4.8 Article

High-Performance Fluorinated Fused-Ring Electron Acceptor with 3D Stacking and Exciton/Charge Transport

期刊

ADVANCED MATERIALS
卷 32, 期 21, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/adma.202000645

关键词

3D stacking; fluorination; fused-ring electron acceptors; nonfullerene acceptors; polymer solar cells

资金

  1. NSFC [21734001, 51761165023, 21733005, 51761135101, 21534003, 21875182]
  2. Ministry of Science and Technology [2016YFA0200700]
  3. 111 project 2.0 [BP2018008]
  4. Office of Science, Office of Basic Energy Sciences, of the U.S. Department of Energy [DE-AC02-05CH11231]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A new fluorinated electron acceptor (FINIC) based on 6,6,12,12-tetrakis(3-fluoro-4-hexylphenyl)-indacenobis(dithieno[3,2-b;2 ',3 '-d]thiophene) as the electron-donating central core and 5,6-difluoro-3-(1,1-dicyanomethylene)-1-indanone as the electron-deficient end groups is rationally designed and synthesized. FINIC shows similar absorption profile in dilute solution to the nonfluorinated analogue INIC. However, compared with INIC, FINIC film shows red-shifted absorption, down-shifted frontier molecular orbital energy levels, enhanced crystallinity, and more ordered molecular packing. Single-crystal structure data show that FINIC molecules pack into closer 3D network motif through H-bonding and pi-pi interaction, while INIC molecules pack into incompact honeycomb motif through only pi-pi stacking. Theoretical calculations reveal that FINIC has stronger electronic coupling and more molecular interactions than INIC. FINIC has higher electron mobilities in both horizontal and vertical directions than INIC. Moreover, FINIC and INIC support efficient 3D exciton transport. PBD-SF/FINIC blend has a larger driving force for exciton splitting, more efficient charge transfer and photoinduced charge generation. Finally, the organic solar cells based on PBD-SF/FINIC blend yield power conversion efficiency of 14.0%, far exceeding that of the PBD-SF/INIC-based devices (5.1%).

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