Supriya Ghosh1, Suryakant Mishra2, Eytan Avigad3, Brian P Bloom1, L T Baczewski4, Shira Yochelis3, Yossi Paltiel3, Ron Naaman2, David H Waldeck1. 1. Chemistry Department , University of Pittsburgh , Pittsburgh , Pennsylvania 15260 , United States. 2. Department of Chemical and Biological Physics , Weizmann Institute , Rehovot 76100 , Israel. 3. Applied Physics Department , the Hebrew University of Jerusalem , Jerusalem 91904 , Israel. 4. Magnetic Heterostructures Laboratory, Institute of Physics , Polish Academy of Sciences , Al. Lotnikow 32/46 , 02-668 Warszawa , Poland.
Abstract
Kelvin-probe measurements on ferromagnetic thin film electrodes coated with self-assembled monolayers of chiral molecules reveal that the electron penetration from the metal electrode into the chiral molecules depends on the ferromagnet's magnetization direction and the molecules' chirality. Electrostatic potential differences as large as 100 mV are observed. These changes arise from the applied oscillating electric field, which drives spin-dependent charge penetration from the ferromagnetic substrate to the chiral molecules. The enantiospecificity of the response is studied as a function of the magnetization strength, the magnetization direction, and the handedness and length of the chiral molecules. These new phenomena are rationalized in terms of the chiral-induced spin selectivity (CISS) effect, in which one spin orientation of electrons from the ferromagnet penetrates more easily into a chiral molecule than does the other orientation. The large potential changes (>kT at room temperature) manifested here imply that this phenomenon is important for spin transport in chiral spintronic devices and for magneto-electrochemistry of chiral molecules.
Kelvin-probe measurements on ferromagnetic thin film electrodes coated with self-assembled monolayers of chiral molecules reveal that the electron penetration from the metal electrode into the chiral molecules depends on the ferromagnet's magnetization direction and the molecules' chirality. Electrostatic potential differences as large as 100 mV are observed. These changes arise from the applied oscillating electric field, which drives spin-dependent charge penetration from the ferromagnetic substrate to the chiral molecules. The enantiospecificity of the response is studied as a function of the magnetization strength, the magnetization direction, and the handedness and length of the chiral molecules. These new phenomena are rationalized in terms of the chiral-induced spin selectivity (CISS) effect, in which one spin orientation of electrons from the ferromagnet penetrates more easily into a chiral molecule than does the other orientation. The large potential changes (>kT at room temperature) manifested here imply that this phenomenon is important for spin transport in chiral spintronic devices and for magneto-electrochemistry of chiral molecules.
The control and detection of
electron spin dynamics is essential for the realization of spintronic[1] and quantum information technologies. Recent
developments in molecular spintronics have pointed to the “spinterface”
(ferromagnet surface/molecular semiconductor interface) as playing
an important role in determining device behavior.[2] This work demonstrates the use of chiral molecules to control
the electron spin density at an interface and its effect on the electrostatic
potential. Thus, it suggests that chiral molecules and the constraints
they impose on the interface through the chiral-induced spin selectivity
(CISS) effect provide a new approach to controlling the “spinterface.”
This work also provides new insight into the mechanism of the chiral-induced
spin selectivity effect discovered more than a decade ago,[3] for which a full quantitative theory has not
yet been provided.A number of different experiments have shown
that chiral organic
molecules exhibit strongly spin-dependent electron transport at room
temperature. For example, one experimental method has examined the
spin distribution of photoelectrons that transit from a metal substrate
through a layer of chiral molecules and are detected with a Mott polarimeter.[4−6] In another method, the effect was established by measuring the spin
polarization of electron tunneling currents through individual chiral
molecules adsorbed on a magnetized substrate.[7−9] The effect was
also observed via the magnetization generated by chiral films[10,11] and by the dissymmetry in electron transfer rates of chiral molecules[12,13] and chiral quantum dots,[14−17] among others.[18−26] In addition, CISS has been shown by the enantiospecific adsorption
rate of chiral molecules on magnetized ferromagnetic films.[27,28] Abendroth et al.[29] used photoemission
spectroscopy to reveal work function shifts of ferromagnet/chiral
molecule interfaces that depend on the magnetization direction. The
current work explores the interfacial effects of chiral molecules
assembled on a ferromagnetic substrate.This study uses Kelvin-probe
force microscopy (KPFM)[30] and macroscopic
Kelvin-probe[31] measurements to investigate
the spin-dependent resistance
at metal–chiral molecule interfaces. Self-assembled monolayers
(SAMs) of chiral organic molecules were adsorbed on ferromagnetic
substrates, which were magnetized either parallel or antiparallel
to the surface normal. Using the Kelvin probe, we investigated the
effect of an oscillating electric field on charge injection from the
magnetic substrate into the molecule as a function of the magnetization
direction and the handedness of the molecule. An important advantage
of this method over the existing ones, such as magneto-optic Kerr
effect (MOKE) and tunneling microscopy methods, lies in its simplicity.
The basic Kelvin-probe setup consists of a metallic probe electrode
that is placed near the sample surface to form a capacitor (see Figure A). Then, the distance
between the probe electrode and the sample surface is changed periodically
to generate a frequency-dependent capacitance. Thus, an AC voltage
is created across the gap, and it is proportional to the voltage difference
between the probe electrode and the sample. Rather than record the
AC voltage directly, it is common to apply a DC voltage, referred
to as the contact potential difference (CPD), to null the response.
The concept of Kelvin-probe force microscopy is similar, except the
probe in this case is a conductive cantilever, which is scanned over
the surface to record an electrostatic potential map (see Figure B). This work focuses
on changes in the CPD, or electrostatic surface potential, that arise
as one changes the adsorbate’s enantiomeric form and the surface
magnetization. These enantiospecific changes in the measured CPD arise
from the spin-dependence of charge penetration from the ferromagnet
into the adsorbed chiral molecules, at the chiral molecule/ferromagnet
interface.
Figure 1
Schematic diagrams illustrating the principle of the Kelvin-probe
measurement. In the macroscopic measurement (panel A), the distance
of a Au electrode from the chiral-SAM/ferromagnetic sample is varied
sinusoidally. In the microscopy version of the Kelvin-probe measurement
(panel B), an AFM conducting tip is used as the counter-electrode,
and its lateral position is scanned to image the substrate’s
potential distribution. The diagrams illustrate how a static magnet
is placed under the sample in order to saturate the magnetization
of the ferromagnetic layer. Measured CPD distributions are shown for
the (panel C) d-AL5-peptide-, (panel E) l-AL5-peptide-,
and (panel D) achiral-SAM-coated ferromagnetic substrate under two
different magnetizations. The blue color represents the potential
distribution for a magnetization pointing to the south, and red corresponds
to a north direction. These two directions are defined to be along
the axis perpendicular to the surface. The zero voltage is set by
the averaged contact potential difference found in the two measurements.
Schematic diagrams illustrating the principle of the Kelvin-probe
measurement. In the macroscopic measurement (panel A), the distance
of a Au electrode from the chiral-SAM/ferromagnetic sample is varied
sinusoidally. In the microscopy version of the Kelvin-probe measurement
(panel B), an AFM conducting tip is used as the counter-electrode,
and its lateral position is scanned to image the substrate’s
potential distribution. The diagrams illustrate how a static magnet
is placed under the sample in order to saturate the magnetization
of the ferromagnetic layer. Measured CPD distributions are shown for
the (panel C) d-AL5-peptide-, (panel E) l-AL5-peptide-,
and (panel D) achiral-SAM-coated ferromagnetic substrate under two
different magnetizations. The blue color represents the potential
distribution for a magnetization pointing to the south, and red corresponds
to a north direction. These two directions are defined to be along
the axis perpendicular to the surface. The zero voltage is set by
the averaged contact potential difference found in the two measurements.Several ferromagnetic substrates (with a Ni or
Co layer) and different
types of chiral SAMs were measured. For chiral SAMs, the CPD depends
on the molecules’ handedness and the ferromagnetic substrate’s
magnetization direction. This dependence arises from the difference
between the probabilities of electrons with spin up and spin down
tunneling into the chiral molecule layer, i.e., of the CISS effect.
More specifically, the use of the ferromagnetic substrate affects
the spin-dependent part of the contact resistance. For opposite magnetization
directions of the ferromagnetic substrate, the change in the CPD corresponds
to a difference in the induced dipole moments in the chiral SAM; it
implies a strong penetration of the spin wave function through the
molecular layer for one chirality and a weaker penetration for the
opposite chirality.Panels C, D, and E of Figure show histograms of the CPD, which were measured
using
the KPFM method (see Supporting Information for more details), as a function of the magnetization direction
for three self-assembled monolayer (SAM) systems: a d-AL5
peptide (−S–CH2–CH2–(Ala–Aib)5–COOH) denoted as d-SAM, an l-AL5
peptide (−S–CH2–CH2–(Ala–Aib)5–COOH) denoted as l-SAM, and an achiral SAM
composed of mercaptoalkylcarboxylates (−S–(CH2)15–COOH). The ferromagnetic substrates consist
of a 10 nm thick layer of Ni with a 10 nm capping layer of Au. For
the d-SAM, the CPD was found to be 30–40 mV higher
under north (red) magnetization than under south (blue) magnetization
(the two directions are along the axis perpendicular to the surface),
whereas the opposite was found for the l-SAM. In a control
experiment with achiral SAMs, the CPD does not show any dependence
on the applied magnetization direction. These data show that for a
magnetization direction that “matches” the SAM chirality,
the charge density extends farther into the chiral SAM.To confirm
that the observations originate from the preferential
tunneling of one electron spin over the other (i.e., the CISS effect),
the dependence of the CPD on the Au layer thickness (wedge shape layer),
which covers the ferromagnetic cobalt thin film exhibiting a perpendicular
anisotropy (see Figure ), was measured. As the thickness of the Au layer increases, the
spin-polarized electron density emanating from the ferromagnetic layer
will depolarize more prior to entering the chiral molecules.[32] Thus, as the Au capping layer becomes thinner,
the measured dependence of the potential difference on the magnetization
direction should become stronger. Figure shows KPFM results from measurements with l-AL5 SAMs adsorbed on a magnetic substrate comprising a 1.8
nm thick Co film that is covered with an Au wedge layer whose thickness
is varied uniformly from 2 to 10 nm over a lateral distance of 10
mm (represented by the wedge shape at the top of Figure ). The CPD was measured along
the thickness gradient of the Au layer for two different film magnetization
vertical orientations, north and south. Under application of a north
magnetic field (Figure A), the CPD becomes more negative as the gold thicknesses decreases
from 10 to 2 nm (light to dark red). The lower panel shows a plot
of the most probable CPD value (peak of the distribution) measured
at different gold thicknesses. Conversely, for the south magnetization
direction (Figure B) the CPD becomes more positive as the gold thickness decreases
(light to dark blue color). In both cases, changing the Au capping
thickness from 10 to 2 nm results in a 60–80 mV shift in the
CPD. These data indicate that the spin polarization persists through
more than 10 nm of Au but that it is strongly attenuated. More importantly,
these findings support the claim that spin delocalization from the
chiral molecule into the magnetized substrate is responsible for the
observed changes in CPD. Note that the MBE grown ferromagnetic Co
layer in this sample has a higher saturation magnetization than the
polycrystalline Ni layer used for the measurements in Figure and that in a Au/Co/Au configuration
such nanostructures feature a perpendicular anisotropy,[33] i.e., the easy axis points directly out-of-plane.
This feature results in a larger difference in the CPD for the Co
ferromagnetic substrates than for the Ni ferromagnetic substrates.
Figure 2
Change
in the CPD as a function of the Au layer thickness for the
opposite Co magnetization directions with adsorbed l-AL5
SAMs. The top diagram shows the distribution of a potential in different
regions of the magnetic sample along the Au wedge. The color of each
plot corresponds to the region indicated on the gradient bar by the
same shade. The zero voltage is set by the measurement at the region
of the highest Au thickness of 10 nm. The maxima of the potential
distribution curves versus the thickness of the gold layer are plotted
at the bottom of the Figure. As shown in panel (A), the CPD becomes
more negative as the gold thickness decreases for a north magnetization.
In contrast, in panel (B) where the magnetization is south, the CPD
becomes positive, and its value increases with decreasing gold layer
thickness. To estimate the error in the measurements, see the full-width-at-half-maximum
of the histograms.
Change
in the CPD as a function of the Au layer thickness for the
opposite Co magnetization directions with adsorbed l-AL5
SAMs. The top diagram shows the distribution of a potential in different
regions of the magnetic sample along the Au wedge. The color of each
plot corresponds to the region indicated on the gradient bar by the
same shade. The zero voltage is set by the measurement at the region
of the highest Au thickness of 10 nm. The maxima of the potential
distribution curves versus the thickness of the gold layer are plotted
at the bottom of the Figure. As shown in panel (A), the CPD becomes
more negative as the gold thickness decreases for a north magnetization.
In contrast, in panel (B) where the magnetization is south, the CPD
becomes positive, and its value increases with decreasing gold layer
thickness. To estimate the error in the measurements, see the full-width-at-half-maximum
of the histograms.Previous work on the
interaction of chiral molecules with ferromagnetic
thin film surfaces showed that the enantiospecificity arose from the
projection of the magnetic moment on the direction perpendicular to
the film surface.[34] To examine this feature,
measurements on the l-AL5 SAMs were conducted using Au/Co/Au
ferromagnetic substrates, in which the cobalt layer thickness was
varied from 1.6 to 3 nm and the Au capping layer thickness was fixed
at 2 nm. The coercivity and easy-axis direction of the magnetic layer
(Co) changes with thickness; below 2 nm, the easy axis of the Co is
mainly out-of-plane, while for Co layer thicknesses above 2 nm, a
spin reorientation transition takes place, and the magnetization easy
axis rotates to an in-plane direction (see the Supporting Information for more details on the ferromagnetic
sample coercivity).[33,35]Figure A shows
the CPD measured along the Co thickness gradient under north magnetization
for substrates with the l-AL5 SAM. Note that the magnet was
placed underneath the substrate during the measurements, i.e., the
Co layer magnetization was oriented perpendicular to the sample normal,
even for Co thicknesses above the spin reorientation transition, along
the applied magnetic field direction. In this configuration, a large
negative shift of CPD was observed; however, the CPD distributions
vary only weakly with the Co thickness. Figure B shows experimental results for the same
sample as in Figure A but upon removal of the permanent magnet. When the magnetic field
is removed, the magnetization of the Co layer (for thicknesses of
Co layer above 2 nm) is no longer oriented normal to the surface and
instead rotates toward the “easy” axis as a function
of thickness. When the easy axis is not aligned with the electron
injection direction into the SAM, the electron density injected into
the SAM is lower, and the CPD becomes more positive. These results
imply that the tilt angle of chiral molecules adsorbed on the substrate
surface, in an ordered chiral monolayer, could be probed by changing
the magnetization direction.
Figure 3
Coercivity-dependent changes in the CPD. The
Co thickness is changed
from 1.5 to 3 nm, and the coercive field decreases as the Co layer
thickness increases. The color of each plot corresponds to the region
indicated on the gradient bar by the same shade. The bottom diagram
plots the maxima of the potential distribution curve for the substrate
with adsorbed l-AL5 SAMs vs the thickness of the Co layer.
The CPD measured in the presence of a constant magnetic field well
above the coercive field (panel A) shows a weak dependence on the
Co thickness. In contrast, a strong Co layer thickness-dependence
is measured in the absence of constant magnetic field (panel B). Here,
the external magnetic field has been applied to orient a magnetization
in a given direction and is then removed prior to the measurement.
Coercivity-dependent changes in the CPD. The
Co thickness is changed
from 1.5 to 3 nm, and the coercive field decreases as the Co layer
thickness increases. The color of each plot corresponds to the region
indicated on the gradient bar by the same shade. The bottom diagram
plots the maxima of the potential distribution curve for the substrate
with adsorbed l-AL5 SAMs vs the thickness of the Co layer.
The CPD measured in the presence of a constant magnetic field well
above the coercive field (panel A) shows a weak dependence on the
Co thickness. In contrast, a strong Co layer thickness-dependence
is measured in the absence of constant magnetic field (panel B). Here,
the external magnetic field has been applied to orient a magnetization
in a given direction and is then removed prior to the measurement.Lastly, the dependence of the CPD’s asymmetry
on the substrate
magnetization was studied as a function of the chiral molecule length
(L); see Figure . The CPD of the SAM-coated substrate electrode arises
from the potential drop across the SAM and thus should be proportional
to the dipole moment of the molecules, D ∝ LQ, in the SAM, where Q is the amount of
charge transferred between the metal surface and the monolayer, and L is the effective distance between this charge and the
surface. As the molecules become longer, the injected charge can delocalize
farther from the metal substrate, and a larger potential drop is expected.
If the delocalization length changes with the chiral molecule length,
then the asymmetry in the contact potential difference, ΔCPD
= CPD(north) – CPD(south), should change with length. Figure A shows the ΔCPD
for north and south magnetized films with chiral DNA, and Figure B shows the case
for oligopeptides (AL with n = 3–7) SAMs. See the Supporting Information for molecular sequences of the DNA and oligopeptides. Interestingly,
a different length dependence was observed for the two types of molecules:
ΔCPD ∝ L2 for the DNA, and
ΔCPD ∝ L for the oligopeptides.
Figure 4
Panels A and
B show a change in CPD for molecules of different
length; (A) double stranded DNA and (B) AL oligopeptides on a magnetized Ni/Au electrode. The red lines are
fits of the data by a quadratic dependence in panel (A) and by a linear
fit in panel (B). See the SI for details
on the SAM compositions. Panel C shows the number of Au NPs that electrostatically
bind to an l-polyalanine monolayer in 2 s, for north (red)
and south (blue) magnetization directions. The experiments were repeated
five times and measured at several different areas to reduce fluctuations.
Panels A and
B show a change in CPD for molecules of different
length; (A) double stranded DNA and (B) AL oligopeptides on a magnetized Ni/Au electrode. The red lines are
fits of the data by a quadratic dependence in panel (A) and by a linear
fit in panel (B). See the SI for details
on the SAM compositions. Panel C shows the number of Au NPs that electrostatically
bind to an l-polyalanine monolayer in 2 s, for north (red)
and south (blue) magnetization directions. The experiments were repeated
five times and measured at several different areas to reduce fluctuations.Given that the ΔCPD of the SAM-coated electrodes
is proportional
to the dipole moment of the molecules D ∝ LQ, a linear dependence on L implies that
the amount of charge displacement in the SAM layer is independent
of molecular length, whereas a supralinear dependence on L implies that the amount of charge displacement in the SAM increases
with the molecular length. In DNA, the molecule’s polarizability
has been shown to scale linearly with the molecule’s length,[36] and this could account for the quadratic growth
in the dipole moment with the length, D ∝ L2. The data suggest that the polarizability
in the oligopeptides does not change significantly over the short
lengths studied (1.5 to 3 nm), and therefore, the dipole moment appears
to change linearly with the molecular length. While the ΔCPD
signal has a different sign for DNA and oligopeptides, these data
are consistent with previous reports; conductive AFM measurements
showed a higher tunneling barrier for DNA under north magnetization
than south magnetization[7] and the opposite
for oligopeptides.[8]Large changes
in the surface potential can affect surface chemical
processes. Figure C illustrates this fact by demonstrating how the change in surface
charge of an l-polyalanine SAM on a magnetized Ni/Au substrate
can be used to control the electrostatic adsorption of achiral gold
NPs. The substrate was immersed for 2 s, and the number of particles
was normalized to a 1 cm2 substrate area. The gold NPs
were counted using SEM images. The experiment was repeated five times.
By simply changing the magnetization direction applied to the substrate,
a 2-fold change in the adsorption rate was found.Here we sketch
a model that rationalizes the observations and is
consistent with the many other CISS effect observations for electron
transmission through chiral molecules. First we describe the time-dependence
of the response, which results from the oscillating electric polarization
in the molecule, and second, we discuss the large magnitude of the
effect. In the Kelvin-probe experiment, a time-dependent response
of the chiral SAM/ferromagnet sample is measured. Namely, charge flows
between the ferromagnetic substrate and the SAM in response to the
oscillating electric field that is applied by the Kelvin probe. As
is known, the Kelvin-probe measurement can be modeled by an AC electrical
circuit comprising a capacitance for the probe and the interface.
The situation studied here (metal with an insulating monolayer film)
requires an effective capacitance comprising the capacitance of the
SAM/Kelvin-probe junction, Cmol-p, in series with a resistance and capacitance for the ferromagnet/chiral-SAM
interface, R and Cfm-mol. The resistance R determines the rate at which
charge is transferred between the chiral molecules and the substrate.While the effect of molecular films on a metal substrate’s
work function has been studied widely, much less is known about the
difference in the behavior that arises for chiral molecules on ferromagnetic
surfaces. An electric field that is acting on a molecule or molecular
monolayer at an electrode modifies the molecular electronic states.
The electric fields at an electrode surface can be as high as 108–109 V/m,[37] and
this field induces a dipole moment in the molecule, i.e., an electron
charge displacement. For chiral molecules, this charge displacement
in the molecule is accompanied by a spin polarization.[38] Based on spin–orbit coupling strengths
of about 5 meV in chiral organic molecules, one expects a spin polarization,
ΔP, of a few percent, or less.[39,40]Upon application of an oscillating electric field onto the
magnetic
substrate coated with the chiral monolayer, charge reorganization
in the molecule takes place, but also, charge flow between the substrate
and the molecules occurs. This charge flow implies charge exchange
(electron cloud overlap) between the molecule and the metal. Electron
density permeating from the metal into the positive electric pole
of the molecule, polarized by the oscillating field, can have either
the same spin as that of the electrons which remain at the positive
pole or it can have the opposite spin. To estimate the difference
in energy ΔE between the two possibilities,
we take the product of the spin polarization ΔP, which is a metric for the difference in the two spin densities,
and the typical value of the singlet–triplet energy splitting,
which is a metric for the electronic orbital energy difference between
the two spin types. In a Heitler–London valence bond picture,[41] this approximation results inwhere Q is the Coulomb integral, S is the electron overlap integral, and Jexc is the exchange integral. The values found for these
different parameters are sensitive to the level of theory used for
calculation. Thus, we approximate this term in the equation by the
triplet–singlet energy difference of an excited electronic
configuration. Given that the typical energy splitting between singlet
and triplet states in hydrocarbons is of the order of 1 eV,[42] a spin polarization of 3% yields an energy splitting ΔE = 30 meV. This energy splitting at 300 K amounts
to a spin selectivity in the spin injection of about 1:4, namely a
spin polarization of approximately 60%. Clearly, if the singlet–triplet
energy difference is larger or the initial spin polarization on the
formation of the dipole is higher, then a higher spin polarization
can be observed in the CISS effect. Consequently, a significant energy
bias exists for injecting one spin orientation over the other, and
the magnitudes are sufficient to account for the observed contact
potential differences. This mechanism is reminiscent of a “spin
blockade”[43] that restricts the spin
injection from the substrate to the molecule despite an apparent small
spin–orbit coupling in the chiral molecule. Thus, this mechanism
could give rise to the large spin selectivity reported in CISS processes
and account for the large CPD values reported here.The mechanism
presented here indicates that the transport is nonlinear,[44] and it is consistent with the current versus
voltage (I–V) curves that
are observed in magnetic conducting probe measurements of oligopeptides.
For convenience, I–V curves
for the AL7 molecule, which are taken from ref (8), are reproduced in Figure A under different
magnetization directions. The data show that nonlinear conduction
occurs after an electric field is applied to the molecules. The current
under the south (blue) magnetization direction begins to occur when
the applied voltage is approximately 93 mV, and the current for the
north (red) direction appears at a higher voltage, ∼200 mV.
The inset in FigureA shows a plot of log()
versus voltage for the same data, which illustrates more clearly the
difference in the voltage (difference in on-state and off-state voltage
slopes) for the two curves. According to the suggested model vide
supra, the difference of 100 mV between the voltage of the two spin
currents is associated with a “spin blockade”. Note,
in this experiment, the tip is ferromagnetic, as opposed to the experiments
in Figures –4 where the substrate is ferromagnetic; hence, the
geometry of the experiment is inverted, and the effect on the magnetization
is reversed; panel B illustrates this difference. The sub-band splittings
of the AFM tip, blue and red semicircles, are controlled by the applied
magnetization, whereas the spin injection from the substrate into
the chiral molecule, blue and red semicircles, is determined by the
helicity of the molecule.
Figure 5
Panel A shows I–V curves
from magnetic conductive probe atomic force microscopy measurements
in the presence of a magnetic field pointing south (blue) and magnet
pointing north (red) for an AL7 oligopeptide. The inset is a log plot,
in which the dashed lines illustrate the changeover from off-state
to on-state voltages. Panel B shows a corresponding cartoon depicting
the interaction of the ferromagnetic substrate with the chiral SAM
to create a “spin blockade”. The red and blue semicircles
indicate a splitting of the spin sub-bands.
Panel A shows I–V curves
from magnetic conductive probe atomic force microscopy measurements
in the presence of a magnetic field pointing south (blue) and magnet
pointing north (red) for an AL7 oligopeptide. The inset is a log plot,
in which the dashed lines illustrate the changeover from off-state
to on-state voltages. Panel B shows a corresponding cartoon depicting
the interaction of the ferromagnetic substrate with the chiral SAM
to create a “spin blockade”. The red and blue semicircles
indicate a splitting of the spin sub-bands.Based on the presented model, the difference in the resistance
of the chiral molecules can be rationalized by the spin-dependence
of the electron penetration into the molecular layer. Figure B provides further evidence
corroborating the suggested model. Here, the contact potential difference
of the same sample is measured but in regions with two different thickness
ranges. When Co is 1.8 nm thick, the easy axis is pointing out-of-plane,
and the potential shift is much larger than that found for a 2.5 nm
thick cobalt region, in which the easy axis is in-plane. For the 1.8
nm thick Co thick, both spin–orbit coupling and spin exchange
interactions should be considered, whereas for the 2.5 nm thick Co,
the spin–orbit coupling term may dominate.It was shown
that coating a ferromagnetic film electrode with a
self-assembled monolayer of chiral molecules leads to contact potential
differences (measured via the Kelvin-probe method) that depend on
the magnetization direction of the ferromagnetic film with respect
to the SAM’s chirality. The data show that the asymmetry in
the potential difference can be as large as 100 mV and is controlled
by the magnetization direction of the ferromagnetic film electrode.
The use of Kelvin-probe measurements for extracting spin dynamics
inside chiral organic monolayer films demonstrates a new way to probe
spin penetration in ultrathin films without the need for external
contacts. The phenomena were interpreted using the CISS effect and
AC transient charge redistribution, and the magnitude of the effect
is explained by the nonlinearity of the spin exchange interactions.
These observations rationalize how large spin polarizations can be
generated in the experiments despite the apparent small spin–orbit
coupling in the chiral hydrocarbons and should thus motivate more
detailed calculations on the interaction of chiral molecules with
ferromagnetic substrates in the future.
Authors: Anup Kumar; Eyal Capua; Manoj K Kesharwani; Jan M L Martin; Einat Sitbon; David H Waldeck; Ron Naaman Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2017-02-22 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Jose I Santos; Iván Rivilla; Fernando P Cossío; Jon M Matxain; Marek Grzelczak; Shobeir K S Mazinani; Jesus M Ugalde; Vladimiro Mujica Journal: ACS Nano Date: 2018-11-13 Impact factor: 15.881
Authors: J de Bruijckere; P Gehring; M Palacios-Corella; M Clemente-León; E Coronado; J Paaske; P Hedegård; H S J van der Zant Journal: Phys Rev Lett Date: 2019-05-17 Impact factor: 9.161
Authors: B Göhler; V Hamelbeck; T Z Markus; M Kettner; G F Hanne; Z Vager; R Naaman; H Zacharias Journal: Science Date: 2011-02-18 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Matthias Kettner; Volodymyr V Maslyuk; Daniel Nürenberg; Johannes Seibel; Rafael Gutierrez; Gianaurelio Cuniberti; Karl-Heinz Ernst; Helmut Zacharias Journal: J Phys Chem Lett Date: 2018-04-09 Impact factor: 6.475