Rigid Molecular Model for the Assembly Characteristics and Optimal Structure in Molecular Monolayers of Alkanethiols on Au(111)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present a simple molecular model for the self-assembly of alkanethiols on gold. The model, a rigid rod representation of a molecule which is constrained to a given distance from the gold surface, allows direct long-time simulations of large-scale molecular ensembles (10 4 −10 5 molecules) on desktop workstations. As a result, the model allows for efficient studies of evolution and ordering of, for example, orientational order and domain patterns in a full range of monolayer coverages. The model is parametrized entirely by existing literature on atomic and molecular scale interactions. Extensive simulations of molecular self-assembled monolayer domain formation at optimal (packing commensurate with a gold surface (111) structure) and suboptimal packing are conducted and presented. The results show close correspondence between the model features and the existing, and emerging, picture observed through experimental characterization of self-assembled monolayers on Au(111). This strong experimental validation of the conformationally insensitive molecular model suggests that the conformational degrees of freedom are not essential for the self-assembly of alkanethiols on gold. It appears that the interplay between the substrate−headgroup and chain−chain interactions determines the self-assembly process and the emergent molecular structures. The presentation of simulation results for different molecular surface coverages is used to derive a primitive two-dimensional isothermal phase diagram. The latter was found to be in good general agreement with available experimental data and provides insight into the formation and growth mechanism of monolayers. The work suggests directions for a minimal approach to studying at least some of the complexity contained in molecular self-assembly processes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".