4.2 Article Proceedings Paper

Surface potential images of self-assembled monolayers patterned by organosilanes:: ab initio molecular orbital calculations

期刊

SURFACE AND INTERFACE ANALYSIS
卷 34, 期 1, 页码 601-605

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/sia.1369

关键词

organosilane self-assembled monolayers; Kelvin probe force microscopy; surface potential; ab initio molecular orbital calculation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Self-assembled monolayers (SAMs) with different function terminal groups were prepared on substrates of n-type silicon by chemical vapour deposition (CVD) from n-octadecyltrimethoxysilane (ODS: H3C(CH2)(17)Si(OCH3)(3)), heptadecafluoro-1,1,2,2-tetrahydro-decyl-1-trimethoxysilane (FAS: F3C(CF2)(7) (CH2)(2)Si(OCH3)(3)), n-(6-aminohexyl)aminopropyltrimethoxysilane (AHAPS: H2N(CH2)(6)NH(CH2)(3) Si(OCH3)(3)) and 4-(chloromethyl)phenyltrimethoxysilane [CMPS: H2ClC(C6H4)Si(OCH3)(3)]. The sample surfaces covered with ODS-SAM were irradiated under a reduced pressure of 10 Pa with vacuum ultraviolet (VUV) light through a photomask. Then, the irradiated areas with the ODS-SAM removed were covered with another SAM by CVD. Surface potential images of the patterned areas were measured by Kelvin probe force microscopy (KPFM) and explained by ab initio molecular orbital (MO) calculations. The KPFM measurements showed that the surface potential contrasts of the FAS-, AHAPS- and CMPS-SAMs against the ODS-SAM were about -170, +50 and -30 mV, respectively. The surface potentials as a function of area occupied by a molecule were predicted using the respective dipole moments perpendicular to substrates, which were obtained by the ab initio MO calculations. The predicted surface potentials of the FAS-, CMPS- and AHAPS-SAMs approximately agreed with the measured values at areas of about 1.5, 1.6 and 0.6 nm(2) per molecule. The ab initio MO calculations also showed differences in surface potentials appearing due to the differences in Fermi levels of the respective SAMs. Copyright (C) 2002 John Wiley Sons, Ltd.

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

4.2
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