4.7 Article

Effects of linkage between donors on photoinduced charge transfer in one-photon and two-photon absorption of Donor-π-Donor-π-Acceptor conjugates

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.saa.2022.121179

关键词

Donor-pi-Donor-pi-Acceptor conjugates; Two-photon absorption; Photoinduced charge transfer; Effects of linkage

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The photoinduced charge transfer mechanisms of two Donor-pi-Donor-pi-Acceptor conjugates are analyzed based on density functional theory calculations and visualization methods. The effects of the linkage between the two donors on the excitation characteristics are studied. The results show that the efficiency of superexchange charge transfer is affected by the change of bridge in one-photon absorption process, while the advantage of superexchange charge transfer is influenced by the linkage change in two-photon absorption process.
Photoinduced charge transfer (CT) mechanisms of two Donor-pi-Donor-pi-Acceptor conjugates composed of ferrocene (Fc), zinc-porphyrin (ZnP), and fullerene (C-60) linked by phenylene-acetylene/acetylene during the one- (OPA) and the two-photon absorption (TPA) processes are analyzed theoretically based on the density functional theory calculations and visualization methods to study the effects of linkage between the two donors on the excitation characteristics. The change of bridge affects the efficiency of superexchange CT from Fc to ZnP in the OPA process. The one-photon excitations are dominated by local transitions of ZnP and Fc, and there is almost no efficient CT from the donors to the acceptor for both the two researched structures. In contrast, the advantage of superexchange CT from ZnP to C-60 becomes much larger than the other transition forms during the TPA process when the linkage between ZnP and Fc is changed from acetylene to phenylene-acetylene. This linkage effect in TPA would have great significance in designing novel optoelectronic devices. (C) 2022 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

4.7
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