| Literature DB >> 35540267 |
Ross J Davidson1, David C Milan2, Oday A Al-Owaedi3,4, Ali K Ismael3,5, Richard J Nichols2, Simon J Higgins2, Colin J Lambert3, Dmitry S Yufit1, Andrew Beeby1.
Abstract
Controlling the orientation of molecular conductors on the electrode surfaces is a critical factor in the development of single-molecule conductors. In the current study, we used the scanning tunnelling microscopy-based break junction (STM-BJ) technique to explore 'bare-bones' tripodal molecular wires, employing different anchor groups (AGs) at the 'top' and 'bottom' of the tripod. The triarylphosphine tris(4-(methylthio)phenyl)phosphine and its corresponding phosphine sulfide showed only a single high conductance feature in the resulting 1- and 2-dimensional conductance histograms, whereas analogous molecules with fewer than three thiomethyl AGs did not show clear conductance features. Thus, by systematic molecular modifications and with the aid of supporting DFT calculations, the binding geometry, with respect to the surface, was elucidated. This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry.Entities:
Year: 2018 PMID: 35540267 PMCID: PMC9081744 DOI: 10.1039/c8ra01257a
Source DB: PubMed Journal: RSC Adv ISSN: 2046-2069 Impact factor: 4.036
Chart 1Triaryl phosphines and their derivatives used in this investigation.
Conductance values and break-off distances (95th percentile) for 2, 3, 3=S and 3=O
| Molecule | Conductance ( | Break-off distance (nm) |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | No peak | |
| 2 | 3.46 × 10−5 | 0.76 |
| 5.88 × 10−4 | 0.94 | |
| 3 | 4.36 × 10−3 | 0.76 |
| 1=S | No peak | |
| 2=S | No peak | |
| 3=S | 1.23 × 10−3 | 0.87 |
| 3=O | 4.46 × 10−5 | 0.91 |
| 1.09 × 10−3 | 0.76 | |
| 2=O | No peak | |
| [3-Me]+ | No peak |
Fig. 1Conductance histograms for the compounds 2, 3, 3=S and 3=O.
The binding energies ΔE(ab) of molecules to the Au(111) surface, calculated using a vdW functional. For comparison the corresponding binding energies obtained using GGA are shown. To obtain these results, we started from 252 different initial conditions for each molecule and allowed each to fully relax to a minimum energy. Then from these 252 different simulations, we chose the relaxed structure corresponding to the lowest energy. Fig. S41–S44 in the ESI show the various local energy minima obtained from this procedure
| System | Δ | Δ |
|---|---|---|
| 2-A | −0.57 | −0.61 |
| 2-B | −0.76 | −0.79 |
| 2-C | −0.82 | −0.85 |
| 3 | −0.94 | −1.02 |
Fig. 2The relaxed geometries of all possible structures for 2, 3, 3=S and 3=O; where atoms are indicated by grey (carbon), white (hydrogen), yellow (sulfur), red (oxygen) and orange (phosphorus).
Fig. 3The relaxed geometries of all molecular junctions; where atoms are indicated by grey (carbon), white (hydrogen), yellow (sulfur), red (oxygen) and orange (phosphorus).
Fig. 4The calculated conductance as a function of Fermi energy for all molecular junctions, with molecules bound to Au (111) surfaces, obtained using a van der Waals functional.[20,21]
The experimental (Exp. G/G0) and calculated conductance values (Th. G/G0) at EF − = 0 eV. Z* is the experimental break-off distance. The calculated electrode separation in relaxed junctions (Z); Z = dAu–Au − 0.25 nm, where 0.25 nm is the calculated centre-to-centre distance of the apex atoms of the two opposing gold electrodes when conductance = G0 in the absence of a molecule. dAu–Au is the calculated centre-to-centre distance of the apex atoms of the two opposing gold electrodes in relaxed junctions
| Molecule | Exp. | Th. |
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | 4.36 × 10−3 | 5.5 × 10−3 | 0.76 | 0.27 | 0.52 |
| 3-S | 1.23 × 10−3 | 2.8 × 10−3 | 0.87 | 0.39 | 0.64 |
| 3-O | 1.09 × 10−3 | 2.5 × 10−3 | 0.76 | 0.26 | 0.51 |