Electric Current through a Molecular Rod - Relevance of the Position of the Anchor Groups

Article abstract of DOI:10.1002/anie.200352179

The electronic resistance of an electrode-molecule-electrode device strongly depends on the relative position of the anchor group in the molecular structure. The molecular rod, immobilized through two sulfur groups in the meta position on a pair of electr

Full text of DOI:10.1002/anie.200352179

Communications
properties. Herein we present a strategy to decouple elec-
tronically molecular properties from disordered electrodes by
varying the relative position (meta versus para) of the thiol
anchor group on the molecular rod. The lack of conjugation in
the meta position and therefore the reduced electronic
communication compared to the para position in rodlike p-
systems is known and has been shown, for example, in
electrochemical investigations[10] and in theoretical studies.[11]
Herein we demonstrate the validity of this concept for the
anchor groups of single immobilized molecular rods between
two electrodes.
A complementary attempt, in which the current was
suppressed by internally interrupting the molecular p system
with a trans-configured PtII ion increased the junction
resistance considerably.[9]
We present the synthesis and characterization of the
molecular rods 1 and 2, both consist of a bis-9,10-phenyl-
ethynylanthracene core and acetyl protected thiol anchor
groups in meta and para positions respectively (Scheme 1).
Analogously with our previous experiments,[8] deprotection of
the acetylsulfanyl groups at the gold surfaces of the electrodes
of an MCB yields the immobilized molecular rods (1’ and 2’)
as single-molecule junctions. By using this set-up the electron
transport properties of 1’ and 2’ have been investigated.
Electron Transport Mechanism
Electric Current through a Molecular Rod—
Relevance of the Position of the Anchor Groups**
Marcel Mayor,* Heiko B. Weber,* Joachim Reichert,
Mark Elbing, Carsten von Hänisch, Detlef Beckmann,
andMatthias Fischer
The understanding of electronic transport through a single
molecule is an interesting scientific challenge, which became
experimentally addressable only very recently. This interest is
further enhanced by the possibility of building electronic
devices with molecules, a vision often referred to as “molec-
ular electronics”.[1] Tunnel currents through molecular films
have been studied on surfaces with STM[2] or with electrode
pairs provided by crossed wire junctions[3] and mercury
droplets against metallic surfaces.[4] Contacts between single
molecules were either made by STM techniques on diluted
molecular films[5] or by the mechanically controlled break-
junction (MCB) technique.[6–9] The latter has turned out to be
particularly powerful to contact single molecules that are
covalently linked to both electrodes, as has been demon-
strated by the comparison of the electronic characteristics of
molecules differing in spatial symmetry.[8] The observed
current–voltage (I/U) characteristics depend not only on the
molecular properties but also on the configuration of the
microscopic contacts. The rather strong covalent bonding to
the atomically disordered metallic electrode causes sample-
to-sample fluctuations, which are undesired for both con-
trolled scientific investigation and engineering of electronic
The synthesis of the molecular rods 1 and 2 is shown in
Scheme 1. Protection of 3-bromothiophenol 4 with acetic
anhydride in acetonitrile with CoCl2 as catalyst gave the
acetyl-protected 3-bromothiophenol 5. The bromine ion of 5
was substituted with triphenylsilyl(TPS)ethynyl by using
Sonogashira coupling conditions to yield the TPS-protected
6. Deprotection of the TPSgroup of 6 with tetrabutylammo-
nium fluoride (TBAF) in THFand subsequent reprotection of
the thiol group with acetic anhydride in acetic acid gave the
ethynylbenzene 7. In a Sonogashira coupling reaction the
acetylene 7 substituted both bromine atoms of 9,10-dibro-
moanthracene with [Pd(PPh3)4] and CuI as catalysts. The
strongly fluorescent target compound 1 was isolated as an
orange solid after column chromatography with a yield of
3%. Compound 1 is soluble in aprotic organic solvents such as
THF, toluene, CH2Cl2, and CHCl3.
[*] Dr. M. Mayor, Dr. H. B. Weber, Dr. J. Reichert, M. Elbing,
Dr. C. von Hänisch, Dr. D. Beckmann, M. Fischer
Institute for Nanotechnology
ForschungszentrumKarlsruhe GmbH
Postfach 3640, 76021 Karlsruhe (Germany)
Fax: (+49)7247-82-5685
The molecular rod 2 with its sulfur anchor groups in the
para position was synthesized by two different synthetic
routes. In analogy to the synthesis of 1, the corresponding
acetylsulfanyl-4-ethynylbenzene (11) was synthesized starting
E-mail: marcel.mayor@int.fzk.de
heiko.weber@int.fzk.de
[**] Financial support fromthe Strategiefond of the Helmholtz Foun-
dation is gratefully acknowledged.
5834
ꢀ 2003 Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
DOI: 10.1002/anie.200352179
Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2003, 42, 5834 –5838

Angewandte
Chemie
Scheme 1. Synthesis of the acetyl protected molecular rods 1 and 2. a) Ac2O, CoCl2, CH3CN, RT, 93%; b) HCCSi(C6H5)3, Pd(OAc)2, PPh3, CuI,
iPr2NH,reflux, 38%; c) TBAF, THF, AcOH, Ac2O, 08C, 68%; d) [Pd(PPh3)4], CuI, Et3N, C6H5CH3, 908C, 3%; e) 1) Zn, Me2SiCl2, DMA, (CH2Cl)2,
758C; 2) AcCl, 508C, 98%; f) HCCSi(CH3)3, [Pd(PPh3)2Cl2], CuI, iPr2EtN, 408C, 98%; g) TBAF, THF, AcOH, Ac2O, 08C, 69%; h) [Pd(PPh3)4], CuI,
Et3N, C6H5CH3, 908C, 5%; i) NaStBu, DMF, 708C, 44%; j) HCCSi(CH3)3, [Pd(PPh3)2Cl2], CuI, iPr2EtN, RT, 93%; k) TBAF, THF, 08C, 100%;
l) [Pd(PPh3)2Cl2], CuI, Et2NH, rfl., 71%; m) BBr3, AcCl, CH2Cl2, C6H5CH3, RT, 49%.
with 4-iodobenzenesulphonyl chloride (8), which was trans-
formed into the acetyl protected 4-iodothiophenol 9 in 98%
yield by using reported reaction conditions.[12] As iodide is a
better leaving group than bromide, milder conditions could be
used for the Sonogashira coupling reaction of 9 than those of
5. Thus, the introduction of the trimethylsilyl(TMS)-protected
acetylene gave the ethynylbenzene 10. By using similar
reaction conditions as those described above for 6, compound
10 was deprotected to give 11. Similar conditions to those
used for the Sonogashira coupling reactions to obtain 7 were
applied to substitute both bromine groups of 9,10-dibromoan-
thracene with acetylene 11 to yield the molecular rod 2 in 5%
yield after column chromatography. Compound 2 is strongly
fluorescent with comparable solubility properties to those of
1. The limited availability of 2, due to the poor yield of the
final synthetic step and the fact that all attempts to crystallize
2 failed, tempted us to investigate an alternative route to 2
with the intermediate 3 as a model compound for X-ray
analysis. Substitution of the fluoride of 12 by using sodium
tert-butylthiolate gave the 1-tert-butylsulfanyl-4-iodobenzene
(13). As with 9, the TMS-protected acetylene was introduced
and deprotected to yield the ethynylbenzene 15. Both
bromides of 9,10-dibromoanthracene were substituted with
15 to yield the tert-butyl-protected rod 3. Finally, the
conversion of the tert-butylsulfanyl groups into acetylsulfanyl
groups with BBr3 in the presence of acetyl chloride,[13] gave
the rod 2 in 49% yield.
ether gave single crystals suitable for X-ray analysis. The
inversion symmetric compound 1 crystallizes in the triclinic
¯
space group P1 and shows an almost coplanar orientation of
the phenyl rings and the anthracene motif (torsion angle C(6)-
C(7)-C(10)-C(11): 9.1(1)8). The intramolecular sulfur-to-
sulfur distance in 1 is 1.78(2) nm. Compound 3 crystallizes
in the monoclinic (space group C2/c).[14] Surprisingly, the
molecular structure has no inversion centre and reveals two
different tBuS-phenyl groups. While the phenyl ring C(17)–
C(22) is 78.2(1)8 twisted relative to the anthracene fragment,
the phenyl ring C(29)–C(34) departs only by 8.1(1)8 from the
anthracene plain. These different orientations of the sub-
stituents probably result from packing forces, as NMR
investigations in solution show no evidence of distinguishable
phenyl or tert-butyl groups. As both sulfur atoms are on the
molecules axis, the intramolecular sulfur-to-sulfur distance
(1.99(2) nm) is only slightly affected by these packing forces
and slightly shorter than the calculated distance (2.18 nm).[15]
The electronic transport properties have been investi-
gated by using the MCB technique to immobilize in different
experiments single molecules 1’ and 2’ between Au-electro-
des. Both acetyl-protected rods 1 and 2 have been immobi-
lized from 5 ” 10À4 m solutions in THF. Details of the
immobilizing protocol and the I/U characteristics of 2’ have
been described elsewhere.[8,9] The rod fixed in the para
position, 2’, displayed I/U curves at room temperature, which
are reproducible for a stable junction but are subject to
considerable sample-to-sample fluctuations when the experi-
ment is repeated. These fluctuations arise from the single-
molecule nature of the experiment. A typical example is
shown in Figure 2a. Often, broad steplike increases of the
currents were observed, the current ranges from 0.2 mA to
All compounds were characterized by mass spectroscopy,
1H- and 13C NMR spectroscopy, and elemental analysis. In
addition, the solid-state structures of rods 1 and 3 were
analyzed by X-ray analysis (Figure 1).[14] Slow evaporation of
a solution of 1 in chloroform and a solution of 3 in diethyl
Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2003, 42, 5834 –5838
www.angewandte.org
ꢀ 2003 Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
5835

Communications
Figure 1. Molecular structures of 1 and 3 (ORTEP, thermal ellipsoids set at the 50% probability level). Selected bond lengths [pm] and bond
angles [8]: 1: S-(14) 176.6(3), S-C(16) 177.6(4), C(16)-O 119.8(4), C(7)-C(8) 141.3(5), C(8)-C(9) 119.7(5), C(9)-C(10) 142.8(5); C(14)-S-C(16)
101.2(2), C(7)-C(8)-C(9) 178.0(4), C(8)-C(9)-C(10) 179.5(4); 3: C(1)-C(15) 144.4(4), C(15)-C(16) 119.8(4), C(16)-C(17) 144.6(4), C(8)-C(27)
143.9(4), C(17)-C(28) 120.1(4), C(28)-C(29) 144.1(4); C(1)-C(15)-C(16) 175.1(3), C(15)-C(16)-C(17) 177.0(3), C(8)-C(27)-C(28) 173.6(3), C(27)-
C(28)-C(29) 175.1(3).
1 mA at U = 1 V for different junctions. The immobilization of
1 between the Au electrodes of a bridge contact resulted in a
stable configuration 1’ that also allowed us to record
reproducible I/U curves at room temperature (Figure 2c).
The recorded currents for 1’ were about 10 nA at U = 1 V
almost two orders of magnitude smaller than the values
recorded for 2’ under similar conditions. The I/U curves of 1’
have a barely visible less-resolved steplike feature at U ꢀ
0.75 V, which can better be visualized in the broad maximum
of the first derivative (Figure 2d). This can presumably be
attributed to resonant tunneling through the HOMO, as has
already been calculated theoretically for molecule 2’.[16] Our
recent progress with the MCB technique[17] allowed to record
1’ at low temperatures of ꢀ 30 K (Figure 2e) as well. The low-
temperature I/U curves of 1’ display a beautifully resolved
steplike feature at U ꢀ 0.75 V. This clear difference indicates
that the molecule junction is fluctuating considerably at room
temperature and the measurement averages over various
microscopic configurations. The observed conductance values
are not exponentially suppressed compared to room temper-
ature data, which indicates that not thermally activated
hopping, but mainly tunneling governs the electron propaga-
tion.[18]
does depend on the structure of the molecule and can thus be
intentionally altered on a molecular level by varying the
position of the anchor group in the synthesis of the molecules.
b) The obtained reduction of the current level observed for 1’
with respect to 2’ with anchor groups in the meta positions is
particularly useful for designing stable molecular junctions as
the reduction in the current allows for higher stability.
However, the room temperature data are still quite noisy.
À
c) The dominating current path seems to be through the Au
À
S C bonds (and not direct injection from the metal to the p
system of the rod). d) According to our limited data set, the
reproducibility of the I/U curves seems to be improved
because the molecule is electronically less coupled to the
disordered electrodes.
The data further corroborate that the low-temperature
technique[17] gives the expected result: the appearance of
highly symmetric I/U curves indicate that both contacts are
equivalent.
The results indicate that electronic properties can be
tuned by carefully designing molecular structures. Here we
have addressed exclusively the aspect of the anchor group
position. Many particular electronic functions may be com-
posed by the design of the molecules. To this end, we are
currently working on rectifying and switching systems based
on molecular structures.
The comparison between the molecules 1’ and 2’ allows
the following conclusions to be drawn: a) The conductance
5836
ꢀ 2003 Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
www.angewandte.org
Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2003, 42, 5834 –5838

Angewandte
Chemie
mixture was cooled to 08C, acetyl chloride (0.1256 g, ca. 0.12 mL,
1.6 mmol) was added, then boron tribromide (1.0m solution in
CH2Cl2; 0.09 ml; 0.09 mmol) was added dropwise. After removal of
the ice bath, the reaction was stirred at room temperature for 3 h and
poured into ice-water (about 100 mL). The aqueous phase was
extracted with diethyl ether, the ethereal layers washed with water
until neutral, dried over MgSO4 and evaporated to dryness. Column
chromatography (silica gel, CH2Cl2/hexane 2:1) and subsequent
washing with diethyl ether afforded 2 (0.0108 g, 0.021 mmol; 49%)
1
as a yellow-red solid. m.p. 248–2498C; H NMR (300 MHz, CDCl3):
d = 8.65–8.69 (m, 4H), 7.81 (d, J = 8 Hz, 4H), 7.65–7.68 (m, 4H), 7.51
(d, J = 8 Hz, 4H), 2.48 ppm (s, 6H); 13C NMR (75 MHz, CDCl3): d =
193.43 (CO), 134.47, 132.26, 132.17, 128.63, 127.21, 127.06, 124.57,
ꢁ
118.41 (Ar), 101.74, 88.14 (C C), 30.38 ppm (CH3); MALDI-TOF-
MS: 525.91 [M+], 452.80 [M+ÀSAc]; elemental analysis calcd (%) for
C34H22O2S2: C 77.54, H 4.21; found: C 77.38, H 4.32.
Received: June 23, 2003 [Z52179]
Keywords: anchor-group position · electron transport ·
.
molecular electronics · single-molecule studies ·
structure–activity relationships
[1] a) C. Joachim, J. K. Gimzewski, A. Aviram, Nature 2000, 408,
541 – 548; b) M. A. Reed, J. M. Tour, Sci. Am. 2000, 282, 86 – 93;
c) R. L. Carroll, C. B. Gorman, Angew. Chem. 2002, 114, 4556 –
4579; Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2002, 41, 4378 – 4400; d) M. Mayor,
H. B. Weber, Chimia 2002, 56, 494 – 499.
[2] F.-R. F. Fan, J. Yang, S. M. Dirk, D. W. Price, D. Kosynkin, J. M.
Tour, A. J. Bard, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2001, 123, 2454 – 2455.
[3] a) J. G. Kushmerick, D. B. Holt, S. K. Pollack, M. A. Ratner, J. C.
Yang, T. L. Schull, J. Naciri, M. H. Moore, R. Shashidhar, J. Am.
Chem. Soc. 2002, 124, 10654 – 10655; b) J. G. Kushmerick, D. B.
Holt, J. C. Yang, J. Naciri, M. H. Moore, R. Shashidhar, Phys.
Rev. Lett. 2002, 89, 086802/1 – 086802/4; c) T. L. Schull, J. G.
Kushmerick, C. H. Patterson, C. George, M. H. Moore, S. K.
Pollack, R. Shashidhar, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2003, 125, 3202 – 3203.
[4] R. E. Holmlin, R. F. Ismagilov, R. Haag, V. Mujica, M. A.
Ratner, M. A. Rampi, G. M. Whitesides, Angew. Chem. 2001,
113, 2375 – 2378; Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2001, 40, 2316 – 2320.
[5] a) L. A. Bumm, J. J. Arnold, M. T. Cygan, T. D. Dunbar, T. P.
Burgin, L. Jones II, D. L. Allara, J. M. Tour, P. S. Weiss, Science
1996, 271, 1705 – 1707; b) Z. J. Donhauser, B. A. Mantooth, K. F.
Kelly, L. A. Bumm, J. D. Monnell, J. J. Stapelton, D. W. Price Jr.
, A. M. Rawlett, D. L. Allara, J. M. Tour, P. S. Weiss, Science
2001, 292, 2303 – 2307; c) L. Patrone, S. Palacin, J. P. Bourgoin, J.
Lagoute, T. Zambelli, S. Gauthier, Chem. Phys. 2002, 281, 325 –
332.
[6] M. A. Reed, C. Zhou, C. J. Muller, T. P. Burgin, J. M. Tour,
Science 1997, 278, 252 – 254.
[7] a) C. Kergueris, J. P. Bourgoin, S. Palacin, D. Esteve, C. Urbina,
M. Magoga, C. Joachim, Phys. Rev. B 1999, 59, 12505 – 12513;
b) C. Kergueris, J. P. Bourgoin, S. Palacin, Nanotechnology 1999,
10, 8 – 13.
[8] a) J. Reichert, R. Ochs, D. Beckmann, H. B. Weber, M. Mayor,
H. von Löhneysen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 2002, 88, 176804/1 – 176804/
4; b) H. B. Weber, J. Reichert, F. Weigend, R. Ochs, D.
Beckmann, M. Mayor, R. Ahlrichs, H. von Löhneysen, Chem.
Phys. 2002, 281, 113 – 125.
[9] M. Mayor, C. von Hänisch, H. B. Weber, J. Reichert, D.
Beckmann, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed.. 2002, 114, 1228 – 1231;
Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2002, 41, 1183 – 1186.
Figure 2. I/U characteristics reproducibly recorded for a stable junction
in a MCB and their numerical derivative dI/dU. a) I/U and b) dI/dU for
Au-2’-Au at roomtemperature. c) I/U and d) dI/dU for Au-1’-Au at
roomtemperature and e) I/U and f) dI/dU at Tꢀ30 K.
Experimental Section
9,10-Bis{[3-(acetylsulfanyl)phenyl]ethynyl}anthracene 1: 9,10-Dibro-
moanthracene (0.200 g; 0.595 mmol) was dissolved in argon-saturated
triethylamine (1 mL) and toluene (15 mL). Tetrakis(triphenylphos-
phane)palladium(0) (0.0688 g, 0.0595 mmol), copper iodide (0.017 g,
0.0893 mmol)
and
(3-ethynyl)phenyl
thioacetate
(0.262 g,
1.488 mmol) were added subsequently. The reaction mixture was
heated to 908C under an argon atmosphere for 25 h and, cooled, then
poured on 2N hydrochloric acid/ice. The aqueous phase was extracted
with toluene, the toluene layers dried over MgSO4 and evaporated to
dryness. The crude product was purified by column chromatographies
(silica gel, cyclohexane, CH2Cl2) to afford 1 (0.010 g, 0.019 mmol;
3%) as an orange solid. M.p.: 203–2058C (decomp); 1H NMR
(300 MHz, CDCl3): d = 8.65–8.69 (m, 4H), 7.80–7.83 (m, 4H), 7.64–
7.68 (m, 4H), 7.46–7.52 (m, 4H), 2.49 ppm (s, 6H); 13C NMR
(75 MHz, CDCl3): d = 193.61 (CO), 137.34, 134.77, 132.65, 132.15,
ꢁ
129.42, 128.55, 127.23, 127.05, 124.64, 118.36 (Ar), 101.31, 87.53 (C
C), 30.34 ppm (CH3); MALDI-TOF-MS: 525.81 [M+], 514.75, 505.75,
451.70 [M+ÀSAcetyl], 409.70; elemental analysis calcd (%) for
C34H22O2S2: C 77.54, H 4.21; found: C 77.17, H 4.35.
9,10-Bis{[4-(acetylsulfanyl)phenyl]ethynyl}anthracene 2: 9,10-
Bis{[4-(tert-butylsulfanyl)phenyl]ethynyl}anthracene
3
(0.0234 g,
0.042 mmol) was dissolved in a mixture of dry argon-saturated
CH2Cl2 (1.5 mL) and dry argon-saturated toluene (1.5 mL). The
[10] M. Mayor, M. Büschel, K. M. Fromm, J.-M. Lehn, J. Daub, Ann.
N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2002, 960, 16 – 28.
Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2003, 42, 5834 –5838
www.angewandte.org
ꢀ 2003 Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
5837

Communications
[11] S. N. Yaliraki, M. A. Ratner, Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2002, 960,
153 – 162.
[12] D. T. Gryko, C. Clausen, K. M. Roth, N. Dontha, D. F. Bocian,
W. G. Kuhr, J. S. Lindsey, J. Org. Chem. 2000, 65, 7345 – 7355.
[13] N. Stuhr-Hansen, J. B. Christensen, N. Harrit, T. Bjørnholm, J.
Org. Chem. 2003, 68, 1275 – 1282.
[14] 1: a = 629.7(1), b = 909.0(2), c = 1108.5(2) pm, a = 85.83(3), b =
6
3
¯
89.55(3), g = 79.36(3)8, V= 621.9(2) ” 10 pm ; triclinic P1, Z =
1, 1calcd = 1.406 gcmÀ1, m(MoKa) = 0.247 mmÀ1, STOE IPDS2,
MoKa radiation, l = 0.71073 Š, T= 200 K, 2qmax = 458; 2929
reflections measured, 1542 independent reflections (Rint
=
0.0733), 1321 independent reflections with Fo > 4s(Fo). The
structure was solved by direct methods and refined, by full-
matrix least-square techniques against F2, 172 parameters (S, O,
C refined anisotropically, H atoms were calculated at ideal
positions); R1 = 0.0602; wR2 = 0.1806 (all data); Gof: 1.057;
maximum peak 0.305 eŠÀ3. 3: a = 2691.8(5), b = 594.7(1), c =
3779.9(8) pm, b = 96.88(3)8, V= 6007(2) ” 106 pm3; monoclinic
C2/c, Z = 8, 1calc. = 1.227 gcmÀ1, m(MoKa) = 0,203 mmÀ1, STOE
IPDS2, MoKa radiation, l = 0.71073 Š, T= 200 K, 2qmax = 488;
9082 reflections measured, 4476 independent reflections (Rint
=
0.0661), 3156 independent reflections with Fo > 4s(Fo). The
structure was solved by direct methods and refined, by full-
matrix least-square techniques against F2, 361 parameters (S, C
refined anisotropically,
H atoms were calculated at ideal
positions); R1 = 0.0540; wR2 = 0.1438 (all data); Gof: 0.928;
maximum peak 0.262 eŠÀ3. CCDC-210255 (1) and CCDC-
210256 (3) contain the supplementary crystallographic data for
this paper. These data can be obtained free of charge via
www.ccdc.cam.ac.uk/conts/retrieving.html (or from the Cam-
bridge Crystallographic Data Centre, 12, Union Road, Cam-
bridge CB21EZ, UK; fax: (+ 44)1223-336-033; or deposit@
ccdc.cam.ac.uk).
[15] MM + Calculations for 3.
[16] J. Heurich, J. C. Cuevas, W. Wenzel, G. Schön, Phys. Rev. Lett.
2002, 88, 256803/1 – 256803/4.
[17] J. Reichert, H. B. Weber, M. Mayor, Appl. Phys. Lett. 2003, 82,
4137 – 4139.
[18] Data were also recorded at four intermediate temperatures
between room temperature and 30 K which are not shown. The
improvement of the data quality towards lower T develops
continuously.
5838
ꢀ 2003 Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
www.angewandte.org
Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2003, 42, 5834 –5838