Self-organization in mono- and bilayers on HOPG of two groups of benz[5,6]acridino[2,1,9,8-klmna]acridine derivatives, namely, 8,16-dialkoxybenzo[h]benz[5,6]acridino[2,1,9,8-klmna]acridines with an increasing alkoxy substituent length and 8,16-bis(3- or 4- or 5-octylthiophen-2-yl)benzo[h]benz[5,6]acridino[2,1,9,8-klmna]acridines, i.e., three positional isomers of the same benzoacridine, is investigated by scanning tunneling microscopy. The layers were deposited from a solution of the adsorbate (in hexane or dichloromethane) and imaged ex situ at molecular resolution. In all cases, the resulting two-dimensional (2D) supramolecular organization is governed by the interactions between large, fused heteroaromatic cores that form densely packed rows separated by areas covered by substituents. In 8,16-dialkoxybenzo[h]benz[5,6]acridino[2,1,9,8-klmna]acridines, the alkoxy substituents, separating the rows of densely packed cores, are interdigitated. An increasing substituent length leads to an intuitively expected increase in this 2D unit cell parameter that corresponds to the orientation of the substituent in the monolayer. In the case of 8,16-bis(3- or 4- or 5-octylthiophen-2-yl)benzo[h]benz[5,6]acridino[2,1,9,8-klmna]acridine positional isomers, the self-assembly processes are more complex. Although the determined 2D unit cell is in all cases essentially the same, the role of alkylthienylene substituents in layer formation is distinctly different. Thus, the formation of monolayers and bilayers is very sensitive to isomerism. 8,16-Bis(5-octylthiophen-2-yl)benzo[h]benz[5,6]acridino[2,1,9,8-klmna]acridine is capable of forming the most stable monolayer and the most labile bilayer. In the case of 8,16-bis(3-octylthiophen-2-yl)benzo[h]benz[5,6]acridino[2,1,9,8-klmna]acridine, an inverse phenomenon is observed leading to the most labile monolayer and the most stable bilayer. These differences are rationalized in terms of dissimilar molecular geometries of the studied isomers and different interdigitation patterns in their 2D supramolecular structures.
Self-organization in mono- and bilayers on HOPG of two groups of benz[5,6]acridino[2,1,9,8-klmna]acridine derivatives, namely, 8,16-dialkoxybenzo[h]benz[5,6]acridino[2,1,9,8-klmna]acridines with an increasing alkoxy substituent length and 8,16-bis(3- or 4- or 5-octylthiophen-2-yl)benzo[h]benz[5,6]acridino[2,1,9,8-klmna]acridines, i.e., three positional isomers of the same benzoacridine, is investigated by scanning tunneling microscopy. The layers were deposited from a solution of the adsorbate (in hexane or dichloromethane) and imaged ex situ at molecular resolution. In all cases, the resulting two-dimensional (2D) supramolecular organization is governed by the interactions between large, fused heteroaromatic cores that form densely packed rows separated by areas covered by substituents. In 8,16-dialkoxybenzo[h]benz[5,6]acridino[2,1,9,8-klmna]acridines, the alkoxy substituents, separating the rows of densely packed cores, are interdigitated. An increasing substituent length leads to an intuitively expected increase in this 2D unit cell parameter that corresponds to the orientation of the substituent in the monolayer. In the case of 8,16-bis(3- or 4- or 5-octylthiophen-2-yl)benzo[h]benz[5,6]acridino[2,1,9,8-klmna]acridine positional isomers, the self-assembly processes are more complex. Although the determined 2D unit cell is in all cases essentially the same, the role of alkylthienylene substituents in layer formation is distinctly different. Thus, the formation of monolayers and bilayers is very sensitive to isomerism. 8,16-Bis(5-octylthiophen-2-yl)benzo[h]benz[5,6]acridino[2,1,9,8-klmna]acridine is capable of forming the most stable monolayer and the most labile bilayer. In the case of 8,16-bis(3-octylthiophen-2-yl)benzo[h]benz[5,6]acridino[2,1,9,8-klmna]acridine, an inverse phenomenon is observed leading to the most labile monolayer and the most stable bilayer. These differences are rationalized in terms of dissimilar molecular geometries of the studied isomers and different interdigitation patterns in their 2D supramolecular structures.
Nonlinear and fused azaacenes are promising
materials for application
in organic electronics as components of active layers in field effect
transistors (FETs)[1−4] and light-emitting diodes (LEDs).[5] Among
them, phenazine- or acridine-type azaacenes deserve special attention,
not only because of their excellent properties but also due to the
simplicity of their preparation. In our previous papers, we demonstrated
that these derivatives can be relatively easily obtained from old
and almost forgotten nitrogen atom-containing vat dyes such as indanthrone
(6,15-dihydrodinaphtho[2,3-a:2′,3′-h]phenazine-5,9,14,18-tetraone) or flavanthrone (benzo[h]benz[5,6]acridino[2,1,9,8-klmna]acridine-8,16-dione)
in a two-step, one-pot reaction involving reduction of their carbonyl
group followed by O-alkylation or another type of substitution.[6−8] These derivatives are technologically attractive because they are
solution processable and exhibit excellent photo- and electroluminescence.[7,9] In addition, they are electrochemically interesting showing electrochromic
properties associated with the reversibility of their reduction. All
of these electronic and optoelectronic properties facilitate their
application in various types of organic electronic devices.[7,9,10]Additionally, one of the
main features of organic semiconductors,
which is important for their application in organic electronics, is
their self-assembly in thin films or even in monolayers. This is a
consequence of the fact that the patterns formed by self-assembly
of organic molecules usually determine electrical transport properties
and other properties of anisotropic character in active organic layers
or at the active layer–metal electrode interface. The effect
of such self-assembly is hard to predict, especially in the case of
organic molecules of complex molecular and electronic structures.
Scanning tunneling microscopy (STM) is a very well suited scientific
tool for this kind of investigation and has been frequently used to
study various families of organic semiconductors (see, for example,
representative review articles[11−21]). Recently, we have applied this technique to elucidate the self-organization
of several semiconductors of the donor–acceptor–donor
type, such as arylamine-substituted naphthalene,[22] oligothiophene-substituted tetrazine,[23] thiadiazole,[23−25] tetraalkoxy-substituted dinaphthophenazine,[6] and oligothiophene-substituted diketopyrrolopyrrole.[26] The reported microscopic studies have indicated
that self-assembly of such molecules of complex electronic structure
usually results from a complicated effect of mutual interactions between
parts of neighboring molecules of a different chemical nature and
by consequence different electron affinities, as well as interactions
of the adsorbed molecules with the substrate. For semiconductors in
which intermolecular interactions of various types are of comparable
strength, the resulting balance can be delicate. Thus, a small change
in molecular heterostructure (i.e., strengths of the acceptor or the
donor units, their mutual positions, and the length of alkyl/alkoxy
substituents) can induce drastic changes in the resulting supramolecular
organization (see, for example, ref (23)).Alkoxy and alkylthienylene derivatives
of flavanthrone described
in this research, namely, 8,16-dialkoxybenzo[h] benz[5,6]acridino[2,1,9,8-klmna]acridines and 8,16-bis(3- or 4- or 5-octylthiophen-2-yl)benzo[h]benz[5,6]acridino[2,1,9,8-klmna]acridines,
in addition to the previously mentioned excellent physical and chemical
properties exhibit strong capability to form a highly ordered two-dimensional
(2D) supramolecular structure, as demonstrated by preliminary STM
studies.[7] In this paper, we present a detailed
investigation of these self-assembly phenomena, analyzing the effect
of the substituent length on the 2D self-organization of the studied
alkoxy derivatives. We also compare the self-assembly patterns in
monolayers of three positional isomers of octylthienylene-substituted
fused benzoacridines differing in the position of the octyl substituent.
Experimental Section
8,16-Dialkoxybenzo[h]benz[5,6]acridino[2,1,9,8-klmna]acridines
with increasing alkoxy substituent lengths
(n-hexyl, n-octyl, n-decyl, and n-dodecyl) were synthesized following
the procedure described in detail in ref (7). The syntheses of 8,16-bis(3 or 4 or 5-octylthiophen-2-yl)benzo[h]benz[5,6]acridino[2,1,9,8-klmna]acridines
were carried out according to the procedure reported in ref (8). All synthesized compounds
were identified by 1H and 13C NMR and HRMS,
whereas their purity was determined by elemental analysis.
STM Investigations
For microscopic investigations,
an STM system fabricated at the University of Bonn (Bonn, Germany)
was used.[27] The monomolecular layers were
prepared at room temperature by drop-casting from a solution (∼1–3
mg/L) of the investigated compounds in hexane (POCH) or dichloromethane
(Sigma-Aldrich) on a freshly cleaved surface of HOPG (SPI Supplies).
No specific solvent effect was noted. The surfaces of samples were
imaged at molecular resolution after drying in air using mechanically
cut Pt/Ir (80/20) tips. The control of the layer thickness, i.e.,
identification of monolayers or bilayers, was performed experimentally
by correlation of the direct microscopic observation of the layer
and adsorbate concentration in the solution used for the preparation.
For each sample, the presented representative images were selected
from a set of images collected for different surface areas. The proposed
real-space models of monolayers were obtained by the correlation of
the layer structure determined from the microscopic images and the
molecular modeling of the adsorbate (HyperChem software package).
Density Functional Theory (DFT) Calculations
DFT calculations
were carried out using Gaussian09 revision D.01[28] package and employing the hybrid B3LYP[29−31] exchange correlation
potential combined with the 6-31G(d,p) basis set. Ground-state geometries
were fully optimized until a stable local minimum was found, which
was confirmed by normal-mode analysis (no imaginary frequencies were
present). Initial structures were constrained to the C symmetry point group and then relaxed
if a saddle point was found. The necessary data of DFT calculations
were retrieved from output files using GaussSum 2.2.[32] All necessary initial geometries and final graphics (molecular
orbitals) were generated in GaussView 5.0.[33]
Results and Discussion
The studied dialkoxy derivatives
of benzo[h]benz[5,6]acridino[2,1,9,8-klmna]acridine, depicted in Figure a, are abbreviated as FOC6, FOC8, FOC10,
and FOC12 hereafter, where 6, 8, 10, and 12 denote the number of carbon
atoms in a given alkoxy substituent. Octylthienylene derivatives of
dialkoxybenzo[h]benz[5,6]acridino[2,1,9,8-klmna]acridine are presented in Figure b and abbreviated as FT(3)C8, FT(4)C8, and
FT(5)C8. The numerals 3–5 denote the position of the octyl
substituent in the thiophene ring.
Figure 1
Chemical formulas of (a) 8,16-dialkoxybenzo[h]benz[5,6]acridino[2,1,9,8-klmna]acridines
with different lengths of alkoxy substituents
and (b) 8,16-bis(3- or 4- or 5-octylthiophen-2-yl)benzo[h]benz[5,6]acridino[2,1,9,8-klmna]acridines.
Chemical formulas of (a) 8,16-dialkoxybenzo[h]benz[5,6]acridino[2,1,9,8-klmna]acridines
with different lengths of alkoxy substituents
and (b) 8,16-bis(3- or 4- or 5-octylthiophen-2-yl)benzo[h]benz[5,6]acridino[2,1,9,8-klmna]acridines.
Self-Organization of 8,16-Dialkoxybenzo[h]benz[5,6]acridino[2,1,9,8-klmna]acridines: Effect of the Solubilizing Substituent
Length
A representative STM image of FOC8 molecules deposited
on the HOPG surface is presented in Figure a. The adsorbate molecules form a densely
packed well-ordered monolayer consisting of clearly distinguishable,
parallel rows. In particular, rows characterized by bright stripes
are separated by darker zones. This image contrast reflects local
differences in the monolayer electrical conductivity in the direction
perpendicular to the substrate (HOPG) surface. It can therefore be
postulated that the bright rows correspond to closely packed, fused
azaacene cores (see Figure a) that are separated by dark areas where nonconductive alkoxy
substituents are interdigitated. Higher-resolution images provide
more information, especially concerning the inner structure of these
bright stripes. First, as shown clearly in Figure b, each stripe consists of two rows of well-resolved
bright spots. This peculiar inner structure is related to two principal
factors, namely, (i) arrangement of the adsorbate in the molecular
row and (ii) the electronic structure of its conjugated fused aromatic–azaacene
core. At this point, it is worth analyzing the shape and localization
of the frontier orbitals, i.e., HOMO and LUMO of FOC8 (see panels
b and d of Figure ). There are some distinct differences in the spatial distribution
of these orbitals. Although both HOMO and LUMO occupy the central
part of the molecule, i.e., its fused aromatic–azaacene core,
HOMO is preferentially located on the sides of this unit with the
largest contribution from areas close to the oxygen atoms of the alkoxy
substituents and with zero contribution from the two central carbon
atoms of the conjugated core. Thus, two electron-rich parts of the
molecule are clearly separated and symmetrically located. The distribution
of the LUMO frontier orbitals is more diffuse comprising a strong
contribution from the central part of the core and a still strong
impact from the aforementioned oxygen and nitrogen atoms. It is worth
emphasizing a very good correlation between the shapes of HOMO and
LUMO orbitals and the observed positions and differences in contrast
of bright stripes in the STM images obtained under scanning conditions
corresponding to the electron tunneling in two opposite directions.
In the case of a positively polarized STM probe, each bright stripe
is visible as a set of two rows of spots (Figure a). This inner contrast is well focused with
characteristic dark areas between the rows of each stripe. The observation
mentioned above indicates that the central part of each FOC8 molecule,
to be more precisely its fused aromatic–azaacene core, is visible
in a submolecular contrast as two bright spots separated by a well-resolved
darker area. This inner contrast is in accordance with the distribution
of HOMO frontier orbitals with their higher degree of occupation near
the oxygen atoms of the alkoxy substituents. Let us remind the reader
that in the case of positive polarization of the probe, electrons
tunnel from the deposited molecules to the probe and a higher tunneling
current should be detected in areas of higher density of occupied
states. Reversing the polarity leads to a different STM image. When
the probe is negatively polarized, each bright stripe is more diffuse,
showing significant brightness at the central part of the molecule.
Again, a good correlation between the localization of LUMO and the
STM image can be found (Figure c). The observed changes in the submolecular contrast of FOC8
molecule arise from a comparison of images collected one by one with
the same STM tip, i.e., by performing experiments that exclude the
influence of the tip shape and the measurement conditions on the resulting
images. Their reproducibility was qualitatively confirmed by several
independent experiments. In the conclusion of this part of the research,
it should be stated that the submolecular contrast in the observed
STM images of FOC8 monolayers is dependent on the bias voltage and
is mainly determined by the electronic structure of the molecule fused
aromatic–azaacene core.
Figure 2
(a–c) STM images and (d) corresponding
model of adsorption
geometry of the FOC8 monolayer on HOPG. Scanning area and parameters:
(a) 15 nm × 12 nm, (b) 5 nm × 5 nm, It = 0.5 nA, Vtip = 1 V; (c) 5 nm
× 5 nm, It = 2 nA, Vtip = 0.8 V.
Figure 3
(a and c) Higher-resolution
STM images of the FOC8 monolayer on
HOPG obtained for the opposite bias voltage polarity and (b and d)
corresponding frontier molecular orbital plots [(b) HOMO, isosurface
value of 0.03; (d) LUMO, isosurface value of 0.03]. Scanning area
and parameters: (a) 6 nm × 6 nm, It = 1 nA, Vtip = 1 V; (c) 6 nm ×
6 nm, It = 1 nA, Vtip = −0.8 V.
(a–c) STM images and (d) corresponding
model of adsorption
geometry of the FOC8 monolayer on HOPG. Scanning area and parameters:
(a) 15 nm × 12 nm, (b) 5 nm × 5 nm, It = 0.5 nA, Vtip = 1 V; (c) 5 nm
× 5 nm, It = 2 nA, Vtip = 0.8 V.(a and c) Higher-resolution
STM images of the FOC8 monolayer on
HOPG obtained for the opposite bias voltage polarity and (b and d)
corresponding frontier molecular orbital plots [(b) HOMO, isosurface
value of 0.03; (d) LUMO, isosurface value of 0.03]. Scanning area
and parameters: (a) 6 nm × 6 nm, It = 1 nA, Vtip = 1 V; (c) 6 nm ×
6 nm, It = 1 nA, Vtip = −0.8 V.The second detail of the monolayer STM image is an inner structure
of its darker areas. It can be noticed in Figure c that these areas are periodically divided
by brighter lines oriented in one direction (marked by an arrow) that
finally link conjugated cores of FOC8 molecules from two adjacent
rows. As already stated, darker stripes in the image correspond to
the areas of interdigitated alkoxy substituents originating from two
adjacent rows formed by the molecules. The observed brighter lines
in these dark stripes can tentatively be assigned to locally occurring
differences in the density of alkoxy chains in the interdigitation
area or, alternatively, to partially nonplanar arrangement of these
chains with respect to the monolayer surface. It should be additionally
stated that the direction of the observed lines corresponds to the
orientation of alkoxy substituents in the monolayer. This interpretation
of the obtained STM images allows us to postulate a plausible model
of the adsorption geometry (Figure d). The lattice constants estimated from the image
are 0.9 nm (a), 2.3 nm (b), and
96° (α). An interesting feature here is the nearly rectangular
shape of the unit cell that is in contradiction with the 3-fold symmetry
of the HOPG surface. This can be taken as an indication that the observed
2D organization is a result of direct interactions between the adsorbate
molecules that dominate over the adsorbate–substrate interactions.
The shorter dimension of the unit cell (0.9 nm) corresponds to the
distance between adjacent molecules in the same row. It correlates
well with the size of the fused aromatic–azaacene core of the
molecule and confirms dense packing of these cores in each row of
the monolayer. No correlation of this type can be found in the case
of the longer dimension of the unit cell (2.3 nm), which is significantly
shorter than the dimension of the molecule in its extended conformation
(∼3.2 nm measured between terminated hydrogen atoms of two
alkoxy substituents located on opposite sides of the molecule). The
divergence is a consequence of interdigitation of the alkoxy substituents
of molecules located in two adjacent rows. It is worth emphasizing
that according to the postulated model of adsorption geometry the
molecules in a particular row are oriented in the same direction in
such a way that two nitrogen atoms of their fused aromatic–azaacene
unit are located nearly along the short axis of the unit cell (atoms
of the molecule marked in black in Figure d). A very similar structural arrangement
was observed in a monolayer of tetraalkoxydinaphthophenazine molecules
deposited on HOPG.[9,34] For these compounds, it was experimentally
confirmed that the orientation of this adsorbate on HOPG and, as a
consequence, the direction the nitrogen atoms pair in the conjugated
core are forced by perpendicularity of the dialkoxyanthracene segments
with respect to one of the graphite axis.Statistical inspection
of the FOC8 monolayer over larger areas
allows us to distinguish six domain orientations, which are mutually
rotated by a fixed angle of 30°. They are schematically indicated
by white lines in Figure a. The orientations of three domains shown in the image are
marked by d1–d3. At this point, the rather peculiar shape of the fused
aromatic–azaacene core of FOC8 should be mentioned and as a
consequence the whole investigated molecule. These kinds of molecules
can adsorb on one of two opposite sides leading to two pseudoenantiomorphic
forms in the plane of the monolayer surface. Therefore, six different
orientations of domains should be considered as a set of three pairs
of mirror symmetric directions with respect to each crystallographic
axis of the HOPG substrate (three graphite axes are additionally presented
in the image by dotted white lines). Each domain from one pair consists
of molecules that are adsorbed by the opposite sides of the fused
aromatic–azaacene core. This arrangement is schematically presented
in Figure b. Two domains
indicated in this scheme are rotated by ±15° with respect
to axis (1), which represents one of the axes of the HOPG substrate
surface. Because molecules from two different domains, from the left
and right sides of this axis, are adsorbed by their opposite sides,
their arrangement versus the directions of the formed rows exhibits
mirror symmetry.
Figure 4
(a) STM large-scale image of the FOC8 monolayer on HOPG
(six possible
adsorbate domain orientations and HOPG substrate axes are marked by
solid and dotted lines, respectively) and (b) proposed adsorption
geometry in two domains with mirror symmetric directions vs one of
the HOPG substrate axis (±15°). Scanning area and parameters:
(a) 60 nm × 60 nm, It = 1 nA, Vtip = 1 V.
(a) STM large-scale image of the FOC8 monolayer on HOPG
(six possible
adsorbate domain orientations and HOPG substrate axes are marked by
solid and dotted lines, respectively) and (b) proposed adsorption
geometry in two domains with mirror symmetric directions vs one of
the HOPG substrate axis (±15°). Scanning area and parameters:
(a) 60 nm × 60 nm, It = 1 nA, Vtip = 1 V.An important consequence of this molecular arrangement in the monolayer
and the molecular row directions is the orientation of alkoxy substituents
that are interdigitated along the two remaining axes of the HOPG substrate
surface [marked by (2) and (3)]. The proposed model is consistent
with the information published previously, concerning the adsorption
of organic semiconductors of fused aromatic type and their derivatives
on graphite substrates. The first characteristic point concerns the
2D enantiomorphic assembly, described by the “chirality”
effect. This phenomenon is frequently observed and described even
in fully achiral systems (adsorbate and substrates) for low- and high-molecular
mass organic semiconductors.[35−37] The second one is associated
with the preferential orientation of alkoxy substituents in the monolayer
of FOC8 that are interdigitated exactly along one of the graphite
axes. This type of linear hydrocarbon alignment is frequently observed
on HOPG surfaces in the case of adsorption of saturated linear hydrocarbons[38−40] or fused aromatic or heteroaromatic molecules containing linear
alkyl/alkoxy substituents.[41,42]To determine
the effect of alkoxy substituent length on the 2D
supramolecular organization of fused benzoacridines, we performed
STM investigations of a series of monolayers formed on HOPG by 8,16-dialkoxybenzo[h]benz[5,6]acridino[2,1,9,8-klmna]acridines
of increasing substituent length [FOC6, FOC8, FOC10, and FOC12 (see Figure a)]. The unit cell
parameters determined from the corresponding STM images are 0.9 nm,
2 nm, and 91°; 0.9 nm, 2.3 nm, and 96°; 1 nm, 2.6 nm, and
95°; and 1.1 nm, 3 nm, and 96° (a, b, and α, respectively) for FOC6, FOC8, FOC10, and
FOC12, respectively. Figure shows representative images of monolayers of four investigated
derivatives and the corresponding models of adsorption geometry obtained
for molecules with the shortest (C6) and longest (C12) substituents.
This comparison demonstrates that the adsorbed molecules are organized
into the same row-like 2D structure, independent of the length of
their alkoxy groups; i.e., their supramolecular organization is analogous
to that determined for FOC8 (vide supra). It is therefore
expected that unit cell parameter a should remain
constant or fairly independent of the substituent length whereas its b parameter, reflecting the separation between the rows
of closely packed fused aromatic–azaacene cores, should increase
with extension of the substituent length. Indeed, the main difference
between the presented images of monolayers of FOC6 and FOC12 is the
width of the darker stripes, corresponding to the areas of interdigitated
alkoxy chains of molecules from two adjacent rows. As a consequence,
the size of the unit cell in this direction (longer dimension) increases
from 2 nm for FOC6 to 3 nm for FOC12. When mutual interdigitation
of the substituents in the layer is taken into account, the obtained
difference correlates well with the length of the C–C bond
in saturated hydrocarbon chains (∼0.14 nm). On the other side,
the shorter dimension of the unit cell is nearly the same, varying
from 0.9 to 1.1 nm for the series studied. This distance corresponds
to the separation between fused aromatic–azaacene cores of
two adjacent molecules in the same molecular row, which are of the
same size, independent of the substituent. The postulated model of
adsorption geometry is in accordance with the findings described above
(see Figure e,f).
Figure 5
STM images
of (a) FOC6, (b) FOC8, (c) FOC10, anbd (d) FOC12 monolayers
on HOPG and corresponding models of their adsorption geometry of (e)
FOC6 and (f) FOC12. Scanning area and parameters: (a, b, and d) 9
nm × 9 nm, It = 1 nA, Vtip = 1 V; (c) 9 nm × 9 nm, It = 0.8 nA, Vtip = 1 V.
STM images
of (a) FOC6, (b) FOC8, (c) FOC10, anbd (d) FOC12 monolayers
on HOPG and corresponding models of their adsorption geometry of (e)
FOC6 and (f) FOC12. Scanning area and parameters: (a, b, and d) 9
nm × 9 nm, It = 1 nA, Vtip = 1 V; (c) 9 nm × 9 nm, It = 0.8 nA, Vtip = 1 V.To conclude this part of the paper, on the basis of the experimental
STM data supported by modeling of the adsorption geometry, we can
state that the 2D supramolecular organization of the derivatives studied
is governed by direct interactions of their fused aromatic–azaacene
cores, which are essentially independent of substituent. The only
observed substituent effect is the change in the unit cell dimension
in one particular direction corresponding to the orientation of these
substituents in the monolayer. On the other hand, it should be emphasized
that the alkoxy chains influence the formation of this type of organization
due to their strong tendency to interdigitate. The simplest way to
balance the core–core and substituent–substituent interactions
is to force the same orientation of the molecules and organize them
into a 2D system of parallel molecular rows.
2D Supramolecular Organization
in Monolayers of 8,16-Bis(octylthiophen-2-yl)benzo[h]benz[5,6]acridino[2,1,9,8-klmna]acridines:
Effect of the Solubilizing Alkyl Substituent Position
The
second group of the investigated molecules involved three positional
isomers of fused benzoacridines of the same benzo[h]benz[5,6]acridino[2,1,9,8-klmna]acridine core and
octyl thienylene substituents with the solubilizing alkyl group located
at position 3, 4, or 5 of the thienylene ring (Figure b). The position of the octyl group significantly
changes the molecule geometry because the substituent can be directed
either out of the molecule core in two different directions (position
4 vs position 5) or toward it (position 3 vs position 5). These should
lead to a significantly different supramolecular organization. In Figure , STM images of monolayers
of the three studied isomers are presented, together with the proposed
adsorption geometry: FT(3)C8, FT(4)C8, and FT(5)C8. It should be noted
that the images of these molecules observed with submolecular resolution
are somehow similar to those recorded for the derivatives containing
alkoxy substituents, which may indicate that the contribution of the
thienylene ring to the STM image of the core is minimal. This is a
direct consequence of similar distributions of frontier orbitals (HOMO
and LUMO) in both types of molecules (see the corresponding data presented
in refs (7) and (8)).
Figure 6
STM images and corresponding
models of the adsorption geometry
of (a, d, and g) FT(3)C8, (b, e, and h) FT(4)C8, and (c, f, and i)
FT(5)C8 monolayers on HOPG. Scanning area and parameters: (a–c)
14 nm × 14 nm, (d–f) 8 nm × 8 nm, It = 1 nA, Vtip = 1 V.
STM images and corresponding
models of the adsorption geometry
of (a, d, and g) FT(3)C8, (b, e, and h) FT(4)C8, and (c, f, and i)
FT(5)C8 monolayers on HOPG. Scanning area and parameters: (a–c)
14 nm × 14 nm, (d–f) 8 nm × 8 nm, It = 1 nA, Vtip = 1 V.It is instructive to start the discussion with
a comparison of
the supramolecular organization of the FT(5)C8 isomer (Figure c,f,i) with the corresponding
octyloxy derivative, discussed above [FOC8 (Figure )]. The only difference in the molecular
structure of these adsorbates is the type of linker between the octyl
substituent and the molecule core, i.e., oxygen and thienylene ring
in the cases of FOC8 and FT(5)C8, respectively. Both molecules are
organized qualitatively in a very similar way, forming on HOPG row-like
2D structures. Also, the submolecular contrast in their STM images
is nearly the same. In both cases, an individual molecule is visible
as a set of two bright spots localized in the same areas that correspond
to two parts of the fused aromatic–azaacene core directly connected
to alkoxy-type oxygen (FOC8) or the thienylene ring [FT(5)C8]. The
distinguishable quantitative differences between their supramolecular
organizations are the STM-determined lattice constant values: 0.9
nm, 2.3 nm, and 96° and 1.2 nm, 3.2 nm, and 105° (a, b, and α, respectively) for FOC8
and FT(5)C8, respectively. The most pronounced difference is an increase
in the longer unit cell dimension (b) from 2.3 to
3.2 nm when the octyloxy substituent is replaced with octylthienylene
one. This increase can be considered as a manifestation of the substituent
length increase. The shorter dimension of the unit cell changes to
a lesser extent and stays around 1 nm. As already stated, this distance
results from dense packing of the fused aromatic–azaacene cores
of molecules constituting an individual row, which is essentially
the same for both compounds.The next problem to be discussed
is the effect of the octyl substituent
position in the thienylene ring on the 2D supramolecular organization
in the monolayer of three positional isomers studied. Direct inspection
of their STM images (Figure ) leads to an unexpected conclusion that the monolayers formed
by these distinctly different isomers are characterized by the same
unit cell parameters: 1.1 nm, 3.2 nm, and 105°; 1.1 nm, 3.1 nm,
and 105°; and 1.2 nm, 3.2 nm, and 105° (a, b, and α, respectively) for FT(3)C8, FT(4)C8,
and FT(5)C8, respectively. This indicates that the 2D supramolecular
order is, in all three cases, governed by intermolecular interactions
of fused aromatic–azaacene cores as they keep the same molecular
arrangement in an individual row, independent of the isomeric form
of the adsorbate. However, if it is assumed that the substituent alkyl
chains are located in the same plane as the molecular cores (i.e.,
in the plane of the monolayer), the same dimensions of the unit cell,
determined for different isomers, should have an important consequence
for their supramolecular arrangement. Depending on the isomer, they
have to adopt different arrangements in the monolayer to yield the
same unit cell. This becomes evident by a comparison of the adsorption
geometry models postulated for monolayers of these three isomers (Figure g–i). To rationalize
the experimental findings, i.e., very similar unit cells obtained
experimentally for all three isomers studied, despite distinctly different
orientations of their alkyl chain with respect to the fused core,
different extents of alkyl substituent interdigitation must be assumed,
from full interdigitation [FT(5)C8 (Figure i)] to negligible [FT(3)C8 (Figure g)]. The supramolecular organization
in the monolayer of FT(4)C8 is an intermediate case in which alkyl
chains partially interdigitate (Figure h). It seems that these distinct differences in the
supramolecular arrangement of the studied isomers should have an impact
on their monolayer stability that should increase with an increasing
degree of alkyl substituent interdigitation, i.e., from FT(3)C8 to
FT(5)C8.
Self-Organization of 8,16-Bis(octylthiophen-2-yl)benzo[h]benz[5,6]acridino[2,1,9,8-klmna]acridines
in a Bilayer
Different types of arrangements in monolayers
of the three studied isomers raise a question concerning the self-organization
and its stability in their multilayers. Figure presents a set of two images and profiles
of selected lines of a layer of FT(4)C8 on either individual molecule
(Figure a,c) or whole
molecular rows (Figure b,d) of the second layer. The crucial point in these images is a
significant difference in the brightness of the molecules of the first
layer and the second layer. This results from a different vertical
position of the STM tip with respect to each layer. In the case of
the large-area image (Figure a), individual molecules nucleating the second layer are observed
as bright spots. They are randomly distributed on darker rows corresponding
to orderly arranged molecules of the first layer. It is worth reminding
the reader that each molecule in the submolecular resolution appears
as a set of two bright spots. Consequently, in the image presented
in Figure b, which
was collected with higher magnification, the single molecular row
consists of two rows of spots. Hence, darker rows correspond to the
first layer whereas brighter ones to the second layer. The presented
height profiles of selected lines from both images unequivocally confirm
similar thicknesses of molecules in the first layer and in the second
layer. An inspection of presented images leads to the conclusion that
individual molecules as well as molecular rows in the second layer
are located directly above the molecular rows in the first layer.
The same behavior was also observed for the remaining studied isomers.
This is logical, taking into account the adsorption geometry of molecules
in the monolayer, i.e., flat orientation of fused aromatic–azaacene
cores with respect to the substrate surface leading to mutual π–π
interactions. As a consequence, adsorption of molecules in the second
layer directly above the molecules in the first layer is the favored
interaction because it leads to π–π stacking oriented
perpendicular to the substrate surface.
Figure 7
STM images and height
profiles of FT(4)C8 (a and c) monolayers
and (b and d) bilayers on HOPG. (c and d) h0 = 0.36 nm, which within an experimental error corresponds to the
thickness of one graphene layer and was determined from the edge of
the uncovered HOPG surface. Scanning area and parameters: (a) 60 nm
× 60 nm, (b) 30 nm × 30 nm, It = 1 nA, Vtip = 1 V.
STM images and height
profiles of FT(4)C8 (a and c) monolayers
and (b and d) bilayers on HOPG. (c and d) h0 = 0.36 nm, which within an experimental error corresponds to the
thickness of one graphene layer and was determined from the edge of
the uncovered HOPG surface. Scanning area and parameters: (a) 60 nm
× 60 nm, (b) 30 nm × 30 nm, It = 1 nA, Vtip = 1 V.Figure presents
a set of four images of FT(3)C8 layers obtained by drop-casting from
dichloromethane solutions of different concentrations (which varied
from 1.5 to 3 mg/L). As expected, an increase in the adsorbate concentration
in the solution used for drop-casting results in more complete coverage
of the first layer by the second one as manifested by a larger number
of molecular rows in the second layer [i.e., brighter rows in the
image (Figure a–d)].
The set of presented images clearly shows the mechanism of growth
of the second layer. For a lower concentration of FT(3)C8 in casting
solutions, randomly distributed rows of the second layer appear on
the first layer. A gradual increase in the adsorbate concentration
leads to the progressive filling of empty spaces between the rows
by molecules up to the complete coverage. This implies a typical layer-by-layer
growth (Frank–van der Merwe mode). When this observation is
taken into account, one can expect that FT(3)C8 molecules are capable
of forming well-ordered multilayer films.
Figure 8
STM large-scale images
of FT(3)C8 layers on HOPG prepared with
a solution used for drop-casting of different adsorbate concentrations:
(a) 1.5, (b) 2.2, and (c and d) 3 mg/L. The coexisting areas of molecular
rows in monolayers and bilayers are noted, distinguished as darker
and brighter rows, respectively. Scanning area and parameters: (a–c)
30 nm × 30 nm, (d) 120 nm × 120 nm, It = 1 nA, Vtip = 1 V.
STM large-scale images
of FT(3)C8 layers on HOPG prepared with
a solution used for drop-casting of different adsorbate concentrations:
(a) 1.5, (b) 2.2, and (c and d) 3 mg/L. The coexisting areas of molecular
rows in monolayers and bilayers are noted, distinguished as darker
and brighter rows, respectively. Scanning area and parameters: (a–c)
30 nm × 30 nm, (d) 120 nm × 120 nm, It = 1 nA, Vtip = 1 V.The same procedure was applied for the fabrication of FT(4)C8
and
FT(5)C8 multilayers, revealing, however, significant difficulties
in the formation of their ordered films. The difficulties are significantly
higher for FT(5)C8 than for FT(4)C8. For both adsorbates, the applied
procedure leads to ordered films up to incomplete double layers. Moreover,
its stability is significantly lower and the layer can be relatively
easily destroyed on a local scale during scanning by the microscopic
probe. When the preference of the formation of “missing rows”
in the second layer, which strongly depends on the isomeric form of
the adsorbate molecules, is taken into account, it seems that the
observed differences are of thermodynamic rather than kinetic origin.To understand the origin of the observed difficulties, it is instructive
to carefully analyze the growth of FT(4)C8 films, for which the limitations
are more pronounced. Representative images are presented in panels
a and b of Figure . As already stated, this isomer forms ordered double layers of the
incomplete second layer coverage and showing limited stability. In
this respect, the crucial information can be extracted from the image
presented in Figure b. This image shows the growth of a second layer in two adjacent
empty rows surrounded by already formed rows of the second layer.
This growth process occurs in two rows from two opposite directions
(marked by white arrows). As evidenced by this image, the growth is
stopped when the molecules of the two growing rows come into mutual
contact. This effect, frequently observed in different areas of the
sample surface, indicates steric limitations of the second layer formation.
As a consequence, the molecules in the second layer most frequently
fill two rows that are separated by an empty row. This steric limitation
is even more pronounced in the case of multilayers of FT(5)C8. For
this adsorbate, it is possible to obtain incomplete ordered double
layers in which molecules of the second layer occupy every second
molecular row only (Figure c,d). For higher coverages, the layer becomes unstable and
can be easily disturbed by the scanning microscopic probe. The obtained
results are intriguing in the sense that the FT(5)C8 isomer that produces
the most stable monolayer with fully interdigitated alkyl groups is
incapable of forming a stable bilayer. The observed bilayers of this
isomer suffer from incomplete coverage of the bottom layer as well
as from serious steric limitations in the self-ordering process. On
the contrary, the FT(3)C8 isomer, whose monolayer is the least stable,
shows strong ability to form a well-ordered bilayer via layer-by-layer
growth. The presented comparison can be considered as an evident indication
that the self-organization processes in 2D and 3D systems can be governed
by different conditions and requirements. A question concerning the
identification of the factors that make the behavior of both isomers
different arises. These factors selectively affect the self-organization
of molecules placed either on an atomically flat HOPG surface or on
a chemically less homogeneous surface of the first molecular layer.
Additional investigations lead to conclusions that the molecular shape
can be considered as one of these factors. Figure shows the molecular geometries in vacuum
determined by DFT calculations. It follows that the alkyl substituent
tilt angle with respect to the fused heteroaromatic core (angle marked
by α) is the largest for FT(3)C8 (∼61°), making
this isomer the least planar. This is a direct consequence of the
fact that in this isomer the substituents are positioned more closely
to the molecular core as compared to the cases of two other isomers
studied. Thus, for FT(3)C8, more pronounced intramolecular interactions
are expected between these different parts of the molecule. Although
FT(4)C8 and FT(5)C8 are not planar either, their calculated tilt angles
are evidently smaller (37° and 41°, respectively). This
dissimilarity in the shape of individual molecules can be important
from the point of view of surface diffusion and self-organization
in the second layer. In general, due to the tendency of the rather
extended cores of FT(4)C8 and FT(5)C8 to strongly interact via π–π
stacking, limited surface diffusion of the molecules in the second
layer is expected, which hinders the ordering process in this layer.
As expected, this limitation should be less pronounced for FT(3)C8
because of its nonplanar shape. Therefore, this isomer should be more
able to form ordered multilayers.
Figure 9
STM images of (a and b) FT(4)C8 and (c
and d) FT(5)C8 bilayers
on HOPG. Scanning area and parameters: (a) 30 nm × 30 nm, (b)
16 nm × 16 nm, (c) 120 nm × 120 nm, (d) 30 nm × 30
nm, It = 1 nA, Vtip = 1 V.
Figure 10
Comparison of (a) FT(3)C8,
(b) FT(4)C8, and (c) FT(5)C8 molecular
geometries determined by DFT calculations (top images, top views;
bottom images, side views).
STM images of (a and b) FT(4)C8 and (c
and d) FT(5)C8 bilayers
on HOPG. Scanning area and parameters: (a) 30 nm × 30 nm, (b)
16 nm × 16 nm, (c) 120 nm × 120 nm, (d) 30 nm × 30
nm, It = 1 nA, Vtip = 1 V.Comparison of (a) FT(3)C8,
(b) FT(4)C8, and (c) FT(5)C8 molecular
geometries determined by DFT calculations (top images, top views;
bottom images, side views).
Conclusions
These STM investigations of the supramolecular
organization in
mono- and bilayers of two series of alkoxy and alkylthienylene derivatives
of fused benzoacridines, formed on HOPG by casting from dichloromethane
solutions, enabled us to draw the following conclusions.(i)
All investigated derivatives exhibited a strong tendency to
self-assemble, forming highly ordered monolayers. The observed 2D
aggregations were characterized by clearly distinguishable, parallel
molecular rows. A clear dependence of the submolecular STM contrast
on the tunneling current direction (polarity of bias voltage) was
noted. It could be directly correlated with differences in the location
of electron-poor and electron-rich parts of the molecules, reflected
by the distribution of the molecular orbitals (LUMO and HOMO) in their
central fused aromatic–azaacene cores.(ii) Comparative
investigations of alkoxy derivatives indicated
that an increasing alkoxy substituent length affected only one dimension
of the unit cell, i.e., that which corresponded to the separation
between the molecular rows consisting of densely packed aromatic–azaacene
cores. This observation confirmed a similar orientation of the alkoxy
substituents with respect to the molecule core and their interdigitation
as the main self-assembly pattern.(iii) The same supramolecular
organization (unit cell parameters)
was found for the investigated alkylthienylene derivatives (three
positional isomers differening in the alkyl substituent position).
Despite this similarity, the role of alkylthienylene substituents
in the formation of monolayers of each of the investigated isomer
was distinctly different. Depending on the alkyl group position in
the thienylene ring, the studied isomers had to adopt different arrangements
in the monolayer to yield the same unit cell. As a consequence, the
formation and stability of monolayers and bilayers were found very
sensitive to isomerism. These differences were rationalized in terms
of dissimilar molecular geometries and different interdigitation patterns.
Authors: Kamil Kotwica; Anastasia S Kostyuchenko; Przemyslaw Data; Tomasz Marszalek; Lukasz Skorka; Tomasz Jaroch; Sylwia Kacka; Malgorzata Zagorska; Robert Nowakowski; Andrew P Monkman; Alexander S Fisyuk; Wojciech Pisula; Adam Pron Journal: Chemistry Date: 2016-07-12 Impact factor: 5.236
Authors: Alexander H Endres; Manuel Schaffroth; Fabian Paulus; Hilmar Reiss; Hubert Wadepohl; Frank Rominger; Roland Krämer; Uwe H F Bunz Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2016-02-02 Impact factor: 15.419