We demonstrate that nanocavity plasmons generated a few nanometers away from a molecule can induce molecular motion. For this, we study the well-known rapid shuttling motion of zinc phthalocyanine molecules adsorbed on ultrathin NaCl films by combining scanning tunneling microscopy (STM) and spectroscopy (STS) with STM-induced light emission. Comparing spatially resolved single-molecule luminescence spectra from molecules anchored to a step edge with isolated molecules adsorbed on the free surface, we found that the azimuthal modulation of the Lamb shift is diminished in case of the latter. This is evidence that the rapid shuttling motion is remotely induced by plasmon-molecule coupling. Plasmon-induced molecular motion may open an interesting playground to bridge the nanoscopic and mesoscopic worlds by combining molecular machines with nanoplasmonics to control directed motion of single molecules without the need for local probes.
We demonstrate that nanocavity plasmons generated a few nanometers away from a molecule can induce molecular motion. For this, we study the well-known rapid shuttling motion of zinc phthalocyanine molecules adsorbed on ultrathin NaCl films by combining scanning tunneling microscopy (STM) and spectroscopy (STS) with STM-induced light emission. Comparing spatially resolved single-molecule luminescence spectra from molecules anchored to a step edge with isolated molecules adsorbed on the free surface, we found that the azimuthal modulation of the Lamb shift is diminished in case of the latter. This is evidence that the rapid shuttling motion is remotely induced by plasmon-molecule coupling. Plasmon-induced molecular motion may open an interesting playground to bridge the nanoscopic and mesoscopic worlds by combining molecular machines with nanoplasmonics to control directed motion of single molecules without the need for local probes.
Controlled activation of molecular
motion and conformational changes is vital for creating molecular
devices, motors, and machines.[1,2] To this end, molecular
motion can be induced by a variety of physical and chemical stimuli,
depending on the desired functionality.[3] While nonlocal stimuli, such as an external light source, can address
many molecular machines simultaneously,[4−6] it is ultimately desirable
to create molecular devices where molecules can be addressed individually.[7−11] Controlled on-surface manipulation of single atoms and molecules
has been successfully demonstrated using a scanning tunneling microscope
(STM), typically via electronic or inelastic (vibrational or vibronic)
excitation mechanisms.[8−10,12−18] Within the tip–sample junction, nanocavity plasmons can also
be excited,[19] as seen in STM-induced light
emission (STM-LE).[20−23] While plasmon-induced chemical reactions have been reported,[24] to date there has been no demonstration that
local nanocavity plasmon–molecule coupling can also be utilized
to induce single-molecule motion.Phthalocyanine (Pc) molecules
and their metal complexes on ultrathin
NaCl films serve as a model platform to fundamentally investigate
optoelectronic phenomena and local interactions on the single-molecule
scale using STM-LE, including recent discoveries of single-photon
emission,[25] up-conversion electroluminescence,[26] resonance energy transfer,[27] coherent dipole coupling and superradiance,[28,29] coherent plasmon–exciton interactions,[30,31] transient charging and electrofluorochromism,[32,33] vibronic spectroscopy,[30,32,34,35] tautomerization tracking,[35] and doublet emission.[36] Zinc phthalocyanine (ZnPc) is particularly interesting to investigate
the possibility of plasmon-induced molecular motion. On the one hand,
a rapid shuttling motion between two equivalent adsorption configurations
can be induced.[27−29,32,34,37−43] On the other hand, nanocavity plasmons in the tip–sample
junction can remotely couple to the molecule, creating an exciton
and eventually leading to light emission.[27,30−32,35,44] This coherent coupling leads to a Lamb shift of the optical transition,
which was found to vary with azimuthal angle of the STM tip along
a circumferential path around the molecule, reflecting the ZnPc symmetry.[31,45] However, thus far there has been no indication that this remote
plasmon–molecule coupling may also induce the rapid shuttling
motion.Here, we show that plasmons generated in a nanocavity
can induce
molecular motion. We quantify this effect, using a combination of
STM, scanning tunneling spectroscopy (STS), and STM-LE. We compare
two types of electronically equivalent ZnPc molecules, as seen by
STS, one being isolated species which can exhibit rapid shuttling
and the other being molecules that are anchored to NaCl step edges
in order to suppress the shuttling. By comparing the azimuthal dependence
of STM-LE spectra of these two ZnPc types, we observe a remarkable
difference—that the azimuthal modulation of the Lamb shift
for anchored molecules is much larger than for isolated ones. Our
findings can be understood in a straightforward model, revealing that
rapid shuttling of isolated molecules is induced not only when directly
tunneling into the ZnPc but even at remote distances a few nanometers
away, where only plasmons couple to the molecule. The fact that nanocavity
plasmons can induce single-molecule motion opens up an unexplored
route toward inducing and controlling molecular motion by using prepatterned
nanoplasmonic structures.Figure (b) shows
a constant-current STM image of a typical isolated ZnPc adsorbed on
a free terrace of 3 ML NaCl/Ag(111) (see Supporting Information Section S1 for experimental details) when resonantly
tunneling out of the highest occupied molecular orbital (HOMO). The
HOMO hosts eight lobes (two at each of the four ligand phenyl groups)
(see Supporting Information Section S2).[29] Yet, in the STM image 16 lobes can be observed,
due to a superposition of two bistable orientations on the same adsorption
site. This apparent superposition results from the rapid shuttling
of the molecule about the Zn atom between two bistable orientations,
where the phenyl groups are oriented either +11° or −11°
with respect to the NaCl ⟨110⟩ crystallographic directions[37] (see Figure (a)). It is known that rapid shuttling occurs when
electrons resonantly tunnel either out of the HOMO or into the lowest
unoccupied molecular orbital (LUMO).[25,28,29,31,32,34,37] For a wide range of voltages within the HOMO–LUMO gap, the
molecule can be stabilized in one of the two aforementioned orientations.[37,39,40] However, the shuttling motion
can also be induced for certain in-gap voltages,[37,39] which raises questions on the mechanism that activates this motion
(see also Supporting Information Section S6).
Figure 1
Isolated vs anchored ZnPc on 3 ML NaCl/Ag(111). (a) Schematics
of STM-LE and manipulation experiments. The structural model illustrates
the ±11° shuttling between two adsorption orientations for
isolated ZnPc (right), which is suppressed for anchored ZnPc (left).
The lateral molecule–tip distance r and azimuthal
angle θ are defined from the ZnPc center, with θ = 0°
defined downward along the NaCl [010] direction
as displayed. (b) Constant-current STM image of an isolated ZnPc before
manipulation, and (c) anchored ZnPc after moving it to a 4 ML NaCl
step edge (VS = −2.5 V, I = 5.5 pA, scale bars = 1 nm). (d) STS of the isolated
and anchored ZnPc. (e) STM-LE spectra of the isolated and the anchored
ZnPc (VS = −2.5 V, I = 100 pA, acquisition time t = 180 s) measured
at the positions marked in (b) and (c). Solid lines in (d) and (e)
are 80-point and 20-point Savitzky–Golay filtered curves of
the raw data, respectively.
Isolated vs anchored ZnPc on 3 ML NaCl/Ag(111). (a) Schematics
of STM-LE and manipulation experiments. The structural model illustrates
the ±11° shuttling between two adsorption orientations for
isolated ZnPc (right), which is suppressed for anchored ZnPc (left).
The lateral molecule–tip distance r and azimuthal
angle θ are defined from the ZnPc center, with θ = 0°
defined downward along the NaCl [010] direction
as displayed. (b) Constant-current STM image of an isolated ZnPc before
manipulation, and (c) anchored ZnPc after moving it to a 4 ML NaCl
step edge (VS = −2.5 V, I = 5.5 pA, scale bars = 1 nm). (d) STS of the isolated
and anchored ZnPc. (e) STM-LE spectra of the isolated and the anchored
ZnPc (VS = −2.5 V, I = 100 pA, acquisition time t = 180 s) measured
at the positions marked in (b) and (c). Solid lines in (d) and (e)
are 80-point and 20-point Savitzky–Golay filtered curves of
the raw data, respectively.In order to quantify the role of the nanocavity plasmons on this
rapid shuttling, we first create a reference molecule that does not
exhibit shuttling motion. While defects in the NaCl substrate can
pin molecules and suppress the shuttling motion,[37] we found that ZnPc pinned to defects can exhibit strongly
modified electronic and/or optical properties (see Supporting Information Section S3). Therefore, we used STM
manipulation[29] to move an isolated molecule
to the edge of a NaCl step, between 3 and 4 ML. We only used binding
sites free of local adsorbates or apparent defects, oriented along
the ⟨100⟩ direction. Figure (c) presents the constant-current STM image
of the same ZnPc shown in (b) after the aforementioned manipulation
procedure. The adsorption site is identical to that of isolated molecules,
with the Zn atom located above a Cl atom. However, at the imaging
voltage in which the isolated molecule exhibits shuttling motion,
only eight lobes, correlated with the HOMO, were observed for molecules
relocated to the step edge. In comparison with the isolated molecule,
the relocated molecule was stabilized such that the phenyl groups
almost align along the NaCl ⟨110⟩ directions, as shown
in Figure (a). In
the following, we refer to this molecule as anchored ZnPc.Before
comparing the optical properties of isolated and anchored
ZnPc, we first demonstrate that the local density of states (LDOS)
is identical in both cases. In Figure (d), STS spectra are taken for both molecules at locations
marked in (b) and (c). In both cases, the HOMO (i.e., the positive
ion resonance[46]) is found at −2.33
eV below the Fermi energy (EF), and the
LUMO (negative ion resonance) is located at 1.05 eV above EF. Likewise, the spatial maps of the HOMO and
LUMO do not illustrate any modifications in the spatial LDOS distribution
compared to the isolated molecule apart from the blurring due to the
rapid shuttling of the latter (see Supporting Information Section S2). We note that it is important to ensure
a clean surface and step edge, as even defects a few nanometers away
from the molecule can alter the measured dI/dVS of the molecule (see Supporting Information Section S3). Previous work indicates that a different
adsorption site would be accompanied by a different STS spectrum,[36] which is further evidence that the molecular
adsorption site in both cases is a Cl site. Hence, we conclude that
the relocated molecule is not chemisorbed to the step edge, but weakly
physisorbed. We speculate that the anchoring of the molecule most
likely occurs due to additional van der Waals interactions, which
suppress the shuttling motion without altering the internal structural
and electronic properties of the molecule. Therefore, in the subsequent
discussion, we treat the isolated and anchored molecule as electronically
and chemically equivalent.We now compare the STM current-induced
fluorescence of isolated
versus anchored ZnPc, first focusing on the overall spectral features.
As previously reported, the STM-LE spectrum on top of the isolated
ZnPc (blue curve in Figure (e)) illustrates two features, i.e., a broad peak at 1.902
eV and a shoulder at 1.911 eV.[25,28,29,31,32,34,37] While the
former has been interpreted as the Q(0,0) singlet transition fluorescence
peak, it has been suggested that the latter is related to the shuttling
motion of the molecule, as it is not observed within aggregated molecule
chains.[28,29,34] In comparison,
the STM-LE spectrum on top of the anchored molecule (red curve in Figure (e)) shows a single
peak located at a different energy (1.910 eV) with a much narrower
width and no shoulder feature. We attribute this peak to the Q(0,0)
transition. Its blueshift with respect to the isolated molecule can
be explained by the different dielectric environment defined by the
step edge and/or by additional van der Waals interactions, leading
to a modified exciton binding energy.[29] Interestingly, the asymmetric spectral shape reflects a Fano line
shape, indicating the presence of two coherent excitation channels.
The two potential excitation channels discussed in the literature
are (i) excitation resulting from direct tunneling
into the molecule, i.e., electron and hole injection into frontier
orbitals, leading to the formation of an exciton,[29,37] and (ii) inelastic excitation resulting from tunneling
between tip and substrate, exciting nanocavity plasmons and permitting
a plasmon-induced energy transfer and exciton formation in the molecule.[32,34] While previous studies concluded that either (i) or (ii) alone is responsible for the observed
STM-LE spectrum for the isolated molecule, our finding clearly shows
that both excitation mechanisms are activated and couple coherently,
resulting in the observed Fano resonance.[31,44] This conclusion can be made due to the sharper spectral feature
and clear line shape presented for the anchored molecule. Therefore,
it is important to elucidate a possible impact of nanocavity plasmons
on inducing the shuttling motion observed for isolated molecules.In order to quantify the role of nanocavity plasmons in molecule–plasmon
coupling, we focus on the Lamb shift. The Lamb shift is a redshift
in the molecular optical response due to a coherent coupling of the
discrete molecular emitter state with the continuum of states of the
nanocavity plasmons created in the tip–sample junction.[31,47−49] We employed it as a highly sensitive remote probe
for the molecular orientation of the ZnPc with respect to the NaCl
substrate. This is possible because the Lamb shift was recently found
to be modulated along a circle around the molecule with a π/2
periodicity in the azimuthal direction.[31] This Lamb shift modulation (LSM) was attributed to the D4h symmetry of the ZnPc with its two orthogonal transition dipole moments
along the main molecular axes, leading to an anisotropic coupling
of the molecule with the nanocavity plasmons. However, a rapid shuttling
would diminish the detected effective LSM, as a superposition of two
phase-shifted LSMs from the bistable orientations of the molecule
would be observed. So far, STM-LE-based Lamb shift measurements have
only been performed remotely, with the tip a few nanometers away from
the molecule,[31] but no azimuthal modulation
of the Lamb shift has been reported when directly tunneling into the
isolated molecule, presumably because it may be invisible due to the
rapid shuttling and the ensuing spectral broadening.To acquire
a reference of the LSM for ZnPc both on and off the
molecule, we used the STM-LE spectra from an anchored ZnPc. Figure (a) presents a series
of false-color plotted STM-LE spectra of the anchored ZnPc at a radial
distance from the molecular center (i.e., the Zn atom) of r = 0.83 nm (i.e., on the Pc ligand) at different azimuthal
angles θ. Here, θ = 0° is defined along the crystallographic
NaCl [010] direction as shown in Figure (a). To maintain comparable
nanocavity plasmons for each θ, the STM-LE spectra were recorded
in constant-height mode. The resulting series of STM-LE spectra revealed
that the emission peak position approximately oscillates with a π/2
periodicity owing to the azimuthal modulation of the Lamb shift. The
nonequal energy level shift at 45° and 135° can be explained
by an asymmetric tip shape (see Supporting Information Section S4 for more details). In Figure (b), STM-LE spectra at θ = 0°
(blue curve) and at θ = 45° (orange) are shown. The Lamb
shift is largest at θ = 45°, leading to a stronger redshift
with increased molecule–plasmon coupling compared to the STM-LE
spectrum at θ = 0°. A fit of the STM-LE spectra with a
Fano function (see Supporting Information Section S5) reveals comparable widths and q factors,
with a LSM of ΔELS = E0 (0°) – E0 (45°)=
3.9 ± 0.3 meV. In comparison, Zhang et al. reported a much smaller
LSM of ΔELS ≈ 2 meV for isolated
molecules.[31] The latter was measured not
on but next to the molecule (r ≥ 1.6 nm),
and the Lamb shift is known to exhibit a lateral tip–molecule
distance dependence,[31] which may explain
the larger LSM measured here at r = 0.83 nm. To test
this, we also performed experiments at various distances. Figure (c) shows two STM-LE
spectra obtained at r = 1.81 nm (i.e., the tip was
positioned next to the molecule) at an angle of 0° (blue) and
45° (orange), respectively. At this distance, direct tunneling
into the molecule is not possible (hence, the excitation channel (i) can be completely ruled out) and the molecular resonance
is only observed indirectly via plasmon–exciton coupling, leading
to a faint Fano dip in the plasmon resonance STM-LE spectrum.[31,44] Irrespective of the small signal-to-noise ratio, these remote STM-LE
spectra also display a clear LSM, which we quantified as ΔELS ≈ 5.2 ± 0.5 meV. Additional STM-LE
series at various radial distances confirm this observation (cf. inset
of Figure (a) and Supporting Information Figure S8).
Figure 2
Lamb shift
modulation (LSM) of anchored ZnPc. (a) Color plot of
normalized STM-LE spectra showing periodic modulation of the Lamb
shift. (b) Two typical Fano-peak STM-LE spectra taken on top of anchored
ZnPc (r = 0.83 nm) for θ = 0° and 45°,
with ΔELS ≈ 3.9 ± 0.3
meV (taken in constant-height mode with the feedback loop opened at
the ZnPc center, VS = −2.5 V, I = 500 pA, t = 120 s). (c) Two typical
Fano-dip STM-LE spectra taken next to anchored ZnPc (r = 1.81 nm) at θ = 0° and 45°, with ΔELS ≈ 5.2 ± 0.5 meV (constant-current
mode VS = −2.5 V, I = 200 pA, t = 60 s). Solid lines in (b) and (c)
are 50-point and 20-point Savitzky–Golay filtered curves of
the raw data, respectively.
Figure 4
Analysis of the LSM for anchored vs isolated ZnPc. (a) Azimuthal
angle dependence of the Q(0,0) resonance for anchored ZnPc at r = 0.83 nm (orange triangles) and r =
1.81 nm (blue circles). A cosine fit yields peak-to-peak amplitudes
2A = ΔELS. The
inset shows a summary of the radius-dependent ΔELS for various r. (b) Azimuthal angle
dependence of the Q(0,0) resonance for isolated ZnPc at r = 1.84 nm (light-blue squares). The gray dashed lines are model
curves based on results from (a) for assumed azimuthal angles of −11°
and +11°, respectively. Their superposition (solid gray line)
reflects the expected LSM in the case of rapid shuttling. The model
agrees well with the raw data.
Lamb shift
modulation (LSM) of anchored ZnPc. (a) Color plot of
normalized STM-LE spectra showing periodic modulation of the Lamb
shift. (b) Two typical Fano-peak STM-LE spectra taken on top of anchored
ZnPc (r = 0.83 nm) for θ = 0° and 45°,
with ΔELS ≈ 3.9 ± 0.3
meV (taken in constant-height mode with the feedback loop opened at
the ZnPc center, VS = −2.5 V, I = 500 pA, t = 120 s). (c) Two typical
Fano-dip STM-LE spectra taken next to anchored ZnPc (r = 1.81 nm) at θ = 0° and 45°, with ΔELS ≈ 5.2 ± 0.5 meV (constant-current
mode VS = −2.5 V, I = 200 pA, t = 60 s). Solid lines in (b) and (c)
are 50-point and 20-point Savitzky–Golay filtered curves of
the raw data, respectively.In order to rule out that the enhanced LSM of the anchored molecule
originates from any other artifacts, we performed the same angular-dependent
measurements next to the isolated molecule on 3 ML NaCl/Ag(111) with
the identical tip used in Figure as well as the same stabilization parameters. Figure (a) shows two STM-LE
spectra for a radial distance of r = 1.84 nm at θ
= 0° and 45°, respectively (where θ is defined as
before, see Figure (a)). Again, a π/2 periodicity can be observed as was seen
in Figure . Likewise,
the unequal energy shift of 45° and 135° presumably originated
from the same asymmetric tip. Fitting the 0° and 45° STM-LE
spectra with Fano profiles, we found ΔELS ≈ 2.5 ± 0.3 meV. This is consistent with the
value previously reported[31] and confirms
that the LSM of isolated ZnPc is only about half of the value seen
for the anchored molecule. We also tested whether the LSM can be observed
for isolated molecules when the tip is positioned above the molecule. Figure (c) shows two STM-LE
spectra at a radial distance of r = 0.83 nm, which
reproduces the STM-LE spectrum of isolated ZnPc in Figure (e). However, due to the spectral
broadening of the Q(0,0) resonance peak and the additional shoulder
feature, no clear difference between the STM-LE spectra could be observed.
Figure 3
LSM of
isolated ZnPc. (a) Color plot of normalized STM-LE spectra
showing periodic modulation of the Lamb shift. (b) Two typical Fano-dip
STM-LE spectra taken next to isolated ZnPc (r = 1.84
nm) at θ = 0° and 45°, with ΔELS ≈ 2.5 ± 0.3 meV (constant-current mode, VS = −2.5 V, I = 200
pA, t = 120 s). (c) Two STM-LE spectra obtained on
top of isolated ZnPc (r = 0.83 nm) at θ = 0°
and 45°, with no assignable LSM (constant-height mode, feedback
opened at ZnPc center, VS = −2.5
V, I = 100 pA, t = 60 s). Solid
lines in (b) and (c) are 200-point and 20-point Savitzky–Golay
filtered curves of the raw data, respectively.
LSM of
isolated ZnPc. (a) Color plot of normalized STM-LE spectra
showing periodic modulation of the Lamb shift. (b) Two typical Fano-dip
STM-LE spectra taken next to isolated ZnPc (r = 1.84
nm) at θ = 0° and 45°, with ΔELS ≈ 2.5 ± 0.3 meV (constant-current mode, VS = −2.5 V, I = 200
pA, t = 120 s). (c) Two STM-LE spectra obtained on
top of isolated ZnPc (r = 0.83 nm) at θ = 0°
and 45°, with no assignable LSM (constant-height mode, feedback
opened at ZnPc center, VS = −2.5
V, I = 100 pA, t = 60 s). Solid
lines in (b) and (c) are 200-point and 20-point Savitzky–Golay
filtered curves of the raw data, respectively.For a statistically better quantification of the LSM, we determined
the Q(0,0) resonance energies at various θ and r. Figure (a) summarizes data for the anchored molecule, both
above the ZnPc ligand (r = 0.83 nm, orange triangles)
and for the remote measurement (r = 1.81 nm, blue
circles). The LSM remains comparably large. All data sets can be phenomenologically
described as a periodic pattern using the function[31]E0 (θ) = A cos4θ + B, where a statistical value of the
LSM is given by 2A = ΔELS and the offset B is the angle-averaged
resonance energy. Fitting the data, we found 2A(r = 0.83 nm) = 3.6 ± 0.4 meV and 2A(r = 1.81 nm) = 4.8 ± 0.6 meV. The radial distance
dependence (inset of Figure (a)) shows that ΔELS decreases
when the tip approaches the ZnPc center, reflecting the lateral dimensions
of the nanoplasmonic cavity and the molecule; for symmetry reasons,
the LSM must vanish for r = 0.[31]Analysis of the LSM for anchored vs isolated ZnPc. (a) Azimuthal
angle dependence of the Q(0,0) resonance for anchored ZnPc at r = 0.83 nm (orange triangles) and r =
1.81 nm (blue circles). A cosine fit yields peak-to-peak amplitudes
2A = ΔELS. The
inset shows a summary of the radius-dependent ΔELS for various r. (b) Azimuthal angle
dependence of the Q(0,0) resonance for isolated ZnPc at r = 1.84 nm (light-blue squares). The gray dashed lines are model
curves based on results from (a) for assumed azimuthal angles of −11°
and +11°, respectively. Their superposition (solid gray line)
reflects the expected LSM in the case of rapid shuttling. The model
agrees well with the raw data.As the LSM measurements of the anchored and the isolated ZnPc were
performed under identical conditions (same tip and similar vertical
and lateral tip–molecule distances used in Figure (c) and 3(b)), a quantitative comparison is possible. Figure (b) summarizes the angle-dependent remote
measurements for the isolated molecule. The significantly diminished
LSM can neither be attributed to a reduced coupling of the nanocavity
plasmons to the ZnPc molecule nor to any other experimental artifact.
This implies that remote measurements of isolated molecules are more
invasive than previously suggested and that the plasmon–molecule
coupling alone may induce shuttling of the isolated ZnPc molecule.
We can model an expected LSM of isolated ZnPc that is rapidly shuttling
during a measurement by a superposition of the LSMs originating
from the two orientation
angles, E0± (θ) = A cos[4(θ
± 11°)]. We used an amplitude 2A = 4.8
meV that corresponds to the LSM of anchored ZnPc at r = 1.81 nm. The resulting model curve is displayed as a solid black
line in Figure (b).
Despite its simplicity, the model describes the observed LSM of isolated
ZnPc quite well. Hence, we conclude that the nanocavity plasmons generated
a few nanometers away from ZnPc can induce the rapid shuttling motion.
In order to further verify this, we repeatedly imaged isolated ZnPc
molecules after each remote measurement, using in-gap voltages where
the molecules do not shuttle (cf. Supporting Information Figure S9), and we indeed found that their orientation changed
(Figure S10). We also performed voltage-
and current-dependent measurements of switching dynamics in order
to rule out other possible switching mechanisms, such as electric
fields or ballistic transport of hot electrons (see Supporting Information Section S6).A recent study on
various metal phthalocyanines concluded that
the rapid shuttling motion upon direct tunneling into the molecule
involves an intermediate charged molecular state.[40,43] Our results provide evidence that, in the case of remote measurements,
i.e., in the absence of direct transport through the molecule, plasmon–molecule
coupling induces the shuttling. It remains unclear how exactly nanocavity
plasmons couple to the mechanical degrees of freedom. A recent H2Pc tautomerization study suggests that molecular motion may
be activated exclusively by excitation from its electronic S0 ground state into the S1 excited singlet state, leading to vibronic relaxation.[35] While this plasmon–exciton coupling mechanism
is able to explain rapid shuttling at voltage magnitudes above the S1 onset energy, we find that shuttling can already
be activated remotely at much smaller bias (cf. Supporting Information Figure S10). Therefore, we suggest
that nanocavity plasmon modes can directly couple to vibrationally
excited modes within the S0 state. A theoretical
treatment of a related molecule (MgPc) found an energy barrier between
the two adsorption orientations of 9 meV,[39] which interestingly corresponds to the energy difference observed
between the Q(0,0) transition and the shoulder in STM-LE of isolated
ZnPc (Figure (e) and Figure (c)). Such a barrier
can easily be overcome if a plasmon couples to a vibrational or hindered
rotational mode.[34] While we found connections
between the plasmon resonance intensity and the shuttling dynamics
(see Supporting Information Section S6)
in support of this interpretation, the strong polarity dependence
of the threshold biases calls for future studies with improved time
resolution.[35,50]In summary, we studied
the influence of the rapid shuttling motion
on the fluorescence properties of ZnPc on the NaCl surface, by comparing
the LSMs of an anchored and an isolated molecule. For the latter,
we found a diminished LSM, which provides evidence that isolated molecules
rapidly shuttle during remote measurements due to plasmon–molecule
coupling. Our results should provide valuable input for future theoretical
treatments to identify the exact mechanism that leads to molecular
motion based on coupling to nanocavity plasmons. A better understanding
could also offer a route toward inducing lateral or even directed
motion of accordingly designed molecules on surfaces. Even more, it
may provide a novel playground for controlling the motion of molecular
machines such as rotors, motors, or nanocars,[7,9,14,51] without the
need for a local probe by utilization of nanoplasmonic structures,[19,52] which can readily be made using state-of-the-art lithography techniques–an
intriguing prospect toward scalable control of complex molecular machines.
Authors: Matthew J Comstock; Niv Levy; Armen Kirakosian; Jongweon Cho; Frank Lauterwasser; Jessica H Harvey; David A Strubbe; Jean M J Fréchet; Dirk Trauner; Steven G Louie; Michael F Crommie Journal: Phys Rev Lett Date: 2007-07-18 Impact factor: 9.161
Authors: Werner M J van Weerdenburg; Manuel Steinbrecher; Niels P E van Mullekom; Jan W Gerritsen; Henning von Allwörden; Fabian D Natterer; Alexander A Khajetoorians Journal: Rev Sci Instrum Date: 2021-03-01 Impact factor: 1.523
Authors: Johannes Schaffert; Maren C Cottin; Andreas Sonntag; Hatice Karacuban; Christian A Bobisch; Nicolás Lorente; Jean-Pierre Gauyacq; Rolf Möller Journal: Nat Mater Date: 2012-12-23 Impact factor: 43.841
Authors: Jiří Doležal; Pingo Mutombo; Dana Nachtigallová; Pavel Jelínek; Pablo Merino; Martin Švec Journal: ACS Nano Date: 2020-06-23 Impact factor: 15.881
Authors: Jiří Doležal; Sofia Canola; Prokop Hapala; Rodrigo Cezar de Campos Ferreira; Pablo Merino; Martin Švec Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2022-10-12 Impact factor: 17.694