Surface modifications of carbon nanomaterials, such as graphene or carbon nanotubes, through noncovalent pi-pi interactions between pi-conjugated carbon surfaces and pyrene anchors have received much attention on account of the applications of these materials in organic electronic and sensor devices. Despite the rapidly expanding use of pyrene anchors, little is known about the number of pyrene groups required in order to achieve a stable attachment of molecules on nanocarbon surfaces. So far, systematic studies on such surface modifications through adsorption isotherms and desorption behavior of molecules still remain scarce. In this study, we have investigated the effect of the number of pyrene anchors in redox-active Ru complexes on their adsorption on carbon nanomaterials through noncovalent pi-pi interactions. The Ru(II/III) couple was used as a redox marker in order to determine the surface coverage on nanocarbon surfaces such as highly oriented pyrolytic graphite (HOPG), single-walled carbon nanotubes (SWCNTs), and multiwalled carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs). The amount of surface coverage as well as the kinetic stability of the Ru complexes was thereby observed to be directly proportional to the number of pyrene groups present in the ligands. The desorption rate from HOPG electrode increased in the order Ru-1 with eight pyrene groups (k = 2.0 x 10(-5) s(-1)) < Ru-2 with four pyrenes (4.1 X 10(-5) s(-1)) < Ru-3 with two pyrenes (6.8 X 10(-5) s(-1)) << Ru-4 with one pyrene (4.1 X 10(-3) s(-1)). Furthermore, the electrochemical polymerization of the Ru complex with four pyrene groups proceeded more efficiently compared to complexes with one or two pyrene groups. As a consequence, compounds having more than two and/or optimally four pyrene groups revealed a stable adsorption on the nanocarbon surfaces. The heterogeneous electron transfer rate between the Ru complex, Ru-2, and the carbon nanomaterials increased in the order SWCNTs (k(ET) = 1.3 s(-1)) < MWCNTs (phi = 5-9 nm) (k(ET) = 4.0 s(-1)) < MWENTs (0 = 110-170 nm) (k(ET) = 14.9 s(-1)) < HOPG (k(ET) = 110 s(-1)).