4.6 Article

Thermal Stability of Phosphonic Acid Self-Assembled Monolayers on Alumina Substrates

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY C
卷 124, 期 4, 页码 2531-2542

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpcc.9b10628

关键词

-

资金

  1. Helmholtz Zentrum Berlin
  2. Outstanding Top-notch Talent Cultivation Project in Anhui Province [gxgwfx2018026]
  3. DAAD-ACEH Scholarship of Excellence

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Thermal stability of several representative self-assembled monolayers (SAMs) with phosphonic acid (PA) anchoring group on Al2O3 substrates was studied by in situ high resolution X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy, complemented by thermogravimetric analysis of the relevant bulk materials and theoretical simulations. The range of thermal stability and the degradation pathways were found to be dependent on the chemical composition of the SAM forming molecules, with backbone-specific weak links. Whereas the anchoring groups were hardly affected by annealing up to 773 K (highest temperature applied for most of the samples), temperature-induced breakup of the bond between the backbone and anchoring group or a specific bond within the backbone was observed. The former is the case for nonsubstituted alkyl backbone, which is cleaved at temperatures above 673-773 K (depending on the backbone length), with the subsequent desorption of the released fragments. The latter is the case for the substituted (pentafluorophenoxy) or partly fluorinated alkyl backbone, with the bond cleavage occurring at temperatures above 523 K, either between the substitution and alkyl linker or between the fluorinated and nonfluorinated segments of the backbone. The above results suggest a higher robustness and better thermal stability of PA monolayers as compared to other types of SAMs, such as thiolates on coinage metal substrates. It is however advisible to test thermal stability of a specifically designed, functional PA SAM in context of possible weak links as far as this is important for a particular application.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据