Fragile arrangements of self-organized J aggregates of pseudoisocyanine dye at a glass/solution interface

Abstract

Self-organized J aggregates of a 1,1′-diethyl-2,2′-cyanine (pseudoisocyanine: PIC) dye produced at a soda lime glass/solution interface (J_L aggregate) were characterized. The dye concentration dependence of J_L aggregation showed a quasi-adsorption behavior owing to formation of the aggregates at anionic sites on the glass surface. An increase in the PIC concentration accompanied a slight red shift of the J_L band as well as a decrease in the fluorescence lifetime. The results suggested that the J_L aggregate possessed relatively fragile arrangements. In order to discuss the structures of the aggregates, we proposed a new approach to estimating the number of interacting molecules (N) in the aggregate on the basis of a thermodynamic consideration for self-association of molecules and an adsorption isotherm. Then, we estimated N to be 6 in the J_L aggregates when N is assumed to be unchanged. According to extended dipole model calculations for a brickstone or staircase structure with N=6, the concentration dependence of the optical properties of the J_L band was reasonably explained by assuming loose and fragile arrangements of PIC molecules in the aggregates. The amorphous solid surface of the glass was shown to be the origin for fragile arrangements of PIC molecules in the J_L aggregates.

References

1. E. E. Jelley, Nature, 1936, 138, 1009.
2. G. Scheibe, Angew. Chem., 1936, 49, 563.
3. M. Kasha and E. G. McRae, in Physical Processes in Radiation Chemistry, ed. L. Augenstein, Academic Press, New York, 1964.
4. W. West, P. B. Gilman and P. B. Gilman, Jr., Photogr. Sci. Eng., 1969, 13, 221.
5. S. Siebentritt, S. Guenster and D. Meissner, Synth. Met., 1991, 41, 1173.
6. P. M. Borsenberger and D. C. Hoesterey, J. Appl. Phys., 1980, 51, 4248.
7. F. C. Spano and S. Mukamel, Phys. Rev. A, 1989, 40, 5783.
8. S. De Boer and D. A. Wiersma, Chem. Phys. Lett., 1990, 165, 45.
9. R. Gadonas, R. Danielius, A. Piskarskas and S. Rentsch, Bull. Acad. Sci. USSR Phys., 1983, 47, 151.
10. S. De Boer, K. J. Vink and D. A. Wiersma, Chem. Phys. Lett., 1987, 137, 99.
11. P. O. J. Scherer and S. F. Fischer, Chem. Phys., 1984, 86, 269.
12. E. Daltrozzo, G. Scheibe, K. Gschwind and F. Haimerl, Photogr. Sci. Eng., 1974, 18, 441.
13. J-Aggregates, ed. T. Kobayashi, World Scientific, Singapore, 1996.
14. G. Scheibe, Angew. Chem., 1939, 52, 631.
15. V. Czikkely, H. D. Försterling and H. Kuhn, Chem. Phys. Lett., 1970, 6, 11.
16. A. A. Muenter, D. V. Brumbaugh, J. Apolito, L. A. Horn, F. C. Spano and S. Mukamel, J. Phys. Chem., 1992, 96, 2783.
17. S. Sugiyama, H. Yao, O. Matsuoka, R. Kawabata, N. Kitamura and S. Yamamoto, Chem. Lett., 1999, 37.
18. H. Yao, H. Ikeda and N. Kitamura, J. Phys. Chem. B, 1998, 102, 7691.
19. H. Yao, H. Ikeda, R. Kawabata and N. Kitamura, J. Photochem. Photobiol. A, 1999, 124, 147.
20. D. A. Higgins, J. Kemiro, D. A. Vanden Bout and P. F. Barbara, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 1996, 118, 4049.
21. J. N. Israelachvili, Intermolecular and Surface Forces, Academic Press, London, 1985.
22. V. Sundström, T. Gillbro, R. A. Gadonas and A. Piskarskas, J. Chem. Phys., 1988, 89, 2754.
23. H. Fidder, J. Knoester and D. A. Wiersma, J. Chem. Phys., 1991, 95, 7880.
24. Y. Toyozawa, Prog. Theor. Phys., 1958, 20, 53.
25. I. Renge and U. P. Wild, J. Phys. Chem. A, 1997, 101, 7977.
26. R. K. Bauer, P. de Mayo, E. R. Ware and K. C. Wu, J. Phys. Chem., 1982, 86, 3781.
27. A. W. Adamson, Physical Chemistry of Surfaces, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 5th edn., 1990.
28. W. J. Harrison, D. L. Mateer and G. J. T. Tiddy, Faraday Discuss., 1996, 104, 139.
29. H. Stegemeyer and F. Stöckel, Ber. Bunsen-Ges. Phys. Chem., 1996, 100, 9.
30. Although we examined the effect of α on the simulation curve, α was almost insensitive to the shape of the curve. On the other hand, the shape of the coverage–[dye] curve was highly dependent on N. Therefore, it is worth noting that with the present approach it might in general be difficult to fit a steep coverage–[dye] curve.
31. We could not observe morphologies of the J_L aggregate at the soda limelass/solution interface by tapping-mode atomic force microscopy (AFM). This is probably due to weak interactions between PIC molecules and the glass surface (fragile arrangements) and/or a small aggregation number of the aggregates. The results are different from the J aggregate at a mica/solution interface; the aggregates possess a three-dimensional disk structure as reported in ref. 17. Thus, we assumed that the J_L aggregates had a two-dimensional structure at the interface as often discussed in the literature (ref. 15). Actually, the effect of the dimensionality factor on the shape of the simulation curve was very small when N > 10.
32. V. Czikkely, H. D. Försterling and H. Kuhn, Chem. Phys. Lett., 1970, 6, 207.
33. A ladder structure of J aggregates has also been proposed. However, it is less suitable to explain the shift energy of the aggregate as compared to the present discussion based on the staircase or brickstone arrangement as discussed in ref. 32.
34. H. Nakahara, K. Fukuda, D. Möbius and H. Kuhn, J. Phys. Chem., 1986, 90, 6144.
35. H. Yao, S. Sugiyama, R. Kawabata, H. Ikeda, O. Matsuoka, S. Yamamoto and N. Kitamura, J. Phys. Chem. B, 1999, 103, 4452.