Customized Electronic Coupling in Self‐Assembled Donor–Acceptor Nanostructures
Source abstract
Abstract
Abstract Charge transfer processes between donor–acceptor complexes and metallic electrodes are at the heart of novel organic optoelectronic devices such as solar cells. Here, a combined approach of surface‐sensitive microscopy, synchrotron radiation spectroscopy, and state‐of‐the‐art ab initio calculations is used to demonstrate the delicate balance that exists between intermolecular and molecule–substrate interactions, hybridization, and charge transfer in model donor–acceptor assemblies at metal‐organic interfaces. It is shown that charge transfer and chemical properties of interfaces based on single component layers cannot be naively extrapolated to binary donor–acceptor assemblies. In particular, studying the self‐assembly of supramolecular nanostructures on Cu(111), composed of fluorinated copper‐phthalocyanines (F16CuPc) and diindenoperylene (DIP), it is found that, in reference to the associated single component layers, the donor (DIP) decouples electronically from the metal surface, while the acceptor (F16CuPc) suffers strong hybridization with the substrate.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Surface Chemistry and Catalysis · Molecular Junctions and Nanostructures · Quantum Dots Synthesis And Properties
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (46)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1126/science.107106310.1126/science.1071063 ↗
2. 10.1126/science.106919710.1126/science.1069197 ↗
3. 10.1038/nature0416610.1038/nature04166 ↗
4. 10.1146/annurev.physchem.56.092503.14125910.1146/annurev.physchem.56.092503.141259 ↗
5. 10.1038/nphys117610.1038/nphys1176 ↗
6. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.13610310.1103/PhysRevLett.100.136103 ↗
7. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.03680710.1103/PhysRevLett.100.036807 ↗
8. 10.1002/adfm.20080145310.1002/adfm.200801453 ↗
9. 10.1088/0953-8984/20/18/18400110.1088/0953-8984/20/18/184001 ↗
10. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.15680510.1103/PhysRevLett.100.156805 ↗
11. 10.1002/cphc.20080082810.1002/cphc.200800828 ↗
12. 10.1021/nl070897z10.1021/nl070897z ↗
13. 10.1002/1439-7641(20021018)3:10<881::AID-CPHC881>3.0.CO;2-P10.1002/1439-7641(20021018)3:10<881::AID-CPHC881>3.0.CO;2-P ↗
14. 10.1021/ja077407p10.1021/ja077407p ↗
15. 10.1021/nl802676x10.1021/nl802676x ↗
16. 10.1038/nature0191510.1038/nature01915 ↗
17. 10.1021/jp026875c10.1021/jp026875c ↗
18. 10.1021/ja801577z10.1021/ja801577z ↗
19. 10.1002/anie.20060408310.1002/anie.200604083 ↗
20. 10.1116/1.58176710.1116/1.581767 ↗
21. 10.1063/1.211762210.1063/1.2117622 ↗
22. 10.1021/jp066406110.1021/jp0664061 ↗
23. 10.1002/cphc.20070049410.1002/cphc.200700494 ↗
24. Gerlach A. · Phys. Rev. B · 2005 · 71 · 205425‐1‐7
25. 10.1063/1.174058810.1063/1.1740588 ↗
26. 10.1002/jcc.1035110.1002/jcc.10351 ↗
27. Stöhr J. · 2003
28. 10.1016/S0039-6028(01)01146-310.1016/S0039-6028(01)01146-3 ↗
29. 10.1063/1.215125310.1063/1.2151253 ↗
30. 10.1016/j.surfrep.2008.06.00110.1016/j.surfrep.2008.06.001 ↗
31. 10.1103/PhysRevB.19.495210.1103/PhysRevB.19.4952 ↗
32. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.44.54910.1103/PhysRevLett.44.549 ↗
33. The particular sensitivity of the −3.55 eV bulk state to interacting adsorbates in contrast to the minor changes observed in the −2.72 eV peak is understood in the light of their distinct atomic wave function nature. Assuming as usual for angle‐resolved photoemission experiments a vertical transition scheme within the reduced bulk Brillouin zone of Cu the 130 eV photon energy excitation is equivalent to that of 26 eV [21 22] thats is both allow us to probe Cu bulk states right at theΓpoint. Therefore the main peak at −3.55 eV in the clean Cu(111) spectrum belongs to the Γ25′symmetry point namely pure d3z2–r2‐like atomic wave functions that extend perpendicular to the surface plane whereas the −2.72 eV peak corresponds to the Γ12symmetry point with dxz yz‐like wave functions whose probability density is equally distributed both in and out of the surface plane.[21]As a consequence the −3.55 eV d3z2–r2‐like state is more likely to interact and hybridize with adsorbate electronic states of similar energy. An Umklapp effect as the origin for this spectral change can be discarded due to the large energy shift from −3.55 to −4.3 eV in combination with the relatively low dispersion of this electronic state [21] and the large unit cell dimensions of the crystalline overlayer.
34. According to the theoretical results one would expect changes in the widths of the DIP and F16CuPc resonances. However because the various fitted resonances typically correspond to a superposition of manifold transitions combining the various initial and final states [5 17 25] such an observation is hampered.
35. 10.1063/1.186485210.1063/1.1864852 ↗
36. The calculations are first performed for gas phase molecules. Then we calculate the effect of charge removal on the core‐level binding energies. Finally the influence of the substrate is mimicked calculating the core‐level energies upon charge transfers as obtained from the Mulliken population analysis. This approach shows limited reliability and is expected to account for the difference between experiment and theory. However the relative energy difference between the different components of the atomic species are reasonably well reproduced.
37. 10.1063/1.243241010.1063/1.2432410 ↗
38. 10.1021/jp809512a10.1021/jp809512a ↗
39. 10.1021/jp711140e10.1021/jp711140e ↗
40. 10.1063/1.115000110.1063/1.1150001 ↗
41. 10.1002/jcc.105610.1002/jcc.1056 ↗
42. 10.1139/p80-15910.1139/p80-159 ↗
43. 10.1088/0953-8984/14/11/30210.1088/0953-8984/14/11/302 ↗
44. 10.1103/PhysRevB.45.1324410.1103/PhysRevB.45.13244 ↗
45. 10.1016/S0010-4655(98)00201-X10.1016/S0010-4655(98)00201-X ↗
46. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.13680910.1103/PhysRevLett.102.136809 ↗