ACS Publications. Most Trusted. Most Cited. Most Read
Accurately Computed Dimerization Trends of ALD Precursors and Their Impact on Surface Reactivity in Area-Selective Atomic Layer Deposition
My Activity
  • Open Access
Article

Accurately Computed Dimerization Trends of ALD Precursors and Their Impact on Surface Reactivity in Area-Selective Atomic Layer Deposition
Click to copy article linkArticle link copied!

  • Patrick Maue
    Patrick Maue
    Fakultät für Chemie und Mineralogie, Wilhelm-Ostwald-Institut für Physikalische und Theoretische Chemie, Universität Leipzig, Linnéstr. 2, Leipzig 04103, Germany
    More by Patrick Maue
  • Émilie Chantraine
    Émilie Chantraine
    Fakultät für Chemie und Mineralogie, Wilhelm-Ostwald-Institut für Physikalische und Theoretische Chemie, Universität Leipzig, Linnéstr. 2, Leipzig 04103, Germany
  • Fabian Pieck
    Fabian Pieck
    Fakultät für Chemie und Mineralogie, Wilhelm-Ostwald-Institut für Physikalische und Theoretische Chemie, Universität Leipzig, Linnéstr. 2, Leipzig 04103, Germany
    More by Fabian Pieck
  • Ralf Tonner-Zech*
    Ralf Tonner-Zech
    Fakultät für Chemie und Mineralogie, Wilhelm-Ostwald-Institut für Physikalische und Theoretische Chemie, Universität Leipzig, Linnéstr. 2, Leipzig 04103, Germany
    *Email: [email protected]
Open PDFSupporting Information (1)

Chemistry of Materials

Cite this: Chem. Mater. 2025, XXXX, XXX, XXX-XXX
Click to copy citationCitation copied!
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemmater.4c02557
Published January 17, 2025

© 2025 The Authors. Published by American Chemical Society. This publication is licensed under

CC-BY 4.0 .

Abstract

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

The Lewis acidic nature of aluminum atoms in common precursors for the atomic layer deposition (ALD) of Al2O3 can lead to dimerization. This study investigates whether these compounds predominantly exist as monomers or dimers under ALD conditions. Understanding dimerization is crucial for discussing precursor reactivities and other properties, especially in the context of area-selective atomic layer deposition (AS-ALD). We employed a theoretical approach incorporating a conformer search, density functional theory, and coupled cluster calculations, to determine the dissociated dimer fraction for a range of precursors under typical ALD pressures and temperatures. The precursors studied include aluminum alkyls, chlorinated aluminum alkyls, dimethylaluminum isopropoxide (DMAI), and tris(dimethylamido)aluminum (TDMAA). Our findings indicate that aluminum alkyls are completely dissociated over the whole parameter range, while DMAI and TDMAA form stable dimers. Chlorinated precursors were found to exist in both monomeric and dimeric forms, depending on temperature and pressure.

This publication is licensed under

CC-BY 4.0 .
  • cc licence
  • by licence
© 2025 The Authors. Published by American Chemical Society

1. Introduction

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

Atomic layer deposition (ALD) is a technique for the deposition of thin-film structures based on sequential precursor pulses to a substrate surface where they react and form the desired material. (1−3) Applications of ALD include catalysts, (4) energy applications like fuel cells, (5) nanotechnology, (6) and semiconductor manufacturing. (1,2) A vital parameter in ALD processes is the choice of precursor molecules. (7,8) It has an influence on the deposition in many ways like differences in growth rates, (9) temperature and pressure at which ALD processes can be performed, (10) the quality of the deposited material, or the adsorption behavior. (11)
Recently, the area-selective variant of ALD (AS-ALD) has gained strong popularity. (3) Here, a material is controllably grown on one surface (the growth surface) while no deposition takes place on a second surface (the nongrowth surface). (12) A major challenge of AS-ALD is the loss of selectivity after a certain number of cycles. (3,13) Experiments have shown that the number of selective deposition steps before growth initiates on the nongrowth area often depends on the precursor molecule that is applied in the process. (14−16) This shows that the underlying precursor chemistry has an essential effect on the AS-ALD process. In case of the selective deposition of Al2O3, for example, a higher number of selective deposition steps was possible with dimethylaluminum isopropoxide (DMAI) compared to the most often used precursor trimethylaluminum (TMA). (15) In the same way, triethylaluminum (TEA) outperformed TMA and a set of alkyl aluminum chlorides in terms of achieved selectivity. (14,16) While the selectivity in AS-ALD thus obviously depends on the choice of the precursor, the underlying reactivity is not yet fully revealed for many processes. Consequently, a better understanding of precursor chemistry is desirable to improve the selectivity in current processes and to develop new AS-ALD processes.
The precursor chemistry is defined by the precursor size, its chemical reactivity, and physical properties like volatility and thermal stability. The chemical reactivity in AS-ALD, for example, can be determined by the accessibility to and reactivity with reactive surface sites on nongrowth areas, where effects of steric blocking (17) and therefore the size of precursors matter. For this reason, one crucial question is whether a precursor is present as a monomer or dimer under experimental ALD conditions (see Figure 1). Most ALD precursors are Lewis acids and thus form homomolecular dimers with the interdimer bond strength depending on their Lewis acidity and steric crowding.

Figure 1

Figure 1. Dimerization reaction of Al precursors shown at the example of TMA with the equilibrium constant Kdiss for the dissociation defined via the partial pressures pmonomer and pdimer and standard pressure p0.

Dimers have bigger effective sizes and are less reactive than monomeric compounds. (14) Both effects can crucially influence the selectivity in AS-ALD. The effect of dimerization has been recently investigated for Ga precursors in the context of chemical vapor deposition of GaN. (18)
For Al-based precursors, the question of dimerization has been discussed in the past. It is known that compounds commonly used as Al precursors such as aluminum alkyls or alkyl aluminum chlorides (2,9,19−22) as well as DMAI (15,23) can dimerize. (14,19−23) To estimate the monomer-to-dimer ratio, dimerization enthalpies or energies have been determined either theoretically or experimentally. (14,20,21,24−26) However, the published values differ quite strongly: Hiraoka and Mashita (26) for example calculated a dissociation energy of 18 kJ·mol–1 for TMA based on Hartree–Fock (HF) and Mo̷ller–Plesset perturbation theory (MP2), whereas Oh et al. (14) obtained a value of 77 kJ·mol–1 based on density functional theory (DFT) calculations. One reason for the deviations is the use of computational methods with limited accuracy like DFT combined with moderately sized basis sets, which lead to considerable basis set superposition errors especially for association reactions. (27,28)
However, an accurate determination of Gibbs free energies of dissociation (ΔGdiss) is important because of its exponential relationship (29) to the dissociation equilibrium constant Kdiss and thereby monomer-to-dimer ratio. Therefore, common errors of DFT calculations of 10 kJ·mol–1 already change the dissociation constant by 1 order of magnitude (see eqs S1 and S2). Nevertheless, Marques et al. showed that DFT can often be used to predict equilibrium compositions. For temperature-dependent equilibrium compositions, however, only a qualitatively correct behavior has been predicted. (30) A further problem of calculated enthalpies or Gibbs energies (ΔG) is that they are computed at pressures and temperatures that are not common for ALD applications. Often, standard conditions of T = 25 °C and p = 1 bar or 1 atm are used, which are the default settings in common quantum chemistry software packages. This is not a problem when equilibrium constants are calculated, but when only the ΔGdiss values are considered to decide whether dissociation happens, more realistic conditions need to be chosen. ALD processes are usually performed at considerably higher temperatures and lower pressures (typical values are T = 100–300 °C (3) and p < 10–2 bar (14,15,31,32)), causing strong changes in computed ΔGdiss values.
We thus set out to obtain accurate results by using highly accurate wave function based methods (CCSD(T), the so-called “gold standard”) together with a complete basis set (CBS) extrapolation scheme and several other methodological measures to derive accurate dimerization energies under typical ALD conditions. We use a set of contemporary Al precursors for ALD spanning a broad range of Lewis acids and steric crowding (Figure 2). Apart from the compound classes mentioned above, also tris(dimethylamido)aluminum (TDMAA) can be applied as an ALD precursor (33,17) and has been included in our set of precursors. The alkyl-aluminum compounds in this study include not only molecules with linear alkyl chains but also molecules with branched chains, in our case triisopropylaluminum (TiPA) and triisobutylaluminum (TiBA). The latter is an extensively studied precursor for the deposition of alumina films and has been discussed before in the context of chemical vapor deposition. (34) We derived dimerization fractions at different pressures and temperatures and analysed their trend comparing the different precursor classes. This will help to interpret ALD experiments as well as to choose ALD conditions to target a certain precursor state and can be crucial in AS-ALD where the dimerization can lead to increased selectivity. We show the impact of monomeric vs dimeric precursor exemplarily for a case study of surface adsorption on clean and SMI-covered SiO2.

Figure 2

Figure 2. Set of aluminum precursors investigated in this study grouped in substance classes 14. Abbreviations used in the ALD literature are shown in parentheses where available.

2. Computational Details

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

2.1. Molecular Calculations

2.1.1. Structural Optimizations

Calculations of the monomers and dimers for the thermochemical properties were done with ORCA 5.0.3. (35−42) Conformers were sampled with CREST (43,44) using standard settings, which include the iMTD-GC workflow and GFN2-xTB. The three conformers lowest in energy were selected and reoptimized with B3LYP-D3. The conformer with the lowest Gibbs free energy at 200 °C and 1.73 × 10–4 bar (130 mTorr), a realistic set of conditions for ALD processes, (14) was then chosen for any further property calculations. No ensemble averages with multiple conformers were used in the calculation of the energies and enthalpies. The effect which Boltzmann averaging can have on the dimerization energies and why it has been neglected in this study is discussed in Table S2 in Section 3.1 in the SI. For all calculations with DFT, the B3LYP (45−47) exchange-correlation functional with DFT-D3 dispersion correction and a Becke-Johnson-type damping function (BJ) was applied. (38,39) This combination showed the best agreement with CCSD(T) calculations in our benchmark study (see Table S3). A def2-TZVPP (48) basis set together with the corresponding auxiliary basis set for the RI approximation (49) was applied. The densest Becke-Integration Grid (50) “defgrid3” was used in all DFT calculations. To obtain the thermodynamic correction terms and ensure that the obtained geometries correspond to minimum structures, frequency calculations (41) were performed. In all calculations, a convergence criterion for the self-consistent field (SCF) cycles of 10–8 Eh for the change in energy was used. For optimizations, ORCA uses several criteria based on the change in energy (10–6 Eh), the current gradient (root mean square: 3 × 10–5 Eh·bohr–1, largest value: 10–4 Eh·bohr–1), and the step size of the optimization step (root mean square: 6 × 10–4 bohr, largest value: 10–3 bohr). If imaginary frequencies were observed, the convergence criteria for optimizations were tightened to 2 × 10–7 Eh, 8 × 10–6 Eh·bohr–1, 3 × 10–5 Eh·bohr–1, 10–4 bohr, and 2 × 10–4 bohr. For difficult cases, structures were distorted along imaginary modes, followed by structural optimizations until no imaginary modes were observed. The final electronic energy of each structure was obtained with a DLPNO-CCSD(T) (42,51) single-point calculation (in the following stated as CCSD(T)) including a CBS extrapolation (52) as implemented in ORCA. Here, the convergence of the HF energy to the basis set limit is extrapolated as
ESCF(X)=ESCF()+A×eαX
(1)
ESCF(X) is the SCF energy of a basis set cc-pVXZ, with X = 2 meaning a double-ζ, X = 3 meaning a triple-ζ basis, etc. ESCF(∞) is the basis set limit SCF energy, α is a basis set-specific constant, and A is the constant to be determined in the procedure.
The correlation energy contribution is extrapolated with β = 2.4 as
Ecorr()=XβEcorr(X)YβEcorr(Y)XβYβ
(2)
We used X = 3 and Y = 4, thus the cc-pVTZ and cc-pVQZ (49,53) basis sets. With these basis sets, the value for α is 5.46. Furthermore, for all DLPNO computations, default thresholds were used after testing (see Table S4 for a discussion of this choice).
Gibbs free energies were calculated by adding thermodynamic correction terms obtained at the B3LYP-D3 level of theory to CCSD(T) single point energies:
G=E(CCSD(T))+Gcorrection(B3LYPD3)
(3)
Here, all thermodynamic corrections were calculated via statistical thermodynamic approaches in double harmonic approximation with T = −50–400 °C in steps of 50 °C and p = 1.013 × 10–6 bar (10–6 atm, 0.76 mTorr) to 1.013 bar (1 atm, 7.6 × 105 mTorr) in steps of one order of magnitude.
A detailed discussion of the conformer search (see Tables S2 and S5), the effect of density functionals (see Table S3) and basis sets (see Table S6) can be found in the Supporting Information. The effect of the basis set superposition error (BSSE) has been tested by the application of counterpoise (CP) correction (see Table S7) and can lead to errors of up to 4.2 kJ·mol–1. However, the application of a CBS extrapolation for CCSD(T) calculations removes the problem of the BSSE. An overview of possible error sources and their estimated error is shown in Table S8.

2.1.2. Thermochemistry

With the inner energy U, and p and V for pressure and volume, respectively, the enthalpy H is defined as (29)
H=U+p×V
(4)
The Gibbs energy G of a reaction at temperature T is related to the enthalpy H and entropy S by (29)
G=HT×S
(5)
Gibbs free energies of dissociation ΔGdiss were calculated as the difference between monomers and dimers for the reaction in the gas phase shown in Figure 1:
ΔGdiss=2×GmonomerGdimer
(6)
ΔEdiss, ΔHdiss, and T·ΔSdiss were calculated analogously to eq 6. Differences between two ΔGdiss values, ΔGdiss1 and ΔGdiss2, were referred to as ΔΔGdiss:
ΔΔGdiss=ΔGdiss1ΔGdiss2
(7)
Other differences like ΔΔHdiss are defined as analogous.
In general, the equilibrium constant of a reaction can be derived from the standard Gibbs free energy of the reaction at standard pressure p0. (29,54,55) In our case, this is a dissociation reaction of the dimer with 1.013 bar (1 atm) as standard pressure. Therefore, we use the calculated ΔGdiss(T) of 1 mol dimer at 1.013 bar (1 atm) pressure as ΔrGθ(T).
ln(K)=ΔrG(T)RT=ΔGdiss(1.013bar,T)RT
(8)
With K, the pressure-dependent dissociated dimer fraction (DDF) can be determined, as shown in Section S6 in the SI by
K=(2×DDF)21DDF2p1.013bar
(9)
leading to
DDF=KK+4×p1.013bar
(10)
G depends within our temperature window almost linearly on the temperature. Therefore, we interpolated the ΔGdiss values at different temperatures. The relationship between G and the pressure at constant temperature is
(Gp)T=V
(11)
Because the volume V is related to the pressure, it is not constant. Under ideal gas conditions (eq 12), V is inversely related to p, which results in a logarithmic dependence between G and p.
V=nRTp
(12)

2.1.3. Energy Decomposition Analysis

Bonding analysis was performed with AMS 2023.101. (56) The fragmentation was chosen in a way that each molecule in the dimer structure was one fragment in the singlet ground state. The energy decomposition analysis (EDA) calculations were done with B3LYP (45−47) and a DFT-D3 (38,39) dispersion correction. The slater-type orbital (STO)-type basis TZ2P (57,58) was applied, and the parameters of the numerical quality level “good” were used. No relativistic effects were considered, and no frozen core approximation was applied.
The EDA scheme applied in this study was developed by Kitaura and Morokuma (59) and by Ziegler and Rauk. (60,61) The bond dissociation energy of two fragments A and B is the energy difference between the full molecule EAB and the energies of the fragments in their relaxed geometry EArel and EBrel:
Ebond=EABEArelEBrel
(13)
The EDA scheme separates the bonding energy into the preparation energy ΔEprep and the interaction energy ΔEint. The preparation energy is the energy needed for the deformation of the fragments from the relaxed state as separated fragments with energy EArel and EBrel into the associated structure they have in the molecule with energies EA and EB:
Ebond=ΔEprep+ΔEint
(14)
ΔEprep=EA+EBEArelEBrel
(15)
This is because the two fragments, here the two monomers, have a different structure as separated molecules compared to the dimer where they bond to each other. That means they need to be deformed from the monomer into the dimer structure, a step considered by the preparation energy (see Figure S12). Consequently, the preparation energy ΔEprep was calculated as the energy difference between the fragments within the dimer geometry and the relaxed monomers. The interaction energy is further decomposed into a dispersion term ΔEint (disp) and the electronic interaction energy ΔEint (elec):
ΔEint=ΔEint(disp)+ΔEint(elec)
(16)
The analysis finally decomposes the electronic interaction energy:
ΔEint(elec)=ΔEPauli+ΔEelstat+ΔEorb
(17)
The electrostatic term ΔEelstat comprises quasi-classical electrostatic interactions between the charge distributions and is usually attractive. The Pauli term ΔEPauli describes the repulsive effect due to normalization and anti-symmetrization of the resulting product wave function. The attractive orbital term ΔEorb takes charge transfer and polarization effects into account. (62−64) More detailed information on the presented EDA scheme can be found in the literature. (65,66)

2.2. Computations for Extended Systems

Periodic slab calculations were performed with VASP 5.4.4, (67−71) the PBE functional (72) with D3(BJ) (38,39) dispersion correction, and a plane wave cutoff of 450 eV using standard PAWs. (73) The Brillouin zone was sampled with a gamma-centered Γ(2 × 2 × 1) Monkhorst–Pack (74,75) mesh. The plane wave cutoff, k-grid, and vacuum above the slab were determined in a convergence test to an accuracy of 1 kJ·mol–1 (see Figures S3 and S4). The surface model was a crystalline, 3 × 3 α-quartz slab consisting of three O–Si-layers where the bottom layer of silicon was H-terminated and kept frozen during the optimization. The top oxygen layer was saturated by hydrogen, resulting in a hydroxylated silica surface. The cell parameters of the periodic cell are a = 16.550 Å, b = 12.820 Å, and c = 52.000 Å. The vacuum above the slab was set at 45 Å. Minima were optimized with a conjugate gradient algorithm with a convergence criterium for the energy difference of the SCF cycle of 10–5 eV. The convergence criterium for the forces within the geometry optimization was set to 10–2 eV·Å–1 for all optimizations. The slab was derived from an optimized SiO2 bulk cell containing three silicon atoms and six oxygen atoms and cut along the (001) plane using VESTA 3.5.5. (76) The bulk structure for optimization was obtained from the Crystallography Open Database. (77,78) The parameters of the original bulk cell were a = b = 4.892 Å and c = 5.389 Å. The bulk was optimized with an energy cutoff of 500 eV and Γ(5 × 5 × 5) k-point mesh. The parameters of the optimized bulk cell in the α-quartz phase were a = b = 4.934 Å and c = 5.436 Å.
Reaction paths were calculated with the nudged elastic band (NEB) method and transition states determined in a subsequent climbing image calculation (NEB-CI). (79,80) Different to the optimization of minima, NEBs were optimized with the fast inertial relaxation engine (FIRE) (81) and a tightened convergence criterium for the SCF cycle of 10–7 eV. To obtain the initial interpolation for the minimum energy path (MEP) as a starting point for the NEB, the image-dependent-pair-potential method (82) (IDPP) was used. To check that the transition state had only one imaginary mode, a numeric frequency calculation was performed with finite differences of 0.015 Å and an SCF convergence criterium of 10–5 eV·Å–1.

3. Results and Discussion

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

In the first section, we want to introduce the structures of the optimized dimers, which are used in the second section to obtain accurate Gibbs free energies. Based on these, DDFs under varying pressures and temperatures for each molecule are derived. In the third section, we will discuss the thermochemistry at typical ALD conditions in detail. Here, results from our study are also compared with previous data from the literature. To understand the observed trends of dimerization and allow predictions on the dimerization of Al precursors, we will then discuss a bonding analysis of the bridging dimer bond for all precursor classes in the fifth section. Finally, the adsorption behavior of dimers compared to monomers and the possibility of dimer opening is tested on SiO2.

3.1. Structures of Dimerized Precursors

Figure 3 shows one representative example of the dimer structures from each substance class. The general structure of the dimerized precursors is the same for all molecules: All dimers show a four-membered ring that connects the two fragments containing the two aluminum atoms and two atoms from the ligands. The Al atom is either bonded to carbon (1) or to heteroatoms such as chlorine (2), nitrogen (3), and oxygen (4).

Figure 3

Figure 3. Dimer structures with one example of each substance class.

Structural parameters for the central 4-ring of the dimers are listed in Table 1. The distance between the Al atoms varies between 2.6 Å (1-iPr) and 3.3 Å (2-Me2Cl). Here, the differences within each substance class are small and the Al–Al distance varies only by up to 0.1 Å. The distance between Al and the second atom can be either the same, i.e., differences of less than 0.001 Å, such as in the case of (1-Me)2, or different by 1.6 Å as with (1-iPr)2 and (1-iBu)2. If the distances are the same, it shows that the difference between the bond within one fragment and the bridging bond between the fragments has disappeared and the dimer has taken a symmetric form. As expected, this can be observed for the smaller dimers such as (1-Me)2 and (2-Cl)2 while the molecules with sterically more demanding groups such as 1-iPr cannot approach each other close enough for the dimer to take a symmetric form. Consequently, this comparison of the bond distances shows that not only the atoms directly involved in the bridging bonds but also the other atoms of the dimer have a significant influence on the dimer bond due to their steric demand.
Table 1. Structural Parameters of the Al-X-Al-X (X = C, Cl, O, N) Four-Membered Rings of the Calculated Precursor Dimersa
precursord(Al–Al)d(Al-X)b
1-Me2.5962.1442.144
1-Et2.5782.1892.142
1-Pr2.5762.1992.134
1-iPr2.5672.3172.153
1-iBu2.6272.2542.092
2-Me2Cl3.2812.3322.331
2-MeCl23.2372.3042.304
2-Cl3.1852.2792.279
32.8231.8541.853
42.8051.9841.968
a

All bond distances in Å. Structures optimized at B3LYP-D3/def2-TZVPP.

b

Some dimers exhibit asymmetric structures leading to two different bond lengths.

3.2. Pressure Dependence of Dimer Dissociation

To analyze whether precursors are preferably monomeric or dimeric at certain conditions, the ΔGdiss values of the dimers were computed. If ΔGdiss is positive, the dimers are thermodynamically favored, while a negative value shows a thermodynamic driving force for dissociation. The DDFs were derived from ΔGdiss, as described in Section 2.1.2. Figure 4 shows the DDF dependent on the pressure. Figure S5 in the SI shows ΔGdiss in dependence of the pressure to better see the effect of the ligands. Here, a range of typical ALD pressures (“ALD window”) from 10–4 to 10–2 bar (14,15,31,32) is highlighted.

Figure 4

Figure 4. Dissociated dimer fraction (DDF) as a function of total pressure of the system at 200 °C for the tested set of Al precursors. Common ALD pressures from 10–4 to 10–2 bar are highlighted in gray.

In the relevant range of pressures from 1 × 10–4 to 1 × 10–2 bar, no dissociation of dimers of precursors 3 and 4 is visible. The aluminum alkyls of group 1 are completely dissociated, and dimers begin to form only at pressures close to atmospheric conditions, which is far beyond common ALD conditions. The chlorinated compounds of group 2 make a transition from almost complete dissociation at 10–6 bar to almost undissociated dimers under atmospheric conditions. At 10–3 bar, the DDF of the chlorinated dimers ranges from 19% (2-Me2Cl) to 33% (2-Cl). It is worth mentioning that in the case of 2-Cl and 2-MeCl2, the transition from a majority to a minority of dissociated dimers happens in the ALD window between 10–4 and 10–2 bar.

3.3. Temperature Dependence of Dimer Dissociation

Apart from the pressure dependency of the dissociation, also the temperature dependency was investigated. Figure 5 shows the DDF for all of the precursor dimers. Figure S6 in the SI shows ΔGdiss in dependence of the temperature to better see the effect of the ligands. Again, a typical range of ALD temperatures from 100 to 300 °C (3) is highlighted.

Figure 5

Figure 5. Dissociated dimer fraction (DDF) versus temperature at total pressure of the system of 1.73 × 10–4 bar (130 mTorr) for the tested set of Al precursors. A common temperature range for ALD is highlighted in gray.

The result shows that the alkyl-based precursors of group 1 undergo the transition from dimer to monomer before the typical ALD window whereas the chlorinated precursors of group 2 show this transition within the ALD window. 4 remains stable as a dimer over the whole temperature range whereas 3 starts to dissociate at above 250 °C. It needs to be considered that the pressure in our study is far below standard pressures of 1.013 bar (1 atm). At a higher pressure, dimerization becomes more favorable, as shown in Section 3.2, enabling dimerization at even higher temperatures. Consequently, this explains that dimers of 1-Me have been identified in experiment at higher pressures and temperatures below 100 °C. (22,83)
The general relation between the calculated ΔGdiss values at p = 1.013 bar and temperature T in °C that were used to derive the temperature-dependent DDFs can be described by the following formula:
ΔGdiss[kJmol]=a×T+b
(18)
The parameters a and b are shown in Table S9 in the Supporting Information for each precursor. This enables the derivation of ΔGdiss for other temperature values.

3.4. Thermochemistry for Typical ALD Conditions

After presenting the temperature and pressure dependence of ΔGdiss and the DDFs for a range of temperatures and pressures, a detailed analysis of all relevant parameters (ΔEdiss, ΔHdiss, ΔGdiss, ΔSdiss, DDF) for one set of temperature (200 °C) and pressure (1.73 × 10–4 bar, 130 mTorr) is presented in Table 2.
Table 2. Compiled Thermochemical Data of the Dissociation Reaction of the Dimers at ALD Conditions of T = 200°C and p = 1.73 × 10–4 bar (130 mTorr)a
 1-iBu1-iPr1-Me1-Et1-Pr2-Me2Cl2-MeCl22-Cl34
ΔEdiss80.046.391.194.988.0132.4129.0127.9205.8266.6
ΔHdiss65.128.180.581.873.8124.2121.2120.3194.9257.1
T·ΔSdiss–144.5–159.0–133.8–141.6–140.2–123.7–123.8–124.5–140.1–133.5
ΔGdiss–79.4–130.9–53.2–59.7–66.40.5–2.6–4.254.8123.6
DDF100.00%100.00%100.00%100.00%100.00%40.72%55.78%64.37%0.05%0.00%
a

All ΔE, ΔH, ΔG, and −T·ΔS values in kJ·mol–1, as defined in Section 2.1.2.

As previously discussed, all dimers of the precursors of group 1 are dissociated at the selected conditions. In the same way, all of the dimers of 4 are intact. 3 also remains largely undissociated with only 0.05% DDF according to the calculation. Whether the monomeric form would already play a role with such a degree of dissociation in the experiment or be negligible cannot be predicted easily. At least the values show that the dimers of 4 are slightly more stable than the dimers of 3.
Furthermore, the table gives insight into the different terms of ΔGdiss and one may ask which are decisive to explain the trends found in ΔGdiss. Considering ΔHdiss, it is evident that almost the same trend as that of ΔGdiss is observed. The only exceptions are the ordering of 1-Me and 1-Et. Here, the ΔHdiss of 1-Me is slightly higher by ΔΔHdiss = 1.3 kJ·mol–1 compared to 1-Et. The corresponding ΔGdiss of 1-Me is lower by ΔΔGdiss = 6.5 kJ·mol–1 compared to that of 1-Et. The entropy term −T·ΔSdiss correlates less negatively with ΔGdiss. For example, the same order for −T·ΔSdiss and ΔGdiss is observed within group 2, while −T·ΔSdiss for 3 and 4 is lower than for any precursor of group 2 and is thereby in contrast to the trend of ΔGdiss. Consequently, the enthalpy ΔHdiss is a better measure for the dimer stability than the entropy term −T·ΔSdiss and allows more predictions on the relative stability of dimers. Still, both terms are essential to predicting whether a compound is monomeric or dimeric under certain conditions.
From a computational point of view, the data in Table 2 greatly show the need for accurate computational methods. While the dimers of 2-Me2Cl and 2-Cl differ only by ΔΔGdiss = 3.7 kJ·mol–1, a qualitative difference in the DDF value is present as it is changing from 41% in the case of 2-Me2Cl to 64% for 2-Cl. Thus, a difference of ΔΔGdiss < 4 kJ·mol–1 leads to a difference of more than 20% in the DDF. This sensitivity of the DDF on the ΔGdiss value is a consequence of the exponential relationship between ΔGdiss and K (see eq 8), which is used for the calculation of the DDFs (eq 10). Table S10 in the Supporting Information further supports this finding as it shows a comparison of the values presented above to values derived with DFT instead of CCSD(T) energies.

3.5. Comparison with Previous Data on Precursor Dimerization

To evaluate the impact of an improved theoretical approach and reasonable ALD pressures on the thermochemistry predictions, a comparison with previous calculations is made. Oh et al. (14) determined the thermochemistry for 1-Me, 1-Et, 2-Me2Cl, 2-MeCl2, and 2-Cl using DFT approaches. A comparison of the ΔGdiss and the DDF values to our results is shown in Table 3. It needs to be noted that the formula for the calculation of the DDF from the equilibrium constant applied by Oh et al. (14) (S13) and also more recently by Kim and Shong (84) is only valid under very specific assumptions under which it is equivalent to our more general approach shown in (eq 9) (discussion see SI Section 7). When dissociation profiles at different p and T like those of Kim and Shong are calculated, the two formulas lead to different results, however. (S12 The rather limited impact on the DDF results at p=p0is discussed in the SI (see Figure S9). Due to the different approach we limit the comparison here to the ΔGdiss values.
Table 3. Comparison of Calculated ΔGdiss of the Chlorinated Precursors of Group 2 as well as 1-Me and 1-Et to Literature Dataa
valuereferencemethodp2-Cl2-MeCl22-Me2Cl1-Me1-Et
ΔGdissOh et al.bDFT1.013 bar25.618.322.9–31.0–29.7
 this studycDFT1.013 bar31.530.731.3–27.9–33.9
 this studydCCSD(T)1.013 bar29.931.534.6–19.1–25.6
 this studydCCSD(T)1.73 × 10–4 bar–4.2–2.60.5–53.2–59.7
a

All ΔG values in kJ·mol–1.

b

Values derived at 200 °C 1.013 bar, 75.98 × 104 mTorr using B3LYP-D3/6-311G**.

c

Values calculated with B3LYP-D3/def2-TZVPP.

d

Values calculated based on the CCSD(T)-based protocol outlined above.

Our most accurate values for the ΔGdiss at 1.73 × 10–4 bar (130 mTorr) differ significantly from the literature values . For 2-Cl, for example, a ΔGdiss value of −4.2 kJ·mol–1 was determined in our study compared to a value of 25.6 kJ·mol–1 by Oh et al. (14) which sums to a difference of 29.8 kJ·mol–1.
The pressure values used in the calculations are the main reason to explain the observed differences. If 1.013 bar (75.98 × 104 mTorr) is used instead of typical ALD pressures, ΔGdiss becomes closer to the values from Oh et al. (14) This is especially the case for chlorinated precursors. At standard pressure, a ΔGdiss value of 29.9 kJ·mol–1 has been obtained for 2-Cl in our study compared to 25.6 kJ·mol–1 by Oh et al. (14) This makes an absolute difference of only ΔΔGdiss = 4.3 kJ·mol–1 compared to a difference of ΔΔGdiss = 29.8 kJ·mol–1 when lower pressures of 1.73 × 10–4 bar (130 mTorr) are applied.
The use of B3LYP-D3 only instead of the combined approach with CCSD(T) did not always lead to results that were closer to those in the literature. Only for 1-Me is the value of −27.9 kJ·mol–1 considerably closer to the value of -31.0 kJ·mol–1 calculated by Oh et al. (14) compared to −19.1 kJ·mol–1 with the combined approach. We attribute the remaining differences between our calculations and those of Oh et al. to different conformers and the different basis sets. Table S8 shows an overview of common errors from DFT calculations, and the errors estimated from the method tests that are described in Section 3 in the Supporting Information. The comparison shows how the methodology of ab initio calculations on dimerization can affect the predicted dissociation. The application of typical ALD pressures and a refined methodology gives considerably different results. A further comparison between the method applied in the study presented here and a “standard” DFT approach is shown in Table S10 in the SI.
While the comparison above includes only the precursors of classes 1 and 2, also theoretical data on the dissociation of (4)2 are available. Kim et al. (85) calculated the dimerization energy (ΔEdim) of 1-Me and 4 with machine-learning potentials (MLPs) and compared the result with DFT calculations using the PBE functional. In the same way, the Gibbs free energy for the dimerization (ΔGdim) was calculated and compared for a temperature range of −73 to 473 °C (200 to 600 K) at 1.33 × 10–3 bar (1000 mTorr).
An electronic energy of −104 kJ·mol–1 (−1.08 eV) for the dimerization of 1-Me and of −250 kJ·mol–1 (−2.59 eV) for the dimerization of 4 was calculated with the MLP. The dimerization energies from PBE were slightly different with −94 kJ·mol–1 (−0.97 eV) in the case of 1-Me and −239 kJ·mol–1 (−2.48 eV) in the case of 4. In our study, the dimerization energies of 1-Me are −91 and −267 kJ·mol–1 for 4 what makes the 1-Me dimer slightly weaker (−10 kJ·mol–1 difference) associated compared to the MLP result and the 4 dimer slightly stronger (+17 kJ·mol–1 difference) associated. The general chemical trend is the same, however. Table 4 shows the comparison of the electronic dimerization energies of our study with those calculated by Kim et al. (85) The differences from our values can be explained by the use of a different calculation method; the MLP had been trained on the basis of PBE-results. With B3LYP-D3 and CCSD(T), the results from the study presented in our paper can be assumed to be more accurate.
Table 4. Dimerization Energies (ΔEdim) of 1-Me and 4a
referencemethod1-Me4
this studybCCSD(T)–91–267
Kim et al.cMLP–104–250
Kim et al.dDFT–94–239
a

All values in kJ·mol–1.

b

Values calculated based on the CCSD(T)-based protocol outlined above.

c

Values calculated with a universal MLP (PreFerredPotential) trained on data from PBE-D3 and the PAW approach.

d

Values calculated with PBE-D3 and the PAW approach.

The ΔG values for the dimerization (ΔGdim) from MLP calculated by Kim et al. (85) predict 4 to be dimeric at the whole temperature range from −73 to 473 °C (200 to 600 K) at 1.33 × 10–3 bar (1000 Torr). Only the DFT results predict a transition from the dimeric to the monomeric form at about 473 °C, where ΔG gets slightly positive. 1-Me has a positive ΔGdim above 27 °C (300 K), which means that the monomer is preferred and a negative ΔGdim below that temperature according to MLP and DFT results. Our study predicts (4)2 to be dimeric over the range of −50 to 400 °C (see Figure 5) as well and 1-Me to make a transition from dimer to monomer between −50 and +100 °C and being completely dissociated above 100 °C. ΔGdim changes sign between 5 and 10 °C according to our results, which is at lower temperatures than in the study of Kim et al. (85) The earlier dissociation of 1-Me is not in contradiction with their results because the pressure at which the thermochemistry was calculated was with 1.73 × 10–4 bar lower in our study and therefore the equilibrium is shifted toward the monomer. With this, both studies gave the same qualitative predictions for the given range of temperatures.
Furthermore, to check whether the calculations make realistic predictions about dimerization, a comparison to experimental results on dimer dissociation is made. According to Almenningen et al., (22) 1-Me is 97% dimeric at 0.04 bar (30,000 mTorr) and 60 °C while it is 96% monomeric at 215 °C. The DDF in our approach according to eq 9 is 41% at 60 °C and 0.04 bar and 100% at 215 °C and 0.04 bar (30,000 mTorr). The qualitative transition from a majority of dimer to almost complete dissociation agrees with the experimental result, whereas the degree of dissociation that is predicted is different. This could be either due to limitations of the theoretical method, like approximations made in the calculation of the thermochemistry, or due to inaccuracies of the experiment. Henrickson and Eyman (86) also experimentally determined the equilibrium constant for the dimer dissociation of (1-Me)2, from which we calculated the DDF from −50 to 400 °C at a pressure of 1.73 × 10–4 bar (130 mTorr). The comparison of the experimental and our dissociation profile of (1-Me)2 is shown in Figure S10.
It can be seen from the graphs that our approach predicts the dimer dissociation to take place earlier than the experimental data. The temperatures by which certain degrees of dissociation are reached are with our approach: >1% DDF at −40 °C; >50% at 15 °C; >90% at 40 °C; >99% DDF at 65 °C. With the result from Henrickson and Eyman, (86) these are >1% DDF at 0 °C; >50% at 70 °C; >90% at 100 °C; and >99% DDF at 140 °C. That means, the starting point of dissociation is shifted by 40 °C, the point where half of the dimers are dissociated by 55 °C and the point at which 99% of all dimers are dissociated by 75 °C.
Also, the comparison with the results for (1-Me)2 from Almenningen et al. (22) resulted in an earlier start of dissociation in our approach, which indicates that the theoretical approach predicts an earlier dissociation compared to the experiment. If we assume that the experimental values are reliable and the calculated dissociation curves are systematically shifted by roughly 50 °C, as in the example above, the corresponding error in the ΔGdiss values would be around 10 kJ·mol–1. This is not unexpected for theoretical thermochemistry calculations, which contain several approximations for the calculation of the correction terms based on standard statistical thermodynamics. As a consequence, we conclude that our theoretical predictions can estimate the starting point of dissociation of the different compound classes by roughly 50 °C accuracy and compare the effect of the different ligands. This would not change our overall conclusion that (4)2 and (3)2 are stable dimers at ALD conditions (assuming that our approach overestimates the dissociation at a specific temperature), the chlorinated precursors undergo a transition from monomer to dimer in the ALD temperature range, and the alkyl substituted precursors are mainly dissociated at ALD conditions.
A further comparison with experiment is done on the structure of the dimers on the example of (1-Me)2 in the SI (see Figure S11 and Table S11).

3.6. EDA on Dimer Bond

To get an understanding of the chemical origin of the differences in dimerization degree for the investigated set of precursors, EDA calculations were performed on the dimer bond. The EDA should help to identify reasons and trends for the different bond strengths to make predictions about the dimerization of new precursor compounds or compound classes. Figure 6 shows the most important result of the EDA calculations on the dimer bond for each class of precursor. The complete data set is shown in Table S12 and Figure S13 in the Supporting Information.

Figure 6

Figure 6. EDA on the dimer bond of the Al precursors. All energy terms are given in kJ·mol–1.

The preparation energy (ΔEprep) in general increases by the order 2 < 14 < 3. With an increasing ΔEprep term, more energy is needed to deform the monomer fragments into dimer geometry. The preparation energy of 1-Me is the highest compared to the other precursors of class 1. That means that the larger bulkiness of the alkyl groups does not necessarily lead to a higher ΔEprep, as one might have expected.
The Pauli repulsion (ΔEPauli) of the chlorinated precursors of group 2 is smaller than that of the other compounds. It is highest in the case of 3. It is worth mentioning that ΔEPauli in substance class 1 is strongest for 1-Me again. 1-iBu in contrast has the lowest ΔEPauli of precursor class 1. The bulkiness of the alkyl ligands leads not to a higher Pauli repulsion. This can be explained by increasing bond lengths (see Table 1) of the dimers with branched alkyl chains. The bulkiness of the ligands increases the length of the dimer bond and, thereby, minimizes ΔEPauli. Similarly to the Pauli repulsion, the electrostatic interaction (ΔEelstat) is strongest in the case of 3. This compensates for the high ΔEPauli and allows for the formation of a stable dimer bond. Both 4 and 3 show with −705 and −882 kJ·mol–1 of ΔEelstat a stronger electrostatic attraction than all other precursors that reach only values of up to −570 kJ·mol–1 (1-Me). The orbital terms, in contrast, are rather similar for all compound classes, with −305 (1-iBu) to −435 kJ·mol–1 (3).
A diagram with all terms of the EDA is shown in Figure S13. As a sum of all terms, the absolute value of the bonding energy (ΔEbond) increases as expected by the order 1 < 2 < 3 < 4. The dispersion term (ΔEdisp) is relatively small compared to the other terms, therefore not decisive, and is not discussed here. Therefore, the terms shown in Figure 6 are mainly responsible for the observed trend in ΔEbond and, with that, the dimer stability of the different substance classes.
From EDA, the following conclusions about the stability of the dimer bonds are drawn: First, alkyl groups are unfavorable as bridging ligands because of their high ΔEPauli and ΔEprep. This affects not only relatively bulky ligands such as isobutyl but also small ligands like methyl. A stable dimer bond can be achieved with heteroatoms containing a free electron pair as O and N that stabilizes the bond to Al due to ΔEelstat. Chlorine, as a bigger atom of the third period, behaves differently, however. This is explained by the larger size of the atom, leading to a more diffuse electron density. Another difference to the other groups is that no deformation of chlorine as a single atom is possible, different from ligands that consist of more atoms. This explains the low ΔEprep value of the chlorinated precursors. With chlorine, all terms except ΔEorb, including the attractive ΔEelstat as well as the terms that weaken the bond, are comparably small. This leads to ΔEbond between that of the precursor class 1 and the precursors of 3 and 4. As a conclusion, the substance class and thereby the atoms involved in the bridging dimer bond determine the nature and strength of the dimer bond, while the substitution within a class is less relevant. Consequently, to predict whether a precursor is dimeric, the bridging atoms are decisive rather than the absolute size or bulkiness of the ligands.

3.7. Dimer versus Monomer Adsorption

Finally, after determining which precursor is prevalent in which form, the question of which impact the dimerization has on ALD processes was addressed. A first consequence of dimerization is the higher effective size, which affects the steric hindrance by inhibitors in AS-ALD. Several studies, using experimental and theoretical methods, demonstrate the effect of precursor size on the steric hindrance by inhibitors. (14,87,17,15) Because dimers are larger, they would have it more difficult to diffuse into the inhibitor layer on the nongrowth surface, and therefore, a lower reactivity of dimers on the NGS can be expected. Apart from the size, the adsorption energies and reactivity with certain groups are important for AS-ALD. As shown by Oh et al., (14) the selectivity with chlorinated precursors compared to other precursors like 1-Me could be significantly improved by longer purging times, which can be explained by their stronger physisorption. Xu et al. (88) detected a more persistent adsorption of 1-Me compared to 4 on an SMI-inhibited SiO2 surface. The examples given show that in some cases, the adsorption energetics needs to be considered to explain different selectivities in experiment. In AS-ALD, every adsorption of precursors on the nongrowth surface, even physisorption might lead to undesired nucleation of material. (89) Therefore, the question of which influence dimerization has on the adsorption is relevant. The same applies to the reactivity of precursors, because it can be expected that dimers do not react the same way as monomers. For these reasons, we briefly address the different behaviors of monomers and dimers on the surface.
To get an impression about the adsorption of dimers compared to that of the corresponding monomers, calculations including a hydroxylated silica surface model were performed. The structures of 1-Me, 2-Cl, and 4 as representative examples for the different substances and their dimers above the surface were calculated. Because precursors of the same class are chemically similar, we selected one alkyl-substituted precursor, one chlorine-substituted precursor, and one with oxygen as heteroatom of the second period.
Here, monomers and dimers were considered independent of their likelihood to be present in the experiment to compare their reactivities and explore the impact of the dimerization on surface reactivity. Understanding this dimerization–reactivity relation in combination with the knowledge of the preferred form under common ALD conditions can help to understand why certain precursors are rather reactive or unreactive in AS-ALD applications. Furthermore, as in the case of the chlorinated precursors, knowledge of the conditions for dimerization could even allow to influence their reactivities by choosing the desired precursor form by tuning the process conditions. While this study gives a limited impression on the reactivity of dimers, further investigations will be necessary to confirm what chemical intuition and adsorption structures on the surface indicate. Figure 7 shows the adsorbing dimers and monomers, including bond length and adsorption energies.

Figure 7

Figure 7. Adsorption of dimers (a) (2-Cl)2, (b) (4)2, and (c) (1-Me)2 and monomers (d) 2-Cl, (e) 4, and (f) 1-Me on SiO2. Bond lengths are shown in Å, and adsorption energies in kJ·mol–1. The dispersion contribution to the adsorption energy is shown in brackets. Color code: (soft) pink─Al, green─Cl, black─C, red─O, and white─H. All hydrogens attached to carbon are omitted for clarity.

The absolute value of adsorption energy (Eads) is higher for the monomers than for the dimers in all three cases with a difference exceeding 40 kJ·mol–1 for all molecules. In terms of bond strength, 2-Cl (Figure 7d) adsorbs strongest with an Eads of −148 kJ·mol–1 whereas its dimer is adsorbed with only −91 kJ·mol–1 (Figure 7a). In comparison, 4 and 1-Me adsorb with slightly higher adsorption energies of −90 kJ·mol–1 each while their dimers are only weakly bound by dispersion interactions, leading to Eads of −47 kJ·mol–1 for (4)2 and −32 kJ·mol–1 with (1-Me)2, respectively.
The trend in the adsorption energies is also reflected in the adsorption structures. The bonds to the surface are generally longer in the case of the dimers compared to the monomers. The dimer of 2-Cl has a 0.07 Å longer bond to the surface than the monomer. The difference is considerably greater with 1-Me and 4. The dimers of 1-Me and 4 are more than 3 Å above the surface, whereas the monomers have a bond length of around 2.0 Å to the surface. A decomposition of (1-Me)2 and (4)2 did not take place. In the case of (2-Cl)2, one bond of the dimer breaks due to the adsorption to the surface.
The comparison of bond lengths, structures, and adsorption energies (Eads) shows that (2-Cl)2 binds differently than the other dimers. From the dispersion contribution that is more than the actual bonding energy and the distance above 3 Å to the surface atoms, it can be seen that (1-Me)2 and (4)2 are only slightly physisorbed by dispersion. (2-Cl)2, however, is partially opened and has a bond length below 2 Å, and the dispersion contribution is responsible for only part of the total adsorption energy. We conclude that the dimer (2-Cl)2 must be covalently bound to the surface. The same applies to the monomers. Dispersion makes only part of their total adsorption energies, and with bond lengths around or below 2 Å, we conclude that electrostatics and orbital overlap are involved, forming a covalent bond to the surface oxygen. The comparison shows that the chlorinated precursors might adsorb even as dimers as well to the surface as other precursors in their monomeric form, and their dimerization might therefore not prevent undesired reactions with surfaces. This is because precursor adsorption to the non-growth area plays a key role in the loss of selectivity in AS-ALD and is therefore to be prevented. (17) That 2-Cl adsorbs to the surface so strongly might be explained by the high Lewis acidity of the Al atom and the possibility to break the dimer bond with a reasonable amount of energy. In contrast to that, the alkyl-substituted precursors of group 1 are less Lewis acidic because they have no strong electron-withdrawing groups whereas 3 and 4 might have such groups but form more stable dimers than the chlorinated precursors of class 2. In case of 4 and 1-Me, the dimers show little interaction with the surface, and due to the high stability, no high chemical reactivity is expected for (4)2. The monomers, in contrast, can bind to the surface, which shows the chemical difference and therefore the relevance of the dimerization question for the precursor chemistry. The reactivity comparison between monomers and dimers is an interesting avenue for future computational explorations of precursor–surface interactions.
In AS-ALD, not only the interaction between Al precursors with the surface but also with SMIs can be relevant. Here, trimethoxypropylsilane (TMPS) was chosen as an inhibitor for the SiO2 surface, which has been investigated experimentally and theoretically in previous studies. (16) Figure 8 shows the adsorption of the three molecules as dimers and monomers to a methoxy group of the TMPS inhibitor bound to the SiO2 surface.

Figure 8

Figure 8. Adsorption of dimers (a) (2-Cl)2, (b) (4)2, and (c) (1-Me)2 and monomers (d) 2-Cl, (e) 4, and (f) 1-Me on the methoxy group of the small-molecule inhibitor TMPS. Bond lengths are shown in Å and adsorption energies in kJ·mol–1. The dispersion contribution to the adsorption energy is shown in brackets. Color code: (soft) pink─Al, green─Cl, black─C, red─O, white─H. All hydrogens attached to carbon are omitted for clarity.

Again, the monomers adsorb with a higher absolute value of Eads than the dimers. 2-Cl adsorbs the strongest of all three precursors with Eads of −139 kJ·mol–1, whereas its dimer (2-Cl)2 is only bound by −91 kJ·mol–1. The monomers of 1-Me and 4 are more weakly bound to the surface than 2-Cl with −98 kJ·mol–1 (4) and −77 kJ·mol–1 (1-Me). The dimers (1-Me)2 and (4)2 are again only slightly adsorbed by dispersion interactions with adsorption energies of −45 kJ·mol–1 in the case of (4)2 and −52 kJ·mol–1 for (1-Me)2. The bond lengths are longest with dimers (1-Me)2 and (4)2 with 3.83 Å in the case of (1-Me)2 and 4.14 Å in the case of (4)2. Their monomers are again adsorbed with a bond length of around 2 Å (1-Me: 2.05 Å, 4: 2.02 Å). Different from these two precursors, 2-Cl binds with approximately the same length as the monomer and dimer with only a 0.04 Å difference. The distance of the Al atom to the methoxy group measures 1.92 Å in the case of the monomer of 2-Cl and is even a bit shorter with 1.88 Å for the dimer.
The comparison of the adsorption structures and energies again shows the difference between monomers and dimers. Like with the pristine surface, (1-Me)2 and (4)2 are only slightly adsorbed by dispersion, which can be seen from the relative dispersion contribution and the bond lengths above 3 Å. Because of the partial opening of (2-Cl)2, the bond length below 2 Å, and an adsorption energy that exceeds the dispersion contribution, we conclude that (2-Cl)2 forms a chemical bond to the methoxy group. The same argument applies to the monomers regarding bond length and adsorption energies, and we conclude that these bind covalently, too.
The adsorption tests on SiO2 and on TMPS as inhibitor on SiO2 both confirm the expectation that monomers behave chemically different to dimers and that dimers have less chemical interaction with inhibitors and the surface. However, it depends on the type of precursor to which degree dimers interact. While (2-Cl)2 can open and form chemical bonds, the dimers of 1-Me and 4 have been shown to be rather inert in this small test series. The differences in adsorption behavior indicate that dimerization can play a key role for the precursor selectivity in AS-ALD if a compound is dimerized under ALD conditions and dimers are less reactive. It could be subject of further studies to check whether the possibility of interaction with surfaces exists for the nonchlorinated precursors.

3.8. Dimer Opening

Finally, we tested the possibility of dimer opening reactions on the surface of the (3)2 dimer on SiO2. Figure 9 shows the energy profile of the adsorption, dimer opening, and subsequent dissociation of (3)2.

Figure 9

Figure 9. Reaction path of adsorption and dissociation of (3)2 on SiO2. (a) Physisorbed dimer (PS). (b) First intermediary minimum (IM1). (c) Second intermediary minimum (IM2). (d) First partially dissociated structure (DISS1). (e) Transition state for the second dissociation step (TS). (f) Fully dissociated dimer (DISS2).

The reaction starts with the physisorbed state (PS) of the dimer and passes two intermediate minima (IM1 and IM2) where a proton is transferred to the dimethylamino group until the dimer is opened and a chemical bond to the surface of 1.993 Å is formed (partially dissociated DISS1). The energy barriers of the proton transfer and that before the partially dissociated intermediary structure DISS1 are comparably small or negligible, as it can be seen from the NEB profile (see Figure S14). Only the second dissociation step has a significant barrier and leads via the transition state (TS) to the final structure of the dissociated dimer (DISS2). The first dimer opening reaction and the second dissociation step are endothermic at 69 kJ·mol–1. As a reference point for the reaction energy, the PS structure was used. It also served as a reference point for the activation energy of 92 kJ·mol–1 for the final dissociation because it can be assumed that the intermediary minima are passed quickly during the reaction.
The barrier height for the whole reaction is 92 kJ·mol–1 slightly below 1 eV (96 kJ·mol–1). This is important because it is generally assumed that barriers above 1 eV are not overcome at ALD temperatures. (90−93) The barrier is also much lower compared to the dissociation energy of 206 kJ·mol–1 for (3)2 (see Table 2). This can in part be explained in chemical terms due to the transfer of a proton to the dimethylamino group in the first step. The protonation withdraws electrons from the nitrogen, and this electron-withdrawing effect leads to an increased Lewis acidity on the neighboring aluminum, which makes the formation of a chemical bond to the surface oxygen with a free electron pair easier. The electron-withdrawing effect furthermore polarizes the bond between N and Al in (d), which could also explain the relatively low barrier of 23 kJ·mol–1 between (d) and (e) for the breaking of the second bond.
For the (4)2 dimer, Kim et al. (85) calculated and discussed different reaction paths of dimer opening and decomposition reactions on the chemically similar Al2O3 surface in the study discussed before in Section 3.5, using the MLP. Different to the reaction scheme in Figure 9 where the dimer is opened and dissociates without further decomposition, they studied condensation reactions with the surface following the first breaking of the dimer bond. According to their result, the chemisorption and breaking of the first dimer bond (compare DISS1) is possible with a barrier below 1 eV with 71 kJ·mol–1 (0.74 eV), and the subsequent reactions with the surface have higher activation energies with 131 kJ·mol–1 (1.36 eV) and 145 kJ·mol–1 (1.50 eV) depending on the condensation product. The energies to desorb the second fragment of 4 are even higher with 210 kJ·mol–1 (2.18 eV) and 214 kJ·mol–1 (2.22 eV), respectively. They also calculated similar condensation reactions of the monomer with the surface, which had much lower barriers than those of the dimer. For one reaction pathway, the activation barriers were even below 1 eV. Therefore, the results by Kim et al. (85) indicate that only the monomer can undergo condensation reactions with the surface under ALD conditions. Consequently, a pathway of dimer opening and dissociation like that in Figure 9 followed by condensation reactions of these monomers with the surface would be a realistic way of how the (4)2 dimer could react at the surface.
To further demonstrate the lower reactivity of the dimer, Kim et al. (85) have furthermore tested the adsorption of (4)2 to Al2O3 between AlCH3 fragments doubly bonded to the surface as SMIs and obtained a remarkably less stable structure compared to the free surface. Due to the higher effective size, dimers would have it more difficult to reach reactive groups between SMIs. Moreover, as the adsorption structures in 3.7 have shown, the dimers would not easily adsorb to the surface or the inhibitor layer like monomers. The possibility of dimer opening on the surface does therefore by no means imply that dimerization has no effect on the reactivity of precursors and especially achieved selectivity in AS-ALD. It does, however, highlight the necessity to protect reactive surface groups during AS-ALD.

Conclusions

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

In this study the dimerization of a set of Al precursors for ALD was calculated in dependence of pressure and temperature, including conditions that are common for ALD. For the thermochemistry, an improved approach including conformer search and DLPNO-CCSD(T) energies has been applied to obtain more accurate values than by DFT calculations alone. A comparison with typical DFT approaches has shown that the improved protocol gives results that can differ even qualitatively from the DFT results when it comes to predictions of dimer dissociation. The calculated dimerization of the tested set of Al precursors can be summarized as follows: TDMAA and DMAI are predicted to be present as dimers under all typical ALD conditions (pressures from 10–6 to 1 bar and temperatures from −50 to 400 °C). In contrast, no relevant degree of dimerization is predicted for the aluminum alkyls at the specific set of ALD conditions, and the monomeric form remains preferred under variation of pressure or temperature. The precursors with branched alkyl chains show even a tendency to dimerization that is lower than that of the molecules with linear chains. The chlorinated precursors were at the transition between monomer and dimer, which means they are present in both forms under the abovementioned conditions of 1.73 × 10–4 bar (130 mTorr) and 200 °C. This finding could open the possibility to influence the present form in ALD processes by choosing the right pressures and temperatures. To better understand the dimerization of precursors, bonding analyses of the bridging dimer bonds were performed. EDA on the dimer bond shows that the preparation energy and Pauli repulsion are responsible for the weaker dimer bond of the aluminum alkyls than those of the chlorinated precursors. The relatively strong bond between TDMAA and DMAI is mainly explained by the electrostatic interaction.
Finally, the possible implications of dimerization for ALD chemistry were discussed. The adsorption of monomers compared to dimers on SiO2 was tested and a weaker interaction of dimers with the surface was found, although the result depends on the precursor class. The possibility of dimer opening reactions on the surface exists, however, as the example of the TDMAA dimer has shown. If precursors such as TDMAA and DMAI are completely dimeric under ALD conditions, the dimer rather than the monomer needs to be considered when the precursor chemistry is discussed or investigated. In contrast, when the alkyl-substituted Al precursors are completely dissociated under ALD pressures and temperatures, dimerization does not play a role for any explanation of precursor reactivity. A field where the question of dimerization can be especially relevant is area-selective ALD applications. Here, the results on dimerization found in our study can help to explain the different reactivities of precursors like better performance of DMAI in AS-ALD processes than that of TMA. In understanding the impact of dimerization, calculations on dimer and monomer reactions and adsorption to the surface can be helpful in future studies.

Data Availability

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

All computational data are available in the open access database Zenodo via DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.14500658.

Supporting Information

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

The Supporting Information is available free of charge at https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.chemmater.4c02557.

  • Further information on the accuracy of the computational approach, calculation of DDFs from thermodynamic considerations, more information on the EDA results, and the NEB profile (PDF)

Terms & Conditions

Most electronic Supporting Information files are available without a subscription to ACS Web Editions. Such files may be downloaded by article for research use (if there is a public use license linked to the relevant article, that license may permit other uses). Permission may be obtained from ACS for other uses through requests via the RightsLink permission system: http://pubs.acs.org/page/copyright/permissions.html.

Author Information

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

  • Corresponding Author
  • Authors
    • Patrick Maue - Fakultät für Chemie und Mineralogie, Wilhelm-Ostwald-Institut für Physikalische und Theoretische Chemie, Universität Leipzig, Linnéstr. 2, Leipzig 04103, Germany
    • Émilie Chantraine - Fakultät für Chemie und Mineralogie, Wilhelm-Ostwald-Institut für Physikalische und Theoretische Chemie, Universität Leipzig, Linnéstr. 2, Leipzig 04103, Germany
    • Fabian Pieck - Fakultät für Chemie und Mineralogie, Wilhelm-Ostwald-Institut für Physikalische und Theoretische Chemie, Universität Leipzig, Linnéstr. 2, Leipzig 04103, GermanyOrcidhttps://orcid.org/0000-0001-6912-2725
  • Notes
    The authors declare no competing financial interest.

Acknowledgments

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

This work was supported by Merck KGaA via the 350th Anniversary Grant. We thank Prof. Stacey Bent and Alex Shearer for intense discussions and scientific exchange. We specifically thank Alex for the suggestion to include TiBA in this study. Computational resources were provided by ZIH Dresden, CSC-GOETHE Frankfurt, HLR Stuttgart, and PC2 Paderborn.

References

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

This article references 93 other publications.

  1. 1
    Oviroh, P. O.; Akbarzadeh, R.; Pan, D.; Coetzee, R. A. M.; Jen, T.-C. New Development of Atomic Layer Deposition: Processes, Methods and Applications. Sci. Technol. Adv. Mater. 2019, 20 (1), 465496,  DOI: 10.1080/14686996.2019.1599694
  2. 2
    George, S. M. Atomic Layer Deposition: An Overview. Chem. Rev. 2010, 110 (1), 111131,  DOI: 10.1021/cr900056b
  3. 3
    Mackus, A. J. M.; Merkx, M. J. M.; Kessels, W. M. M. From the Bottom-Up: Toward Area-Selective Atomic Layer Deposition with High Selectivity. Chem. Mater. 2019, 31 (1), 212,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.chemmater.8b03454
  4. 4
    O’Neill, B. J.; Jackson, D. H. K.; Lee, J.; Canlas, C.; Stair, P. C.; Marshall, C. L.; Elam, J. W.; Kuech, T. F.; Dumesic, J. A.; Huber, G. W. Catalyst Design with Atomic Layer Deposition. ACS Catal. 2015, 5 (3), 18041825,  DOI: 10.1021/cs501862h
  5. 5
    Gupta, B.; Hossain, Md. A.; Riaz, A.; Sharma, A.; Zhang, D.; Tan, H. H.; Jagadish, C.; Catchpole, K.; Hoex, B.; Karuturi, S. Recent Advances in Materials Design Using Atomic Layer Deposition for Energy Applications. Adv. Funct. Mater. 2022, 32 (3), 2109105,  DOI: 10.1002/adfm.202109105
  6. 6
    Foroughi-Abari, A.; Cadien, K. Atomic Layer Deposition for Nanotechnology. In Nanofabrication; Stepanova, M., Dew, S., Eds.; Springer Vienna: Vienna, 2012; pp 143161.  DOI: 10.1007/978-3-7091-0424-8_6 .
  7. 7
    Devi, A. ‘Old Chemistries’ for New Applications: Perspectives for Development of Precursors for MOCVD and ALD Applications. Coord. Chem. Rev. 2013, 257 (23–24), 33323384,  DOI: 10.1016/j.ccr.2013.07.025
  8. 8
    Hatanpää, T.; Ritala, M.; Leskelä, M. Precursors as Enablers of ALD Technology: Contributions from University of Helsinki. Coord. Chem. Rev. 2013, 257 (23–24), 32973322,  DOI: 10.1016/j.ccr.2013.07.002
  9. 9
    Oh, I.-K.; Sandoval, T. E.; Liu, T.-L.; Richey, N. E.; Nguyen, C. T.; Gu, B.; Lee, H.-B.-R.; Tonner-Zech, R.; Bent, S. F. Elucidating the Reaction Mechanism of Atomic Layer Deposition of Al2O3 with a Series of Al(CH3)xCl3–x and Al(CyH2y+1)3 Precursors. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2022, 144 (26), 1175711766,  DOI: 10.1021/jacs.2c03752
  10. 10
    Potts, S. E.; Kessels, W. M. M. Energy-Enhanced Atomic Layer Deposition for More Process and Precursor Versatility. Coord. Chem. Rev. 2013, 257 (23–24), 32543270,  DOI: 10.1016/j.ccr.2013.06.015
  11. 11
    Leskelä, M.; Ritala, M. Atomic Layer Deposition (ALD): From Precursors to Thin Film Structures. Thin Solid Films 2002, 409 (1), 138146,  DOI: 10.1016/S0040-6090(02)00117-7
  12. 12
    Parsons, G. N.; Clark, R. D. Area-Selective Deposition: Fundamentals, Applications, and Future Outlook. Chem. Mater. 2020, 32 (12), 49204953,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.chemmater.0c00722
  13. 13
    Bonvalot, M.; Vallée, C.; Mannequin, C.; Jaffal, M.; Gassilloud, R.; Possémé, N.; Chevolleau, T. Area Selective Deposition Using Alternate Deposition and Etch Super-Cycle Strategies. Dalton Trans. 2022, 51, 442450,  DOI: 10.1039/D1DT03456A
  14. 14
    Oh, I.-K.; Sandoval, T. E.; Liu, T.-L.; Richey, N. E.; Bent, S. F. Role of Precursor Choice on Area-Selective Atomic Layer Deposition. Chem. Mater. 2021, 33 (11), 39263935,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.chemmater.0c04718
  15. 15
    Kim, H. G.; Kim, M.; Gu, B.; Khan, M. R.; Ko, B. G.; Yasmeen, S.; Kim, C. S.; Kwon, S.-H.; Kim, J.; Kwon, J.; Jin, K.; Cho, B.; Chun, J.-S.; Shong, B.; Lee, H.-B.-R. Effects of Al Precursors on Deposition Selectivity of Atomic Layer Deposition of Al2O3 Using Ethanethiol Inhibitor. Chem. Mater. 2020, 32 (20), 89218929,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.chemmater.0c02798
  16. 16
    Yarbrough, J.; Pieck, F.; Grigjanis, D.; Oh, I.-K.; Maue, P.; Tonner-Zech, R.; Bent, S. F. Tuning Molecular Inhibitors and Aluminum Precursors for the Area-Selective Atomic Layer Deposition of Al2O3. Chem. Mater. 2022, 34 (10), 46464659,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.chemmater.2c00513
  17. 17
    Merkx, M. J. M.; Angelidis, A.; Mameli, A.; Li, J.; Lemaire, P. C.; Sharma, K.; Hausmann, D. M.; Kessels, W. M. M.; Sandoval, T. E.; Mackus, A. J. M. Relation between Reactive Surface Sites and Precursor Choice for Area-Selective Atomic Layer Deposition Using Small Molecule Inhibitors. J. Phys. Chem. C 2022, 126 (10), 48454853,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpcc.1c10816
  18. 18
    Kim, H.; Kim, M.; Kim, B.; Shong, B. Adsorption Mechanism of Dimeric Ga Precursors in Metalorganic Chemical Vapor Deposition of Gallium Nitride. J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A 2023, 41 (6), 063409  DOI: 10.1116/6.0002966
  19. 19
    Baev, A. K.; Shishko, M. A.; Korneev, N. N. Thermodynamics and Thermochemistry of Organoaluminum Compounds. Russ. J. Gen. Chem. 2002, 72 (9), 13891395,  DOI: 10.1023/A:1021669611400
  20. 20
    Laubengayer, A. W.; Gilliam, W. F. The Alkyls of the Third Group Elements. I. Vapor Phase Studies of the Alkyls of Aluminum, Gallium and Indium. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1941, 63 (2), 477479,  DOI: 10.1021/ja01847a031
  21. 21
    Smith, M. B. The Monomer–dimer Equilibria of Liquid Aluminum Alkyls. J. Organomet. Chem. 1972, 46 (1), 3149,  DOI: 10.1016/S0022-328X(00)90473-X
  22. 22
    Almenningen, A.; Halvorsen, S.; Haaland, A.; Pihlaja, K.; Schaumburg, K.; Ehrenberg, L. A Gas Phase Electron Diffraction Investigation of the Molecular Structures of Trimethylaluminium Monomer and Dimer. Acta Chem. Scand. 1971, 25, 19371945,  DOI: 10.3891/acta.chem.scand.25-1937
  23. 23
    Lee, S. Y.; Luo, B.; Sun, Y.; White, J. M.; Kim, Y. Thermal Decomposition of Dimethylaluminum Isopropoxide on Si(100). Appl. Surf. Sci. 2004, 222 (1–4), 234242,  DOI: 10.1016/j.apsusc.2003.08.016
  24. 24
    Champagne, B.; Mosley, D. H.; Fripiat, J. G.; André, J.-M.; Bernard, A.; Bettonville, S.; François, P.; Momtaz, A. Dimerization versus Complexation of Triethylaluminum and Diethylaluminum Chloride: An Ab Initio Determination of Structures, Energies of Formation, and Vibrational Spectra. J. Mol. Struct. Theochem. 1998, 454 (2–3), 149159,  DOI: 10.1016/S0166-1280(98)00285-1
  25. 25
    Hay, J. N.; Hooper, P. G.; Robb, J. C. Monomer-Dimer Equilibria of Triethylaluminium. J. Organomet. Chem. 1971, 28 (2), 193204,  DOI: 10.1016/S0022-328X(00)84567-2
  26. 26
    Hiraoka, Y. S.; Mashita, M. Ab Initio Study on the Dimer Structures of Trimethylaluminum and Dimethylaluminumhydride. J. Cryst. Growth 1994, 145 (1–4), 473477,  DOI: 10.1016/0022-0248(94)91094-4
  27. 27
    Wang, N. X.; Venkatesh, K.; Wilson, A. K. Behavior of Density Functionals with Respect to Basis Set. 3. Basis Set Superposition Error. J. Phys. Chem. A 2006, 110 (2), 779784,  DOI: 10.1021/jp0541664
  28. 28
    Davidson, E. R.; Chakravorty, S. J. A Possible Definition of Basis Set Superposition Error. Chem. Phys. Lett. 1994, 217 (1–2), 4854,  DOI: 10.1016/0009-2614(93)E1356-L
  29. 29
    Atkins, P. Physikalische Chemie, 2. Auflage.; VCH Verlagsgesellschaft GmbH: Weinheim, 1996.
  30. 30
    Marques, E. A.; De Gendt, S.; Pourtois, G.; Van Setten, M. J. Benchmarking First-Principles Reaction Equilibrium Composition Prediction. Molecules 2023, 28 (9), 3649,  DOI: 10.3390/molecules28093649
  31. 31
    Ritala, M.; Leskelä, M.; Dekker, J.-P.; Mutsaers, C.; Soininen, P. J.; Skarp, J. Perfectly Conformal TiN and Al2O3 Films Deposited by Atomic Layer Deposition. Chem. Vap. Depos. 1999, 5 (1), 79,  DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1521-3862(199901)5:1<7::AID-CVDE7>3.0.CO;2-J
  32. 32
    Cremers, V.; Puurunen, R. L.; Dendooven, J. Conformality in Atomic Layer Deposition: Current Status Overview of Analysis and Modelling. Appl. Phys. Rev. 2019, 6 (2), 021302  DOI: 10.1063/1.5060967
  33. 33
    Buttera, S. C.; Mandia, D. J.; Barry, S. T. Tris(Dimethylamido)Aluminum(III): An Overlooked Atomic Layer Deposition Precursor. J. Vac. Sci. Technol. Vac. Surf. Films 2017, 35 (1), 01B128  DOI: 10.1116/1.4972469
  34. 34
    Gladfelter, W. L. Selective Metalization by Chemical Vapor Deposition. Chem. Mater. 1993, 5 (10), 13721388,  DOI: 10.1021/cm00034a004
  35. 35
    Neese, F. The ORCA Program System. WIREs Comput. Mol. Sci. 2012, 2 (1), 7378,  DOI: 10.1002/wcms.81
  36. 36
    Neese, F. Software Update: The ORCA Program System, Version 4.0. WIREs Comput. Mol. Sci. 2018, 8 (1), e1327  DOI: 10.1002/wcms.1327
  37. 37
    Neese, F.; Wennmohs, F.; Becker, U.; Riplinger, C. The ORCA Quantum Chemistry Program Package. J. Chem. Phys. 2020, 152 (22), 224108,  DOI: 10.1063/5.0004608
  38. 38
    Grimme, S.; Antony, J.; Ehrlich, S.; Krieg, H. A Consistent and Accurate Ab Initio Parametrization of Density Functional Dispersion Correction (DFT-D) for the 94 Elements H-Pu. J. Chem. Phys. 2010, 132 (15), 154104,  DOI: 10.1063/1.3382344
  39. 39
    Grimme, S.; Ehrlich, S.; Goerigk, L. Effect of the Damping Function in Dispersion Corrected Density Functional Theory. J. Comput. Chem. 2011, 32 (7), 14561465,  DOI: 10.1002/jcc.21759
  40. 40
    Grimme, S. Accurate Description of van Der Waals Complexes by Density Functional Theory Including Empirical Corrections. J. Comput. Chem. 2004, 25 (12), 14631473,  DOI: 10.1002/jcc.20078
  41. 41
    Bykov, D.; Petrenko, T.; Izsák, R.; Kossmann, S.; Becker, U.; Valeev, E.; Neese, F. Efficient Implementation of the Analytic Second Derivatives of Hartree–Fock and Hybrid DFT Energies: A Detailed Analysis of Different Approximations. Mol. Phys. 2015, 113 (13–14), 19611977,  DOI: 10.1080/00268976.2015.1025114
  42. 42
    Riplinger, C.; Neese, F. An Efficient and near Linear Scaling Pair Natural Orbital Based Local Coupled Cluster Method. J. Chem. Phys. 2013, 138 (3), 034106  DOI: 10.1063/1.4773581
  43. 43
    Pracht, P.; Bohle, F.; Grimme, S. Automated Exploration of the Low-Energy Chemical Space with Fast Quantum Chemical Methods. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2020, 22 (14), 71697192,  DOI: 10.1039/C9CP06869D
  44. 44
    Grimme, S. Exploration of Chemical Compound, Conformer, and Reaction Space with Meta-Dynamics Simulations Based on Tight-Binding Quantum Chemical Calculations. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2019, 15 (5), 28472862,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.jctc.9b00143
  45. 45
    Becke, A. D. Density-Functional Exchange-Energy Approximation with Correct Asymptotic Behavior. Phys. Rev. A 1988, 38 (6), 30983100,  DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.38.3098
  46. 46
    Becke, A. D. Density-Functional Thermochemistry. III. The Role of Exact Exchange. J. Chem. Phys. 1993, 98 (7), 56485652,  DOI: 10.1063/1.464913
  47. 47
    Lee, C.; Yang, W.; Parr, R. G. Development of the Colle-Salvetti Correlation-Energy Formula into a Functional of the Electron Density. Phys. Rev. B 1988, 37 (2), 785789,  DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.37.785
  48. 48
    Weigend, F.; Ahlrichs, R. Balanced Basis Sets of Split Valence, Triple Zeta Valence and Quadruple Zeta Valence Quality for H to Rn: Design and Assessment of Accuracy. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2005, 7 (18), 3297,  DOI: 10.1039/b508541a
  49. 49
    Weigend, F. Accurate Coulomb-Fitting Basis Sets for H to Rn. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2006, 8 (9), 1057,  DOI: 10.1039/b515623h
  50. 50
    Becke, A. D. A Multicenter Numerical Integration Scheme for Polyatomic Molecules. J. Chem. Phys. 1988, 88 (4), 25472553,  DOI: 10.1063/1.454033
  51. 51
    Liakos, D. G.; Neese, F. Is It Possible To Obtain Coupled Cluster Quality Energies at near Density Functional Theory Cost? Domain-Based Local Pair Natural Orbital Coupled Cluster vs Modern Density Functional Theory. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2015, 11 (9), 40544063,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.jctc.5b00359
  52. 52
    Truhlar, D. G. Basis-Set Extrapolation. Chem. Phys. Lett. 1998, 294 (1–3), 4548,  DOI: 10.1016/S0009-2614(98)00866-5
  53. 53
    Dunning, T. H. Gaussian Basis Sets for Use in Correlated Molecular Calculations. I. The Atoms Boron through Neon and Hydrogen. J. Chem. Phys. 1989, 90 (2), 10071023,  DOI: 10.1063/1.456153
  54. 54
    Wedler, G.; Freund, H.-J. Lehrbuch Der Physikalischen Chemie, 6. Auflage.; WILEY-VCH: Weinheim, 2012.
  55. 55
    Jensen, F. Introduction to Computational Chemistry, 1 ed.; JOHN WILEY & SONS: Chichester, 1999.
  56. 56
    AMS. http://www.scm.com/ Accessed 3 July 2024.
  57. 57
    Van Lenthe, E.; Baerends, E. J. Optimized Slater-type Basis Sets for the Elements 1–118. J. Comput. Chem. 2003, 24 (9), 11421156,  DOI: 10.1002/jcc.10255
  58. 58
    Chong, D. P.; Van Lenthe, E.; Van Gisbergen, S.; Baerends, E. J. Even-tempered Slater-type Orbitals Revisited: From Hydrogen to Krypton. J. Comput. Chem. 2004, 25 (8), 10301036,  DOI: 10.1002/jcc.20030
  59. 59
    Kitaura, K.; Morokuma, K. A New Energy Decomposition Scheme for Molecular Interactions within the Hartree-Fock Approximation. Int. J. Quantum Chem. 1976, 10 (2), 325340,  DOI: 10.1002/qua.560100211
  60. 60
    Ziegler, T.; Rauk, A. Carbon Monoxide, Carbon Monosulfide, Molecular Nitrogen, Phosphorus Trifluoride, and Methyl Isocyanide as σ Donors and π Acceptors. A Theoretical Study by the Hartree-Fock-Slater Transition-State Method. Inorg. Chem. 1979, 18 (7), 17551759,  DOI: 10.1021/ic50197a006
  61. 61
    Ziegler, T.; Rauk, A. A Theoretical Study of the Ethylene-Metal Bond in Complexes between Cu+, Ag+, Au+, Pt0, or Pt2+ and Ethylene, Based on the Hartree-Fock-Slater Transition-State Method. Inorg. Chem. 1979, 18 (6), 15581565,  DOI: 10.1021/ic50196a034
  62. 62
    Bickelhaupt, F. M.; Nibbering, N. M. M.; Van Wezenbeek, E. M.; Baerends, E. J. Central Bond in the Three CṄ Dimers NC-CN, CN-CN and CN-NC: Electron Pair Bonding and Pauli Repulsion Effects. J. Phys. Chem. 1992, 96 (12), 48644873,  DOI: 10.1021/j100191a027
  63. 63
    Tonner, R.; Frenking, G. Divalent Carbon(0) Chemistry, Part 1: Parent Compounds. Chem. – Eur. J. 2008, 14 (11), 32603272,  DOI: 10.1002/chem.200701390
  64. 64
    Pecher, L.; Tonner, R. Deriving Bonding Concepts for Molecules, Surfaces, and Solids with Energy Decomposition Analysis for Extended Systems. WIREs Comput. Mol. Sci. 2019, 9 (4), e1401  DOI: 10.1002/wcms.1401
  65. 65
    Bickelhaupt, F. M.; Baerends, E. J. Kohn-Sham Density Functional Theory: Predicting and Understanding Chemistry. In Reviews in Computational Chemistry; Lipkowitz, K. B., Boyd, D. B., Eds.; Wiley, 2000; Vol. 15, pp 186.  DOI: 10.1002/9780470125922.ch1 .
  66. 66
    Te Velde, G.; Bickelhaupt, F. M.; Baerends, E. J.; Fonseca Guerra, C.; Van Gisbergen, S. J. A.; Snijders, J. G.; Ziegler, T. Chemistry with ADF. J. Comput. Chem. 2001, 22 (9), 931967,  DOI: 10.1002/jcc.1056
  67. 67
    Kresse, G.; Hafner, J. Ab Initio Molecular Dynamics for Liquid Metals. Phys. Rev. B 1993, 47 (1), 558561,  DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.47.558
  68. 68
    Kresse, G.; Hafner, J. Ab Initio Molecular-Dynamics Simulation of the Liquid-Metal–Amorphous-Semiconductor Transition in Germanium. Phys. Rev. B 1994, 49 (20), 1425114269,  DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.49.14251
  69. 69
    Kresse, G.; Furthmüller, J. Efficiency of Ab-Initio Total Energy Calculations for Metals and Semiconductors Using a Plane-Wave Basis Set. Comput. Mater. Sci. 1996, 6 (1), 1550,  DOI: 10.1016/0927-0256(96)00008-0
  70. 70
    Kresse, G.; Furthmüller, J. Efficient Iterative Schemes for Ab Initio Total-Energy Calculations Using a Plane-Wave Basis Set. Phys. Rev. B 1996, 54 (16), 1116911186,  DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.54.11169
  71. 71
    Kresse, G.; Hafner, J. Norm-Conserving and Ultrasoft Pseudopotentials for First-Row and Transition Elements. J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 1994, 6 (40), 82458257,  DOI: 10.1088/0953-8984/6/40/015
  72. 72
    Perdew, J. P.; Burke, K.; Ernzerhof, M. Generalized Gradient Approximation Made Simple. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1996, 77 (18), 38653868,  DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.77.3865
  73. 73
    Kresse, G.; Joubert, D. From Ultrasoft Pseudopotentials to the Projector Augmented-Wave Method. Phys. Rev. B 1999, 59 (3), 17581775,  DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.59.1758
  74. 74
    Monkhorst, H. J.; Pack, J. D. Special Points for Brillouin-Zone Integrations. Phys. Rev. B 1976, 13 (12), 51885192,  DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.13.5188
  75. 75
    Pack, J. D.; Monkhorst, H. J. Special Points for Brillouin-Zone Integrations”─a Reply. Phys. Rev. B 1977, 16 (4), 17481749,  DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.16.1748
  76. 76
    Momma, K.; Izumi, F. VESTA 3 for Three-Dimensional Visualization of Crystal, Volumetric and Morphology Data. J. Appl. Crystallogr. 2011, 44 (6), 12721276,  DOI: 10.1107/S0021889811038970
  77. 77
    Gražulis, S.; Chateigner, D.; Downs, R. T.; Yokochi, A. F. T.; Quirós, M.; Lutterotti, L.; Manakova, E.; Butkus, J.; Moeck, P.; Le Bail, A. Crystallography Open Database – an Open-Access Collection of Crystal Structures. J. Appl. Crystallogr. 2009, 42 (4), 726729,  DOI: 10.1107/S0021889809016690
  78. 78
    Kroll, P.; Milko, M. Theoretical Investigation of the Solid State Reaction of Silicon Nitride and Silicon Dioxide Forming Silicon Oxynitride (Si2N2O) under Pressure. Z. Für Anorg. Allg. Chem. 2003, 629 (10), 17371750,  DOI: 10.1002/zaac.200300122
  79. 79
    Henkelman, G.; Jónsson, H. Improved Tangent Estimate in the Nudged Elastic Band Method for Finding Minimum Energy Paths and Saddle Points. J. Chem. Phys. 2000, 113 (22), 99789985,  DOI: 10.1063/1.1323224
  80. 80
    Henkelman, G.; Uberuaga, B. P.; Jónsson, H. A Climbing Image Nudged Elastic Band Method for Finding Saddle Points and Minimum Energy Paths. J. Chem. Phys. 2000, 113 (22), 99019904,  DOI: 10.1063/1.1329672
  81. 81
    Sheppard, D.; Terrell, R.; Henkelman, G. Optimization Methods for Finding Minimum Energy Paths. J. Chem. Phys. 2008, 128 (13), 134106,  DOI: 10.1063/1.2841941
  82. 82
    Smidstrup, S.; Pedersen, A.; Stokbro, K.; Jónsson, H. Improved Initial Guess for Minimum Energy Path Calculations. J. Chem. Phys. 2014, 140 (21), 214106,  DOI: 10.1063/1.4878664
  83. 83
    Hackler, R. A.; McAnally, M. O.; Schatz, G. C.; Stair, P. C.; Van Duyne, R. P. Identification of Dimeric Methylalumina Surface Species during Atomic Layer Deposition Using Operando Surface-Enhanced Raman Spectroscopy. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2017, 139 (6), 24562463,  DOI: 10.1021/jacs.6b12709
  84. 84
    Kim, M.; Shong, B. Dimerization Equilibrium of Group 13 Precursors for Vapor Deposition of Thin Films. Comput. Theor. Chem. 2024, 1242, 114953  DOI: 10.1016/j.comptc.2024.114953
  85. 85
    Kim, M.; Kim, S.; Shong, B. Adsorption of Dimethylaluminum Isopropoxide (DMAI) on the Al2O3 Surface: A Machine-Learning Potential Study. J. Sci. Adv. Mater. Devices 2024, 9, 100754  DOI: 10.1016/j.jsamd.2024.100754
  86. 86
    Henrickson, C. H.; Eyman, D. P. Lewis Acidity of Alanes. Interactions of Trimethylalane with Sulfides. Inorg. Chem. 1967, 6 (8), 14611465,  DOI: 10.1021/ic50054a006
  87. 87
    Wellmann, P. P.; Pieck, F.; Tonner-Zech, R. An Atomistic Picture of Buildup and Degradation Reactions in Area-Selective Atomic Layer Deposition with a Small Molecule Inhibitor. Chem. Mater. 2024, 36, 7343,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.chemmater.4c01269
  88. 88
    Xu, W.; Haeve, M. G. N.; Lemaire, P. C.; Sharma, K.; Hausmann, D. M.; Agarwal, S. Functionalization of the SiO2 Surface with Aminosilanes to Enable Area-Selective Atomic Layer Deposition of Al2O3. Langmuir 2022, 38 (2), 652660,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.langmuir.1c02216
  89. 89
    Seo, S.; Yeo, B. C.; Han, S. S.; Yoon, C. M.; Yang, J. Y.; Yoon, J.; Yoo, C.; Kim, H.; Lee, Y.; Lee, S. J.; Myoung, J.-M.; Lee, H.-B.-R.; Kim, W.-H.; Oh, I.-K.; Kim, H. Reaction Mechanism of Area-Selective Atomic Layer Deposition for Al2O3 Nanopatterns. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2017, 9 (47), 4160741617,  DOI: 10.1021/acsami.7b13365
  90. 90
    Yu, P.; Merkx, M. J. M.; Tezsevin, I.; Lemaire, P. C.; Hausmann, D. M.; Sandoval, T. E.; Kessels, W. M. M.; Mackus, A. J. M. Blocking Mechanisms in Area-Selective ALD by Small Molecule Inhibitors of Different Sizes: Steric Shielding versus Chemical Passivation. Appl. Surf. Sci. 2024, 665, 160141  DOI: 10.1016/j.apsusc.2024.160141
  91. 91
    Ande, C. K.; Elliott, S. D.; Kessels, W. M. M. First-Principles Investigation of C–H Bond Scission and Formation Reactions in Ethane, Ethene, and Ethyne Adsorbed on Ru(0001). J. Phys. Chem. C 2014, 118 (46), 2668326694,  DOI: 10.1021/jp5069363
  92. 92
    Shirazi, M.; Elliott, S. D. Cooperation between Adsorbates Accounts for the Activation of Atomic Layer Deposition Reactions. Nanoscale 2015, 7 (14), 63116318,  DOI: 10.1039/C5NR00900F
  93. 93
    Shirazi, M.; Elliott, S. D. Multiple Proton Diffusion and Film Densification in Atomic Layer Deposition Modeled by Density Functional Theory. Chem. Mater. 2013, 25 (6), 878889,  DOI: 10.1021/cm303630e

Cited By

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

This article has not yet been cited by other publications.

Chemistry of Materials

Cite this: Chem. Mater. 2025, XXXX, XXX, XXX-XXX
Click to copy citationCitation copied!
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemmater.4c02557
Published January 17, 2025

© 2025 The Authors. Published by American Chemical Society. This publication is licensed under

CC-BY 4.0 .

Article Views

453

Altmetric

-

Citations

-
Learn about these metrics

Article Views are the COUNTER-compliant sum of full text article downloads since November 2008 (both PDF and HTML) across all institutions and individuals. These metrics are regularly updated to reflect usage leading up to the last few days.

Citations are the number of other articles citing this article, calculated by Crossref and updated daily. Find more information about Crossref citation counts.

The Altmetric Attention Score is a quantitative measure of the attention that a research article has received online. Clicking on the donut icon will load a page at altmetric.com with additional details about the score and the social media presence for the given article. Find more information on the Altmetric Attention Score and how the score is calculated.

  • Abstract

    Figure 1

    Figure 1. Dimerization reaction of Al precursors shown at the example of TMA with the equilibrium constant Kdiss for the dissociation defined via the partial pressures pmonomer and pdimer and standard pressure p0.

    Figure 2

    Figure 2. Set of aluminum precursors investigated in this study grouped in substance classes 14. Abbreviations used in the ALD literature are shown in parentheses where available.

    Figure 3

    Figure 3. Dimer structures with one example of each substance class.

    Figure 4

    Figure 4. Dissociated dimer fraction (DDF) as a function of total pressure of the system at 200 °C for the tested set of Al precursors. Common ALD pressures from 10–4 to 10–2 bar are highlighted in gray.

    Figure 5

    Figure 5. Dissociated dimer fraction (DDF) versus temperature at total pressure of the system of 1.73 × 10–4 bar (130 mTorr) for the tested set of Al precursors. A common temperature range for ALD is highlighted in gray.

    Figure 6

    Figure 6. EDA on the dimer bond of the Al precursors. All energy terms are given in kJ·mol–1.

    Figure 7

    Figure 7. Adsorption of dimers (a) (2-Cl)2, (b) (4)2, and (c) (1-Me)2 and monomers (d) 2-Cl, (e) 4, and (f) 1-Me on SiO2. Bond lengths are shown in Å, and adsorption energies in kJ·mol–1. The dispersion contribution to the adsorption energy is shown in brackets. Color code: (soft) pink─Al, green─Cl, black─C, red─O, and white─H. All hydrogens attached to carbon are omitted for clarity.

    Figure 8

    Figure 8. Adsorption of dimers (a) (2-Cl)2, (b) (4)2, and (c) (1-Me)2 and monomers (d) 2-Cl, (e) 4, and (f) 1-Me on the methoxy group of the small-molecule inhibitor TMPS. Bond lengths are shown in Å and adsorption energies in kJ·mol–1. The dispersion contribution to the adsorption energy is shown in brackets. Color code: (soft) pink─Al, green─Cl, black─C, red─O, white─H. All hydrogens attached to carbon are omitted for clarity.

    Figure 9

    Figure 9. Reaction path of adsorption and dissociation of (3)2 on SiO2. (a) Physisorbed dimer (PS). (b) First intermediary minimum (IM1). (c) Second intermediary minimum (IM2). (d) First partially dissociated structure (DISS1). (e) Transition state for the second dissociation step (TS). (f) Fully dissociated dimer (DISS2).

  • References


    This article references 93 other publications.

    1. 1
      Oviroh, P. O.; Akbarzadeh, R.; Pan, D.; Coetzee, R. A. M.; Jen, T.-C. New Development of Atomic Layer Deposition: Processes, Methods and Applications. Sci. Technol. Adv. Mater. 2019, 20 (1), 465496,  DOI: 10.1080/14686996.2019.1599694
    2. 2
      George, S. M. Atomic Layer Deposition: An Overview. Chem. Rev. 2010, 110 (1), 111131,  DOI: 10.1021/cr900056b
    3. 3
      Mackus, A. J. M.; Merkx, M. J. M.; Kessels, W. M. M. From the Bottom-Up: Toward Area-Selective Atomic Layer Deposition with High Selectivity. Chem. Mater. 2019, 31 (1), 212,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.chemmater.8b03454
    4. 4
      O’Neill, B. J.; Jackson, D. H. K.; Lee, J.; Canlas, C.; Stair, P. C.; Marshall, C. L.; Elam, J. W.; Kuech, T. F.; Dumesic, J. A.; Huber, G. W. Catalyst Design with Atomic Layer Deposition. ACS Catal. 2015, 5 (3), 18041825,  DOI: 10.1021/cs501862h
    5. 5
      Gupta, B.; Hossain, Md. A.; Riaz, A.; Sharma, A.; Zhang, D.; Tan, H. H.; Jagadish, C.; Catchpole, K.; Hoex, B.; Karuturi, S. Recent Advances in Materials Design Using Atomic Layer Deposition for Energy Applications. Adv. Funct. Mater. 2022, 32 (3), 2109105,  DOI: 10.1002/adfm.202109105
    6. 6
      Foroughi-Abari, A.; Cadien, K. Atomic Layer Deposition for Nanotechnology. In Nanofabrication; Stepanova, M., Dew, S., Eds.; Springer Vienna: Vienna, 2012; pp 143161.  DOI: 10.1007/978-3-7091-0424-8_6 .
    7. 7
      Devi, A. ‘Old Chemistries’ for New Applications: Perspectives for Development of Precursors for MOCVD and ALD Applications. Coord. Chem. Rev. 2013, 257 (23–24), 33323384,  DOI: 10.1016/j.ccr.2013.07.025
    8. 8
      Hatanpää, T.; Ritala, M.; Leskelä, M. Precursors as Enablers of ALD Technology: Contributions from University of Helsinki. Coord. Chem. Rev. 2013, 257 (23–24), 32973322,  DOI: 10.1016/j.ccr.2013.07.002
    9. 9
      Oh, I.-K.; Sandoval, T. E.; Liu, T.-L.; Richey, N. E.; Nguyen, C. T.; Gu, B.; Lee, H.-B.-R.; Tonner-Zech, R.; Bent, S. F. Elucidating the Reaction Mechanism of Atomic Layer Deposition of Al2O3 with a Series of Al(CH3)xCl3–x and Al(CyH2y+1)3 Precursors. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2022, 144 (26), 1175711766,  DOI: 10.1021/jacs.2c03752
    10. 10
      Potts, S. E.; Kessels, W. M. M. Energy-Enhanced Atomic Layer Deposition for More Process and Precursor Versatility. Coord. Chem. Rev. 2013, 257 (23–24), 32543270,  DOI: 10.1016/j.ccr.2013.06.015
    11. 11
      Leskelä, M.; Ritala, M. Atomic Layer Deposition (ALD): From Precursors to Thin Film Structures. Thin Solid Films 2002, 409 (1), 138146,  DOI: 10.1016/S0040-6090(02)00117-7
    12. 12
      Parsons, G. N.; Clark, R. D. Area-Selective Deposition: Fundamentals, Applications, and Future Outlook. Chem. Mater. 2020, 32 (12), 49204953,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.chemmater.0c00722
    13. 13
      Bonvalot, M.; Vallée, C.; Mannequin, C.; Jaffal, M.; Gassilloud, R.; Possémé, N.; Chevolleau, T. Area Selective Deposition Using Alternate Deposition and Etch Super-Cycle Strategies. Dalton Trans. 2022, 51, 442450,  DOI: 10.1039/D1DT03456A
    14. 14
      Oh, I.-K.; Sandoval, T. E.; Liu, T.-L.; Richey, N. E.; Bent, S. F. Role of Precursor Choice on Area-Selective Atomic Layer Deposition. Chem. Mater. 2021, 33 (11), 39263935,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.chemmater.0c04718
    15. 15
      Kim, H. G.; Kim, M.; Gu, B.; Khan, M. R.; Ko, B. G.; Yasmeen, S.; Kim, C. S.; Kwon, S.-H.; Kim, J.; Kwon, J.; Jin, K.; Cho, B.; Chun, J.-S.; Shong, B.; Lee, H.-B.-R. Effects of Al Precursors on Deposition Selectivity of Atomic Layer Deposition of Al2O3 Using Ethanethiol Inhibitor. Chem. Mater. 2020, 32 (20), 89218929,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.chemmater.0c02798
    16. 16
      Yarbrough, J.; Pieck, F.; Grigjanis, D.; Oh, I.-K.; Maue, P.; Tonner-Zech, R.; Bent, S. F. Tuning Molecular Inhibitors and Aluminum Precursors for the Area-Selective Atomic Layer Deposition of Al2O3. Chem. Mater. 2022, 34 (10), 46464659,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.chemmater.2c00513
    17. 17
      Merkx, M. J. M.; Angelidis, A.; Mameli, A.; Li, J.; Lemaire, P. C.; Sharma, K.; Hausmann, D. M.; Kessels, W. M. M.; Sandoval, T. E.; Mackus, A. J. M. Relation between Reactive Surface Sites and Precursor Choice for Area-Selective Atomic Layer Deposition Using Small Molecule Inhibitors. J. Phys. Chem. C 2022, 126 (10), 48454853,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpcc.1c10816
    18. 18
      Kim, H.; Kim, M.; Kim, B.; Shong, B. Adsorption Mechanism of Dimeric Ga Precursors in Metalorganic Chemical Vapor Deposition of Gallium Nitride. J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A 2023, 41 (6), 063409  DOI: 10.1116/6.0002966
    19. 19
      Baev, A. K.; Shishko, M. A.; Korneev, N. N. Thermodynamics and Thermochemistry of Organoaluminum Compounds. Russ. J. Gen. Chem. 2002, 72 (9), 13891395,  DOI: 10.1023/A:1021669611400
    20. 20
      Laubengayer, A. W.; Gilliam, W. F. The Alkyls of the Third Group Elements. I. Vapor Phase Studies of the Alkyls of Aluminum, Gallium and Indium. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1941, 63 (2), 477479,  DOI: 10.1021/ja01847a031
    21. 21
      Smith, M. B. The Monomer–dimer Equilibria of Liquid Aluminum Alkyls. J. Organomet. Chem. 1972, 46 (1), 3149,  DOI: 10.1016/S0022-328X(00)90473-X
    22. 22
      Almenningen, A.; Halvorsen, S.; Haaland, A.; Pihlaja, K.; Schaumburg, K.; Ehrenberg, L. A Gas Phase Electron Diffraction Investigation of the Molecular Structures of Trimethylaluminium Monomer and Dimer. Acta Chem. Scand. 1971, 25, 19371945,  DOI: 10.3891/acta.chem.scand.25-1937
    23. 23
      Lee, S. Y.; Luo, B.; Sun, Y.; White, J. M.; Kim, Y. Thermal Decomposition of Dimethylaluminum Isopropoxide on Si(100). Appl. Surf. Sci. 2004, 222 (1–4), 234242,  DOI: 10.1016/j.apsusc.2003.08.016
    24. 24
      Champagne, B.; Mosley, D. H.; Fripiat, J. G.; André, J.-M.; Bernard, A.; Bettonville, S.; François, P.; Momtaz, A. Dimerization versus Complexation of Triethylaluminum and Diethylaluminum Chloride: An Ab Initio Determination of Structures, Energies of Formation, and Vibrational Spectra. J. Mol. Struct. Theochem. 1998, 454 (2–3), 149159,  DOI: 10.1016/S0166-1280(98)00285-1
    25. 25
      Hay, J. N.; Hooper, P. G.; Robb, J. C. Monomer-Dimer Equilibria of Triethylaluminium. J. Organomet. Chem. 1971, 28 (2), 193204,  DOI: 10.1016/S0022-328X(00)84567-2
    26. 26
      Hiraoka, Y. S.; Mashita, M. Ab Initio Study on the Dimer Structures of Trimethylaluminum and Dimethylaluminumhydride. J. Cryst. Growth 1994, 145 (1–4), 473477,  DOI: 10.1016/0022-0248(94)91094-4
    27. 27
      Wang, N. X.; Venkatesh, K.; Wilson, A. K. Behavior of Density Functionals with Respect to Basis Set. 3. Basis Set Superposition Error. J. Phys. Chem. A 2006, 110 (2), 779784,  DOI: 10.1021/jp0541664
    28. 28
      Davidson, E. R.; Chakravorty, S. J. A Possible Definition of Basis Set Superposition Error. Chem. Phys. Lett. 1994, 217 (1–2), 4854,  DOI: 10.1016/0009-2614(93)E1356-L
    29. 29
      Atkins, P. Physikalische Chemie, 2. Auflage.; VCH Verlagsgesellschaft GmbH: Weinheim, 1996.
    30. 30
      Marques, E. A.; De Gendt, S.; Pourtois, G.; Van Setten, M. J. Benchmarking First-Principles Reaction Equilibrium Composition Prediction. Molecules 2023, 28 (9), 3649,  DOI: 10.3390/molecules28093649
    31. 31
      Ritala, M.; Leskelä, M.; Dekker, J.-P.; Mutsaers, C.; Soininen, P. J.; Skarp, J. Perfectly Conformal TiN and Al2O3 Films Deposited by Atomic Layer Deposition. Chem. Vap. Depos. 1999, 5 (1), 79,  DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1521-3862(199901)5:1<7::AID-CVDE7>3.0.CO;2-J
    32. 32
      Cremers, V.; Puurunen, R. L.; Dendooven, J. Conformality in Atomic Layer Deposition: Current Status Overview of Analysis and Modelling. Appl. Phys. Rev. 2019, 6 (2), 021302  DOI: 10.1063/1.5060967
    33. 33
      Buttera, S. C.; Mandia, D. J.; Barry, S. T. Tris(Dimethylamido)Aluminum(III): An Overlooked Atomic Layer Deposition Precursor. J. Vac. Sci. Technol. Vac. Surf. Films 2017, 35 (1), 01B128  DOI: 10.1116/1.4972469
    34. 34
      Gladfelter, W. L. Selective Metalization by Chemical Vapor Deposition. Chem. Mater. 1993, 5 (10), 13721388,  DOI: 10.1021/cm00034a004
    35. 35
      Neese, F. The ORCA Program System. WIREs Comput. Mol. Sci. 2012, 2 (1), 7378,  DOI: 10.1002/wcms.81
    36. 36
      Neese, F. Software Update: The ORCA Program System, Version 4.0. WIREs Comput. Mol. Sci. 2018, 8 (1), e1327  DOI: 10.1002/wcms.1327
    37. 37
      Neese, F.; Wennmohs, F.; Becker, U.; Riplinger, C. The ORCA Quantum Chemistry Program Package. J. Chem. Phys. 2020, 152 (22), 224108,  DOI: 10.1063/5.0004608
    38. 38
      Grimme, S.; Antony, J.; Ehrlich, S.; Krieg, H. A Consistent and Accurate Ab Initio Parametrization of Density Functional Dispersion Correction (DFT-D) for the 94 Elements H-Pu. J. Chem. Phys. 2010, 132 (15), 154104,  DOI: 10.1063/1.3382344
    39. 39
      Grimme, S.; Ehrlich, S.; Goerigk, L. Effect of the Damping Function in Dispersion Corrected Density Functional Theory. J. Comput. Chem. 2011, 32 (7), 14561465,  DOI: 10.1002/jcc.21759
    40. 40
      Grimme, S. Accurate Description of van Der Waals Complexes by Density Functional Theory Including Empirical Corrections. J. Comput. Chem. 2004, 25 (12), 14631473,  DOI: 10.1002/jcc.20078
    41. 41
      Bykov, D.; Petrenko, T.; Izsák, R.; Kossmann, S.; Becker, U.; Valeev, E.; Neese, F. Efficient Implementation of the Analytic Second Derivatives of Hartree–Fock and Hybrid DFT Energies: A Detailed Analysis of Different Approximations. Mol. Phys. 2015, 113 (13–14), 19611977,  DOI: 10.1080/00268976.2015.1025114
    42. 42
      Riplinger, C.; Neese, F. An Efficient and near Linear Scaling Pair Natural Orbital Based Local Coupled Cluster Method. J. Chem. Phys. 2013, 138 (3), 034106  DOI: 10.1063/1.4773581
    43. 43
      Pracht, P.; Bohle, F.; Grimme, S. Automated Exploration of the Low-Energy Chemical Space with Fast Quantum Chemical Methods. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2020, 22 (14), 71697192,  DOI: 10.1039/C9CP06869D
    44. 44
      Grimme, S. Exploration of Chemical Compound, Conformer, and Reaction Space with Meta-Dynamics Simulations Based on Tight-Binding Quantum Chemical Calculations. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2019, 15 (5), 28472862,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.jctc.9b00143
    45. 45
      Becke, A. D. Density-Functional Exchange-Energy Approximation with Correct Asymptotic Behavior. Phys. Rev. A 1988, 38 (6), 30983100,  DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.38.3098
    46. 46
      Becke, A. D. Density-Functional Thermochemistry. III. The Role of Exact Exchange. J. Chem. Phys. 1993, 98 (7), 56485652,  DOI: 10.1063/1.464913
    47. 47
      Lee, C.; Yang, W.; Parr, R. G. Development of the Colle-Salvetti Correlation-Energy Formula into a Functional of the Electron Density. Phys. Rev. B 1988, 37 (2), 785789,  DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.37.785
    48. 48
      Weigend, F.; Ahlrichs, R. Balanced Basis Sets of Split Valence, Triple Zeta Valence and Quadruple Zeta Valence Quality for H to Rn: Design and Assessment of Accuracy. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2005, 7 (18), 3297,  DOI: 10.1039/b508541a
    49. 49
      Weigend, F. Accurate Coulomb-Fitting Basis Sets for H to Rn. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2006, 8 (9), 1057,  DOI: 10.1039/b515623h
    50. 50
      Becke, A. D. A Multicenter Numerical Integration Scheme for Polyatomic Molecules. J. Chem. Phys. 1988, 88 (4), 25472553,  DOI: 10.1063/1.454033
    51. 51
      Liakos, D. G.; Neese, F. Is It Possible To Obtain Coupled Cluster Quality Energies at near Density Functional Theory Cost? Domain-Based Local Pair Natural Orbital Coupled Cluster vs Modern Density Functional Theory. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2015, 11 (9), 40544063,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.jctc.5b00359
    52. 52
      Truhlar, D. G. Basis-Set Extrapolation. Chem. Phys. Lett. 1998, 294 (1–3), 4548,  DOI: 10.1016/S0009-2614(98)00866-5
    53. 53
      Dunning, T. H. Gaussian Basis Sets for Use in Correlated Molecular Calculations. I. The Atoms Boron through Neon and Hydrogen. J. Chem. Phys. 1989, 90 (2), 10071023,  DOI: 10.1063/1.456153
    54. 54
      Wedler, G.; Freund, H.-J. Lehrbuch Der Physikalischen Chemie, 6. Auflage.; WILEY-VCH: Weinheim, 2012.
    55. 55
      Jensen, F. Introduction to Computational Chemistry, 1 ed.; JOHN WILEY & SONS: Chichester, 1999.
    56. 56
      AMS. http://www.scm.com/ Accessed 3 July 2024.
    57. 57
      Van Lenthe, E.; Baerends, E. J. Optimized Slater-type Basis Sets for the Elements 1–118. J. Comput. Chem. 2003, 24 (9), 11421156,  DOI: 10.1002/jcc.10255
    58. 58
      Chong, D. P.; Van Lenthe, E.; Van Gisbergen, S.; Baerends, E. J. Even-tempered Slater-type Orbitals Revisited: From Hydrogen to Krypton. J. Comput. Chem. 2004, 25 (8), 10301036,  DOI: 10.1002/jcc.20030
    59. 59
      Kitaura, K.; Morokuma, K. A New Energy Decomposition Scheme for Molecular Interactions within the Hartree-Fock Approximation. Int. J. Quantum Chem. 1976, 10 (2), 325340,  DOI: 10.1002/qua.560100211
    60. 60
      Ziegler, T.; Rauk, A. Carbon Monoxide, Carbon Monosulfide, Molecular Nitrogen, Phosphorus Trifluoride, and Methyl Isocyanide as σ Donors and π Acceptors. A Theoretical Study by the Hartree-Fock-Slater Transition-State Method. Inorg. Chem. 1979, 18 (7), 17551759,  DOI: 10.1021/ic50197a006
    61. 61
      Ziegler, T.; Rauk, A. A Theoretical Study of the Ethylene-Metal Bond in Complexes between Cu+, Ag+, Au+, Pt0, or Pt2+ and Ethylene, Based on the Hartree-Fock-Slater Transition-State Method. Inorg. Chem. 1979, 18 (6), 15581565,  DOI: 10.1021/ic50196a034
    62. 62
      Bickelhaupt, F. M.; Nibbering, N. M. M.; Van Wezenbeek, E. M.; Baerends, E. J. Central Bond in the Three CṄ Dimers NC-CN, CN-CN and CN-NC: Electron Pair Bonding and Pauli Repulsion Effects. J. Phys. Chem. 1992, 96 (12), 48644873,  DOI: 10.1021/j100191a027
    63. 63
      Tonner, R.; Frenking, G. Divalent Carbon(0) Chemistry, Part 1: Parent Compounds. Chem. – Eur. J. 2008, 14 (11), 32603272,  DOI: 10.1002/chem.200701390
    64. 64
      Pecher, L.; Tonner, R. Deriving Bonding Concepts for Molecules, Surfaces, and Solids with Energy Decomposition Analysis for Extended Systems. WIREs Comput. Mol. Sci. 2019, 9 (4), e1401  DOI: 10.1002/wcms.1401
    65. 65
      Bickelhaupt, F. M.; Baerends, E. J. Kohn-Sham Density Functional Theory: Predicting and Understanding Chemistry. In Reviews in Computational Chemistry; Lipkowitz, K. B., Boyd, D. B., Eds.; Wiley, 2000; Vol. 15, pp 186.  DOI: 10.1002/9780470125922.ch1 .
    66. 66
      Te Velde, G.; Bickelhaupt, F. M.; Baerends, E. J.; Fonseca Guerra, C.; Van Gisbergen, S. J. A.; Snijders, J. G.; Ziegler, T. Chemistry with ADF. J. Comput. Chem. 2001, 22 (9), 931967,  DOI: 10.1002/jcc.1056
    67. 67
      Kresse, G.; Hafner, J. Ab Initio Molecular Dynamics for Liquid Metals. Phys. Rev. B 1993, 47 (1), 558561,  DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.47.558
    68. 68
      Kresse, G.; Hafner, J. Ab Initio Molecular-Dynamics Simulation of the Liquid-Metal–Amorphous-Semiconductor Transition in Germanium. Phys. Rev. B 1994, 49 (20), 1425114269,  DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.49.14251
    69. 69
      Kresse, G.; Furthmüller, J. Efficiency of Ab-Initio Total Energy Calculations for Metals and Semiconductors Using a Plane-Wave Basis Set. Comput. Mater. Sci. 1996, 6 (1), 1550,  DOI: 10.1016/0927-0256(96)00008-0
    70. 70
      Kresse, G.; Furthmüller, J. Efficient Iterative Schemes for Ab Initio Total-Energy Calculations Using a Plane-Wave Basis Set. Phys. Rev. B 1996, 54 (16), 1116911186,  DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.54.11169
    71. 71
      Kresse, G.; Hafner, J. Norm-Conserving and Ultrasoft Pseudopotentials for First-Row and Transition Elements. J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 1994, 6 (40), 82458257,  DOI: 10.1088/0953-8984/6/40/015
    72. 72
      Perdew, J. P.; Burke, K.; Ernzerhof, M. Generalized Gradient Approximation Made Simple. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1996, 77 (18), 38653868,  DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.77.3865
    73. 73
      Kresse, G.; Joubert, D. From Ultrasoft Pseudopotentials to the Projector Augmented-Wave Method. Phys. Rev. B 1999, 59 (3), 17581775,  DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.59.1758
    74. 74
      Monkhorst, H. J.; Pack, J. D. Special Points for Brillouin-Zone Integrations. Phys. Rev. B 1976, 13 (12), 51885192,  DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.13.5188
    75. 75
      Pack, J. D.; Monkhorst, H. J. Special Points for Brillouin-Zone Integrations”─a Reply. Phys. Rev. B 1977, 16 (4), 17481749,  DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.16.1748
    76. 76
      Momma, K.; Izumi, F. VESTA 3 for Three-Dimensional Visualization of Crystal, Volumetric and Morphology Data. J. Appl. Crystallogr. 2011, 44 (6), 12721276,  DOI: 10.1107/S0021889811038970
    77. 77
      Gražulis, S.; Chateigner, D.; Downs, R. T.; Yokochi, A. F. T.; Quirós, M.; Lutterotti, L.; Manakova, E.; Butkus, J.; Moeck, P.; Le Bail, A. Crystallography Open Database – an Open-Access Collection of Crystal Structures. J. Appl. Crystallogr. 2009, 42 (4), 726729,  DOI: 10.1107/S0021889809016690
    78. 78
      Kroll, P.; Milko, M. Theoretical Investigation of the Solid State Reaction of Silicon Nitride and Silicon Dioxide Forming Silicon Oxynitride (Si2N2O) under Pressure. Z. Für Anorg. Allg. Chem. 2003, 629 (10), 17371750,  DOI: 10.1002/zaac.200300122
    79. 79
      Henkelman, G.; Jónsson, H. Improved Tangent Estimate in the Nudged Elastic Band Method for Finding Minimum Energy Paths and Saddle Points. J. Chem. Phys. 2000, 113 (22), 99789985,  DOI: 10.1063/1.1323224
    80. 80
      Henkelman, G.; Uberuaga, B. P.; Jónsson, H. A Climbing Image Nudged Elastic Band Method for Finding Saddle Points and Minimum Energy Paths. J. Chem. Phys. 2000, 113 (22), 99019904,  DOI: 10.1063/1.1329672
    81. 81
      Sheppard, D.; Terrell, R.; Henkelman, G. Optimization Methods for Finding Minimum Energy Paths. J. Chem. Phys. 2008, 128 (13), 134106,  DOI: 10.1063/1.2841941
    82. 82
      Smidstrup, S.; Pedersen, A.; Stokbro, K.; Jónsson, H. Improved Initial Guess for Minimum Energy Path Calculations. J. Chem. Phys. 2014, 140 (21), 214106,  DOI: 10.1063/1.4878664
    83. 83
      Hackler, R. A.; McAnally, M. O.; Schatz, G. C.; Stair, P. C.; Van Duyne, R. P. Identification of Dimeric Methylalumina Surface Species during Atomic Layer Deposition Using Operando Surface-Enhanced Raman Spectroscopy. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2017, 139 (6), 24562463,  DOI: 10.1021/jacs.6b12709
    84. 84
      Kim, M.; Shong, B. Dimerization Equilibrium of Group 13 Precursors for Vapor Deposition of Thin Films. Comput. Theor. Chem. 2024, 1242, 114953  DOI: 10.1016/j.comptc.2024.114953
    85. 85
      Kim, M.; Kim, S.; Shong, B. Adsorption of Dimethylaluminum Isopropoxide (DMAI) on the Al2O3 Surface: A Machine-Learning Potential Study. J. Sci. Adv. Mater. Devices 2024, 9, 100754  DOI: 10.1016/j.jsamd.2024.100754
    86. 86
      Henrickson, C. H.; Eyman, D. P. Lewis Acidity of Alanes. Interactions of Trimethylalane with Sulfides. Inorg. Chem. 1967, 6 (8), 14611465,  DOI: 10.1021/ic50054a006
    87. 87
      Wellmann, P. P.; Pieck, F.; Tonner-Zech, R. An Atomistic Picture of Buildup and Degradation Reactions in Area-Selective Atomic Layer Deposition with a Small Molecule Inhibitor. Chem. Mater. 2024, 36, 7343,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.chemmater.4c01269
    88. 88
      Xu, W.; Haeve, M. G. N.; Lemaire, P. C.; Sharma, K.; Hausmann, D. M.; Agarwal, S. Functionalization of the SiO2 Surface with Aminosilanes to Enable Area-Selective Atomic Layer Deposition of Al2O3. Langmuir 2022, 38 (2), 652660,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.langmuir.1c02216
    89. 89
      Seo, S.; Yeo, B. C.; Han, S. S.; Yoon, C. M.; Yang, J. Y.; Yoon, J.; Yoo, C.; Kim, H.; Lee, Y.; Lee, S. J.; Myoung, J.-M.; Lee, H.-B.-R.; Kim, W.-H.; Oh, I.-K.; Kim, H. Reaction Mechanism of Area-Selective Atomic Layer Deposition for Al2O3 Nanopatterns. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2017, 9 (47), 4160741617,  DOI: 10.1021/acsami.7b13365
    90. 90
      Yu, P.; Merkx, M. J. M.; Tezsevin, I.; Lemaire, P. C.; Hausmann, D. M.; Sandoval, T. E.; Kessels, W. M. M.; Mackus, A. J. M. Blocking Mechanisms in Area-Selective ALD by Small Molecule Inhibitors of Different Sizes: Steric Shielding versus Chemical Passivation. Appl. Surf. Sci. 2024, 665, 160141  DOI: 10.1016/j.apsusc.2024.160141
    91. 91
      Ande, C. K.; Elliott, S. D.; Kessels, W. M. M. First-Principles Investigation of C–H Bond Scission and Formation Reactions in Ethane, Ethene, and Ethyne Adsorbed on Ru(0001). J. Phys. Chem. C 2014, 118 (46), 2668326694,  DOI: 10.1021/jp5069363
    92. 92
      Shirazi, M.; Elliott, S. D. Cooperation between Adsorbates Accounts for the Activation of Atomic Layer Deposition Reactions. Nanoscale 2015, 7 (14), 63116318,  DOI: 10.1039/C5NR00900F
    93. 93
      Shirazi, M.; Elliott, S. D. Multiple Proton Diffusion and Film Densification in Atomic Layer Deposition Modeled by Density Functional Theory. Chem. Mater. 2013, 25 (6), 878889,  DOI: 10.1021/cm303630e
  • Supporting Information

    Supporting Information


    The Supporting Information is available free of charge at https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.chemmater.4c02557.

    • Further information on the accuracy of the computational approach, calculation of DDFs from thermodynamic considerations, more information on the EDA results, and the NEB profile (PDF)


    Terms & Conditions

    Most electronic Supporting Information files are available without a subscription to ACS Web Editions. Such files may be downloaded by article for research use (if there is a public use license linked to the relevant article, that license may permit other uses). Permission may be obtained from ACS for other uses through requests via the RightsLink permission system: http://pubs.acs.org/page/copyright/permissions.html.