4.6 Article

Langmuir-Schaefer Perylene Derivative Films: Influence of the Molecular Chemical Structure on the Supramolecular Arrangement

期刊

LANGMUIR
卷 37, 期 13, 页码 3836-3848

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.langmuir.0c03299

关键词

-

资金

  1. CAPES [448310/2014-7]
  2. CNPq
  3. INCT/INEO [2013/14262-7]
  4. FAPESP

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The optical and electrical properties of organic thin films devices depend on their supramolecular arrangement and molecular chemical structure. Research conducted using the Langmuir-Schaefer (LS) technique showed that films produced from perylene derivatives exhibited different supramolecular arrangements and optical properties due to differences in their chemical structures.
Since the optical and electrical properties of organic thin films devices depend on their supramolecular arrangement and the molecular chemical structure, the understanding of such characteristics is essential for the optimization of these devices. In this study, we determine the supramolecular arrangement of thin films produced using the Langmuir-Schaefer (LS) technique and explain how its supramolecular arrangement is affected by the molecular chemical structure using two perylene derivatives: bis-butylimide (BuPTCD) and bis-phenethylimide (PhPTCD). The optical absorption measurements reveal that both films grow homogeneously and indicate that the presence of H aggregates (forbidden emission) is higher for BuPTCD LS film than for PhPTCD LS film. Atomic force microscopic analysis shows that the PhPTCD LS film is rougher than the BuPTCD film. In addition, FTIR analyses indicate that both films have head-on molecular organization. XRD patterns reveal that both the BuPTCD LS film and the PhPTCD LS film are crystalline, but that crystallinity is more prevalent in the BuPTCD LS film. Thus, the results show that the difference presented in the chemical structures leads the films to have different supramolecular arrangements, with consequences for their optical properties.

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

4.6
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