4.8 Article

Dodecaborane-Based Dopants Designed to Shield Anion Electrostatics Lead to Increased Carrier Mobility in a Doped Conjugated Polymer

期刊

ADVANCED MATERIALS
卷 31, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/adma.201805647

关键词

Coulomb screening; dodecaboranes; molecular dopants; mobility; semiconducting polymers

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [CHE-1608957, CBET-1510353]
  2. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Basic Energy Sciences [DE-AC02-76SF00515]
  3. CSC Fellowship
  4. NSF CAREER Award [CHE-1351968]
  5. 3M Non-tenured Faculty Award
  6. Alfred P. Sloan Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

One of the most effective ways to tune the electronic properties of conjugated polymers is to dope them with small-molecule oxidizing agents, creating holes on the polymer and molecular anions. Undesirably, strong electrostatic attraction from the anions of most dopants localizes the holes created on the polymer, reducing their mobility. Here, a new strategy utilizing a substituted boron cluster as a molecular dopant for conjugated polymers is employed. By designing the cluster to have a high redox potential and steric protection of the core-localized electron density, highly delocalized polarons with mobilities equivalent to films doped with no anions present are obtained. AC Hall effect measurements show that P3HT films doped with these boron clusters have conductivities and polaron mobilities roughly an order of magnitude higher than films doped with F-4 TCNQ, even though the boron-cluster-doped films have poor crystallinity. Moreover, the number of free carriers approximately matches the number of boron clusters, yielding a doping efficiency of approximate to 100%. These results suggest that shielding the polaron from the anion is a critically important aspect for producing high carrier mobility, and that the high polymer crystallinity required with dopants such as F-4 TCNQ is primarily to keep the counterions far from the polymer backbone.

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