4.8 Article

Unequal Partnership: Asymmetric Roles of Polymeric Donor and Fullerene Acceptor in Generating Free Charge

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY
卷 136, 期 7, 页码 2876-2884

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/ja411859m

关键词

-

资金

  1. ANSER Center, an Energy Frontier Research Center
  2. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Basic Energy Sciences [DE-SC0001059]
  3. Northwestern Materials Science and Engineering Center (NSF) [DMR-1121262]
  4. Corpus Christi College, Cambridge
  5. VENI grant from The Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO)
  6. EPSRC
  7. U.S.-Israel Binational Science Foundation [2011509]
  8. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/G060738/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  9. EPSRC [EP/G060738/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Natural photosynthetic complexes accomplish the rapid conversion of photoexcitations into spatially separated electrons and holes through precise hierarchical ordering of chromophores and redox centers. In contrast, organic photovoltaic (OPV) cells are poorly ordered, utilize only two different chemical potentials, and the same materials that absorb light must also transport charge; yet, some OPV blends achieve near-perfect quantum efficiency. Here we perform electronic structure calculations on large clusters of functionalized fullerenes of different size and ordering, predicting several features of the charge generation process, outside the framework of conventional theories but clearly observed in ultrafast electro-optical experiments described herein. We show that it is the resonant coupling of photogenerated singlet excitons to a high-energy manifold of fullerene electronic states that enables efficient charge generation, bypassing localized charge-transfer states. In contrast to conventional views, our findings suggest that fullerene cluster size, concentration, and dimensionality control charge generation efficiency, independent of exciton delocalization.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据