Premium
Non‐Local Atomic Manipulation on Semiconductor Surfaces in the STM : The Case of Chlorobenzene on S i(111)‐7×7
Author(s) -
Pan Tianluo,
Sloan Peter A.,
Palmer Richard E.
Publication year - 2014
Publication title -
the chemical record
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.61
H-Index - 78
eISSN - 1528-0691
pISSN - 1527-8999
DOI - 10.1002/tcr.201402021
Subject(s) - chlorobenzene , scanning tunneling microscope , desorption , quantum tunnelling , chemistry , atom (system on chip) , scanning tunneling spectroscopy , homo/lumo , atomic units , fermi level , chemical physics , semiconductor , molecule , nanotechnology , electron , atomic physics , molecular physics , materials science , optoelectronics , physics , adsorption , quantum mechanics , organic chemistry , embedded system , catalysis , biochemistry , computer science
Control over individual atoms with the scanning tunnelling microscope ( STM ) holds the tantalising prospect of atomic‐scale construction, but is limited by its “one atom at a time” serial nature. “ R emote control” through non‐local STM manipulation—as we have demonstrated in the case of chlorobenzene on Si(111)‐7×7—offers a new avenue for future “bottom‐up” nanofabrication, since hundreds of chemical reactions may be carried out in parallel. Thus a good understanding of the non‐local manipulation process, as provided by recent experiments, is important. Comparison of scanning tunnelling spectroscopy ( STS ) measurements of the bare Si(111)‐7×7 surface and chemisorbed chlorobenzene molecules with the voltage dependence of the non‐local STM‐induced desorption of chlorobenzene proves particularly instructive. For example, the chlorobenzene LUMO appears at +0.9 V with respect to the F ermi level, whereas non‐local manipulation thresholds are found at +2.1 V and +2.7 V. This difference supports a picture in which the voltage thresholds for non‐local electron‐induced desorption depend principally on the energies of the electronic states of the surface. Furthermore, the demonstration that the non‐local process is largely insensitive to surface steps up to five layers in height suggests that either the electron transport in this process is subsurface in character or surface charge transport is responsible but is in some way unaffected by the steps.