-film approximation
of the pol-DRS signals[12] yields w = (ϵAg – 1)/(αϵAg – 1) with α = cos2(θ)/[1 –
sin2(θ)/ϵAg] for the ratio between
the p-DRS and s-DRS signals. Using
θ = 65° and ϵAg(2.7 eV) ≈ −7.5,
the corresponding values are α(2.7 eV) ≈ 0.16 and w(2.7 eV) ≈ 3.85. As a result, the p-DRS signal is geometrically enhanced by a factor w ≈ 3.85 with respect to the s-DRS signal
and the latter actually provides the dominant contribution to the
optical anisotropy. For instance, during the initial stages of growth
the measured ratio of the p-DRS and the s-DRS signals in Figure is c ≈ 1.6, yielding an average projection
of the molecular axis ⟨cos2(ϕ)⟩ = w/(c + w) of the order
of 0.7. However, from the optical signals alone, we cannot tell whether
the molecules are actually rotated with respect to the [001] direction
of the substrate or whether a minority of 30% of the molecules is
aligned along the [1̅10] direction, whereas the majority of
the molecules (70%) is aligned along the [001] direction. In fact,
the STM and LEED results reported below suggest that both situations
can occur in parallel within two different structural phases observed
on the surface.The prominent zigzag feature between 0.7 and
1.0 ML, which is observed
in all three transients, is of particular interest. A close-up to
this region is depicted in Figure b. The sudden change in the slope of both pol-DRS transients
at ≈0.85 ML and the steep variation in opposite directions
up to ≈0.92 ML suggests an azimuthal reorientation of the molecules
on the Ag(110) substrate. In fact, the reduction of the p-DRS amplitude in this coverage interval is accompanied by a concomitant
increase of the amplitude of the s-DRS signal, suggesting
that some of the PFP molecules initially aligned with their long axis
toward the [1̅10] direction reorient themselves into the [001]
direction of the substrate. According to the approximation described
just above, the average projection of the long molecular axis onto
the [001] direction changes from about ≈0.65 at 0.85 ML to
≈0.8 at 0.92 ML. The anticorrelation of the zigzag feature
in the two pol-DRS signals is paralleled by a similar zigzag in the
RAS transient, corroborating the sudden realignment of the flat-lying
PFP molecules from the [1̅10] toward the [001] orientation within
the narrow coverage interval from 0.85 to 0.92 ML.Surprisingly,
this reorientation of the molecules toward the [001]
direction seems to be almost completely reverted upon the final compression
of the monolayer between 0.92 and 1 ML as evidenced by the steep slopes
in the opposite direction in all three optical transients. In this
coverage regime, the second layer may already become occupied with
molecules preferentially aligned along the [1̅10] direction
and thereby enforce a local realignment of the molecules in the layer
below. After a nominal coverage of 1.0 ML, the RA signal and both
pol-DRS amplitudes again increase linearly until the slope of the p-DRS transient reverses its sign at a coverage of ≈1.3
ML (with an additional kink at ≈1.6 ML), leading to a significant
reduction of the p-DRS amplitude upon completion
of the second monolayer. At the same time, the (negative) slope of
the s-DRS transient increases as well as the (positive)
slope of the RAS transient. This behavior is similar to (but less
dramatic than) the one in the coverage range between 0.85 and 0.92
ML and can be interpreted by another reorientation transition, in
which the PFP molecules in the second layer change their alignment
from [1̅10] to [001] upon condensation from a 2D-gas phase into
a 2D-solid phase. In fact, similar characteristics in the RAS transients
were found for the deposition of pentacene (PEN) on Cu(110)–(2
× 1)O[23] and during the growth of the
second layer of PFP on Cu(110).[24] In both
cases, these characteristics could be interpreted in terms of an azimuthal
reorientation transition upon 2D condensation. When the second layer
is finally completed, the ratio of the p-DRS to s-DRS signal has reached a value of c ≈
0.39, which corresponds to an average projection of the long molecular
axis onto the [001] direction ⟨cos2(ϕ)⟩
≥ 0.9, i.e., an almost complete alignment of the PFP molecules
in both the first and the second layer. Therefore, we may conclude
that the condensation and the associated alignment along the [001]
of the molecules located in the second layer also enforce a final
realignment toward the [001] direction of those molecules, which were
still preferentially aligned along the [1̅10] after the full
compression of the monolayer.It must be emphasized that the
optical transients recorded at a
single photon energy of 2.7 eV may also be influenced by spectral
shifts of the peaks rather than only by their amplitudes, especially
upon compression of the monolayer and the beginning population of
the second layer. Therefore, one should explore the full spectral
evolution of the DR spectra between subsequent deposition intervals.
To this end, we have calculated the differential DRS (DDRS),[10] defined as the normalized difference between
the reflectance measured at deposition times t and tThe DDR spectra thus describe
the changes
in reflectance originating from those molecules deposited during the
time interval Δt = t – t as well as the potential changes (over the same time
interval Δt) of molecules already adsorbed
on the surface. The DDR spectra for deposition of the first two monolayers
of PFP for p- and s-polarized light, p-DDRS and s-DDRS, are shown as 2D false
color images in Figure a,c, respectively. In addition, DDR spectra for selected coverages,
marked with arrows in the 2D plots, are depicted in Figure b,d. Incremental spectral changes
are observed in both, the s-DDR and the p-DDR spectra, with absorption peaks located at ≈2.68 and ≈2.83
eV in the monolayer regime, corresponding to the S0 →
S3 transition and its vibrational replica, respectively.
A small but clear blue shift of the two peaks by about 0.05 eV is
observed right after the completion of the first monolayer in both
the s-DDR and p-DDR spectra. However,
there are also clear differences for the two polarization states,
which can directly be related to the alignment and reorientation of
the PFP molecules on the surface. Although the incremental changes
are always negative in the s-DDR spectra (bluish
colors), the p-DDR spectra reveal both negative and
positive changes of the main peak at ≈2.68 eV and its vibronic
replica at ≈2.83 eV. The largest (negative) amplitude of these
two peaks is found in the p-DDR spectra at a coverage
of 0.62 ML (red spectrum in Figure d). On the other hand, the (negative) increment of
these two features in the s-DDRS is smallest at this
coverage (red spectrum in Figure b), indicating that the relative number of PFP molecules
with a preferential [001] orientation decreases at this stage of the
growth. More importantly, a complete reversal of the sign of the p-DDR spectra, i.e., positive peak amplitudes (yellow and
orange colors in Figure c, green line in Figure d), is observed in the p-DDR spectra in the
coverage range between 0.85 and 0.92 ML. In the same coverage interval,
the s-DDR spectra exhibit the largest (negative)
peak amplitudes (dark blue colors in Figure a, green line in Figure b). These spectral changes nicely correlate
with the steep and opposite slopes observed in the pol-DRS transients
presented in Figure : the reduction of the amplitude of the transient p-DRS signal at 2.7 eV is, indeed, associated with a full reversal
of the sign of the p-DDR spectrum. A positive sign
of the p-DDR spectrum, however, corresponds to an
overall reduction of the absorption from molecules that are at least
partially oriented along the [1̅10] direction, even though additional
molecules are deposited during the deposition time interval Δt. This can only be explained by the reorientation of already
adsorbed PFP molecules from a more [1̅10] oriented alignment
toward the [001] direction of the substrate.
Figure 3
Two-dimensional (2D)
false color plots of the DDR spectra for (a) s-polarized
and (c) p-polarized light.
(b, d) Selected DDR spectra marked with arrows in (a) and (c). The
spectra are shown with a vertical offset for clarity. The DDRS data
were calculated using eq with time step Δt corresponding to a coverage
increment of 1/12 ML.
Two-dimensional (2D)
false color plots of the DDR spectra for (a) s-polarized
and (c) p-polarized light.
(b, d) Selected DDR spectra marked with arrows in (a) and (c). The
spectra are shown with a vertical offset for clarity. The DDRS data
were calculated using eq with time step Δt corresponding to a coverage
increment of 1/12 ML.The DDR spectra in Figure clearly reveal that the optical transitions are changing
upon compression of the first layer and are blue-shifted by about
0.05 eV upon adsorption of the molecules in the second layer: The
main peaks are now located at ≈2.73 and ≈2.88 eV for
the S0 → S3 transitions and its vibrational
replica, respectively. As a result, a precise evaluation of the intermittent
reversal of the orientation of the molecules in the coverage range
between 0.9 and 1 ML, as suggested by the optical transients in Figure , is not straightforward.However, with increasing second-layer coverage, the large amplitude
of the s-DDR peaks compared to those in the p-DDR spectrum indicates a clear preference for the PFP
molecules to be aligned along the [001] direction. The situation becomes
particularly evident in the spectra for 1.67 ML where the p-DDR peaks even show a positive amplitude. As argued above,
this sign reversal of the p-DDR spectrum indicates
a reorientation of already adsorbed molecules from a [1̅10]
oriented alignment toward the [001] direction and might be associated
with the 2D condensation of the molecules in the second layer.[23,24] According to the transients in Figure at 2.7 eV, one would assign the onset of
the second-layer condensation to occur between 1.3 and 1.6 ML, whereas
the p-DDR and s-DDR spectra with
maximum positive and negative amplitudes, respectively, are obtained
for a coverage of 1.67 ML (see Figure ). In any case, the reorientation after 2D condensation
is rather continuous as it proceeds smoothly until the second layer
is completed.To corroborate the conclusions drawn from the
optical data, we
performed scanning tunneling microscopy (STM) experiments at 110 K
and recorded LEED images at room temperature for selected coverages
of 0.5, 0.85, and 1.2 ML. The STM images and the corresponding LEED
patterns are depicted in Figure . The STM image in Figure a for a coverage of 0.5 ML shows condensed
islands of flat-lying PFP molecules but also the bare Ag(110) substrate.
Two different structures are recognized in the STM image: the PFP
molecules either condense in a checkerboard-like (CB) pattern, so
that their long molecular axis coincides with one of the two main
crystallographic axes of the substrate, or they form a structure with
a rhombic unit cell (R), in which the long axis of
the molecules is slightly inclined with respect to the [001] direction
of the substrate. Although the STM images obtained at a sample temperature
of about 110 K show well-ordered domains with lateral dimensions up
to 50 nm, the LEED pattern acquired on the same sample but at room
temperature exhibits a diffuse background around the (0,0) diffraction
spot. Four broad intensity maxima are observed along the two main
crystallographic axes of the substrate with about equal distance to
the (0,0) spot. This distance corresponds to the spacing of the molecules
in real space in a side-by-side arrangement with their long axis either
parallel to the [001] or the [1̅10] direction. The diffuse LEED
pattern suggests a lack of a well-ordered, long-range periodic structure
at room temperature. The absence of sharp superstructure spots in
the LEED pattern in contrast to the well-resolved structural arrangement
in the STM image is certainly related to the sample temperature and
can be attributed to a thermally induced positional and/or orientational
disorder at room temperature. Upon cooling the sample to 110 K, the
2D disordered phase eventually condenses into an ordered phase with
checkerboard or rhombic structure. In fact, high-quality STM images
could not be obtained at room temperature.
Figure 4
(a)–(c) STM images
recorded at 110 K for coverages of:
0.5 ML, approximately 0.85 ML, and 1.2 ML, respectively. (d) 10 x
10 nm2 image from (c). (e )–(g) The corresponding LEED diffraction
patterns acquired with an electron energy of 15 eV at room temperature
for the different coverages. The white arrows mark the two main crystallographic
axes of the Ag(110) substrate. The diffraction spots for the two rotationally
equivalent domains in (g) are highlighted with blue and yellow circles
for clarity. (h) Schematic representation of the unit cell of the
superstructure M of PFP on the Ag(110) surface derived from the LEED
pattern in (g).
(a)–(c) STM images
recorded at 110 K for coverages of:
0.5 ML, approximately 0.85 ML, and 1.2 ML, respectively. (d) 10 x
10 nm2 image from (c). (e )–(g) The corresponding LEED diffraction
patterns acquired with an electron energy of 15 eV at room temperature
for the different coverages. The white arrows mark the two main crystallographic
axes of the Ag(110) substrate. The diffraction spots for the two rotationally
equivalent domains in (g) are highlighted with blue and yellow circles
for clarity. (h) Schematic representation of the unit cell of the
superstructure M of PFP on the Ag(110) surface derived from the LEED
pattern in (g).Figure b shows
an STM image obtained recorded increasing the PFP coverage to 0.85
ML. Although the surface is still partially covered with molecules
in a checkerboard (CB) or rhombic phase (R), we now
find large areas where the PFP molecules assemble into stacks (S) of molecules in a side-by-side arrangement with their
long axes parallel to the [001] direction of the substrate. Figure b thus corroborates
the partial reorientation of the molecules as inferred from the optical
transients (Figure ) and the DDRS spectra (Figure ). The corresponding LEED pattern shows sharper diffraction
spots and two additional elongated streaks at half distance along
the high symmetry directions of the substrate, the latter being most
pronounced along the [001] direction. This is consistent with an arrangement
of stacks of molecules pointing in the [001] direction like in the S-phase observed in the STM image at 110 K.After
the completion of the first monolayer, the STM images displayed
in Figure c,d reveal
two mirror domains (M, M′)
of a long-range ordered structure of close-packed molecules, which
are exclusively aligned along the [001] direction. From the STM images,
we determine the lattice parameters to b1 = (0.9 ± 0.05) nm and b2 = (1.65
± 0.05) nm. The unit cell is almost (but not exactly) rectangular,
and the long unit cell vector b1 is inclined
by about 20° with respect to the [001] direction of the substrate.
The corresponding LEED pattern shows sharp superstructure spots, which
are well reproduced by an epitaxial matrixThe corresponding spot positions and reciprocal
unit cells are overlaid on the LEED image in blue and yellow for the
two mirror domains M and M′,
respectively. The lattice parameters for this superstructure unit
cell are (b1 = 0.906 ± 0.015) nm, b2 = (1.618 ± 0.04) nm, ∠(b⃗1,b⃗2) = (86.1 ± 3)°, and ∠(b⃗2,[001]) = (20.9 ± 0.5)°, all in good agreement
with the values obtained from STM. A model of the superstructure unit
cell and the molecular arrangement in real space is shown in the STM
image and the bottom panel of Figure d.The structural arrangement does not change
upon further deposition
of PFP up to the three-layer thick wetting layer. On the other hand,
a sharp LEED pattern of the monolayer phase, as shown in Figure c, is only obtained
for coverages above 1 ML, suggesting that the final ordering (via
molecular reorientation) is enforced by the molecules adsorbed in
the second layer.The superstructure of the ordered monolayer
of PFP on Ag(110) (eq ) is similar to the structure observed for PFP on
Cu(110).[24] In particular, both structures
are commensurate
along the [1̅10] direction and the molecules are aligned along
the [001] direction. A major difference is the head to tail alignment
in the case of PFP on Cu(110) as compared to the skew arrangement
on Ag(110), which is probably related to different lattice parameters
of the two substrates. The present superstructure is also quite similar
to the one reported for pentacene (PEN) on Ag(110),[40] denoted as in ref (40) but equivalent to . Compared
to eq , however, this
superstructure of PEN on Ag(110)
is fully commensurate with a perfectly rectangular unit cell.The optical data combined with the structural information gained
from STM and LEED suggest the following growth scenario: at the beginning
of the growth, when the substrate–molecule interaction dominates
the epitaxial growth, the PFP molecules adsorb at energetically favorable
sites on the Ag(110) surface and in a flat-lying configuration in
analogy to its nonfluorinated counterpart PEN.[40] Since there appear to be several possible molecular orientations
that are energetically almost degenerate, several structures can be
observed in the submonolayer regime, namely a rhombic phase (R) and a checkerboard pattern (CB). Although the phases
form more or less ordered, coexisting domains at low temperature (110
K) that can be stably imaged by STM, the structures become dynamically
disordered at room temperature, as evidenced by the rather diffuse
LEED patterns. The optical data reveal an overall anisotropy of ≈70%
in favor of an alignment of the long molecular axis along or close
to the [001] direction of the substrate, which is consistent with
the STM images in the submonolayer coverage regime. As the molecular
density on the surface increases, the PFP monolayer is more and more
compressed and molecules in the minority orientations reorient themselves,
such that their long axis becomes more aligned along the [001] direction
of the Ag(110) surface. In this way, the packing density can be increased
and the overall structural ordering is also improved. The optical
data suggest this first reorientation transition to occur over a narrow
coverage range between 0.85 and 0.92 ML. Then, there seems to be an
intermittent reversal of this alignment during the final compression
of the monolayer in the coverage range between 0.92 and 1.0 ML, most
likely promoted by the beginning population of the second layer with
molecules residing in a 2D-gas phase and being oriented along the
[1̅10] direction. This conclusion is mainly based on the optical
transients recorded at room temperature, and no direct evidence can
be found in the STM images (recorded at 110 K). Yet, the LEED patterns
(recorded at room temperature) confirm that at this stage the monolayer
is considerably disordered. Only after further deposition and likely
promoted by the onset of 2D condensation of the molecules in the second
layer, there is a final reorientation transition that eventually leads
to an almost complete orientation of the molecules along the [001]
direction. This final monolayer structure (M) is
well ordered and can be described by the epitaxial matrix in eq . Because of the symmetry
of the superstructure unit cell, the PFP molecules in the first monolayer
form mirror domains (M, M′),
in which the lattice vectors are tilted in opposite directions with
respect to the main crystallographic axes of the substrate, but all
of the molecules in either domain are exclusively aligned along the
[001] direction of the substrate.
Conclusions
We
have explored the adsorption and growth of PFP on Ag(110) by
real-time monitoring using two complementary optical techniques, namely
pol-DRS and RAS. We have shown that by analyzing the optical transients
and the incremental spectral changes (DDRS), it is possible to obtain
detailed information on the growth mode and on the structural and
orientational arrangement of the molecules on the surface. Our results
indicate that the deposition of PFP on Ag(110) surfaces follows a
Stranski–Krastanov growth mode with a 3 ML thick wetting layer
formed by flat-lying molecules predominantly aligned with their long
axis along the [001] crystallographic axis of the substrate. We find
a peculiar sequence of three distinct molecular reorientation transitions
during the deposition of the first two monolayers. These three stages
have been associated with (i) the 2D compression of the monolayer
favoring a uniaxial alignment along the [001] direction, (ii) an intermittent
disorder promoted by the beginning population of the second 2D molecular
gas phase, in which the molecules are preferentially oriented along
the [1̅10] direction, and (iii) the reorientation of the molecules
in the second layer along the [001] upon 2D condensation. The PFP
adlayer thus undergoes a transition from a dynamically disordered
submonolayer phase (at room temperature) to a highly ordered close-packed
layer of well-aligned PFP molecules. These results are further corroborated
by STM and LEED experiments. Our results demonstrate that polarization-resolved,
optical techniques like RAS and pol-DRS are quite sensitive to the
orientational order parameter and, hence, to phase transitions, which
involve the reorientation of molecules. Being real-time, in situ techniques,
they also allow to explore the kinetics of such phase transitions
during thin-film growth.
Authors: Jan Götzen; Christian H Schwalb; Christian Schmidt; Gerson Mette; Manuel Marks; Ulrich Höfer; Gregor Witte Journal: Langmuir Date: 2010-12-28 Impact factor: 3.882
Authors: Lidong Sun; Stephen Berkebile; Günther Weidlinger; Mariella Denk; Richard Denk; Michael Hohage; Georg Koller; Falko P Netzer; Michael G Ramsey; Peter Zeppenfeld Journal: Phys Chem Chem Phys Date: 2012-10-21 Impact factor: 3.676
Authors: Alexander Hinderhofer; Ute Heinemeyer; Alexander Gerlach; Stefan Kowarik; Robert M J Jacobs; Youichi Sakamoto; Toshiyasu Suzuki; Frank Schreiber Journal: J Chem Phys Date: 2007-11-21 Impact factor: 3.488