| Literature DB >> 31304460 |
Marco Carlotti1,2, Saurabh Soni1,2, Xinkai Qiu1,2, Eric Sauter3, Michael Zharnikov3, Ryan C Chiechi1,2.
Abstract
In order to translate molecular properties in molecular-electronic devices, it is necessary to create design principles that can be used to achieve better structure-function control oriented toward device fabrication. In molecular tunneling junctions, cross-conjugation tends to give rise to destructive quantum interference effects that can be tuned by changing the electronic properties of the molecules. We performed a systematic study of the tunneling charge-transport properties of a series of compounds characterized by an identical cross-conjugated anthraquinoid molecular skeleton but bearing different substituents at the 9 and 10 positions that affect the energies and localization of their frontier orbitals. We compared the experimental results across three different experimental platforms in both single-molecule and large-area junctions and found a general agreement. Combined with theoretical models, these results separate the intrinsic properties of the molecules from platform-specific effects. This work is a step towards explicit synthetic control over tunneling charge transport targeted at specific functionality in (proto-)devices.Entities:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31304460 PMCID: PMC6592160 DOI: 10.1039/c8na00223a
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nanoscale Adv ISSN: 2516-0230
Fig. 1The molecules investigated in this study. The underlined compounds were successfully synthesized and isolated. The cores of the all-carbon and heteroatom-containing molecules are attached to the same phenylacetylene arms as AQ at the positions indicated with dashed lines.
Calculated HOMO, LUMO and frontier orbital gaps and angles for the wires proposed in Fig. 1a
| AQ | AMe | APh | A(CH2) | A(All) | A(Alk) | ABr | ATTF | TCNAQ | AF | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LUMO (eV) | −3.24 | −1.72 | −1.87 | −2.05 | −1.92 | −2.79 | −2.35 | −1.91 | −3.99 | −2.21 |
| HOMO (eV) | −5.98 | −5.44 | −5.48 | −5.62 | −5.44 | −5.60 | −5.80 | −4.86 | −6.19 | −5.77 |
| Band gap (eV) | 2.74 | 3.72 | 3.61 | 3.56 | 3.52 | 2.80 | 3.45 | 2.94 | 2.20 | 3.56 |
|
| 0 | 47 | 47 (45) | 27 | 0 | 38 | 47 (44) | 36 | 36 | 31 |
Numbers in parentheses are from X-ray crystal structures.
Fig. 2Calculated transmission probability as a function of electron energy (with respect to Ef = −4.3 eV; see ESI† for more details) of different molecular wires. Top: all-carbon wires; bottom: wires containing heteroatoms. AQ is reported in both the plots as a reference. The gas-phase DFT HOMO (solid lines) and LUMO (dashed lines) energies are shown across the top X-axis with respect to the Ef. The non-reported LUMO values were characterized by ELUMO − Ef > 2.5 eV.
Fig. 3Reaction scheme for the synthesis of the wires: (a) tert-butyl(4-ethynylphenyl)sulfide, Pd(PPh3)4, CuI, NEt3, THF; (b) BBr3, AcCl, DCM/toluene 1 : 1; (c) dimethyl-(1,3-dithiol)-2-ylphosphonate, nBuLi, THF; (d) (1) TMS-acetylene, Pd(PPh3)4, CuI, NEt3; (2) TBAF, H2O, THF; (e) S-(4-iodophenyl)ethanethioate, Pd(PPh3)4, CuI, NEt3, THF; (f) malononitrile, TiCl4, pyridine, CHCl3; (g) AcCl, TiCl4, DCM; (h) PPh3, CBr4, DCM; (i) BBr3, AcCl, DCM/toluene 1 : 1; (j) PhB(OH)2, K2CO3, Pd(PPh3)4, toluene; (k) BBr3, AcCl, DCM/toluene 1 : 1; (l) TIPS-acetylene, Pd(PPh3)4, CuI, NEt3, THF; (m) PPh3, CBr4, DCM; (n) B-MeO-9-borabycyclononane, MeLi, Pd(PPh3)4, THF; (o) (1) TBAF, H2O, THF; (2) S-(4-iodophenyl)ethanethioate, Pd(PPh3)4, CuI, NEt3, THF.
Fig. 4Electrical characterization of tunneling junctions obtained as AuMica/SAM//EGaIn (a), AuTS/SAM//EGaIn (b), and AuMica/SAM/AuCP-AFM (c) comprising AQ (black), AC (red), APh (cyan), ABr (blue), ATTF (pink), and TCNAQ (yellow). Error bars in (a) and (b) are confidence intervals (α = 0.05). Error bars in (c) are omitted for clarity.
Summary of electrical characteristics of large area Au/SAM//EGaIn junctions
| AQ | AC | APh | ABr | ATTF | TCNAQ | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AuMica | Yield (%) | 96 | 77 | 56 | 85 | 76 | 69 |
| log| | −5.5 ± 0.2 | −3.4 ± 0.1 | −4.5 ± 0.2 | −4.7 ± 0.2 | −4.6 ± 0.2 | −3.7 ± 0.2 | |
| log| | −3.5 ± 0.1 | −2.1 ± 0.2 | −3.2 ± 0.2 | −3.2 ± 0.1 | −2.9 ± 0.2 | −2.3 ± 0.2 | |
| AuTS | Yield (%) | — | 98 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
| log| | — | −3.1 ± 0.1 | −5.0 ± 0.1 | −5.5 ± 0.2 | −4.2 ± 0.2 | −3.2 ± 0.1 | |
| log| | — | −1.8 ± 0.1 | −3.7 ± 0.1 | −4.0 ± 0.1 | −2.6 ± 0.1 | −1.8 ± 0.1 |
Fig. 5Normalized differential conductance heatmaps for AuMica/SAM//EGaIn junctions comprising AQ, ABr, TCNAQ, ATTF, APh, and AC.
Summary of electrical characteristics of small area AuMica/SAM//AuCP-AFM junctions
| AQ | AC | APh | ABr | ATTF | TCNAQ | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| log| | −3.6 ± 0.2 | −1.3 ± 0.1 | −3.9 ± 0.4 | −3.4 ± 0.2 | −2.9 ± 0.2 | −0.8 ± 0.4 |
| log| | −2.1 ± 0.2 | 0.3 ± 0.3 | −2.0 ± 0.3 | −2.0 ± 0.2 | −0.5 ± 0.2 | 0.9 ± 0.4 |
Fig. 6Confrontation between the values of conductance obtained for single-molecule STM-BJ at 0.1 V (y-axis) and low-bias conductance extracted from AuMica/SAM//EGaIn junctions (x-axis). Both data sets are presented on a logarithmic scale. The dashed line is intended as a guide to the eye for deviation from linearity.