ACS Publications. Most Trusted. Most Cited. Most Read
Investigating Gold Deposition with High-Power Impulse Magnetron Sputtering and Direct-Current Magnetron Sputtering on Polystyrene, Poly-4-vinylpyridine, and Polystyrene Sulfonic Acid
My Activity
  • Open Access
Article

Investigating Gold Deposition with High-Power Impulse Magnetron Sputtering and Direct-Current Magnetron Sputtering on Polystyrene, Poly-4-vinylpyridine, and Polystyrene Sulfonic Acid
Click to copy article linkArticle link copied!

  • Yusuf Bulut
    Yusuf Bulut
    Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron DESY, Notkestr. 85, Hamburg 22607, Germany
    Department of Physics, Chair for Functional Materials, Technical University of Munich, TUM School of Natural Sciences, James-Franck-Str. 1, Garching 85748, Germany
    More by Yusuf Bulut
  • Benedikt Sochor
    Benedikt Sochor
    Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron DESY, Notkestr. 85, Hamburg 22607, Germany
  • Kristian A. Reck
    Kristian A. Reck
    Chair for Multicomponent Materials, Department for Materials Science, Faculty of Engineering, Kiel University, Kaiserstr. 2, Kiel 24143, Germany
  • Bernhard Schummer
    Bernhard Schummer
    Fraunhofer Institute for Integrated Circuits IIS, Development Center for X-ray Technology EZRT, Flugplatzstr. 75, Fürth 90768, Germany
  • Alexander Meinhardt
    Alexander Meinhardt
    Centre for X-ray and Nano Science CXNS, Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron DESY, Notkestr. 85, Hamburg 22607, Germany
    Department of Physics, University of Hamburg, Notkestr. 9-11, Hamburg 22607, Germany
  • Jonas Drewes
    Jonas Drewes
    Chair for Multicomponent Materials, Department for Materials Science, Faculty of Engineering, Kiel University, Kaiserstr. 2, Kiel 24143, Germany
    More by Jonas Drewes
  • Suzhe Liang
    Suzhe Liang
    Department of Physics, Chair for Functional Materials, Technical University of Munich, TUM School of Natural Sciences, James-Franck-Str. 1, Garching 85748, Germany
    More by Suzhe Liang
  • Tianfu Guan
    Tianfu Guan
    Department of Physics, Chair for Functional Materials, Technical University of Munich, TUM School of Natural Sciences, James-Franck-Str. 1, Garching 85748, Germany
    More by Tianfu Guan
  • Arno Jeromin
    Arno Jeromin
    Centre for X-ray and Nano Science CXNS, Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron DESY, Notkestr. 85, Hamburg 22607, Germany
    More by Arno Jeromin
  • Andreas Stierle
    Andreas Stierle
    Centre for X-ray and Nano Science CXNS, Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron DESY, Notkestr. 85, Hamburg 22607, Germany
    Department of Physics, University of Hamburg, Notkestr. 9-11, Hamburg 22607, Germany
  • Thomas F. Keller
    Thomas F. Keller
    Centre for X-ray and Nano Science CXNS, Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron DESY, Notkestr. 85, Hamburg 22607, Germany
    Department of Physics, University of Hamburg, Notkestr. 9-11, Hamburg 22607, Germany
  • Thomas Strunskus
    Thomas Strunskus
    Chair for Multicomponent Materials, Department for Materials Science, Faculty of Engineering, Kiel University, Kaiserstr. 2, Kiel 24143, Germany
  • Franz Faupel
    Franz Faupel
    Chair for Multicomponent Materials, Department for Materials Science, Faculty of Engineering, Kiel University, Kaiserstr. 2, Kiel 24143, Germany
    More by Franz Faupel
  • Peter Müller-Buschbaum
    Peter Müller-Buschbaum
    Department of Physics, Chair for Functional Materials, Technical University of Munich, TUM School of Natural Sciences, James-Franck-Str. 1, Garching 85748, Germany
    Heinz Maier-Leibnitz Zentrum (MLZ), Technical University of Munich, Lichtenbergstraße 1, Garching 85748, Germany
  • Stephan V. Roth*
    Stephan V. Roth
    Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron DESY, Notkestr. 85, Hamburg 22607, Germany
    KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Teknikringen 56-58, Stockholm 100 44, Sweden
    *E-mail: [email protected], [email protected]
Open PDFSupporting Information (1)

Langmuir

Cite this: Langmuir 2024, 40, 43, 22591–22601
Click to copy citationCitation copied!
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.langmuir.4c02344
Published October 14, 2024

Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by American Chemical Society. This publication is licensed under

CC-BY 4.0 .

Abstract

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

Fabricating thin metal layers and particularly observing their formation process in situ is of fundamental interest to tailor the quality of such a layer on polymers for organic electronics. In particular, the process of high power impulse magnetron sputtering (HiPIMS) for establishing thin metal layers has sparsely been explored in situ. Hence, in this study, we investigate the growth of thin gold (Au) layers with HiPIMS and compare their growth with thin Au layers prepared by conventional direct current magnetron sputtering (dcMS). Au was chosen because it is an inert noble metal and has a high scattering length density. This allows us to track the growing nanostructures via grazing incidence scattering. In particular, Au deposition on the polymer polystyrene (PS) with the respective structural analogues poly-4-vinlypyridine (P4VP) and polystyrene sulfonic acid (PSS) is studied. Additionally, the nanostructured layers on these different polymer films are further probed by field emission scanning electron microscopy (FESEM), atomic force microscopy (AFM), X-ray reflectometry (XRR), and four-point probe measurements. We report that HiPIMS leads to smaller island-to-island distances throughout the whole sputter process. Moreover, an increased cluster density and an earlier percolation threshold are achieved compared to dcMS. Additionally, in the early stage, we observe a significant increase in coverage by HiPIMS, which is favorable for the improvement of the polymer–metal interface.

This publication is licensed under

CC-BY 4.0 .
  • cc licence
  • by licence
Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by American Chemical Society

Introduction

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

Functional materials are of vital interest for various applications including sensors, batteries, and wearables. (1−3) The class of polymer-based applications increased in recent decades; especially, the usage of polymer–metal hybrid materials gained attention. (4−7) Gold is favorable and is used as a material for photoluminescence, (8) plasmonics, (9−12) mirrors, (13−15) catalysis, (16−19) sensors, (20−22) solar cells, (23−26) and electrodes. (27−30) Direct current magnetron sputtering (dcMS) is a well-established and well-understood technique that is being used for fabricating thin metal layers in the aforementioned applications. However, the favorable physical properties of the metal layer are still not obtained in a single step since a preprocessing step like a plasma pretreatment is required to increase the adhesion in dcMS. (31,32) This is undesirable if metal–polymer hybrid structures are fabricated using substrates being sensitive toward these preprocessing treatments. One emerging physical vapor deposition technique to overcome these pretreatments is high-power impulse magnetron sputtering (HiPIMS). (31,32) This technique increases the adhesion of metal–polymer composites while being benign for heat sensitive substrates. Grazing incidence small angle X-ray scattering (GISAXS) and grazing incidence wide angle X-ray scattering (GIWAXS) studies were conducted to understand the formation behavior of dcMS-deposited metals films, but sparse studies were undertaken to understand the in situ film formation of HiPIMS deposited metals. (28,33) Under dcMS and HiPIMS conditions, ionized and nonionized metal species are formed simultaneously during ablation at the sputter target. Depending on the target material, dcMS achieves a degree of ionization of up to 10%, and in the case of HiPIMS, the fraction of the ionized species condensing on the substrate can make up between 50 and 90%. (31,34) Thus, it is important to obtain similar sputter conditions of both dcMS and HiPIMS, e.g., sample-to-target distance sputter target, substrate, pressure, and sputter rate, in order to understand the differences in the underlying physical film formation. (35) Particularly, changing the sputter rate has an influence on the percolation threshold, which was made sure to be similar in this study. (36−38) This focuses on the quantification of the differences in depositing Au with dcMS and HiPIMS on three different polymers, namely, polystyrene (PS), poly-4-vinylpyridine (P4VP), and polystyrene sulfonic acid (PSS). These polymers differ in their structure and have different functional groups apparent. PS is a one-dimensional polymer chain consisting of a substituted polyethylene structure with pendant aromatic rings being phenyl groups as functional groups. PS is a well-known polymer and was previously used in former studies as a standard reference substrate to compare the growth of metals with other polymers. (38,39) P4VP is like PS, a one-dimensional polymer chain consisting of a substituted polyethylene structure with pendant aromatic rings consisting of pyridine as a functional group. Furthermore, PSS is a one-dimensional polymer chain consisting of a substituted polyethylene structure with pendant aromatic rings consisting of a sulfonic acid functional group on the phenyl group located on the para position. Due to different functional groups being apparent in the polymeric structure, it is expected that the different chemical structures change the surface energy of the polymers and thus particularly influence the growth of gold during deposition. The skeletal structure of the polymer can be found in Figure S1. The morphology of Au deposition via dcMS and HiPIMS on PS, P4VP, and PSS is investigated by field emission scanning electron microscopy (FESEM), atomic force microscopy (AFM), grazing incidence small-angle X-ray scattering (GISAXS), grazing incidence wide-angle X-ray scattering (GIWAXS), X-ray reflectometry (XRR), and four-point-probe measurements. We observe in situ the structural evolution of the Au cluster during dcMS and HiPIMS deposition on the polymers PS, P4VP, and PSS. We show that an increase of Au coverage can be achieved with HiPIMS.

Experimental Section

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

Materials

Silicon wafers (Si-Mat Silicon Materials, Germany) were cut into 12 mm × 15 mm-sized pieces. They were cleaned in acidic bath containing a ratio of hydrogen peroxide (30%, Carl Roth) to sulfuric acid (96%, Carl Roth) of 1:2.2 at 70 °C for 15 min. After the cleaning procedure, the silicon wafer was rinsed with ultrapure water and stored in an ultrapure water bath. Polystyrene (PS, Mn = 62.0 kg/mol, PDI = 1.04), poly-4-vinylpyridine (P4VP, Mn = 77.5 kg/mol, PDI = 1.05), and polystyrene sulfonic acid (PSS, Mn = 62.0 kg/mol, PDI = 1.02) were supplied by Polymer Source (Canada). PS was dissolved in toluene with a concentration of cPS = 9 mg/mL, poly-4-vinylpyridine was dissolved in dimethylformamide with a concentration of cP4VP = 26 mg/mL, and polystyrene sulfonic acid was dissolved in ultrapure water with a concentration of cPSS = 25 mg/mL. PS and P4VP solutions were heat treated for 2 h at 70 °C, and PSS solution was heat treated at 90 °C for 15 min and stirred afterward for 2 h at RT.

Polymer Film Preparation

The precleaned silicon wafer pieces were removed from the storage bath and rinsed with ultrapure water, which was followed by blowing them dry with a nitrogen steam. These silicon pieces were loaded into a spin coater (6-RC, SÜSS MicroTec Lithography, Germany). For PS and P4VP, 3600 rpm was used with the ramp-up setting of 9 for 30 s. For PSS, 6000 rpm was chosen with a ramp up setting of 9 for 30 s to obtain smooth thins films. The ramp-up setting of 9 corresponds to the highest acceleration rate allowed by the spin coater reaching the targeted rotation speed. The spin-coated polymer films were further used as spun in the following procedures. The thickness of the polymer films was determined by X-ray reflectometry (XRR) (Figure S2) with the corresponding SLD profiles shown in Figure S3 as δPS = 39 ± 1 nm for PS, δP4VP = 40 ± 1 nm for P4VP, and δPSS = 28 ± 1 nm for PSS. The fits are displayed in Figure S2 and the SLD curves are displayed in Figure S3. The film thicknesses are large enough to neglect potential influences of the substrate (Si/SiO2). (40)

Physical Vapor Deposition

The self-built sputter deposition chamber was described in a previous article. (38) For all experiments, a 2 in. size Au (Kurt J. Lesker, purity 99.999%) target was used. The dynamic working pressure was pAr = 0.36 Pa with an argon flow adjusted to 10 sccm. The average power for dcMS was PdcMS = 27 W. For HiPIMS, deposition was performed at PHiPIMS = 40 W with the pulse length being 50 μs and the frequency being 1 kHz. The chosen dcMS and HiPIMS conditions were stable throughout the experiment. In case of dcMS, the average kinetic energy of the sputtered atoms is 3.9 ± 0.1 eV. The average kinetic energy of the sputtered atoms for HiPIMS is 9.7 ± 0.1 eV having a non-Gaussian distribution. The average kinetic energy of the sputtered atoms for both sputtering modes were measured with a Quantum Probe (Impedans, Ireland). The distance between the target and sample was 13 cm. The deposition rates were determined by a quartz crystal microbalance (QCM) being 0.294 ± 0.006 nm/s for HiPIMS and dcMS. The QCM deposition rates were verified by measuring final thicknesses of deposited gold films on silicon with a profilometer (Dektak XT, Bruker). In addition, the last detector frames of the in situ sequence were used by extracting the distance of adjacent vertical peaks in the qz direction with the relation δ = 2π/Δqz to determine the final deposited thickness for all in situ thicknesses. (41) The last detector frames of the in situ sequences are displayed in Figure S4. Additionally, XRR was performed before and after the in situ deposition on the polymers PS, P4VP, and PSS, which are shown in Figure S2 for the pristine polymers and in Figure S5 for the after in situ deposition.

Characterization

Field Emission Scanning Electron Microscopy

High-resolution field emission scanning electron microscopy (FESEM) images were taken with a Nova Nano SEM 450 (FEI Thermofisher) at DESY NanoLab. (42) For the visualization of the images, the software ImageJ was used. (43) The nanoparticle size was determined with ImageJ by counting only individual clusters that were not connected and measured manually. FESEM images of the pristine thin films are displayed in Figure S6. No difference in surface morphology is observed for the pristine polymer films. In a 100 nm × 100 nm frame, the size of clusters is summarized in Table S1.

X-ray Scattering

The grazing-incidence small-angle X-ray scattering (GISAXS), grazing-incidence wide-angle X-ray scattering, and X-ray reflectometry experiments were conducted at DESY (P03/PETRA III, Hamburg, Germany) with a mobile sputter deposition chamber, which was previously reported. (38) A wavelength of λ = 0.105 nm was chosen. For the measurements, the X-ray beam had a point shape with a size of 30 μm × 25 μm with an incident angle αI = 0.4°. For GISAXS, a Pilatus 2 M (pixel size 172 μm, Dectris Ltd., Switzerland) was placed at a distance to the sample of SDDGISAXS of 3230 ± 2 mm. The data acquisition rate was set for HiPIMS to 20 Hz and that for dcMS to 10 Hz. Raw GISAXS images are displayed in the Supporting Information for Au:PSdcMS (Figure S7), Au:PSHiPIMS (Figure S8), Au:P4VPdcMS (Figure S9), Au:P4VPHiPIMS (Figure S10), Au:PSSdcMS (Figure S11), and Au:PSSHiPIMS (Figure S12). For GIWAXS, a Lambda 9 M (X-Spectrum, Germany) was used with the distance to the sample being SDDGIWAXS = 193 ± 2 mm. For HiPIMS deposition, the data acquisition rate was set to 2 Hz, and for dcMS, it was set to 1 Hz. The pixel size of one pixel of the Lambda 9 M is 55 μm × 55 μm. Raw GIWAXS images are displayed in the Supporting Information for Au:PSdcMS (Figure S13), Au:PSHiPIMS (Figure S14), Au:P4VPdcMS (Figure S15), Au:P4VPHiPIMS (Figure S16), Au:PSSdcMS (Figure S17), and Au:PSSHiPIMS (Figure S18). The software DPDAK was used for analyzing the measured GISAXS and GIWAXS data. (44) X-ray reflectometry (XRR) measurements were performed with the aforementioned energy and were analyzed with MOTOFIT 0.1.20. (45)

Atomic Force Microscopy

The atomic force microscopy (AFM) measurements were taken with a Bruker (Dimension Icon equipped with a NanoScope V controller) at DESY NanoLab. (42) RTESPA-150 (Bruker) cantilevers were used having a nominal tip radius of 8 nm. The software NanoScope Analysis was used for data visualization, and with ImageJ, the scale bar was included.

Four-Point Probe Measurements

Four-point probe measurements (Ossila, UK) were conducted with a probe spacing of 1.27 mm. The measurement range is between 100 mΩ/square and 10 MΩ/square. After 578 days, the samples were measured again and summarized in Table S2.

Results and Discussion

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

Au was deposited by direct current magnetron sputtering (dcMS) and by high power impulse magnetron sputtering (HiPIMS) on three different polymer films (PS, P4VP, and PSS). The morphologies of the Au layer at selected thicknesses (δAu = 2 and 4 nm) for both dcMS and HiPIMS are shown in the FESEM images in Figure 1 for PS, P4VP, and PSS.

Figure 1

Figure 1. FESEM images of Au-coated (a, d, g, j) Au:PS, (b ,e, h, k) Au:P4VP, and (c, f, i, l) Au:PSS. Panels a–c were coated with δAu,dcMS = 2 nm, panels d–f were coated with δAu,HiPIMS = 2 nm, panels g–i were coated with δAu,dcMS = 4 nm, and panels j–l were coated with δAu,HiPIMS = 4 nm.

From Figure 1a–f at δAu = 2 nm, it is clear that in both cases, HiPIMS (PSHiPIMS, P4VPHiPIMS, PSSHiPIMS) or dcMS (PSdcMS, P4VPdcMS, and PSSdcMS), Au islands coalesced, forming a branched network, which is visible. The average size of the isolated Au islands is dAu,cluster = 4 ± 2 nm. Distinct changes between HIPIMS and dcMS are visible with more Au deposition in the FESEM images, for example, in Figure 1g,j in the case of Au:PS. At δAu = 4 nm, the surface coverage (Figure S19) of Au:PSHiPIMS-deposited Au is 93 ± 1%, which is higher than with Au:PSdcMS deposition being 76 ± 1%. This trend can be further explored with P4VP. Au:P4VPHiPIMS has a coverage of 93 ± 1%, which is higher than that with Au:P4VPdcMS deposition being 77 ± 1%. PSS shows the highest surface coverage after deposition for Au:PSSHiPIMS, 96 ± 1%, again being higher than the coverage of Au on the polymer thin films Au:PS and Au:P4VP. Au:PSSdcMS deposition has an intermediate coverage of 84 ± 1%. At δAu = 8 nm, all polymer films are completely covered with a thin granular gold film (Figure S20). Furthermore, AFM topography images are acquired at δAu = 3 nm for dcMS- and HiPIMS-deposited Au on Au:PS, Au:P4VP, and Au:PSS, see Figure 2.

Figure 2

Figure 2. AFM images of (a, c, e) dcMS- and (b, d, f) HiPIMS-deposited gold δAu = 3 nm on (a, b) Au:PS, (c, d) Au:P4VP, and (e, f) Au:PSS are shown. The red box highlights the magnification of the region of interest. The red circle in the magnified box highlights the isolated Au islands.

In Figure 2a, in the case of dcMS-deposited Au:PS, a network of percolated Au islands is clearly visible, which is not dominantly apparent at δAu = 2 nm, see Figure 1a. This gives an indication that Au islands start to be in contact with the neighboring Au islands at a thickness of δAu,dcMS,PS = 3 nm. A similar behavior is also observed for Au:PSHiPIMS (Figure 2b) at a thickness of δAu,HiPIMS,PS = 3 nm, showing sparsely singular nonpercolated islands, but the majority of the Au islands already percolated into a network. In the case of dcMS and HiPIMS deposition of Au at a thickness of δAu = 3 nm for Au:P4VP and Au:PSS, similar behavior is observed, as described in the case of PS. The majority of the Au islands are percolated, and small amounts of isolated Au islands are still observable. This trend is observed throughout all of the AFM images in Figure 2. In-situ dcMS and HiPIMS deposition experiments are performed utilizing the GISAXS geometry to exploit its statistical relevance and track the real time evolution of the Au nanostructure up to a thickness of δAu = 8 nm since an already closed Au layer is observed at that thickness. The aim is to elucidate the mechanism behind the increased coverage comparing HiPIMS and dcMS, similar to the FESEM and AFM measurement; see Figure 1 and Figure 2.
In Figure 3, the in situ evolution of distance and cluster density of Au deposited on PS, P4VP, and PSS upon dcMS and HiPIMS deposition is presented. The correlation distance (D) is extracted from the peak position (qi), see Figure S24:
D2πqi
(1)

Figure 3

Figure 3. In-situ evolution of the distance of Au islands forming on (a) Au:PS, (b) Au:P4VP, and (c) Au:PSS. In situ evolution of the cluster density of Au islands on (d) Au:PS, (e) Au:P4VP, and (f) Au:PSS.

In all cases, for 0 nm < δAu ≤ 0.35 nm, no structure peak is apparent in the in situ GISAXS data, as the very first Au atoms are arriving on the sample surface. First, impinging Au atoms are adsorbed on the polymer surface and Au atoms are diffusing along the substrate surface; stable nuclei are formed when two or more adatoms are being united. (46,47) Upon continuous deposition, these nuclei grow in the manner of the Volmer–Weber growth, thus growing in height resulting in a low surface coverage, and the probability to form nuclei is reduced, as the new incoming Au atoms grow alongside the preexisting nuclei. (46,47) The nucleation stage (I) is followed by the lateral growth stage. After a critical cluster density is reached, the apparently formed nuclei and clusters grow in size with new impinging Au atoms during the process. (41,46) Additionally, the apparent nuclei and clusters are able to diffuse along the surface, resulting in a diffusion-mediated coalescence of clusters into larger structures (stage II). (48) Both processes result in the increase of the surface coverage of the polymer surface. (46) The third stage is the coarsening stage in which diffusion of the clusters is greatly reduced; thus, diffusion-mediated coalescence is not the dominant factor anymore. Instead, it will be accommodated by adatoms adsorbing on these clusters supporting the growth in the lateral direction (stage III). (41,46) This can be observed at δAu = 2 nm in the FESEM images in Figure 1 showing sparsely isolated Au islands and branched Au islands. During this process, more Au islands branch into a network that can be observed at δAu = 3 nm in the AFM images in Figure 2. Even upon further deposition, the surface coverage increases due to lateral growth, which can be seen by the FESEM images in Figure 1 at δAu = 4 nm. The fourth stage is reached when the surface is fully covered. This stage is called vertical growth or grain growth stage, where the film growth occurs only vertically, since the surface is fully covered. (41,46) Upon continuation of deposition, a polycrystalline grainy structure is obtained, which can be seen in the FESEM images in Figure S23. (46) In detail, the different stages occur for PSdcMS and PSHiPIMS in the range 0 nm ≤ δAu ≲ 0.4 nm/0.4 nm (stage I), 0.4 nm/0.4 nm ≤ δAu ≲ 1.6 nm/1.8 nm (stage II), 1.6 nm/1.8 nm nm ≤ δAu ≲ 3.7 nm/3.9 nm (stage III), and 3.7 nm/3.9 nm nm ≤ δAu until the end of the deposition being stage IV. For P4VPdcMS and P4VPHiPIMS, the ranges were 0 nm ≤ δAu ≲ 0.4 nm/0.4 nm (stage I), and 0.4 nm/0.4 nm ≤ δAu ≲ 1.8 nm/1.8 nm (stage II), 1.8 nm/1.8 nm ≤ δAu ≲ 3.7 nm/3.9 nm (stage III), and 3.9 nm/4.2 nm ≤ δAu until the end of the deposition being stage IV. Finally, for PSSdcMS and PSSHiPIMS, the ranges were 0 nm ≤ δAu ≲ 0.4 nm/0.4 nm (stage I), 0.4 nm/0.4 nm ≤ δAu ≲ 1.6 nm/1.7 nm (stage II), 1.6 nm/1.7 nm ≤ δAu ≲ 3.7 nm/3.9 nm (stage III), and 3.7 nm/4.0 nm ≤ δAu until the end of the deposition being stage IV. Clearly, strong deviations in cluster sizes and distance start to occur in stage II for dcMS and HiPIMS. This is attributed to the increased initial cluster density, see Figure 3, due to the difference in the kinetic energy distribution of the ionized fraction of the impinging atoms. The same fundamental behavior is expected on PS, P4VP, and PSS due to the similarity in the polymer structure. Here, it is important to note the difference during Au deposition between dcMS and HiPIMS on PS, P4VP, and PSS. In Figure 3a, the in situ structure evolution of Au:PSdcMS and Au:PSHiPIMS is shown, being similar in the range δAu = 0.35 nm up to δAu = 1.8 nm. Beyond δAu = 1.8 nm, it is obvious that Au:PSdcMS has a larger average distance during the in situ evolution compared to Au:PSHiPIMS. This trend continues until the end of the in situ sequence probed in the present study. In Figure 3b, the in situ structure evolution of Au:P4VPdcMS and Au:P4VPHiPIMS is shown, and within errors from δAu = 0.35 nm up to δAu = 2.4 nm, the average distances are similar. Au:P4VPdcMS again has a larger average correlation distance compared to Au:P4VPHiPIMS toward the end of the in situ sequence. In Figure 3c, the in situ sequences of Au:PSSdcMS and Au:PSSHiPIMS are displayed. Here, from δAu = 0.35 nm up to δAu = 2.4 nm, Au:PSSdcMS and Au:PSSHiPIMS islands have a similar distance. Upon δAu = 2.4 nm, Au:PSSdcMS has an average higher distance than Au:PSSHiPIMS similar to our findings for Au:PS and Au:P4VP. Additionally, after δAu = 8 nm for PSHiPIMS, P4VPdcMS, P4VPHiPIMS, and PSSdcMS, no structure peak of Au is being observed anymore in this particular GISAXS geometry. For PSdcMS and PSSHiPIMS, no clear structure peak is observed already at δAu = 7.9 nm and δAu = 7.6 nm, respectively. Hence, the abscissa in the corresponding figures ends at δAu = 8 nm and not at the final deposited thickness. With no structure peak being present, it is not possible to track the Au growth between δAu = 8 nm and the final targeted deposited thickness around 12 nm for each sample (see Figure S4) in this GISAXS geometry. The reason is that either the average correlated distance sizes are too large to be resolved at this particular chosen distance for the GISAXS measurement or no average structure is present on the sample surface after this deposited thickness. In case larger distances are present on the sample surface after δAu = 8 nm, a larger sample-to-detector distance in the GISAXS geometry is required to resolve these larger structures. In order to further quantify the Au islands’ layer morphology, it is derived using the following relation: (38)
ρ=23·D2
(2)
It is clearly seen that the number of islands for PSdcMS and PSHiPIMS (Figure 3d) decreases during the deposition. This behavior is due to the coalescence of Au islands. Yet, it is worth noting that the number of Au islands is higher for PSHiPIMS than for PSdcMS until the end of the deposition process. This observation explains the increased coverage of PSHiPIMS compared to PSdcMS seen in Figure 1g,j) since a larger number of islands is apparent during the structure evolution. In the case of P4VP (Figure 3e), the same trend is observable. For δAu ≥ 2 nm, Au:P4VPHiPIMS shows a larger number of islands during deposition compared to Au:P4VPdcMS, which again explains the increase in coverage for HiPIMS in Figure 1h,k. The same trend is observable for PSS (Figure 3f). It is clearly seen that Au:PSSHiPIMS has an increased number of islands compared to Au:PSSdcMS during the deposition, which supports the observation of the increase in coverage in Figure 1 i,l. From these results, it is possible to deduce that under HiPIMS conditions, an increased amount of nucleation sites are formed due to defect formation induced by an increase of the average kinetic energy of the ionized Au fraction of HiPIMS 9.7 ± 0.1 eV compared to dcMS 3.9 ± 0.1 eV. (49) Reck et al. shows by studying the effect of dcMS and HiPIMS on silicon substrate and polystyrene substrate with Ag deposition that the probability of creating surface defects with fast metal ions is enhanced. (50) The increased average kinetic energy results in an increased number of Au islands with a smaller size and correspondingly in a smaller correlation distance during sputter deposition. This finding is supported by the FESEM images in Figure 1g–l, showing that the coverage by HiPIMS deposition is increased due to the appearance of an increased number of smaller islands (compared to dcMS). This in turn manifests itself in the higher cluster density for HiPIMS. In previous investigations, the Au deposition on PS was investigated. (38) In order to extract information on the radius of the Au islands, the cluster shape was approximated as being hemispherical. (38) By taking the ratio of the cluster diameter to the average distance, we obtained information on the percolation threshold. The percolation threshold defines the nominal layer thickness, the moment in which islands are in direct contact with the neighboring islands, resulting in conductive metallic behavior of the nanogranular film. This geometric hemispherical model considers the structure peak position qi, the amount of Au in one cluster, and the cluster shape (hemisphere). Thus, the radius is thus related to the deposited material and the cluster distance via: (38)
R=31.5π·δAuqi23
(3)
It is noteworthy to mention that the derived radius is model- and shape-dependent, as outlined below, see eq 5 and ref (52).
In Figure 4, the in situ evolution of the cluster sizes and the ratio 2R/D of PS, P4VP, and PSS is depicted as extracted from the geometrical model. The evolution of radii R of Au islands on Au:PSdcMS and Au:PSHiPIMS during deposition shows that the Au islands on Au:PSHiPIMS have a smaller radius than the Au islands on Au:PSdcMS (Figure 4a) above δAu ≥ 1.8 nm. This trend holds during full in situ evolution. Moreover, in Figure 4b, in case of Au:P4VP, it is observable only after δAu = 2.4 nm that Au:P4VPHiPIMS islands have a smaller radius during the subsequent evolution than Au:P4VPdcMS. This behavior continued until the end of the deposition process. Furthermore, in Figure 4c, the radius evolution during in situ deposition of Au:PSSHiPIMS and Au:PSSdcMS is shown. Au:PSSHiPIMS has on average a smaller radius than Au:PSSdcMS. Thus, Au cluster sizes in all polymers show the same trend during deposition, which is the result of the average increased kinetic energy of the ionized fraction, as mentioned above. Additionally, using the geometrical model, it is possible to calculate the ratio of the diameter (2R) and the distance between the islands. When this ratio 2R/D is equal to 1, this implies that on average throughout the sample, every cluster is touching its neighbor and a conductive path is formed. In Figure 4d, 2R/D for Au:PSdcMS has a percolation threshold of δAu,Percolation = 3.9 ± 0.5 nm, while Au:PSHiPIMS has a percolation threshold of δAu,Percolation = 3.0 ± 0.7 nm, which is in agreement with our previous investigation. (38) In Figure 4e, it is visible that Au:P4VPdcMS percolates at δAu,percolation = 4.0 ± 0.5 nm, and in the case of Au:P4VPHiPIMS, it percolates at δAu,percolation = 2.4 ± 0.3 nm. Moreover, Figure 4f shows that Au:PSSdcMS has a percolation threshold of δAu,percolation = 7.0 ± 1.0 nm, and in the case of HiPIMS deposition, Au:PSSHiPIMS has a percolation threshold of δAu,percolation = 4.7 ± 0.6 nm.

Figure 4

Figure 4. In-situ evolution of the radius R derived from the hemispherical geometrical model for (a) Au:PS, (b) Au:P4VP, and (c) Au:PSS. In-situ evolution of the ratio two times the radius (2R = cluster diameter) and the correlation distance D to determine the percolation threshold for (d) Au:PS, (e) Au:P4VP, and (f) Au:PSS. The pink line at 2R/D = 1.0 in (d–f) denotes the percolation threshold.

In Figure 5, four-point-probe measurements of ex-situ deposited PS, P4VP, and PSS are shown with the corresponding sigmoidal Boltzmann fit for the determination of the percolation threshold. (51) At δAu = 1 nm and 2 nm, no conductivity was measured and the sheet resistance was set to 10 MΩ due to the upper limit of the 4-point probe to measure resistance. Figure 5a,d shows the resistivity measurements for Au:PSdcMS and Au:PSHiPIMS with the corresponding fits. The percolation thresholds are δAu,percolation = 2.6 ± 0.1 nm for Au:PSdcMS and δAu,percolation = 2.6 ± 0.1 nm for Au:PSHiPIMS. The percolation threshold for Au:P4VPdcMS and Au:P4VPHiPIMS (Figure 5b) is δAu,percolation = 2.8 ± 0.2 nm for Au:P4VPdcMS for P4VPHiPIMS is δAu,percolation = 2.7 ± 0.1 nm, which is earlier than Au:PV4PdcMS. A similar behavior is observed in Figure 5c for PSS (Au:PSSdcMS δAu,percolation = 2.9 ± 0.1 nm vs Au:PSSHiPIMS δAu,percolation = 2.6 ± 0.1 nm). In Table 1, the results regarding the percolation threshold extracted by GISAXS utilizing the hemispherical model and the 4-point-probe measurements are summed up. The comparison shows that the agreement of Au:PSHiPIMS and Au:P4VPHiPIMS fits well with four-point-probe measurements and the hemispherical model. In the case of Au:PSdcMS and Au:P4VPdcMS, there is a slight discrepancy apparently of roughly ∼1 nm matching the percolation threshold. This discrepancy occurs due to the simplicity of the hemispherical model only considering the monodisperse size of Au islands during the growth on a triangular arrangement. Particularly, for Au:PSSdcMS and Au:PSSHiPIMS, the discrepancy is enhanced. One reason is, as described, that the hemispherical model considers only monodisperse Au islands. On the other hand, it can be seen in the FESEM images in Figure 1 that the surface coverage of Au on PSS is larger under dcMS and HiPIMS conditions compared to PS and P4VP. As it is extracted from the GISAXS data, Au growing on PSS either in dcMS or HiPIMS conditions leads to larger structures than PS and P4VP, which can be seen in Figure S23. Particularly, the cluster density is lower for Au growing on PSS compared with PS and P4VP, which can be seen in Figure S24. We expect that the higher surface energy for PSS leads to an improved wetting behavior and that faster larger structures are grown. Due to the faster growth, the structures are more oblate compared to the simple hemispherical model. In a previous in situ investigation of Cu growth on PS-b-PEO, it could be seen that the Cu islands deviate strongly from the hemispherical shape. They grow more elongated in the height being described by the hemispherical elongation factor with H being the height and R being the radius of the Cu islands: (52)
f=HR
(4)
R=3·D2δAu4πf3
(5)

Figure 5

Figure 5. 4-point-probe measurements with the corresponding sigmoidal Boltzmann fit for (a) Au:PSHiPIMS, (b) Au:P4VPHiPIMS, (c) Au:PSSHiPIMS, (d) Au:PSdcMS, (e) Au:P4VPdcMS, and (f) Au:PSSdcMS with a deposited thickness being δAu = 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 8 nm.

Table 1. Summary of the Percolation Threshold Extracted by 4-Point-Probe Measurements and GISAXS Data Utilizing the Hemispherical Model
MaterialPercolation threshold 4-point-probe (nm)Percolation threshold hemispherical model (nm)
PS dcMS2.6 ± 0.13.9 ± 0.5
PS HiPIMS2.6 ± 0.13.0 ± 0.7
P4VP dcMS2.8 ± 0.14.0 ± 0.5
P4VP HiPIMS2.7 ± 0.12.4 ± 0.3
PSS dcMS2.9 ± 0.17.0 ± 1.0
PSS HiPIMS2.6 ± 0.14.7 ± 0.6
Schaper et al. observed in this case that the Cu islands had a hemispherical elongation factor f = 2.75 due to the strong Cu–Cu interaction and surface containing oxygen due to the diblock copolymer PS-b-PEO. (52) In the case of the hemispherical model, the elongation factor is f = 1. We expect for PSS that the hemispherical elongation factor f is lower than 1 due to the increased surface coverage being observed in Figure 1 for PSS at δAu = 4 nm. Using the hemispherical elongation factor of f = 0.9 for PSSdcMS and PSSHiPIMS, results are matching with the percolation threshold for PSSHiPIMS being at δAu = 2.6 ± 0.6 nm. In the case of PSSdcMS, the percolation threshold would result in δAu = 3.9 ± 1.0 nm. Thus, the introduction of a microscopy-based elongation factor reduces the difference between the 4-point-probe and model-based extraction of percolation threshold in Table 1 for PSS.
For completeness, the in situ GIWAXS evolution during deposition is displayed in Figure 6. GIWAXS is used in situ during the sputter deposition to detect the crystallite size evolution. The in situ crystallite size evolution for Au on PS, P4VP, and PSS deposited with dcMS and HiPIMS condition is displayed in Figure 6. Due to experimental restrictions of the in situ GIWAXS geometry for the simultaneous combination with in-situ GISAXS and sputter deposition, only a fraction of the necessary angular range is measured for strain analysis. Thus, a complete strain analysis representing the sample is hence omitted. (53,54) It has to be noted that the strain analysis can influence the crystallite size by the Scherrer analysis. The crystallite size was extracted following Figure S22 using the Scherrer equation with K = 0.9 and coressponds to the <111> reflex of Au. (55,56) In the case of Au:PSdcMS, the first noticeable Au crystallites can be detected at around δAu,dcMS = 1.8 nm with the size being 3.7 ± 0.8 nm (Figure 6a). Upon further deposition, the crystallite size increases to 9.2 ± 0.2 nm at the final deposited thickness δAu,dcMS = 8 nm. In the case of Au:PSHiPIMS, the same trend can be observed. First noticeable crystallites start to appear at around δAu = 1.7 nm, with their size being 3.8 ± 1.0 nm. With the continuation of the deposition process, the crystallite size increases up to 8.9 ± 0.3 nm at a final deposited thickness of δAu = 8 nm. In the case of Au:P4VPdcMS and Au:P4VPHiPIMS, the same trend is observed when Au was deposited on P4VPdcMS. First noticeable crystallites start to form at δAu,dcMS = 1.8 nm with the average crystallite size being 4.4 ± 0.6 nm, and at δAu,dcMS = 8 nm, the crystallite size has increased to 9.9 ± 0.2 nm. This behavior is in a similar range as Au:P4VPHiPIMS, which shows first noticeable crystallites in the size of 3.7 ± 1.1 nm at δAu,HiPIMS = 1.4 nm and a final crystallite size of 9.5 ± 0.3 nm at the final deposited thickness δAu,HiPIMS = 8 nm. In the case of Au:PSSdcMS in Figure 6c, the first noticeable crystallites occur at δAu,dcMS = 1.8 nm with a size of 4.1 ± 0.7 nm, which increases during deposition to 9.7 ± 0.2 nm. For Au:PSSHiPIMS noticeable crystallites start to form at δAu,HiPIMS = 1.6 nm with the average crystallite size being 3.7 ± 1.1 nm and increase to 9.5 ± 0.3 nm at δAu,HiPIMS = 8 nm. This observation shows that by keeping the dcMS and HiPIMS conditions similar, the crystallite size is the same during deposition. Moreover, in all cases, the crystallite size increased upon continuous Au deposition. Additionally, independent from the polymer, it can be clearly seen that there is no difference in the crystallite size for the polymers PS, P4VP, and PSS for both dcMS and HiPIMS conditions. Only their radius, distance, and cluster density differ. Particularly, differences during the in situ deposition are observed within the polymers in terms of distance (Figure S23), cluster density (Figure S24), and the radius (Figure S25). In Table 2 at various Au thicknesses, the distance, radius, crystallite size, and sheet resistance are summarized. In the case of the dcMS deposition (Figures S23 and S25) environment, PS has, with its phenyl functional groups, bigger distances and radius than P4VP, with its pyridine functional group, up to δAu,dcMS = 4.1 nm. After that threshold value, the distance and radius are similar. Additionally, until δAu,dcMS = 4.1 nm, P4VP has a higher cluster density than PS, which after that is similar. In contrast, PSS has throughout the in situ deposition a bigger distance and radius than PS and P4VP, which is induced due to the sulfonic acid functional group and has the smallest amount of cluster density during deposition. In case of HiPIMS deposition, environment PSS has still the biggest radius and distance throughout the deposition and the lowest cluster density. In case of PS and P4VP, both have the same radius and distance size, which originates due to the increased kinetic energy distribution of the ionized fraction during deposition, showing a reduced influence of the pyridine functional group of P4VP toward the phenyl functional group of PS. Löhrer et al. showed in a previous study already that the growth of Au is influenced by an addition of a benzodithiophene functional group resulting in a change of distance and radius during deposition. (28)

Figure 6

Figure 6. In-situ GIWAXS evolution of the crystallite size of (a) Au:PS, (b) Au:P4VP, and (c) Au:PSS.

Table 2. Summary of Distance, Radius, Crystallite Size, and Sheet Resistance of Au Under dcMS and HiPIMS Conditions for PS, P4VP, and PSSa
  Distance [nm]Radius [nm]Crystallite size [nm]Sheet resistance [Ω/□]
MaterialThickness (δAu) [nm]dcMSHiPIMSdcMSHiPIMSdcMSHiPIMSdcMSHiPIMS
PS15.2 ± 0.14.8 ± 0.12.2 ± 0.12.1 ± 0.1---*-*
 28.2 ± 0.17.1 ± 0.13.9 ± 0.13.5 ± 0.14.1 ± 0.74.3 ± 0.9-*-*
 311.7 ± 0.19.9 ± 0.15.5 ± 0.15.0 ± 0.15.2 ± 0.55.4 ± 0.793.8 ± 0.153.3 ± 0.1
 413.8 ± 0.212.4 ± 0.16.8 ± 0.16.3 ± 0.16.2 ± 0.36.2 ± 0.531.5 ± 0.125.5± 0.1
 616.3 ± 0.314.4 ± 0.18.7 ± 0.18.1 ± 0.17.6 ± 0.37.4 ± 0.416.2 ± 0.114.0 ± 0.1
 8-15.8 ± 0.3-9.4 ± 0.19.2 ± 0.28.9 ± 0.39.9 ± 0.19.3 ± 0.1
P4VP14.5 ± 0.14.5 ± 0.12.0 ± 0.12.0 ± 0.1---*-*
 27.3 ± 0.16.9 ± 0.13.5 ± 0.13.4 ± 0.14.8 ± 0.54.5 ± 0.7-*-*
 310.6 ± 0.19.9 ± 0.15.2 ± 0.14.9 ± 0.15.8 ± 0.45.5 ± 0.5126.5 ± 0.155.6 ± 0.1
 413.2 ± 0.211.5 ± 0.16.6 ± 0.16.0 ± 0.16.6 ± 0.36.4 ± 0.437.6 ± 0.124.1 ± 0.1
 616.0 ± 0.313.7 ± 0.28.6 ± 0.17.7 ± 0.18.4 ± 0.28.0 ± 0.316.1 ± 0.112.8 ± 0.1
 817.2 ± 0.315.8 ± 0.310.0 ± 0.19.4 ± 0.19.9 ± 0.29.5 ± 0.310.9 ± 0.18.7 ± 0.1
PSS15.2 ± 0.14.9 ± 0.12.3 ± 0.12.1 ± 0.1---*-*
 28.2 ± 0.14.8 ± 0.14.1 ± 0.13.7 ± 0.14.6 ± 0.64.0 ± 0.9-*-*
 311.7 ± 0.17.1 ± 0.15.9 ± 0.15.4 ± 0.15.5 ± 0.45.2 ± 0.6120.4 ± 0.172.6 ± 0.1
 413.8 ± 0.29.9 ± 0.17.5 ± 0.16.9 ± 0.16.6 ± 0.36.3 ± 0.549.2 ± 0.128.1 ± 0.1
 616.3 ± 0.312.4 ± 0.110.5 ± 0.29.4 ± 0.18.3 ± 0.37.9 ± 0.416.1 ± 0.112.4 ± 0.1
 8-14.4 ± 0.112.9 ± 0.2-9.7 ± 0.29.5 ± 0.311.5 ± 0.18.6 ± 0.1
a

*: no conductivity was measured and the sheet resistance was set to 10 MΩ, which is the upper limit of the 4-point-probe range to measure the sheet resistance.

Conclusion

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

Using a broad portfolio of real space and reciprocal space imaging methods, we present the nanoscale understanding of the influence of the atom kinetic energies and ionized fraction on the polymer–metal interface induced by two very important physical vapor deposition methods. This study about the dcMS and HiPIMS deposition of Au on thin PS, P4VP, and PSS films shows for early stages at δAu = 2 nm that only well separated Au islands are apparent. At δAu = 4 nm, HiPIMS deposition greatly increases the coverage compared to the dcMS. GISAXS reveals that an increase of the cluster density is responsible for an increase of coverage, which occurs due to an increase of nucleation points during the deposition. Furthermore, four-point-probe measurements reveal that HiPIMS-deposited Au has an earlier percolation threshold only for PSS. In-situ GISAXS investigation using the hemispherical model reveals that under the HiPIMS condition, the percolation threshold is earlier than dcMS for all polymeric templates. Additionally, it can be extracted that HiPIMS-deposited Au islands have a smaller average radius compared to dcMS-deposited Au islands. Furthermore, GIWAXS measurements reveal that with the chosen dcMS and HiPIMS parameters, the crystallite sizes remain similar throughout the entire deposition being independent from the chosen polymeric templates. These results provide a profound understanding of the formation of thin gold electrodes on polymers. It can be summed up that these results show that with HiPIMS deposition an increased coverage is achieved which is important for applications in the field of organic electronics. Future work fill focus on the effect of pulse duration and frequency on the growth behavior and microstructure.

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.langmuir.4c02344.

  • Skeletal structure of the polymers; XRR measurements; SLD profiles; FESEM measurements; GISAXS and GIWAXS detector images; surface coverage analysis with FESEM; GISAXS and GIWAXS scattering profiles with the corresponding fit; comparison of in situ analysis; comparison of FESEM- and GISAXS-derived cluster density; sheet resistance measurement (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
    • Yusuf Bulut - Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron DESY, Notkestr. 85, Hamburg 22607, GermanyDepartment of Physics, Chair for Functional Materials, Technical University of Munich, TUM School of Natural Sciences, James-Franck-Str. 1, Garching 85748, GermanyOrcidhttps://orcid.org/0000-0003-0090-3990
    • Benedikt Sochor - Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron DESY, Notkestr. 85, Hamburg 22607, Germany
    • Kristian A. Reck - Chair for Multicomponent Materials, Department for Materials Science, Faculty of Engineering, Kiel University, Kaiserstr. 2, Kiel 24143, GermanyOrcidhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-0823-6216
    • Bernhard Schummer - Fraunhofer Institute for Integrated Circuits IIS, Development Center for X-ray Technology EZRT, Flugplatzstr. 75, Fürth 90768, Germany
    • Alexander Meinhardt - Centre for X-ray and Nano Science CXNS, Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron DESY, Notkestr. 85, Hamburg 22607, GermanyDepartment of Physics, University of Hamburg, Notkestr. 9-11, Hamburg 22607, GermanyOrcidhttps://orcid.org/0000-0003-0552-3188
    • Jonas Drewes - Chair for Multicomponent Materials, Department for Materials Science, Faculty of Engineering, Kiel University, Kaiserstr. 2, Kiel 24143, GermanyOrcidhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-8539-1543
    • Suzhe Liang - Department of Physics, Chair for Functional Materials, Technical University of Munich, TUM School of Natural Sciences, James-Franck-Str. 1, Garching 85748, GermanyOrcidhttps://orcid.org/0000-0001-8773-897X
    • Tianfu Guan - Department of Physics, Chair for Functional Materials, Technical University of Munich, TUM School of Natural Sciences, James-Franck-Str. 1, Garching 85748, GermanyOrcidhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-9887-9265
    • Arno Jeromin - Centre for X-ray and Nano Science CXNS, Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron DESY, Notkestr. 85, Hamburg 22607, Germany
    • Andreas Stierle - Centre for X-ray and Nano Science CXNS, Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron DESY, Notkestr. 85, Hamburg 22607, GermanyDepartment of Physics, University of Hamburg, Notkestr. 9-11, Hamburg 22607, GermanyOrcidhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-0303-6282
    • Thomas F. Keller - Centre for X-ray and Nano Science CXNS, Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron DESY, Notkestr. 85, Hamburg 22607, GermanyDepartment of Physics, University of Hamburg, Notkestr. 9-11, Hamburg 22607, GermanyOrcidhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-3770-6344
    • Thomas Strunskus - Chair for Multicomponent Materials, Department for Materials Science, Faculty of Engineering, Kiel University, Kaiserstr. 2, Kiel 24143, GermanyOrcidhttps://orcid.org/0000-0003-3931-5635
    • Franz Faupel - Chair for Multicomponent Materials, Department for Materials Science, Faculty of Engineering, Kiel University, Kaiserstr. 2, Kiel 24143, GermanyOrcidhttps://orcid.org/0000-0003-3367-1655
    • Peter Müller-Buschbaum - Department of Physics, Chair for Functional Materials, Technical University of Munich, TUM School of Natural Sciences, James-Franck-Str. 1, Garching 85748, GermanyHeinz Maier-Leibnitz Zentrum (MLZ), Technical University of Munich, Lichtenbergstraße 1, Garching 85748, GermanyOrcidhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-9566-6088
  • Notes
    The authors declare no competing financial interest.

Acknowledgments

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

This work was funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) – project 459798762 (RO 4638/3-1, FA 234/36-1, and MU 1487/39-1). S.L. and T.G. acknowledge the financial support from the China Scholarship Council (CSC). We acknowledge DESY (Hamburg, Germany), a member of the Helmholtz Association HGF, for the provision of experimental facilities. Parts of this research were carried out at PETRA III and at the DESY NanoLab, and we would like to thank Jan Rubeck and Matthias Schwartzkopf for assistance in using P03. Beamtime was allocated for proposal I-20210291.

References

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

This article references 56 other publications.

  1. 1
    Zhang, M.; Liu, Y.; Du, Y.; Liu, H. Tuning Topology and Scaffolding Units in Nanoporous Polymeric Materials for Efficient Iodine Adsorption and Detection. ACS Appl. Nano Mater. 2023, 6, 13874,  DOI: 10.1021/acsanm.3c00723
  2. 2
    Ojha, M.; Pal, R. K.; Deepa, M. Selenium/g-C 3 N 4 with a Solid Li 4 Ti 5 O 12 Blocking Layer for Selective Li + Ion Diffusion in Long-Lived Li–Se Batteries. ACS Appl. Nano Mater. 2023, 6 (15), 1391213925,  DOI: 10.1021/acsanm.3c01580
  3. 3
    Kumar Bera, A.; Singh, S.; Shahid Jamal, M.; Hussain, Z.; Reddy, V. R.; Kumar, D. Growth and In-Situ Characterization of Magnetic Anisotropy of Epitaxial Fe Thin Film on Ion-Sculpted Ag (001) Substrate. J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 2022, 544, 168679,  DOI: 10.1016/j.jmmm.2021.168679
  4. 4
    Ren, H.-T.; Cai, C.-C.; Cao, W.-B.; Li, D.-S.; Li, T.-T.; Lou, C.-W.; Lin, J.-H. Superhydrophobic TiN-Coated Cotton Fabrics with Nanoscale Roughness and Photothermal Self-Healing Properties for Effective Oil–Water Separation. ACS Appl. Nano Mater. 2023, 6 (13), 1192511933,  DOI: 10.1021/acsanm.3c01763
  5. 5
    Morisue, M.; Hoshino, Y.; Shimizu, M.; Tomita, S.; Sasaki, S.; Sakurai, S.; Hikima, T.; Kawamura, A.; Kohri, M.; Matsui, J.; Yamao, T. A Metal-Lustrous Porphyrin Foil. Chem. Commun. 2017, 53 (77), 1070310706,  DOI: 10.1039/C7CC06159E
  6. 6
    Chen, A. X.; Lau, H. Y.; Teo, J. Y.; Wang, Y.; Choong, D. Z. Y.; Wang, Y.; Luo, H.-K.; Yang, Y. Y.; Li, N. Water-Mediated In Situ Fabrication of CuI Nanoparticles on Flexible Cotton Fabrics as a Sustainable and Skin-Compatible Coating with Broad-Spectrum Antimicrobial Efficacy. ACS Appl. Nano Mater. 2023, 6 (14), 1323813249,  DOI: 10.1021/acsanm.3c01961
  7. 7
    Buffet, A.; Abul Kashem, M. M.; Schlage, K.; Couet, S.; Röhlsberger, R.; Rothkirch, A.; Herzog, G.; Metwalli, E.; Meier, R.; Kaune, G.; Rawolle, M.; Müller-Buschbaum, P.; Gehrke, R.; Roth, S. V. Time-Resolved Ultrathin Cobalt Film Growth on a Colloidal Polymer Template. Langmuir 2011, 27 (1), 343346,  DOI: 10.1021/la102900v
  8. 8
    Ziefuss, A. R.; Steenbock, T.; Benner, D.; Plech, A.; Göttlicher, J.; Teubner, M.; Grimm-Lebsanft, B.; Rehbock, C.; Comby-Zerbino, C.; Antoine, R. Photoluminescence of Fully Inorganic Colloidal Gold Nanocluster and Their Manipulation Using Surface Charge Effects. Adv. Mater. 2021, 33 (31), 2101549,  DOI: 10.1002/adma.202101549
  9. 9
    Wang, Y.; Chen, J.; Zhong, Y.; Jeong, S.; Li, R.; Ye, X. Structural Diversity in Dimension-Controlled Assemblies of Tetrahedral Gold Nanocrystals. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2022, 144 (30), 1353813546,  DOI: 10.1021/jacs.2c03196
  10. 10
    Sousa, G. P.; de Barros, A.; Shimizu, F. M.; Sigoli, F. A.; Mazali, I. O. Plasmonic Photocatalysis Driven by Indirect Gold Excitation Via Upconversion Nanoparticle Emission Monitored In Situ by Surface-Enhanced Raman Spectroscopy. ACS Appl. Nano Mater. 2023, 6, 9206,  DOI: 10.1021/acsanm.3c00704
  11. 11
    Amarandei, G.; O’Dwyer, C.; Arshak, A.; Corcoran, D. Fractal Patterning of Nanoparticles on Polymer Films and Their SERS Capabilities. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2013, 5 (17), 86558662,  DOI: 10.1021/am402285e
  12. 12
    Metwalli, E.; Couet, S.; Schlage, K.; Röhlsberger, R.; Körstgens, V.; Ruderer, M.; Wang, W.; Kaune, G.; Roth, S. V.; Müller-Buschbaum, P. In Situ GISAXS Investigation of Gold Sputtering onto a Polymer Template. Langmuir 2008, 24 (8), 42654272,  DOI: 10.1021/la7038587
  13. 13
    Soria, E.; Gomez-Rodriguez, P.; Tromas, C.; Camelio, S.; Babonneau, D.; Serna, R.; Gonzalo, J.; Toudert, J. Self-Assembled, 10 Nm-Tailored, Near Infrared Plasmonic Metasurface Acting as Broadband Omnidirectional Polarizing Mirror. Adv. Opt. Mater 2020, 8 (21), 2000321,  DOI: 10.1002/adom.202000321
  14. 14
    Zheng, T.; Kwon, H.; Faraon, A. Nanoelectromechanical Tuning of High- Q Slot Metasurfaces. Nano Lett. 2023, 23 (12), 55885594,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.nanolett.3c00999
  15. 15
    Walter, H.; Leitner, A. Role of Granular Structure in Metal Layers on the Optical Properties of Absorbing Mirrors. Opt. Eng. 2006, 45 (10), 103801,  DOI: 10.1117/1.2363167
  16. 16
    Frank, M.; Bulut, Y.; Czympiel, L.; Weißing, R.; Nahrstedt, V.; Wilhelm, M.; Grosch, M.; Raauf, A.; Verma, A.; Fischer, T. Piezo-Enhanced Activation of Dinitrogen for Room Temperature Production of Ammonia. Nanotechnology 2021, 32 (46), 465601,  DOI: 10.1088/1361-6528/ac1a96
  17. 17
    Cai, X.; Li, G.; Hu, W.; Zhu, Y. Catalytic Conversion of CO2over Atomically Precise Gold-Based Cluster Catalysts. ACS Catal. 2022, 12 (17), 1063810653,  DOI: 10.1021/acscatal.2c02595
  18. 18
    Sankar, M.; He, Q.; Engel, R. V.; Sainna, M. A.; Logsdail, A. J.; Roldan, A.; Willock, D. J.; Agarwal, N.; Kiely, C. J.; Hutchings, G. J. Role of the Support in Gold-Containing Nanoparticles as Heterogeneous Catalysts. Chem. Rev. 2020, 120 (8), 38903938,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.chemrev.9b00662
  19. 19
    Langer, N.; LeGrand, M.; Kedem, O. Cationic Polymer Coating Increases the Catalytic Activity of Gold Nanoparticles toward Anionic Substrates. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2023, 15 (24), 2916029169,  DOI: 10.1021/acsami.3c04087
  20. 20
    Kang, T.; Zhu, J.; Luo, X.; Jia, W.; Wu, P.; Cai, C. Controlled Self-Assembly of a Close-Packed Gold Octahedra Array for SERS Sensing Exosomal MicroRNAs. Anal. Chem. 2021, 93 (4), 25192526,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.analchem.0c04561
  21. 21
    Meyer, S. M.; Murphy, C. J. Anisotropic Silica Coating on Gold Nanorods Boosts Their Potential as SERS Sensors. Nanoscale 2022, 14 (13), 52145226,  DOI: 10.1039/D1NR07918B
  22. 22
    Grys, D.-B.; Niihori, M.; Arul, R.; Sibug-Torres, S. M.; Wyatt, E. W.; de Nijs, B.; Baumberg, J. J. Controlling Atomic-Scale Restructuring and Cleaning of Gold Nanogap Multilayers for Surface-Enhanced Raman Scattering Sensing. ACS Sens. 2023, 8 (7), 28792888,  DOI: 10.1021/acssensors.3c00967
  23. 23
    Guo, P.; Zhu, H.; Zhao, W.; Liu, C.; Zhu, L.; Ye, Q.; Jia, N.; Wang, H.; Zhang, X.; Huang, W.; Vinokurov, V. A.; Ivanov, E.; Shchukin, D.; Harvey, D.; Ulloa, J. M.; Hierro, A.; Wang, H. Interfacial Embedding of Laser-Manufactured Fluorinated Gold Clusters Enabling Stable Perovskite Solar Cells with Efficiency Over 24%. Adv. Mater. 2021, 33 (36), 111,  DOI: 10.1002/adma.202101590
  24. 24
    Notarianni, M.; Vernon, K.; Chou, A.; Aljada, M.; Liu, J.; Motta, N. Plasmonic Effect of Gold Nanoparticles in Organic Solar Cells. Sol. Energy 2014, 106, 2337,  DOI: 10.1016/j.solener.2013.09.026
  25. 25
    Domanski, K.; Correa-Baena, J. P.; Mine, N.; Nazeeruddin, M. K.; Abate, A.; Saliba, M.; Tress, W.; Hagfeldt, A.; Grätzel, M. Not All That Glitters Is Gold: Metal-Migration-Induced Degradation in Perovskite Solar Cells. ACS Nano 2016, 10 (6), 63066314,  DOI: 10.1021/acsnano.6b02613
  26. 26
    Cao, S.; Yu, D.; Lin, Y.; Zhang, C.; Lu, L.; Yin, M.; Zhu, X.; Chen, X.; Li, D. Light Propagation in Flexible Thin-Film Amorphous Silicon Solar Cells with Nanotextured Metal Back Reflectors. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2020, 12 (23), 2618426192,  DOI: 10.1021/acsami.0c05330
  27. 27
    Goyal, A.; Koper, M. T. M. The Interrelated Effect of Cations and Electrolyte PH on the Hydrogen Evolution Reaction on Gold Electrodes in Alkaline Media. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2021, 60 (24), 1345213462,  DOI: 10.1002/anie.202102803
  28. 28
    Löhrer, F. C.; Körstgens, V.; Semino, G.; Schwartzkopf, M.; Hinz, A.; Polonskyi, O.; Strunskus, T.; Faupel, F.; Roth, S. V.; Müller-Buschbaum, P. Following in Situ the Deposition of Gold Electrodes on Low Band Gap Polymer Films. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2020, 12 (1), 11321141,  DOI: 10.1021/acsami.9b17590
  29. 29
    Kas, R.; Yang, K.; Bohra, D.; Kortlever, R.; Burdyny, T.; Smith, W. A. Electrochemical Co2 Reduction on Nanostructured Metal Electrodes: Fact or Defect?. Chem. Sci. 2020, 11 (7), 17381749,  DOI: 10.1039/C9SC05375A
  30. 30
    Marcandalli, G.; Goyal, A.; Koper, M. T. M. Electrolyte Effects on the Faradaic Efficiency of CO2Reduction to CO on a Gold Electrode. ACS Catal. 2021, 11 (9), 49364945,  DOI: 10.1021/acscatal.1c00272
  31. 31
    Bandorf, R.; Waschke, S.; Carreri, F. C.; Vergöhl, M.; Grundmeier, G.; Bräuer, G. Direct Metallization of PMMA with Aluminum Films Using HIPIMS. Surf. Coat. Technol. 2016, 290, 7781,  DOI: 10.1016/j.surfcoat.2015.10.070
  32. 32
    Bandorf, R.; Waschke, S.; Vergöhl, M.; Grundmeier, G.; Bräuer, G. Direct Metallization of Plastics by High Power Impulse Magnetron Sputtering. Vak. Forsch. Prax. 2015, 27 (4), 1823,  DOI: 10.1002/vipr.201500587
  33. 33
    Bulut, Y.; Sochor, B.; Harder, C.; Reck, K.; Drewes, J.; Xu, Z.; Jiang, X.; Meinhardt, A.; Jeromin, A.; Kohantorabi, M.; Noei, H.; Keller, T. F.; Strunskus, T.; Faupel, F.; Müller-Buschbaum, P.; Roth, S. V. Diblock Copolymer Pattern Protection by Silver Cluster Reinforcement. Nanoscale 2023, 15 (38), 1576815774,  DOI: 10.1039/D3NR03215A
  34. 34
    Christou, C.; Barber, Z. H. Ionization of Sputtered Material in a Planar Magnetron Discharge. J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A 2000, 18 (6), 28972907,  DOI: 10.1116/1.1312370
  35. 35
    Lundin, D.; Larsson, P.; Wallin, E.; Lattemann, M.; Brenning, N.; Helmersson, U. Cross-Field Ion Transport during High Power Impulse Magnetron Sputtering. Plasma Sources Sci. Technol 2008, 17 (3), 035021,  DOI: 10.1088/0963-0252/17/3/035021
  36. 36
    Lü, B.; Münger, E. P.; Sarakinos, K. Coalescence-Controlled and Coalescence-Free Growth Regimes during Deposition of Pulsed Metal Vapor Fluxes on Insulating Surfaces. J. Appl. Phys. 2015, 117 (13), 134304,  DOI: 10.1063/1.4916983
  37. 37
    Magnfält, D.; Elofsson, V.; Abadias, G.; Helmersson, U.; Sarakinos, K. Time-Domain and Energetic Bombardment Effects on the Nucleation and Coalescence of Thin Metal Films on Amorphous Substrates. J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 2013, 46 (21), 215303,  DOI: 10.1088/0022-3727/46/21/215303
  38. 38
    Schwartzkopf, M.; Hinz, A.; Polonskyi, O.; Strunskus, T.; Löhrer, F. C.; Körstgens, V.; Müller-Buschbaum, P.; Faupel, F.; Roth, S. V. Role of Sputter Deposition Rate in Tailoring Nanogranular Gold Structures on Polymer Surfaces. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2017, 9 (6), 56295637,  DOI: 10.1021/acsami.6b15172
  39. 39
    Schwartzkopf, M.; Santoro, G.; Brett, C. J.; Rothkirch, A.; Polonskyi, O.; Hinz, A.; Metwalli, E.; Yao, Y.; Strunskus, T.; Faupel, F.; Müller-Buschbaum, P.; Roth, S. V. Real-Time Monitoring of Morphology and Optical Properties during Sputter Deposition for Tailoring Metal–Polymer Interfaces. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2015, 7 (24), 1354713556,  DOI: 10.1021/acsami.5b02901
  40. 40
    Amarandei, G.; O’Dwyer, C.; Arshak, A.; Corcoran, D. The Stability of Thin Polymer Films as Controlled by Changes in Uniformly Sputtered Gold. Soft Matter 2013, 9 (9), 26952702,  DOI: 10.1039/c3sm27130g
  41. 41
    Schwartzkopf, M.; Buffet, A.; Körstgens, V.; Metwalli, E.; Schlage, K.; Benecke, G.; Perlich, J.; Rawolle, M.; Rothkirch, A.; Heidmann, B.; Herzog, G.; Müller-Buschbaum, P.; Röhlsberger, R.; Gehrke, R.; Stribeck, N.; Roth, S. V. From Atoms to Layers: In Situ Gold Cluster Growth Kinetics during Sputter Deposition. Nanoscale 2013, 5 (11), 50535062,  DOI: 10.1039/c3nr34216f
  42. 42
    Stierle, A.; Keller, T. F.; Noei, H.; Vonk, V.; Roehlsberger, R. DESY NanoLab. J. Large-Scale Res. Facil. 2016, 2 (A76), A76,  DOI: 10.17815/jlsrf-2-140
  43. 43
    Schneider, C. A.; Rasband, W. S.; Eliceiri, K. W. NIH Image to ImageJ: 25 Years of Image Analysis. Nat. Methods 2012, 9 (7), 671675,  DOI: 10.1038/nmeth.2089
  44. 44
    Benecke, G.; Wagermaier, W.; Li, C.; Schwartzkopf, M.; Flucke, G.; Hoerth, R.; Zizak, I.; Burghammer, M.; Metwalli, E.; Müller-Buschbaum, P.; Trebbin, M.; Förster, S.; Paris, O.; Roth, S. V.; Fratzl, P. A Customizable Software for Fast Reduction and Analysis of Large X-Ray Scattering Data Sets: Applications of the New DPDAK Package to Small-Angle X-Ray Scattering and Grazing-Incidence Small-Angle X-Ray Scattering. J. Appl. Crystallogr. 2014, 47 (5), 17971803,  DOI: 10.1107/S1600576714019773
  45. 45
    Nelson, A. R. J.; Prescott, S. W. Refnx: Neutron and X-Ray Reflectometry Analysis in Python. J. Appl. Crystallogr. 2019, 52, 193200,  DOI: 10.1107/S1600576718017296
  46. 46
    Kaune, G.; Ruderer, M. A.; Metwalli, E.; Wang, W.; Couet, S.; Schlage, K.; Röhlsberger, R.; Roth, S. V.; Müller-Buschbaum, P. Situ GISAXS Study of Gold Film Growth on Conducting Polymer Films. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2009, 1 (2), 353360,  DOI: 10.1021/am8000727
  47. 47
    Venables, J. A.; Spiller, G. D. T.; Hanbucken, M. Nucleation and Growth of Thin Films. Rep. Prog. Phys. 1984, 47 (4), 399459,  DOI: 10.1088/0034-4885/47/4/002
  48. 48
    Ehrlich, G. Direct Observations of the Surface Diffusion of Atoms and Clusters. Surf. Sci 1991, 246 (1–3), 112,  DOI: 10.1016/0039-6028(91)90385-6
  49. 49
    Faupel, F.; Zaporojtchenko, V.; Strunskus, T.; Elbahri, M. Metal-Polymer Nanocomposites for Functional Applications. Adv. Eng. Mater. 2010, 12 (12), 11771190,  DOI: 10.1002/adem.201000231
  50. 50
    Reck, K. A.; Bulut, Y.; Xu, Z.; Liang, S.; Strunskus, T.; Sochor, B.; Gerdes, H.; Bandorf, R.; Müller-Buschbaum, P.; Roth, S. V.; Vahl, A.; Faupel, F. Early-Stage Silver Growth during Sputter Deposition on SiO2 and Polystyrene – Comparison of Biased DC Magnetron Sputtering, High-Power Impulse Magnetron Sputtering (HiPIMS) and Bipolar HiPIMS. Appl. Surf. Sci. 2024, 666 (May), 160392,  DOI: 10.1016/j.apsusc.2024.160392
  51. 51
    Gensch, M.; Schwartzkopf, M.; Brett, C. J.; Schaper, S. J.; Kreuzer, L. P.; Li, N.; Chen, W.; Liang, S.; Drewes, J.; Polonskyi, O.; Strunskus, T.; Faupel, F.; Müller-Buschbaum, P.; Roth, S. V. Selective Silver Nanocluster Metallization on Conjugated Diblock Copolymer Templates for Sensing and Photovoltaic Applications. ACS Appl. Nano Mater. 2021, 4 (4), 42454255,  DOI: 10.1021/acsanm.1c00829
  52. 52
    Schaper, S. J.; Löhrer, F. C.; Xia, S.; Geiger, C.; Schwartzkopf, M.; Pandit, P.; Rubeck, J.; Fricke, B.; Frenzke, S.; Hinz, A. M.; Carstens, N.; Polonskyi, O.; Strunskus, T.; Faupel, F.; Roth, S. V.; Müller-Buschbaum, P. Revealing the Growth of Copper on Polystyrene- Block -Poly(Ethylene Oxide) Diblock Copolymer Thin Films with in Situ GISAXS. Nanoscale 2021, 13 (23), 1055510565,  DOI: 10.1039/D1NR01480C
  53. 53
    Williamson, G. K.; Hall, W. H. X-Ray Line Broadening from Filed Aluminium and Wolfram. Acta Metall. 1953, 1 (1), 2231,  DOI: 10.1016/0001-6160(53)90006-6
  54. 54
    Zou, Y.; Eichhorn, J.; Zhang, J.; Apfelbeck, F. A. C.; Yin, S.; Wolz, L.; Chen, C. C.; Sharp, I. D.; Müller-Buschbaum, P. Microstrain and Crystal Orientation Variation within Naked Triple-Cation Mixed Halide Perovskites under Heat, UV, and Visible Light Exposure. ACS Energy Lett. 2024, 9 (2), 388399,  DOI: 10.1021/acsenergylett.3c02617
  55. 55
    Milligan, W. O.; Morriss, R. H. Morphology of Colloidal Gold--A Comparative Study. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1964, 86 (17), 34613467,  DOI: 10.1021/ja01071a012
  56. 56
    Davey, W. P. Precision Measurements of the Lattice Constants of Twelve Common Metals. Phys. Rev. 1925, 25 (6), 753761,  DOI: 10.1103/PhysRev.25.753

Cited By

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

This article has not yet been cited by other publications.

Langmuir

Cite this: Langmuir 2024, 40, 43, 22591–22601
Click to copy citationCitation copied!
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.langmuir.4c02344
Published October 14, 2024

Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by American Chemical Society. This publication is licensed under

CC-BY 4.0 .

Article Views

583

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. FESEM images of Au-coated (a, d, g, j) Au:PS, (b ,e, h, k) Au:P4VP, and (c, f, i, l) Au:PSS. Panels a–c were coated with δAu,dcMS = 2 nm, panels d–f were coated with δAu,HiPIMS = 2 nm, panels g–i were coated with δAu,dcMS = 4 nm, and panels j–l were coated with δAu,HiPIMS = 4 nm.

    Figure 2

    Figure 2. AFM images of (a, c, e) dcMS- and (b, d, f) HiPIMS-deposited gold δAu = 3 nm on (a, b) Au:PS, (c, d) Au:P4VP, and (e, f) Au:PSS are shown. The red box highlights the magnification of the region of interest. The red circle in the magnified box highlights the isolated Au islands.

    Figure 3

    Figure 3. In-situ evolution of the distance of Au islands forming on (a) Au:PS, (b) Au:P4VP, and (c) Au:PSS. In situ evolution of the cluster density of Au islands on (d) Au:PS, (e) Au:P4VP, and (f) Au:PSS.

    Figure 4

    Figure 4. In-situ evolution of the radius R derived from the hemispherical geometrical model for (a) Au:PS, (b) Au:P4VP, and (c) Au:PSS. In-situ evolution of the ratio two times the radius (2R = cluster diameter) and the correlation distance D to determine the percolation threshold for (d) Au:PS, (e) Au:P4VP, and (f) Au:PSS. The pink line at 2R/D = 1.0 in (d–f) denotes the percolation threshold.

    Figure 5

    Figure 5. 4-point-probe measurements with the corresponding sigmoidal Boltzmann fit for (a) Au:PSHiPIMS, (b) Au:P4VPHiPIMS, (c) Au:PSSHiPIMS, (d) Au:PSdcMS, (e) Au:P4VPdcMS, and (f) Au:PSSdcMS with a deposited thickness being δAu = 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 8 nm.

    Figure 6

    Figure 6. In-situ GIWAXS evolution of the crystallite size of (a) Au:PS, (b) Au:P4VP, and (c) Au:PSS.

  • References


    This article references 56 other publications.

    1. 1
      Zhang, M.; Liu, Y.; Du, Y.; Liu, H. Tuning Topology and Scaffolding Units in Nanoporous Polymeric Materials for Efficient Iodine Adsorption and Detection. ACS Appl. Nano Mater. 2023, 6, 13874,  DOI: 10.1021/acsanm.3c00723
    2. 2
      Ojha, M.; Pal, R. K.; Deepa, M. Selenium/g-C 3 N 4 with a Solid Li 4 Ti 5 O 12 Blocking Layer for Selective Li + Ion Diffusion in Long-Lived Li–Se Batteries. ACS Appl. Nano Mater. 2023, 6 (15), 1391213925,  DOI: 10.1021/acsanm.3c01580
    3. 3
      Kumar Bera, A.; Singh, S.; Shahid Jamal, M.; Hussain, Z.; Reddy, V. R.; Kumar, D. Growth and In-Situ Characterization of Magnetic Anisotropy of Epitaxial Fe Thin Film on Ion-Sculpted Ag (001) Substrate. J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 2022, 544, 168679,  DOI: 10.1016/j.jmmm.2021.168679
    4. 4
      Ren, H.-T.; Cai, C.-C.; Cao, W.-B.; Li, D.-S.; Li, T.-T.; Lou, C.-W.; Lin, J.-H. Superhydrophobic TiN-Coated Cotton Fabrics with Nanoscale Roughness and Photothermal Self-Healing Properties for Effective Oil–Water Separation. ACS Appl. Nano Mater. 2023, 6 (13), 1192511933,  DOI: 10.1021/acsanm.3c01763
    5. 5
      Morisue, M.; Hoshino, Y.; Shimizu, M.; Tomita, S.; Sasaki, S.; Sakurai, S.; Hikima, T.; Kawamura, A.; Kohri, M.; Matsui, J.; Yamao, T. A Metal-Lustrous Porphyrin Foil. Chem. Commun. 2017, 53 (77), 1070310706,  DOI: 10.1039/C7CC06159E
    6. 6
      Chen, A. X.; Lau, H. Y.; Teo, J. Y.; Wang, Y.; Choong, D. Z. Y.; Wang, Y.; Luo, H.-K.; Yang, Y. Y.; Li, N. Water-Mediated In Situ Fabrication of CuI Nanoparticles on Flexible Cotton Fabrics as a Sustainable and Skin-Compatible Coating with Broad-Spectrum Antimicrobial Efficacy. ACS Appl. Nano Mater. 2023, 6 (14), 1323813249,  DOI: 10.1021/acsanm.3c01961
    7. 7
      Buffet, A.; Abul Kashem, M. M.; Schlage, K.; Couet, S.; Röhlsberger, R.; Rothkirch, A.; Herzog, G.; Metwalli, E.; Meier, R.; Kaune, G.; Rawolle, M.; Müller-Buschbaum, P.; Gehrke, R.; Roth, S. V. Time-Resolved Ultrathin Cobalt Film Growth on a Colloidal Polymer Template. Langmuir 2011, 27 (1), 343346,  DOI: 10.1021/la102900v
    8. 8
      Ziefuss, A. R.; Steenbock, T.; Benner, D.; Plech, A.; Göttlicher, J.; Teubner, M.; Grimm-Lebsanft, B.; Rehbock, C.; Comby-Zerbino, C.; Antoine, R. Photoluminescence of Fully Inorganic Colloidal Gold Nanocluster and Their Manipulation Using Surface Charge Effects. Adv. Mater. 2021, 33 (31), 2101549,  DOI: 10.1002/adma.202101549
    9. 9
      Wang, Y.; Chen, J.; Zhong, Y.; Jeong, S.; Li, R.; Ye, X. Structural Diversity in Dimension-Controlled Assemblies of Tetrahedral Gold Nanocrystals. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2022, 144 (30), 1353813546,  DOI: 10.1021/jacs.2c03196
    10. 10
      Sousa, G. P.; de Barros, A.; Shimizu, F. M.; Sigoli, F. A.; Mazali, I. O. Plasmonic Photocatalysis Driven by Indirect Gold Excitation Via Upconversion Nanoparticle Emission Monitored In Situ by Surface-Enhanced Raman Spectroscopy. ACS Appl. Nano Mater. 2023, 6, 9206,  DOI: 10.1021/acsanm.3c00704
    11. 11
      Amarandei, G.; O’Dwyer, C.; Arshak, A.; Corcoran, D. Fractal Patterning of Nanoparticles on Polymer Films and Their SERS Capabilities. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2013, 5 (17), 86558662,  DOI: 10.1021/am402285e
    12. 12
      Metwalli, E.; Couet, S.; Schlage, K.; Röhlsberger, R.; Körstgens, V.; Ruderer, M.; Wang, W.; Kaune, G.; Roth, S. V.; Müller-Buschbaum, P. In Situ GISAXS Investigation of Gold Sputtering onto a Polymer Template. Langmuir 2008, 24 (8), 42654272,  DOI: 10.1021/la7038587
    13. 13
      Soria, E.; Gomez-Rodriguez, P.; Tromas, C.; Camelio, S.; Babonneau, D.; Serna, R.; Gonzalo, J.; Toudert, J. Self-Assembled, 10 Nm-Tailored, Near Infrared Plasmonic Metasurface Acting as Broadband Omnidirectional Polarizing Mirror. Adv. Opt. Mater 2020, 8 (21), 2000321,  DOI: 10.1002/adom.202000321
    14. 14
      Zheng, T.; Kwon, H.; Faraon, A. Nanoelectromechanical Tuning of High- Q Slot Metasurfaces. Nano Lett. 2023, 23 (12), 55885594,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.nanolett.3c00999
    15. 15
      Walter, H.; Leitner, A. Role of Granular Structure in Metal Layers on the Optical Properties of Absorbing Mirrors. Opt. Eng. 2006, 45 (10), 103801,  DOI: 10.1117/1.2363167
    16. 16
      Frank, M.; Bulut, Y.; Czympiel, L.; Weißing, R.; Nahrstedt, V.; Wilhelm, M.; Grosch, M.; Raauf, A.; Verma, A.; Fischer, T. Piezo-Enhanced Activation of Dinitrogen for Room Temperature Production of Ammonia. Nanotechnology 2021, 32 (46), 465601,  DOI: 10.1088/1361-6528/ac1a96
    17. 17
      Cai, X.; Li, G.; Hu, W.; Zhu, Y. Catalytic Conversion of CO2over Atomically Precise Gold-Based Cluster Catalysts. ACS Catal. 2022, 12 (17), 1063810653,  DOI: 10.1021/acscatal.2c02595
    18. 18
      Sankar, M.; He, Q.; Engel, R. V.; Sainna, M. A.; Logsdail, A. J.; Roldan, A.; Willock, D. J.; Agarwal, N.; Kiely, C. J.; Hutchings, G. J. Role of the Support in Gold-Containing Nanoparticles as Heterogeneous Catalysts. Chem. Rev. 2020, 120 (8), 38903938,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.chemrev.9b00662
    19. 19
      Langer, N.; LeGrand, M.; Kedem, O. Cationic Polymer Coating Increases the Catalytic Activity of Gold Nanoparticles toward Anionic Substrates. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2023, 15 (24), 2916029169,  DOI: 10.1021/acsami.3c04087
    20. 20
      Kang, T.; Zhu, J.; Luo, X.; Jia, W.; Wu, P.; Cai, C. Controlled Self-Assembly of a Close-Packed Gold Octahedra Array for SERS Sensing Exosomal MicroRNAs. Anal. Chem. 2021, 93 (4), 25192526,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.analchem.0c04561
    21. 21
      Meyer, S. M.; Murphy, C. J. Anisotropic Silica Coating on Gold Nanorods Boosts Their Potential as SERS Sensors. Nanoscale 2022, 14 (13), 52145226,  DOI: 10.1039/D1NR07918B
    22. 22
      Grys, D.-B.; Niihori, M.; Arul, R.; Sibug-Torres, S. M.; Wyatt, E. W.; de Nijs, B.; Baumberg, J. J. Controlling Atomic-Scale Restructuring and Cleaning of Gold Nanogap Multilayers for Surface-Enhanced Raman Scattering Sensing. ACS Sens. 2023, 8 (7), 28792888,  DOI: 10.1021/acssensors.3c00967
    23. 23
      Guo, P.; Zhu, H.; Zhao, W.; Liu, C.; Zhu, L.; Ye, Q.; Jia, N.; Wang, H.; Zhang, X.; Huang, W.; Vinokurov, V. A.; Ivanov, E.; Shchukin, D.; Harvey, D.; Ulloa, J. M.; Hierro, A.; Wang, H. Interfacial Embedding of Laser-Manufactured Fluorinated Gold Clusters Enabling Stable Perovskite Solar Cells with Efficiency Over 24%. Adv. Mater. 2021, 33 (36), 111,  DOI: 10.1002/adma.202101590
    24. 24
      Notarianni, M.; Vernon, K.; Chou, A.; Aljada, M.; Liu, J.; Motta, N. Plasmonic Effect of Gold Nanoparticles in Organic Solar Cells. Sol. Energy 2014, 106, 2337,  DOI: 10.1016/j.solener.2013.09.026
    25. 25
      Domanski, K.; Correa-Baena, J. P.; Mine, N.; Nazeeruddin, M. K.; Abate, A.; Saliba, M.; Tress, W.; Hagfeldt, A.; Grätzel, M. Not All That Glitters Is Gold: Metal-Migration-Induced Degradation in Perovskite Solar Cells. ACS Nano 2016, 10 (6), 63066314,  DOI: 10.1021/acsnano.6b02613
    26. 26
      Cao, S.; Yu, D.; Lin, Y.; Zhang, C.; Lu, L.; Yin, M.; Zhu, X.; Chen, X.; Li, D. Light Propagation in Flexible Thin-Film Amorphous Silicon Solar Cells with Nanotextured Metal Back Reflectors. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2020, 12 (23), 2618426192,  DOI: 10.1021/acsami.0c05330
    27. 27
      Goyal, A.; Koper, M. T. M. The Interrelated Effect of Cations and Electrolyte PH on the Hydrogen Evolution Reaction on Gold Electrodes in Alkaline Media. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2021, 60 (24), 1345213462,  DOI: 10.1002/anie.202102803
    28. 28
      Löhrer, F. C.; Körstgens, V.; Semino, G.; Schwartzkopf, M.; Hinz, A.; Polonskyi, O.; Strunskus, T.; Faupel, F.; Roth, S. V.; Müller-Buschbaum, P. Following in Situ the Deposition of Gold Electrodes on Low Band Gap Polymer Films. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2020, 12 (1), 11321141,  DOI: 10.1021/acsami.9b17590
    29. 29
      Kas, R.; Yang, K.; Bohra, D.; Kortlever, R.; Burdyny, T.; Smith, W. A. Electrochemical Co2 Reduction on Nanostructured Metal Electrodes: Fact or Defect?. Chem. Sci. 2020, 11 (7), 17381749,  DOI: 10.1039/C9SC05375A
    30. 30
      Marcandalli, G.; Goyal, A.; Koper, M. T. M. Electrolyte Effects on the Faradaic Efficiency of CO2Reduction to CO on a Gold Electrode. ACS Catal. 2021, 11 (9), 49364945,  DOI: 10.1021/acscatal.1c00272
    31. 31
      Bandorf, R.; Waschke, S.; Carreri, F. C.; Vergöhl, M.; Grundmeier, G.; Bräuer, G. Direct Metallization of PMMA with Aluminum Films Using HIPIMS. Surf. Coat. Technol. 2016, 290, 7781,  DOI: 10.1016/j.surfcoat.2015.10.070
    32. 32
      Bandorf, R.; Waschke, S.; Vergöhl, M.; Grundmeier, G.; Bräuer, G. Direct Metallization of Plastics by High Power Impulse Magnetron Sputtering. Vak. Forsch. Prax. 2015, 27 (4), 1823,  DOI: 10.1002/vipr.201500587
    33. 33
      Bulut, Y.; Sochor, B.; Harder, C.; Reck, K.; Drewes, J.; Xu, Z.; Jiang, X.; Meinhardt, A.; Jeromin, A.; Kohantorabi, M.; Noei, H.; Keller, T. F.; Strunskus, T.; Faupel, F.; Müller-Buschbaum, P.; Roth, S. V. Diblock Copolymer Pattern Protection by Silver Cluster Reinforcement. Nanoscale 2023, 15 (38), 1576815774,  DOI: 10.1039/D3NR03215A
    34. 34
      Christou, C.; Barber, Z. H. Ionization of Sputtered Material in a Planar Magnetron Discharge. J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A 2000, 18 (6), 28972907,  DOI: 10.1116/1.1312370
    35. 35
      Lundin, D.; Larsson, P.; Wallin, E.; Lattemann, M.; Brenning, N.; Helmersson, U. Cross-Field Ion Transport during High Power Impulse Magnetron Sputtering. Plasma Sources Sci. Technol 2008, 17 (3), 035021,  DOI: 10.1088/0963-0252/17/3/035021
    36. 36
      Lü, B.; Münger, E. P.; Sarakinos, K. Coalescence-Controlled and Coalescence-Free Growth Regimes during Deposition of Pulsed Metal Vapor Fluxes on Insulating Surfaces. J. Appl. Phys. 2015, 117 (13), 134304,  DOI: 10.1063/1.4916983
    37. 37
      Magnfält, D.; Elofsson, V.; Abadias, G.; Helmersson, U.; Sarakinos, K. Time-Domain and Energetic Bombardment Effects on the Nucleation and Coalescence of Thin Metal Films on Amorphous Substrates. J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 2013, 46 (21), 215303,  DOI: 10.1088/0022-3727/46/21/215303
    38. 38
      Schwartzkopf, M.; Hinz, A.; Polonskyi, O.; Strunskus, T.; Löhrer, F. C.; Körstgens, V.; Müller-Buschbaum, P.; Faupel, F.; Roth, S. V. Role of Sputter Deposition Rate in Tailoring Nanogranular Gold Structures on Polymer Surfaces. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2017, 9 (6), 56295637,  DOI: 10.1021/acsami.6b15172
    39. 39
      Schwartzkopf, M.; Santoro, G.; Brett, C. J.; Rothkirch, A.; Polonskyi, O.; Hinz, A.; Metwalli, E.; Yao, Y.; Strunskus, T.; Faupel, F.; Müller-Buschbaum, P.; Roth, S. V. Real-Time Monitoring of Morphology and Optical Properties during Sputter Deposition for Tailoring Metal–Polymer Interfaces. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2015, 7 (24), 1354713556,  DOI: 10.1021/acsami.5b02901
    40. 40
      Amarandei, G.; O’Dwyer, C.; Arshak, A.; Corcoran, D. The Stability of Thin Polymer Films as Controlled by Changes in Uniformly Sputtered Gold. Soft Matter 2013, 9 (9), 26952702,  DOI: 10.1039/c3sm27130g
    41. 41
      Schwartzkopf, M.; Buffet, A.; Körstgens, V.; Metwalli, E.; Schlage, K.; Benecke, G.; Perlich, J.; Rawolle, M.; Rothkirch, A.; Heidmann, B.; Herzog, G.; Müller-Buschbaum, P.; Röhlsberger, R.; Gehrke, R.; Stribeck, N.; Roth, S. V. From Atoms to Layers: In Situ Gold Cluster Growth Kinetics during Sputter Deposition. Nanoscale 2013, 5 (11), 50535062,  DOI: 10.1039/c3nr34216f
    42. 42
      Stierle, A.; Keller, T. F.; Noei, H.; Vonk, V.; Roehlsberger, R. DESY NanoLab. J. Large-Scale Res. Facil. 2016, 2 (A76), A76,  DOI: 10.17815/jlsrf-2-140
    43. 43
      Schneider, C. A.; Rasband, W. S.; Eliceiri, K. W. NIH Image to ImageJ: 25 Years of Image Analysis. Nat. Methods 2012, 9 (7), 671675,  DOI: 10.1038/nmeth.2089
    44. 44
      Benecke, G.; Wagermaier, W.; Li, C.; Schwartzkopf, M.; Flucke, G.; Hoerth, R.; Zizak, I.; Burghammer, M.; Metwalli, E.; Müller-Buschbaum, P.; Trebbin, M.; Förster, S.; Paris, O.; Roth, S. V.; Fratzl, P. A Customizable Software for Fast Reduction and Analysis of Large X-Ray Scattering Data Sets: Applications of the New DPDAK Package to Small-Angle X-Ray Scattering and Grazing-Incidence Small-Angle X-Ray Scattering. J. Appl. Crystallogr. 2014, 47 (5), 17971803,  DOI: 10.1107/S1600576714019773
    45. 45
      Nelson, A. R. J.; Prescott, S. W. Refnx: Neutron and X-Ray Reflectometry Analysis in Python. J. Appl. Crystallogr. 2019, 52, 193200,  DOI: 10.1107/S1600576718017296
    46. 46
      Kaune, G.; Ruderer, M. A.; Metwalli, E.; Wang, W.; Couet, S.; Schlage, K.; Röhlsberger, R.; Roth, S. V.; Müller-Buschbaum, P. Situ GISAXS Study of Gold Film Growth on Conducting Polymer Films. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2009, 1 (2), 353360,  DOI: 10.1021/am8000727
    47. 47
      Venables, J. A.; Spiller, G. D. T.; Hanbucken, M. Nucleation and Growth of Thin Films. Rep. Prog. Phys. 1984, 47 (4), 399459,  DOI: 10.1088/0034-4885/47/4/002
    48. 48
      Ehrlich, G. Direct Observations of the Surface Diffusion of Atoms and Clusters. Surf. Sci 1991, 246 (1–3), 112,  DOI: 10.1016/0039-6028(91)90385-6
    49. 49
      Faupel, F.; Zaporojtchenko, V.; Strunskus, T.; Elbahri, M. Metal-Polymer Nanocomposites for Functional Applications. Adv. Eng. Mater. 2010, 12 (12), 11771190,  DOI: 10.1002/adem.201000231
    50. 50
      Reck, K. A.; Bulut, Y.; Xu, Z.; Liang, S.; Strunskus, T.; Sochor, B.; Gerdes, H.; Bandorf, R.; Müller-Buschbaum, P.; Roth, S. V.; Vahl, A.; Faupel, F. Early-Stage Silver Growth during Sputter Deposition on SiO2 and Polystyrene – Comparison of Biased DC Magnetron Sputtering, High-Power Impulse Magnetron Sputtering (HiPIMS) and Bipolar HiPIMS. Appl. Surf. Sci. 2024, 666 (May), 160392,  DOI: 10.1016/j.apsusc.2024.160392
    51. 51
      Gensch, M.; Schwartzkopf, M.; Brett, C. J.; Schaper, S. J.; Kreuzer, L. P.; Li, N.; Chen, W.; Liang, S.; Drewes, J.; Polonskyi, O.; Strunskus, T.; Faupel, F.; Müller-Buschbaum, P.; Roth, S. V. Selective Silver Nanocluster Metallization on Conjugated Diblock Copolymer Templates for Sensing and Photovoltaic Applications. ACS Appl. Nano Mater. 2021, 4 (4), 42454255,  DOI: 10.1021/acsanm.1c00829
    52. 52
      Schaper, S. J.; Löhrer, F. C.; Xia, S.; Geiger, C.; Schwartzkopf, M.; Pandit, P.; Rubeck, J.; Fricke, B.; Frenzke, S.; Hinz, A. M.; Carstens, N.; Polonskyi, O.; Strunskus, T.; Faupel, F.; Roth, S. V.; Müller-Buschbaum, P. Revealing the Growth of Copper on Polystyrene- Block -Poly(Ethylene Oxide) Diblock Copolymer Thin Films with in Situ GISAXS. Nanoscale 2021, 13 (23), 1055510565,  DOI: 10.1039/D1NR01480C
    53. 53
      Williamson, G. K.; Hall, W. H. X-Ray Line Broadening from Filed Aluminium and Wolfram. Acta Metall. 1953, 1 (1), 2231,  DOI: 10.1016/0001-6160(53)90006-6
    54. 54
      Zou, Y.; Eichhorn, J.; Zhang, J.; Apfelbeck, F. A. C.; Yin, S.; Wolz, L.; Chen, C. C.; Sharp, I. D.; Müller-Buschbaum, P. Microstrain and Crystal Orientation Variation within Naked Triple-Cation Mixed Halide Perovskites under Heat, UV, and Visible Light Exposure. ACS Energy Lett. 2024, 9 (2), 388399,  DOI: 10.1021/acsenergylett.3c02617
    55. 55
      Milligan, W. O.; Morriss, R. H. Morphology of Colloidal Gold--A Comparative Study. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1964, 86 (17), 34613467,  DOI: 10.1021/ja01071a012
    56. 56
      Davey, W. P. Precision Measurements of the Lattice Constants of Twelve Common Metals. Phys. Rev. 1925, 25 (6), 753761,  DOI: 10.1103/PhysRev.25.753
  • Supporting Information

    Supporting Information


    The Supporting Information is available free of charge at https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.langmuir.4c02344.

    • Skeletal structure of the polymers; XRR measurements; SLD profiles; FESEM measurements; GISAXS and GIWAXS detector images; surface coverage analysis with FESEM; GISAXS and GIWAXS scattering profiles with the corresponding fit; comparison of in situ analysis; comparison of FESEM- and GISAXS-derived cluster density; sheet resistance measurement (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.