arxiv:cond-mat/ v1 [cond-mat.mes-hall] 17 Nov 2005

Transcription

1 Molecular transport junctions: Current fro electronic excitations in the leads arxiv:cond-at/05438v cond-at.es-hall] 7 Nov 005 Michael Galperin, Abraha Nitzan, and Mark A. Ratner Departent of Cheistry and Nanotechnology Center, Northwestern University, Evanston IL 6008 School of Cheistry, The Sackler Faculty of Science, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 69978, Israel Dated: January 0, 04) Using a odel coprising a -level bridge connecting free electron reservoirs we show that coupling of a olecular bridge to electron-hole excitations in the leads can arkedly effect the source-drain current through a olecular junction. In soe cases, e.g. olecules that exhibit strong charge transfer transitions, the contribution fro electron-hole excitations can exceed the Landauer elastic current and doinate the observed conduction. PACS nubers: e b Lw b Introduction. Electron transport in olecular tunnel junctions has been the focus of intense recent research,,3,4. Theoretical odeling of tunnel conduction 5,6 starts fro Hailtonians that contain electron transfer tunneling) interactions between olecule and leads as essential eleents for current transport in such junctions. At the sae tie, energy transfer interactions excitation/de-excitation of the olecule accopanied by electron-hole EH) pair annihilation/creation in the etal are known to strongly affect the lifetie of excited olecules near etal surfaces 7. An essential difference between these interactions is that electron transfer is a tunneling process that depends exponentially on the olecule-etal distance, while energy transfer is associated with dipolar coupling that scales like the inverse cube of this distance, and can therefore doinate at larger distances. How will such dipolar interactions affect the conduction properties of olecular junctions? Here we address this question by using the non-equilibriu Green function NEGF) foralis to derive an expression for the conduction in junction odel that contains both electron and energy transfer interactions, then analyze several exaples with reasonable paraeters. We conclude that current caused by electron-hole excitations in the leads ay be significant, soeties even doinant, in situations when strong asyetry, of a particular type explained below, in the olecule-lead coupling is present. As a siple extree exaple consider the case where the highest occupied olecular orbital HOMO) is coupled only to one lead, while the lowest unoccupied olecular orbital LUMO) is coupled only to the other. Such a junction cannot pass current in the absence of electronic correlations) if the dipolar interaction is absent. Realistic situations will not be that extree, still whenever the HOMO-LUMO transition is of the charge transfer type, we expect soe degree of such asyetry. We have recently shown 8 that such situations ay give rise to light induced current under zero voltage. We show below that also the current-voltage characteristic of such junctions is strongly affected by dipolar energy transfer interactions between olecule and leads. Model and Method. We consider a tunneling junction consisting of a olecule positioned between two etal contacts L and R). The olecule is represented by its highest occupied olecular orbital HOMO), >, and lowest unoccupied olecular orbital LUMO), >, with energies ε and ε and gap ε = ε ε. The contacts are assued to be free electron reservoirs, each at its own equilibriu, characterized by electronic cheical potentials µ L and µ R, where the difference µ L µ R = eφ is the iposed voltage. The corresponding Hailtonian is Ĥ = Ĥ0 + ˆV M + ˆV N ) Ĥ 0 = ε ĉ ĉ + ε k ĉ kĉk ) =, ˆV M = ˆV N = =L,R =,;k =L,R k k k {L,R} V M) k V N) ) ĉ kĉ + H.c. ) ĉ kĉk ĉ ĉ + H.c. where H.c. denotes Heritian conjugate. Here the operators ĉ and ĉ are annihilation and creation operators of electrons in the bridge =, ), while ĉ k and ĉ k are annihilation and creation operators of electrons in the leads. The Hailtonian Ĥ0 is a su of ters that correspond to the isolated olecule represented by its HOMO-LUMO levels in our odel) and free contacts. ˆVM describes the electron transfer tunneling) process between these subsystes. This is the ter usually eployed to treat current in the biased junction. ˆVN represents coupling of the olecular HOMO-LUMO transition to electron-hole excitations in the contacts and is often used in odels of energy transfer between the olecule and the contacts. In the eldysh NEGF foralis 9 the steady-state current through the junction is given by 0 I = ± ē de h π Tr Σ < M E)G> E) Σ > M E)G< E) ] 5) calculated at the left = L with + sign) or right = R with sign) contact, where the direction fro left to right chosen positive. The lesser and greater Green functions, G <,>, needed in 5) can be obtained fro the eldysh equation 3) 4) G <,> E) = G r E)Σ <,> E)G a E) 6)

2 where the retarded and advanced Green functions, G r,a, are given by the Dyson equation G r E) = E H 0 Σ r E)] ; G a E) = G r E)] 7) Here H 0 is a atrix that corresponds to the olecular part first ter on the right) of the Hailtonian ) and Σ r E) is the retarded self-energy atrix due to both direct and dipolar coupling to the leads. Here and below the atrices are given in the basis { >, >}. The self-energies needed in Eqs.5)-7) are obtained within the usual diagraatic technique on the eldysh contour. In the non-crossing approxiation NCA) this leads to Σ = Σ ML) + Σ MR) + Σ NL) + Σ NR) 8) On the eldysh contour these self energies are,3 atrices in the bridge space Σ M) τ, τ ) = k Σ N) τ, τ ) = δ V M) k g k τ, τ )V M) k 9) k k V N) g k τ, τ )g k τ, τ )G τ, τ ) 0) Here and below we use Σ P) to denote atrix eleent, =, ) of the self energy, P = M or N corresponds to the physical process electron or energy transfer to the etal, respectively) and = L or R denotes the left and right leads, respectively. g k is the free electron Green function in state k, and = δ, +δ,, i.e. = if = and vice versa. After projection onto the real tie axis we get the retarded, advanced, lesser, and greater coponents of these self-energies, which in steady state situations can be expressed in energy space. In the wide-band approxiation see e.g. Ref. 4) the self-energies associated with electron exchange between olecule and leads have the failiar fors 3 Σ M) r = Σ M) < Σ M) > Σ M) a = iδ f E)Γ M) ] = iδ Γ M) / a) = iδ f E)]Γ M) Γ M) = π V M) k δe ε k ) k f E) = exp {E µ )/k B T } + ] b) c) d) e) we neglect level ixing due to coupling to the contacts) where µ is the cheical potential of the leads and = L, R denotes the left and right electrode, respectively. The Langreth projection rules 5 give the lesser and greater projections of the self-energies due to electronhole excitations, Eq.0), in the diagonal) for 8 dω Σ N) < E) = π B) ω, µ )G < E + ω) dω Σ N) > E) = π B) ω, µ )G > E ω) b) B ) ω, µ ) = π de V N) k k a) c) δe ε k )δe + ω ε k )f E) f E + ω)] π V N) ρ e h ω) d) Here ρ e h ω) is density of electron-hole excitations in the lead, ρ e h ω) = de C ) E, ω)f E) f E + ω)], with C ) E, ω) = k k δe ε k)δe + ω ε k ) ρe)ρe + ω), where ρe) is the density of lead electronic states. In the spirit of the wide-band approxiation one can assue C ) to be constant. This leads to ρ e h ω) = ω C) / e βω]. Below we will use this expression in d) to get B ) ω, µ ). The retarded and advanced self-energies, Σ N) r,a, are difficult to calculate fro the Langreth rules. For siplicity we assue, in the spirit of the wide band approxiation, that all diagonal coponents of Σ N)r and Σ N)a E) = Σ N)r E) ] are purely iaginary. Then 8 Σ N) > E) Σ N) < E) ] Σ N)r E) = i ΓN) 3) Eqs. 6), 7), a), b) and 3) have to be solved self-consistently until convergence is achieved. We use the level populations, n = i de π G< E) =, ), as a test for convergence. Convergence is declared when the population values at subsequent iteration steps change no ore than the predefined tolerance, taken below 0 6. The additive structure of the self-energy, Eq.8), akes it possible to separate the lesser and greater Green functions, Eq.6), and consequently also the source-drain current, Eq.5), into contributions due to direct electron transfer to the leads and coupling to the electron-hole excitations. I = I L + I e h 4) I L, is the usual Landauer expression for elastic current I L = ē h + de π =, Gr E)ΓMR) Ga E) f L E) f R E)] 5) while I e h is the contribution fro the electron-hole excitation. A siple expression for this current can be obtained when Γ M) ε, where Σ N) <,> takes an

3 3 approxiate for ] Σ N) < E) = ib ) n ] Σ N) > E) = ib ) n 6a) 6b) Here B ) is assued to be a constant. Note that using B ) as a paraeter in the full self-consistent calculations below eans that in fact we take V N) C ) = B ) /πε. Using 6) in 5) leads to the electron-hole excitations part of the flux in the for I e h = ē B 7) h ) )] n ML) Γ MR) n Γ MR) n MR) n where Γ = + Γ MR) + Γ NL) + Γ NR) Γ N) = = B ) n and Γ N) = B ) n ]) and n M) i de π Gr E) Σ M) < E) =, ). Further siplification of Eqs. 5) and 7) is achieved for strong bias, e.g. for negatively biased left electrode where µ L ε and µ R ε so that f L = and f R = 0 in the energy range relevant to the integral in Eq.5). Also in this case n MR) = 0 and n ML) = /Γ =, ) ca be used in 7). Siilar consideration apply in the opposite bias, leading finally to I L = ē h I e h =, Γ MR) Γ sgnµ L µ R ) 8) = ē B 9) h ] Γ MR) θµ L µ R ) ΓML) Γ MR) θµ R µ L ) Γ Γ Γ Γ where θ is the step function θx) = for x > 0 and 0 for x < 0. Note that I e h can be asyetric to bias reversal see also Fig. and discussion below). For, e.g., µ L > µ R we see that the agnitude of I e h is deterined both by the value of B = B L) + B R) and by the product Γ MR) while I L is deterined by the product Γ MR) =, ). The electron-hole contribution to the source-drain current is significant when > Γ MR) and/or Γ MR) >. Below we copare the agnitude of the two contributions to the current for different junctions paraeters. Nuerical results. In the calculations reported below we used the following standard choice of paraeters: T = 300, ε = 0 ev, ε = ev, Γ M) = Γ M) = 0. ev. Values of other paraeters are indicated in the figures. The Feri energy is taken in the iddle of the HOMO- LUMO gap. Cheical potentials in the left and right leads are assued to shift with the voltage bias syetrically relative to the Feri energy. Nuerical integration was done on the energy grid spanning range fro 3 to 5 ev with the step 0 3 ev. 0-5 ) I A) ) I A) 0 - a) b) e ev) FIG. : The source-drain current I vs. applied voltage Φ. Shown are the total current I full line, red) as well as contributions due to direct electron transfer I L dashed line, green) and electron-hole excitations I e h dotted line, blue), = 0. ev a) and asyetric for syetric, = Γ MR) Γ ML/R) = 0. ev, = 0.9 ev, and Γ MR) = 0.0 ev b) cases. Figure depicts the current-voltage characteristic of the junction for the cases of syetric and asyetric coupling between the olecular LUMO and the contacts. Shown are the total current and its two coponents. In the syetric case the current is doinated by the usual elastic electron hole) transport through the LUMO HOMO), and is syetric relative to voltage reversal. The asyetric case shows a significant contribution of the current associated with electron-hole excitations. The following points are noteworthy: ) I e h is significant when the LUMO is coupled asyetrically to the two electrodes ) This effect is particularly strong when the LUMO is coupled ore strongly to the negatively biased electrode i.e. Φ < 0 when the LUMO couples strongly to the left). Indeed, I e h is expected to be pronounced when the LUMO is populated and the HOMO is epty, which happens at such bias. Note also that the total current is asyetric relative to bias reversal in this case. Figure shows the results of a odel study

4 4 I A) R Angstro) FIG. : Source-drain current I at Φ = 3 V vs. oleculecontacts distance R. See text for choice of the coupling paraeters. Shown are the total I current full line, red) as well as contributions due to direct electron transfer I L dashed line, green) and electron-hole excitations I e h dotted line, blue). of the dependence of the source-drain current on the olecule-lead distance ] R. We take Γ M) = exp R to reflect a tunneling transition, A M) α M) while B ) R) is assued to have a dipolar distance dependence 7, B ) = β ) /R 3. The paraeters used are A ML) = A MR) = 0.7 ev, A ML) = 0.5 ev, A MR) = 0.07 ev, α M) = Å, and β ) = 0.0 ev A 3 = L, R and =, ). The choice of A M) reflects a total lifetie broadening for electron transfer into the electrodes of 0. ev at a distance fro each electrode) of Å. The choice of β ) corresponds to taking B ) = 0.0 ev at this distance. The relative iportance of the I L and Ie h coponents of I depends on the details of the olecule-leads couplings. In particular, when R for both leads Γ M) /B 0 =, ). In this liit I e h can becoe larger than I L. As a specific exaple consider the situation where Γ M) = Γ M) and denote ξ = /Γ M). Then using Eqs. 8), 6), 8), and 9) for the case µ R ε < ε µ L we obtain I e h /IL ξ /ξ ξ ξ ), and ξ )/ ξ ) ξ ξ when ξ < ξ, ξ = ξ and ξ > ξ, respectively. Our choice of paraeters in Figure corresponds to the third case and yields ultiate doinance of I e h at large distances with I e h /IL 00 as R. Note that this liiting behavior is obtained only when both left and right olecule-etal couplings decrease together. Experientally one of these distances can be controlled by oving a tip while the other can be changed by adding insulating layers between olecule and substrate 6,7. Conclusion. We have studied, within a siple odel, the effect of dipolar energy-transfer interaction between olecule and leads on olecular conduction. We found that such interaction, that leads to electron-hole excitations in the contacts, can affect the current voltage characteristic of the junction in a substantial way and can not in general be disregarded. The contribution of this interaction can doinate the overall conduction for particular asyetric coupling where the olecular LUMO and/or HOMO are coupled differently to different leads. In addition, because of the different dependence of electron and energy transfer on the olecule-leads distance, the relative iportance of I L and Ie h depends on this distance, and can, in soe cases, result in strong doinance of I e h at large olecule-lead separations. Acknowledgents We thank the NSF-NNI progra, the DARPA Mol- Apps initiative and the Durint/MURI progra of the DoD for support. A.N. thanks the Israel Science Foundation for support. Molecular Electronics II, Eds. A. Avira, M. Ratner, V. Mujica, Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci., vol ); Molecular Electronics III, Eds. J. R. Reiers, C. A. Picconatto, J. C. Ellenbogen, R. Shashidhar, Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci., vol ). A. Nitzan, Ann. Rev. Phys. Che. 53, 68 00). 3 J. R. Heath and M. A. Ratner, Physics Today 56, ). 4 Molecular Nanoelectronics, Eds. M. A. Reed and T. Lee, Aerican Scientific Publishers 003). 5 A. Nitzan and M. A. Ratner, Science 300, ). 6 S. Datta, Quantu Transport: Ato to Transistor, Cabridge University Press 005). 7 R. Chance, A. Prock, and R. Silbey, Adv. Che. Phys. 3, 978). 8 M. Galperin and A. Nitzan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, ) and to be published. 9 L. V. eldysh, Sov. Phys. JETP 0, ). 0 Y. Meir and N. S. Wingreen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 5 99). N. E. Bickers, Rev. Mod. Phys. 59, ). G. D. Mahan, Many-Particle Physics. Third edition, luwer Acadeic/Plenu Publishers, New York, 000). 3 H. Haug and A.-P. Jauho, Quantu inetics in Transport and Optics of Seiconductors. Springer, Berlin, 996). 4 W. Tian, S. Datta, S. Hong et al., J. Che. Phys. 09, ). 5 D. C. Langreth, Linear and Nonlinear Response Theory with Applications, p. 3 3 in: Linear and Nonlinear Electron Transport in Solids, Eds. J. T. Devreese and D. E. Doren Plenu Press, New York and London, 976). 6 N. A. Pradhan, N. Liu, and W. Ho, J. Phys. Che. B 09,

5 ). 7 J. Repp, G. Meyer, S. M. Stojkovic, A. Gourdon, and C. Joachi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, ).