4.4 Article

Density functional theory design and characterization of D-A-A type electron donors with narrow band gap for small-molecule organic solar cells

期刊

COMPUTATIONAL AND THEORETICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 1029, 期 -, 页码 68-78

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.comptc.2013.12.011

关键词

Density functional theory (DFT); Small-molecule organic solar cells; Narrow-band-gap donors; Absorption efficiency; Exciton dissociation; Hole mobility

资金

  1. Natural Science Foundation of Gansu Province [0710RJZA114]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Department of Education, Gansu Province [0801-10]
  3. Northwest Normal University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

For seeking the high-efficiency narrow-band-gap donor materials to enhance short-circuit current density (J(sc)) for organic solar cells, a series of D-A-A type small molecules derived from the synthesized donor DTDCTB and with different heterocyclic bridges were designed and characterized by using density functional theory (OFF) and time-dependent DFT calculations. According to the electron-withdrawing strength of the heterocyclic bridges and molecular energy matching relationship, we designed and ultimately chose four ideal donors (3, 5, 16 and 19) which have the suitable energy levels to match with PCBM and narrower band gaps than DTDCTB. Next, the properties affecting open-circuit voltage (V-oc), J(sc) and fill factor (FF) were investigated by calculating the geometrical structures, frontier molecular orbital energy levels, absorption spectra, light harvesting efficiencies, chare-transfer indexes, exciton binding energies and hole mobilities of the ideal donors, as well as DTDCTB for comparison. The results show that 3 has lower HOMO level, higher absorption efficiency, more favorable excion dissociation and hole transport than others, facilitating the improvement of the V-oc, J(sc) and FF. Finally, 3 would be the most promising one in this series of donors and further boost the device efficiency. (C) 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.4
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