4.6 Article

The Aggregation of Poly(3-hexylthiophene) into Nanowires: With and without Chemical Doping

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY C
卷 121, 期 8, 页码 4740-4746

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpcc.7b00816

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Science Foundation (NSF) [DMR-1554841]
  2. University of Southern Mississippi
  3. NSF-NRT:INTERFACE (NSF) [1449999]
  4. American Chemical Society, American Chemical Society Mississippi Section
  5. Office of Vice President of Research at University of Southern Mississippi
  6. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien
  7. Division Of Materials Research [1554841] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Non-doped and chemically p-doped poly(3-hexylthiophene) (P3HT) nanowires are investigated by optical spectroscopy and atomic force microscopy (AFM) to reveal the effects of doping on their aggregation processes and nanoscale morphologies. The AFM studies on the non-doped P3HT nanowires formed in the early aggregation stage demonstrate that P3HT molecules will probably go through either packing of high-aspect ratio multi-chain/single-chain aggregates or packing of solubilized individual chains depending on experimental conditions. High-resolution AFM images also show the connecting segments between ordered domains of P3HT. For p-doping of P3HT in the solution phase, the addition of 7,7,8,8-tetracyano-2,3,5,6-tetrafluoroquinodimethane (F-4-TCNQ), a p-dopant, will greatly accelerate the aggregation rate of 1D P3HT nanostructures. The doped P3HT nanowires are comprised of linearly connected domains that are 40-60 nm wide and 5-10 nm high. Compared with the non-doped P3HT nanowires, doped nanowires show smoother edges and less protruding segments, likely due to a different aggregation mechanism. Furthermore, the doped nanowires tend to agglomerate into disordered bundles and clusters because of the presence of F-4-TCNQ counterions and complexity resulting from Coulomb interactions and other doping-induced growth defects.

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