4.6 Article

Asymmetric selenophene-based non-fullerene acceptors for high-performance organic solar cells

期刊

JOURNAL OF MATERIALS CHEMISTRY A
卷 7, 期 4, 页码 1435-1441

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c8ta11197a

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) [21674007, 21734001, 51825301]
  2. National Research Foundation (NRF) of Korea [2012M3A6A7055540, 2015M1A2A2057506]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Compared to thiophene-based non-fullerene acceptors (NFAs), selenophene-based NFAs have received much less attention. And organic solar cells (OSCs) based on selenophene-containing NFAs typically exhibit relatively low power conversion efficiency (PCE < 12%) and fill factor (FF < 70%). In this contribution, we have designed and synthesized two asymmetric selenophene-based NFAs, named SePTT-2F and SePTTT-2F, which possess the same end-capping group but different selenophene-containing conjugated backbones. On comparing the two NFAs, SePTTT-2F with more extended conjugation in the backbone was found to have almost the same maximum absorption peak and optical bandgap in film as SePTT-2F but an up-shifted lowest unoccupied molecular orbital (LUMO) energy level and higher electron mobility. By pairing the NFAs with the polymer donor PBT1-C, the resultant blend film based on SePTTT-2F exhibited higher and more balanced charge mobilities and more efficient exciton dissociation and charge collection in comparison with the SePTT-2F-based blend film. As a result, OSCs based on SePTTT-2F delivered an impressively high PCE of 12.24% with an outstanding FF of 75.9%, much higher than those of the SePTT-2F-based OSCs. To the best of our knowledge, the PCE of 12.24% and FF of 75.9% are among the highest values reported in the literature so far for both the parameters amongst selenophene-containing NFA-based OSCs. Our results demonstrate that extending the conjugation in the selenophene-containing backbone is an effective strategy to design highly efficient selenophene-based NFAs.

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