4.8 Article

Bromination: An Alternative Strategy for Non-Fullerene Small Molecule Acceptors

期刊

ADVANCED SCIENCE
卷 7, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/advs.201903784

关键词

bromination; intermolecular interactions; non-fullerene acceptors; open-circuit voltage; polymer solar cells

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51773087, 21733005, 21975115]
  2. Shenzhen Fundamental Research Program [JCYJ20170817111214740, JCYJ20180302180238419, KQJSCX20180319114442157]
  3. Shenzhen Nobel Prize Scientists Laboratory Project [C17213101]
  4. Guangdong Innovative and Entrepreneurial Research Team Program [2016ZT06G587]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The concept of bromination for organic solar cells has received little attention. However, the electron withdrawing ability and noncovalent interactions of bromine are similar to those of fluorine and chlorine atoms. A tetra-brominated non-fullerene acceptor, designated as BTIC-4Br, has been recently developed by introducing bromine atoms onto the end-capping group of 2-(3-oxo-2,3-dihydro-1H-inden-1-ylidene) malononitrile and displayed a high power conversion efficiency (PCE) of 12%. To further improve its photovoltaic performance, the acceptor is optimized either by introducing a longer alkyl chain to the core or by modulating the numbers of bromine substituents. After changing each end-group to a single bromine, the BTIC-2Br-m-based devices exhibit an outstanding PCE of 16.11% with an elevated open-circuit voltage of V-oc = 0.88 V, one of the highest PCEs reported among brominated non-fullerene acceptors. This significant improvement can be attributed to the higher light harvesting efficiency, optimized morphology, and higher exciton quenching efficiencies of the di-brominated acceptor. These results demonstrate that the substitution of bromine onto the terminal group of non-fullerene acceptors results in high-efficiency organic semiconductors, and promotes the use of the halogen-substituted strategy for polymer solar cell applications.

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