Journal of Mathematical Chemistry

, Volume 55, Issue 2, pp 423–435 | Cite as

Performance of a rigid rod statistical mechanical treatment to predict monolayer ordering: a study of chain interactions and comparison with molecular dynamics simulation

Original Paper


A statistical mechanical model that treats hydrocarbon self-assembled monolayer (SAM) chains as rigid rods is examined to interrogate the mechanisms involved in monolayer ordering. The statistical mechanical predictions are compared to fully atomistic molecular dynamics simulations of SAMs with different packing densities. The monolayer chain order is examined as a function of surface coverage, chain-surface interactions, and chain–chain interactions. Reasonable interaction potentials are deduced from ab initio electronic structure calculations of small model systems. It is found that the chain-surface interaction is the most important parameter in formation of flat-lying monolayer phases, while formation of standing phase monolayers is driven most importantly by increased density of molecules at the surface. A brief discussion of the utility and validity of the rigid rod treatment is given in light of the molecular dynamics results.


Self-assembled monolayers Molecular dynamics Rigid rod statistical mechanics Alkylthiols Surface ordering 



I am grateful for support through The University of Memphis College of Arts and Science Faculty Research Grant Program and through the Computational Research on Materials at The University of Memphis (CROMIUM). Computational resources were also provided on the Lonestar system at the Texas Advanced Computing Center (TACC) under the National Science Foundation XSEDE grant number TG-CHE110109. Additionally, I thank Prof. Louis A. Madsen for helpful discussions of an early version of this work.


  1. 1.
    L.H. Dubois, R.G. Nuzzo, Synthesis, structure, and properties of model organic surfaces. Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem. 43, 437–463 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    A. Ulman, Formation and structure of self-assembled monolayers. Chem. Rev. 96, 1533–1554 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    B.S. Day, J.R. Morris, D. Troya, Classical trajectory study of collisions of Ar with alkanethiolate self-assembled monolayers: potential-energy surface effects on dynamics. J. Chem. Phys. 122, 214712 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    B.S. Day et al., Theoretical study of the effect of surface density on the dynamics of Ar + alkanethiolate self-assembled monolayer collisions. J. Phys. Chem. A 110, 1319–1326 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    W. Mar, M.L. Klein, Molecular dynamics study of the self-assembled monolayer composed of S(CH\(_{2})_{14}\) CH\(_{3}\) molecules using an all-atoms model. Langmuir 10, 118–196 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    A.W. Rosenbaum et al., Surface vibrations in alkanethiol self-assembled monolayers of varying chain length. J. Chem. Phys. 120, 3880–3886 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    S.F. Shuler, G.M. Davis, J.R. Morris, Energy transfer in rare gas collisions with hydroxyl- and methyl-terminated self-assembled monolayers. J. Chem. Phys. 116(21), 9147–9150 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    J.I. Siepmann, I.R. McDonald, Simulations of self-assembled monolayers of thiols on gold. Thin Films 24, 205–226 (1998)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    A. Ulman (ed.), Self-Assembled Monolayers of Thiols, vol. 24, Thin Films (Academic Press, San Diego, 1998)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    C. Vericat, M.E. Vela, R.C. Salarezza, Self-assembled monolayers of alkanethiols on Au(111): surface structures, defects, and dynamics. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 7, 3258–3268 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    W.A. Alexander et al., Kinematics and dynamics of atomic-beam scattering on liquid and self-assembled monolayer surfaces. Faraday Discuss. 157, 355–374 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    J.W. Lu et al., Interfacial energy exchange and reaction dynamics in collisions of gases on model organic surfaces. Prog. Surf. Sci 87(9), 221–252 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    W.A. Alexander, On the accuracy of analytical potentials: comment on ‘Accurate ab initio calculation of the Ar-CF4 intermolecular potential energy surface’. Mol. Simul. 41(8), 610–612 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    W.A. Alexander, D. Troya, Theoretical study of the dynamics of collisions between HCl and \(\omega \)-hydroxylated alkanethiol self-assembled monolayers. J. Phys. Chem. C 115(5), 2273–2283 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    M.E. Bennett et al., Collisions of polar and nonpolar gases with hydrogen bonding and hydrocarbon self-assembled monolayers. J. Phys. Chem. C 112, 17272–17280 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    R. Staub et al., Flat lying pin-stripe phase of decanethiol self-assembled monolayers on Au(111). Langmuir 14, 6693–6698 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    L.H. Dubois, B.R. Zegarski, R.G. Nuzzo, Molecular ordering of organosulfur compounds on gold(111) and gold(100): adsorption from solution and in ultrahigh vacuum. J. Chem. Phys. 98(1), 88–678 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    P.E. Laibinis et al., Comparison of the structures and wetting properties of self-assembled monolayers of n-alkanethiols on the coinage metal surfaces, copper, silver, and gold. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 113(19), 67–7152 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    C.W. Sheen et al., A new class of organized self-assembled monolayers: alkane thiols on gallium arsenide(100). J. Am. Chem. Soc. 114, 1514 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    F. Schreiber, Structure and growth of self-assembling monolayers. Prog. Surf. Sci. 65, 151 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    C. Vericat et al., Self-assembled monolayers of thiols and dithiols on gold: new challenges for a well-known system. Chem. Soc. Rev. 39, 1805 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    R.E. Boehm, D.E. Martire, A simple model of rigid rod adsorption. J. Chem. Phys. 67(3), 1061–1070 (1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    J. Hautman, M.L. Klein, Simulation of a monolayer of alkyl thiol chains. J. Chem. Phys. 91(8), 4994–5001 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    T.-Y. Yan, W.L. Hase, Comparisons of models for simulating energy transfer in Ne-atom collisions with an alkyl thiolate self-assembled monolayer. J. Phys. Chem. B 106, 8029 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    W.L. Jorgensen, J.D. Madura, C.J. Swenson, Optimized intermolecular potential functions for liquid simulations. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 106, 6638–6646 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    W.L. Jorgensen, J. Tirado-Rives, The OPLS [optimized potentials for liquid simulations] potential functions for proteins, energy minimizations for crystals of cyclic peptides and crambin. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 110(6), 1657 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    W.L. Jorgensen, D.S. Maxwell, J. Tirado-Rives, Development and testing of the OPLS all-atom force field on conformational energetics and properties of organic liquids. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 118, 11225 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    W.A. Alexander et al., Experimental and theoretical studies of the effect of mass on the dynamics of gas/organic-surface energy transfer. J. Chem. Phys. 128, 014713 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    W.A. Alexander, J.R. Morris, D. Troya, Experimental and theoretical study of CO collisions with CH\(_3\)- and CF\(_3\)-terminated self-assembled monolayers. J. Chem. Phys. 130, 084702 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    W.A. Alexander, J.R. Morris, D. Troya, Theoretical study of the stereodynamics of CO collisions with CH\(_3\)- and CF\(_3\)-terminated alkanethiolate self-assembled monolayers. J. Phys. Chem. A 113, 4155–4167 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    U. Tasic et al., Chemical dynamics study of intrasurface hydrogen-bonding effects in gas-surface energy exchange and accommodation. J. Phys. Chem. C 112, 476–490 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    N. Winter, J. Vieceli, I. Benjamin, Hydrogen-bond structure and dynamics at the interface between water and carboxylic acid-functionalized self-assembled monolayers. J. Phys. Chem. B 112, 227–231 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    A.E. Ismail, G.S. Grest, M.J. Stevens, Structure and dynamics of water near the interface with oligo(ethylene oxide) self-assembled monolayers. Langmuir 23, 8508–8514 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    S.A. Vazquez et al., Inelastic scattering dynamics of Ar from a perfluorinated self-assembled monolayer surface. J. Phys. Chem. A 111, 12785–12794 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    J.J. Nogueira et al., Dynamics of CO\(_{2}\) scattering off a perfluorinated self-assembled monolayer. influence of the incident collision energy, mass effects, and use of different surface models. J. Phys. Chem. A 113, 3850–3865 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    K.A. Peterson, C. Puzzarini, Systematically convergent basis sets for transition metals. II. Pseudopotential-based correlation consistent basis sets for the group 11 (Cu, Ag, Au) and 12 (Zn, Cd, Hg) elements. Theor. Chem. Acc. 114, 283 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    D. Figgen et al., Energy-consistent pseudopotentials for group 11 and 12 atoms: adjustment to multi-configuration Dirac-Hartree-Fock data. Chem. Phys. 311, 227 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Gaussian 03, Revision C.02, M.J. Frisch, G.W. Trucks, H.B.Schlegel, G.E. Scuseria, M.A. Robb, J.R. Cheeseman, J.A. Montgomery Jr., T. Vreven, K.N. Kudin, J.C. Burant, J.M. Millam, S.S. Iyengar, J. Tomasi, V. Barone, B. Mennucci, M. Cossi, G. Scalmani, N. Rega, G.A. Petersson, H. Nakatsuji, M. Hada, M. Ehara, K. Toyota, R. Fukuda, J. Hasegawa, M. Ishida, T. Nakajima, Y. Honda, O. Kitao, H. Nakai, M. Klene, X. Li, J.E. Knox, H.P. Hratchian, J.B. Cross, V. Bakken, C. Adamo, J. Jaramillo, R. Gomperts, R.E. Stratmann, O. Yazyev, A.J. Austin, R. Cammi, C. Pomelli, J.W. Ochterski, P.Y. Ayala, K. Morokuma, G.A. Voth, P. Salvador, J.J. Dannenberg, V.G. Zakrzewski, S. Dapprich, A.D. Daniels, M.C. Strain, O. Farkas, D.K. Malick, A.D. Rabuck, K. Raghavachari, J.B. Foresman, J.V. Ortiz, Q. Cui, A.G. Baboul, S. Clifford, J. Cioslowski, B.B. Stefanov, G. Liu, A. Liashenko, P. Piskorz, I. Komaromi, R.L. Martin, D.J. Fox, T. Keith, M.A. Al-Laham, C.Y. Peng, A. Nanayakkara, M. Challacombe, P.M.W. Gill, B. Johnson, W. Chen, M.W. Wong, C. Gonzalez, J.A. Pople, Gaussian, Inc., Wallingford CT, 2004Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    W.A. Alexander, D. Troya, Theoretical study of the Ar-, Kr-, and Xe-CH\(_{4}\), -CF\(_{4}\) intermolecular potential-energy surfaces. J. Phys. Chem. A 110(37), 10834–10843 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    C.D. Sherrill, T. Takatani, E.G. Hohenstein, An assessment of theoretical methods for nonbonded interactions: comparison to complete basis set limit coupled-cluster potential energy curves for the benzene dimer, the methane dimer, benzene–methane, and benzene-H\(_2\)S. J. Phys. Chem. A 113, 10146 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    F. Iori et al., GolP: an atomistic force-field to describe the interaction of proteins with Au(111) surfaces in water. J. Comput. Chem. 30, 1465 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    L.B. Wright et al., GolP-CHARMM: first-principles based force fields for the interaction of proteins with Au(111) and Au(100). J. Chem. Theory Comput. 9, 1616 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    H. Heinz et al., Accurate simulation of surface and interfaces of face-centered cubic metals using 12–6 and 9–6 Lennard Jones potentials. J. Phys. Chem. C 112, 17281–17290 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    H. Heinz et al., Thermodynamically consistent force fields for the assembly of inorganic, organic, and biological nanostructures: the INTERFACE force field. Langmuir 29, 1754–1765 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    D. Beeman, Some multistep methods for use in molecular dynamics calculations. J. Comput. Phys. 20, 130–139 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    J.W. Ponder, F.M. Richards, An efficient Newton-like method for molecular mechanics energy minimization of large molecules. J. Comput. Chem. 8(7), 1016–1024 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    We note that the choice of the reference atoms can influence greatly the obtained chain-tilt angle, so making a consistent and universal choice for the definition of the chain-tilt angle is important for these types of studies. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of ChemistryThe University of MemphisMemphisUSA

Personalised recommendations