C O M M U N I C A T I O N S
characteristics are listed in Table 1. Values for bonding to an on-
top site (the more appropriate geometry for the break-junction
method) are well-fitted (ø2 ) 0.003) by an exponential decay G )
G0 exp(-âNN) with âN ) 0.539 ( 0.01 and G0 ) 115 ( 6 nS,
yielding â ) 0.22 ( 0.01 Å-1. Similar values are obtained using
the calculated conductances for hollow-site bonding. The computed
value of â is in better agreement with experiment than is the
prefactor, G0. A partial explanation of this is that â is almost
exclusively a property of the molecule and can be estimated even
without having the molecule in contact with the metal.6 G0 is
sensitive to details of the molecule-metal interface, and this is
probably not well-described by the flat surface used in our
calculations.
Our previous measurement5 of the conductance of III (N ) 9)
yielded G ) 0.2 nS, within 30% of the present measurement,
justifying the interpretation of the break-junction histogram peaks
in terms of single-molecule conduction.10 The somewhat lower
value of current obtained with a nanoparticle contact9 is consistent
with the trends observed in measurements of n-alkane conductance11
caused by suppression of transmission owing to the electronic
structure of the nanoparticle.
Figure 2. Current-voltage characteristics for the four carotenoids. Lines
are linear fits, and error bars (not visible on most points) are (1 SE.
Table 1. Measured and Calculated Conductances (Hollow-Site
Values Are in Parentheses)
N
G (measured) (nS)
G (calculated) (nS)
5
7
9
11
2.06 ( 0.05
0.96 ( 0.07
0.28 ( 0.02
0.11 ( 0.07
7.84 (9.71)
2.60 (3.55)
0.89 (1.01)
0.31 (0.30)
In summary, we have measured the electronic decay constant
for carotenoid polyenes, finding a value in good agreement with
the results of electronic structure calculations.
Acknowledgment. We thank Nongjian Tao for helping us to
set up the break-junction apparatus. This work was supported by a
NIRT grant (ECS 01101175) from the National Science Foundation.
Supporting Information Available: Sample preparation details.
This material is available free of charge via the Internet at http://
pubs.acs.org.
References
(1) Moore, T. A.; Gust, D.; Mathis, P.; Mialocq, J.-C.; Chachaty, C.;
Bensasson, R. V.; Land, E. J.; Doizi, D.; Liddell, P. A. Nature 1984,
307, 630-632.
Figure 3. Conductance vs number of double bonds in conjugation on linear
(circles) and log (squares) scales. Repeated data points are shown for
N ) 7 and N ) 9 samples. Open symbols are data from ref 5.
(2) Osuka, A.; Yamada, H.; Shinoda, T.; Nozaki, K.; Ohno, T. C. P. L. Chem.
Phys. Lett. 1995, 238, 37-41.
(3) Vretos, J. S.; Steward, D. H.; de Paula, J. D.; Brudvig, G. W. J. Phys.
Chem. B 1999, 103, 6403-6406.
(4) Faller, P.; Pascal, A.; Rutherford, A. W. Biochemistry 2001, 40, 6431-
molecular conductance data listed in Table 1 and plotted vs N in
Figure 3. These data are well-fitted by an exponential decay, G )
G0 exp(-âNN) (lines in Figure 3), with âN ) 0.556 ( 0.09 and
G0 ) 37 ( 18 nS. The measured value for âN, taken together with
a linear distance between pairs of carbon atoms of 2.48 Å (produced
by the zigzag structure of a double bond of length 1.34 Å and a
6440.
(5) Ramachandran, G. K.; Tomfohr, J. K.; Li, J.; Sankey, O. F.; Zarate, X.;
Primak, A.; Terazano, Y.; Moore, T. A.; Moore, A. L.; Gust, D.; Nagahara,
L. A.; Lindsay, S. M. J. Phys. Chem. B 2003, 107, 6162-6169.
(6) Tomfohr, J.; Sankey, O. F. Phys. ReV. B 2002, 65, 245105-245116.
(7) Woitellier, S.; Launay, J. P.; Spangler, C. W. Inorg. Chem. 1989, 28,
758-762.
(8) Leatherman, G.; Durantini, E. N.; Gust, D.; Moore, T. A.; Moore, A. L.;
Stone, S.; Zhou, Z.; Rez, P.; Li, Y. Z.; Lindsay, S. M. J. Phys. Chem. B
1999, 103, 4006-4010.
(9) Cui, X. D.; Primak, A.; Zarate, X.; Tomfohr, J.; Sankey, O. F.; Moore,
A. L.; Moore, T. A.; Gust, D.; Harris, G.; Lindsay, S. M. Science 2001,
294, 571-574.
(10) Xu, B.; Tao, N. J. Science 2003, 301, 1221-1223.
(11) Tomfohr, J.; Ramachandran, G.; Sankey, O. F.; Lindsay, S. M. Making
Contacts to Single Molecules: Are We Nearly There Yet? In Introducing
Molecular Electronics; Fagas, G., Richter, K., Eds.; Springer: Berlin,
2005.
(12) DeRose, J. A.; Thundat, T.; Nagahara, L. A.; Lindsay, S. M. Surf. Sci.
1991, 256, 102-108.
(13) Bart, J. C.; MacGillavry, C. H. Acta Crystallogr. 1968, B24, 1587-1606.
(14) An STO basis set is used in the GAMESS program suite. Schmidt, M.
W.; Baldridge, K. K.; Boatz, J. A.; Elbert, S. T.; Gordon, M. S.; Jensen,
J. J.; Koseki, S.; Matsunaga, M.; Nguyen, K. A.; Su, S.; Windus, T. L.;
Dupuis, M.; Montgomery, J. A. J. Comput. Chem. 1993, 14, 1347-1363.
(15) Tomfohr, J. K.; Sankey, O. F. J. Chem. Phys. 2004, 120, 1542-15554.
single bond length of 1.45 Å5,13), leads to â ) 0.22 ( 0.04 Å-1
.
The structural geometry of each molecule was determined by
energy minimization using Hartree-Fock theory14 for determination
of bond lengths that are critical to the determination of electronic
transmission.15 The molecule is linked via sulfur to ideal (111) Au
surfaces at either the “hollow” site above a three Au atom junction
or an “on-top” site directly above a single Au atom (as might be
expected to occur for a molecule under tension as in the break-
junction experiments10). The two approaches give some indication
of the sensitivity of the result to local geometry. The currents were
calculated as a function of applied bias as previously described.5
These current-voltage characteristics were linear in the range
0 < V < 0.6 V, in good agreement with the experimental results,
and the molecular conductances obtained from the slopes of these
JA043279I
9
J. AM. CHEM. SOC. VOL. 127, NO. 5, 2005 1385