2007
DOI: 10.1021/jp064493r
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Potential-Induced Structural Change in a Self-Assembled Monolayer of 4-Methylbenzenethiol on Au(111)

Abstract: Potential-induced structural change in a self-assembled monolayer (SAM) of 4-methylbenzenethiol (4-MBT) on Au(111) is investigated by in situ scanning tunneling microscopy (STM). STM images in 0.1 M HClO 4 indicate that a 4-MBT SAM on Au(111) consists of multiple phases in electrochemical environments. These phases include ordered domains (R-phase), aggregated molecular patches ( -phase), and potential dependent structures ( ′-phase and γ-phase). At a potential positive of 0.3 V SCE , comparable to the potenti… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

15
49
1
2

Year Published

2008
2008
2014
2014

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 55 publications
(67 citation statements)
references
References 56 publications
(162 reference statements)
15
49
1
2
Order By: Relevance
“…The molecular packing structure for 4-MBT SAMs can be referred to as a (2√3 × √11.5)R30° structure, which is comparable to the previously observed structures: 4 × √3 and 2√3 × √3 structures. 17 This structural discrepancy between our and their results is due to different SAM preparation conditions because they prepared SAMs in a 0.05 mM ethanol solution at RT for 5 min and STM observation was performed under electrochemical environments (0.1 M HClO 4 at 0.4 V). On the other hand, the surface structures of 4-MBT SAMs with a nonpolar substituent were completely different from those of fluorobenzenethiol (4-FBT) SAMs with a polar substituent even if 4-FBT SAMs were prepared using same preparation conditions.…”
contrasting
confidence: 67%
“…The molecular packing structure for 4-MBT SAMs can be referred to as a (2√3 × √11.5)R30° structure, which is comparable to the previously observed structures: 4 × √3 and 2√3 × √3 structures. 17 This structural discrepancy between our and their results is due to different SAM preparation conditions because they prepared SAMs in a 0.05 mM ethanol solution at RT for 5 min and STM observation was performed under electrochemical environments (0.1 M HClO 4 at 0.4 V). On the other hand, the surface structures of 4-MBT SAMs with a nonpolar substituent were completely different from those of fluorobenzenethiol (4-FBT) SAMs with a polar substituent even if 4-FBT SAMs were prepared using same preparation conditions.…”
contrasting
confidence: 67%
“…An obvious choice therefore in our case is the 1068 cm 1 Raman band and we utilize the average intensity from 100 sample points in Eqn (1). Taking 1.3 ð 10 15 molecules/cm 2 for a monolayer of 4-MBT on gold,33 we find that approximately 6.47 ð 10 14 moles (9.3 ð 10 10 molecules) of 4-MBT are exited in the laser spot (100 µm diameter). The determination of N ref is more challenging and different methodologies have been reported to estimate it.…”
mentioning
confidence: 94%
“…In this technique, the tunneling current is monitored by applying different tip and sample potentials (E tip = E sample ), where the potential difference (E tip − E sample ) defines the bias voltage. Unlike the typical STM measurements in vacuum, air, and inert solvents, the potential profile created by mixing the tip and sample double layers might change the sample states during EC-STM imaging [19]. Recently, the electron transfer between potential-controlled electrodes through electroactive molecules has attracted considerable attention in the field of molecular electronics, because electron transfer rates can be controlled by simply applying appropriate potentials (electrochemical gate effect) [20][21][22][23][24].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%