Figure and b are the plots of extracted coupling strength and energy offset using the three methods as mentioned above (fitted I-V curves can be found in supporting information figure ), and Xie's results. These results are also summarized in Table . It can be seen that the C8DT molecular junctions (figure ) had high energy offset and the coupling strength of ascends from Ag, Au and Pt. The results of both tunneling equations and literature are well coincided supporting the explanation above on similarity in I-V behavior for both three models under high barrier height. On the other hand, contemplating figure , the molecular junction exhibited low coupling and energy offset (see fitting I-V curves in supporting information figure ). Generally, under this condition the I-V curves of Eq 1 behaves different from that of Eq 2 and Eq 3 and the fitting results is also expected to vary because at this condition the applicability of Eq 2 and Eq 3 is highly limited by the small barrier and coupling strength. Therefore, Eq 2 and Eq 3 are not accurate enough any longer to be used and indeed we can see clear difference between the results from Eq 1 relative to Eq 2 and Eq 3. The reported results from Smith and Xie et al in ref 15 deviated from both two sides because they adopted the hybrid method of TVS plus Eq 3 as described above, which under estimated the energy barrier compared to Eq 1 and overestimated the coupling compared to all the three methods.