journal article·2009-01-23

Balancing Intermolecular and Molecule–Substrate Interactions in Supramolecular Assemblies

Dimas G. de Oteyza, Iñaki Silanes, Miguel Ruiz‐Osés, Esther Barrena, Bryan P. Doyle, Andrés Arnau, Helmut Dosch, Yutaka Wakayama, J. Enrique Ortega

Advanced Functional Materials· Volume 19· Issue 2
Publisher page

Abstract

Abstract Self‐assembly of functional supra‐molecular nanostructures is among the most promising strategies for further development of organic electronics. However, a poor control of the interactions driving the assembling phenomena still hampers the tailored growth of designed structures. Here exploration of how non‐covalent molecule‐substrate interactions can be modified on a molecular level is described. For that, mixtures of DIP and F16CuPc, two molecules with donor and acceptor character, respectively are investigated. A detailed study of their structural and electronic properties is performed. In reference to the associated single‐component layers, the growth of binary layers results in films with strongly enhanced intermolecular interactions and consequently reduced molecule‐substrate interactions. This new insight into the interplay among the aforementioned interactions provides a novel strategy to balance the critical interactions in the assembly processes by the appropriate choice of molecular species in binary supra‐molecular assemblies, and thereby control the self‐assembly of functional organic nanostructures.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Surface Chemistry and Catalysis · Molecular Junctions and Nanostructures · Block Copolymer Self-Assembly

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

References (53)

Show source-provided references
1. 10.1038/nature0416610.1038/nature04166 ↗
2. 10.1002/anie.20039004510.1002/anie.200390045 ↗
3. 10.1039/b206566p10.1039/b206566p ↗
4. 10.1146/annurev.physchem.56.092503.14125910.1146/annurev.physchem.56.092503.141259 ↗
5. 10.1038/nature0191510.1038/nature01915 ↗
6. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.15680510.1103/PhysRevLett.100.156805 ↗
7. 10.1021/nl060563u10.1021/nl060563u ↗
8. 10.1002/anie.20050231610.1002/anie.200502316 ↗
9. 10.1002/adma.20050211510.1002/adma.200502115 ↗
10. 10.1038/nmat108810.1038/nmat1088 ↗
11. 10.1002/anie.20046206410.1002/anie.200462064 ↗
12. 10.1002/chem.20030558910.1002/chem.200305589 ↗
13. 10.1038/nnano.2007.34610.1038/nnano.2007.346 ↗
14. 10.1002/anie.20070285910.1002/anie.200702859 ↗
15. 10.1002/anie.20035358610.1002/anie.200353586 ↗
16. 10.1002/adma.20050091310.1002/adma.200500913 ↗
17. 10.1002/anie.20070023410.1002/anie.200700234 ↗
18. 10.1002/1616-3028(20020618)12:6/7<455::AID-ADFM455>3.0.CO;2-I10.1002/1616-3028(20020618)12:6/7<455::AID-ADFM455>3.0.CO;2-I ↗
19. 10.1126/science.115417910.1126/science.1154179 ↗
20. 10.1002/adma.20060051010.1002/adma.200600510 ↗
21. 10.1016/S0039-6028(02)01159-710.1016/S0039-6028(02)01159-7 ↗
22. 10.1002/anie.20060408310.1002/anie.200604083 ↗
23. 10.1021/jp066493x10.1021/jp066493x ↗
24. 10.1116/1.58176710.1116/1.581767 ↗
25. 10.1063/1.211762210.1063/1.2117622 ↗
26. 10.1103/PhysRevB.68.11542810.1103/PhysRevB.68.115428 ↗
27. 10.1103/PhysRevA.74.04250510.1103/PhysRevA.74.042505 ↗
28. 10.1063/1.140696710.1063/1.1406967 ↗
29. 10.1021/jp800631p10.1021/jp800631p ↗
30. 10.1021/jp066406110.1021/jp0664061 ↗
31. 10.1021/la991622510.1021/la9916225 ↗
32. 10.1002/cphc.20070049410.1002/cphc.200700494 ↗
33. 10.1093/comjnl/7.4.30810.1093/comjnl/7.4.308 ↗
34. 10.1002/cphc.20070029510.1002/cphc.200700295 ↗
35. 10.1103/PhysRevB.55.797210.1103/PhysRevB.55.7972 ↗
36. 10.1016/S0039-6028(01)00901-310.1016/S0039-6028(01)00901-3 ↗
37. 10.1103/PhysRevB.76.12542510.1103/PhysRevB.76.125425 ↗
38. 10.1021/jp066073810.1021/jp0660738 ↗
39. 10.1021/cm051990w10.1021/cm051990w ↗
40. 10.1126/science.255.5050.141610.1126/science.255.5050.1416 ↗
41. 10.1016/S0167-5729(97)00010-110.1016/S0167-5729(97)00010-1 ↗
42. 10.1063/1.157722310.1063/1.1577223 ↗
43. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.13610310.1103/PhysRevLett.100.136103 ↗
44. Chen W. · Appl. Phys. Lett. · 2008 · 92 · 063308‐1‐3
45. 10.1016/S0368-2048(99)00064-X10.1016/S0368-2048(99)00064-X ↗
46. 10.1016/S0039-6028(03)00219-X10.1016/S0039-6028(03)00219-X ↗
47. 10.1103/PhysRevB.41.976610.1103/PhysRevB.41.9766 ↗
48. 10.1016/j.orgel.2007.10.00410.1016/j.orgel.2007.10.004 ↗
49. Note that a potential charge transfer from DIP (donor) to F16CuPc (acceptor) is discarded since it would lead to core‐level shifts in the opposite direction and can therefore not account for the observed scenario. Core level shifts as a result of changes in the interface dipoles can not account for the observations either because these would shift all core‐levels alike. The atom specific shifts indicate unambiguously that local changes in metallic screening are dominant.
50. Stöhr J. · 2003
51. 10.1063/1.243241010.1063/1.2432410 ↗
52. 10.1088/0953-8984/14/11/30210.1088/0953-8984/14/11/302 ↗
53. 10.1063/1.271243510.1063/1.2712435 ↗