Skip to content
RDL
Network
Ekosistem
Uygulama değiştir
EN
Hakkımızda
SSS
Giriş yap
Başla
Phenyl vs Alkyl Polythiophene: A Solar Cell Comparison Using a Vinazene Derivative as Acceptor — Claire H. Woo (2010) | RDL Network
Back
Cite
Save
Save for later
Share
Home
Publications
Phenyl vs Alkyl Polythiophene: A Solar Cell Comparison Using a Vinazene Derivative as Acceptor
Shared by
Jean Mj Frechet
University of California, Berkeley
Phenyl vs Alkyl Polythiophene: A Solar Cell Comparison Using a Vinazene Derivative as Acceptor
Article
2010
en
Authors
+2 more
CW
Claire H. Woo
TH
Thomas W. Holcombe
DU
David A. Unruh
Abstract
1 min read
The solar cell performance of poly[3-(4-n-octyl)-phenylthiophene] (POPT) and poly(3hexylthiophene) (P3HT) are compared in devices using 4,7-bis(2-(l-(2-ethylhexyl)-4,5-dicyanoimidazol-2-yl)vinyi)benzo[c][l,2,5] -thiadiazole (EV-BT) as the electron acceptor. Despite their reduced light absorption, POPT:EV-BT devices generate higher photocurrents in both bilayer and bulk heterojunction (BHJ) architectures than analogous P3HT:EV-BT devices. Optimized POPT:EV-BT BHJ devices achieve 1.4% average efficiency, whereas the analogous P3HT devices only reach 1.1%. Morphology does not account for the large difference in performance as AFM studies of the active layer suggest, comparable levels of phase separation in the two systems. Reverse bias analysis demonstrates that P3HT devices have a higher maximum potential than POPT devices, but P3HT devices appear to be more severely limited by recombination losses under standard operating conditions. A possible explanation for the superior performance in POPT devices is that the pendant phenyl ring in POPT can twist out-of-plane and increase the separation distance with the acceptor molecule. A larger donor/acceptor separation distance can destabilize the geminate pair and lead to more efficient charge separation in POPT:EV-BT devices. Our results emphasize the importance of donor/acceptor pair interactions and its effect on charge separation, processes in polymer solar cells. © 2010 American Chemical Society.
Discussion
(0)
Sign in
to like and join the discussion.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment.
Related publications
Article
2009
All-Polymer Photovoltaic Devices of Poly(3-(4-<i>n</i>-octyl)-phenylthiophene) from Grignard Metathesis (GRIM) Polymerization
Thomas W. Holcombe
,
Claire H. Woo
,
David F. J. Kavulak
,
Barry C. Thompson
,
Jean Mj Frechet
Article
2012
Morphology-Dependent Charge Photogeneration in Donor–Acceptor Block Copolymer Films Based on Poly(3-hexylthiophene)-block-Poly(perylene bisimide acrylate) B
Sven Huettner
,
JustinM. Hodgkiss
,
Michael Sommer
,
Richard H. Friend
,
Ullrich Steiner
,
Mukundan Mukundan Thelakkat
Article
2012
Morphology-Dependent Charge Photogeneration in Donor–Acceptor Block Copolymer Films Based on Poly(3-hexylthiophene)-<i>bloc<i>k</i></i>-Poly(perylene bisimide acrylate)
Sven Huettner
,
Justin M. Hodgkiss
,
Michael Sommer
,
Richard H. Friend
,
Ullrich Steiner
,
Mukundan Mukundan Thelakkat
Article
2013
Phase Separation in the Melt and Confined Crystallization as the Key to Well-Ordered Microphase Separated Donor–Acceptor Block Copolymers
Ruth H. Lohwasser
,
Gaurav Gupta
,
Peter Kohn
,
Michael Sommer
,
Andreas Lang
,
Thomas Thurn‐Albrecht
,
Mukundan Mukundan Thelakkat
Article
2009
Influence of molecular weight on the solar cell performance of double-crystalline donor-acceptor block copolymers
Michael Sommer
,
Sven Hüttner
,
Ullrich Steiner
,
Mukundan Mukundan Thelakkat
Discussion(0)
No comments yet. Be the first to comment.