2013
DOI: 10.1002/cphc.201300450
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Work‐Function Modification of Au and Ag Surfaces upon Deposition of Self‐Assembled Monolayers: Influence of the Choice of the Theoretical Approach and the Thiol Decomposition Scheme

Abstract: We have characterized theoretically the work-function modifications of the (111) surfaces of gold and silver upon deposition of self-assembled monolayers based on methanethiol and trifluoromethanethiol. A comparative analysis is made between the experimental results and those obtained from two widely used approaches based on density functional theory. The contributions to the total work-function modifications are estimated on the basis of two decomposition schemes of the thiol molecules that have been proposed… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
19
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

5
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(21 citation statements)
references
References 73 publications
(82 reference statements)
2
19
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The PBE exchange‐correlation functional was used in SIESTA while both PBE and hybrid PBE0 functionals have been employed with QE. The mixing of results of calculations based on plane waves or localized basis sets is validated by previous theoretical studies showing that these approaches give similar results with the PBE functional . This assumption has been also validated in this work: Even though the absolute values of level energies differ (<0.3 eV) depending on the approach, the relative alignment of the frontier electronic levels within the oligophenylene series is preserved; moreover, we have also verified that the frontier electronic levels have the same shape among the different approaches.…”
Section: Methodssupporting
confidence: 84%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The PBE exchange‐correlation functional was used in SIESTA while both PBE and hybrid PBE0 functionals have been employed with QE. The mixing of results of calculations based on plane waves or localized basis sets is validated by previous theoretical studies showing that these approaches give similar results with the PBE functional . This assumption has been also validated in this work: Even though the absolute values of level energies differ (<0.3 eV) depending on the approach, the relative alignment of the frontier electronic levels within the oligophenylene series is preserved; moreover, we have also verified that the frontier electronic levels have the same shape among the different approaches.…”
Section: Methodssupporting
confidence: 84%
“…Due to restrictions in the volume of the unit cell when using hybrid functionals together with the fact that the previous results showed the HOMO energy offsets are similar for the three‐ring and four‐ring oligomers, we consider only the shortest three oligomers in this section, with a surface coverage of four molecules per unit cell. Despite the use of different basis sets (localized functions in SIESTA vs. plane waves in Quantum Espresso), the two approaches yield similar values of energy alignments (see nSPh hcp 4 mol, Table vs. Table ) with pure PBE functional, as well as similar MOs shapes (see Supporting Information Figure 12). For the isolated thiol‐substituted compounds, the PBE0 results are fully consistent with those obtained at the PBE level (see results of Gaussian calculations in Supporting Information Tables 2 and 3) and show a small chain‐size variation of ε H (0.39 eV at the PBE0 vs. 0.24 eV at the PBE level) and a larger variation of ε L (1.04 eV at the PBE0 vs. 0.86 eV at the PBE level); when the molecules are grafted, the variation of the HOMO offset is reduced down to 0.11 eV while the LUMO offset changes by ≈0.7 eV along the series (see Table ).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…Figure summarizes the charge density distribution Δρ upon SAM formation along the z ‐axis and the resulting BD potential for PA‐DAE on ZnO(0001) and ZnO(000‐1). Δρ is calculated by the following equation Δρ=ρSAM + ρnormalH ρZnO ρmol…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Poisson's equation is used and requires the evaluation of the charge density difference Dρ(z). The latter is calculated in the so-called "molecular scenario" as: 33,34 (…”
Section: Theoretical Understanding Of the Surface Potential Changementioning
confidence: 99%