Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-fv566 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-18T09:22:23.366Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Functional Group Contrast in Scanning Tunneling Microscopy Images of Substituted Phenylethers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 July 2020

I. H. Musselman ,
K. H. Kangasniemi ,
A. J. M. Lubag ,
J. K. Franceschetti ,
H. S. Lee  and
S. Iyengar
I. H. Musselman
Affiliation:
Department of Chemistry, University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, TX, 75083-0688
K. H. Kangasniemi
Affiliation:
Department of Chemistry, University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, TX, 75083-0688
A. J. M. Lubag
Affiliation:
Department of Chemistry, University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, TX, 75083-0688
J. K. Franceschetti
Affiliation:
Department of Chemistry, University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, TX, 75083-0688
H. S. Lee
Affiliation:
Department of Chemistry, Hanyang University, Seoul, 133-791, South Korea
S. Iyengar
Affiliation:
Department of Chemistry, University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, TX, 75083-0688
Get access

Abstract

Numerous scanning tunneling microscopy (STM) studies of adsorbates at gas/solid and liquid/solid interfaces have been reported. Although early STM experiments of these systems were concerned primarily with visualizing molecules at the atomic level, the focus has shifted to extracting chemical information from STM images, including the identity of atoms or of functional groups within an adsorbed molecule. However, STM image interpretation continues to be an immense challenge and one currently debated issue of critical importance is the mechanism(s) by which the image contrast reveals atomic and molecular structure. Recently, a combination of electronic and geometric factors was proposed. The electronic factor addresses the coupling between the energy levels of the adsorbate and the Fermi level of the surface whereas the geometric factor is related to the spatial overlap between the STM tip and the functional group.

A previous study in our laboratory of a homologous series of para-halogenated phenyloctadecyl ethers (X-POEs, where X = H, CI, Br, I), physisorbed onto highly oriented pyrolytic graphite (HOPG), revealed a bias-dependent contrast in STM images resembling calculated (HyperChem) electron density contours of bonding molecular orbitals.

Type
Can Scanning Probe Microscopes Do Microanalysis? (Organized by I. Holl Musselman)
Information
Microscopy and Microanalysis , Volume 7 , Issue S2: Proceedings: Microscopy & Microanalysis 2001, Microscopy Society of America 59th Annual Meeting, Microbeam Analysis Society 35th Annual Meeting, Long Beach, California August 5-9, 2001 , August 2001 , pp. 850 - 851
Copyright
Copyright © Microscopy Society of America 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

references

1.Frommer, J., Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl. 31 (1992) 1298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Rabe, J. P., Ultramicroscopy 42-44 (1992) 41.Google Scholar
3.Delamarche, E.et al., Adv. Mater. 8 (1996) 719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Cyr, D. M.et al., Chem. Mater. 8 (1996) 1600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Chiang, S., Chem. Rev. 97 (1997) 1083.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Giancarlo, L. C. and Flynn, G. W., Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem. 49 (1998) 297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Boland, J. J. and Villarrubia, J. S., Science 248 (1990) 838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Hossick Schott, J. and White, H. S., Langmuir 10 (1994) 486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.Hossick Schott, J. and White, H. S., J. Phys. Chem. 98 (1994) 291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Hossick Schott, J. and White, H. S., J. Phys. Chem. 98 (1994) 297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Spence, J. C. H.et al., J. Vac. Sci. Technol. B 14 (1996) 1587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12.Sautet, P., Surf. Sci. 374 (1997) 406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13.Voigtlander, B.et al., Phys. Rev. B 55 (1997) R13444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.Venkataraman, B.et al., J. Phys. Chem. 99 (1995) 8684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15.Cyr, D.et al., J. Phys. Chem. 100 (1996) 13747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16.Claypool, C. L.et al., J. Phys. Chem. B 101 (1997) 5978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17.Faglioni, F.et al., J. Phys. Chem. B 101 (1997) 5996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18.Giancarlo, L.et al., Langmuir 14 (1998) 1465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19.Spong, J. K.et al., Nature 338 (1989) 137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20.Smith, D. P. E.et al., Nature 344 (1990) 641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21.Mizutani, W.et al., Appl. Phys. Lett. 56 (1990) 1974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22.Strohmaier, R.et al., Surface Science 418 (1998) 91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23.Claypool, C. L.et al., J. Phys. Chem. B 103 (1999) 7077.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24.Claypool, C. L.et al., J. Phys. Chem. B 103 (1999) 9690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25.Lee, H. S.et al., Langmuir 14 (1998) 7475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26.Musselman, I. H.et al., manuscript in preparation.Google Scholar
27. The support of this research by a grant from the Robert A. Welch Foundation is gratefully acknowledged.Google Scholar