| Literature DB >> 23528853 |
Cai-Rong Zhang1, Li Liu, Jian-Wu Zhe, Neng-Zhi Jin, Yao Ma, Li-Hua Yuan, Mei-Lin Zhang, You-Zhi Wu, Zi-Jiang Liu, Hong-Shan Chen.
Abstract
To understand the role of the conjugate bridge in modifying the properties of organic dye sensitizers in solar cells, the computations of the geometries and electronic structures for 10 kinds of tetrahydroquinoline dyes were performed using density functional theory (DFT), and the electronic absorption and fluorescence properties were investigated via time dependent DFT. The population analysis, molecular orbital energies, radiative lifetimes, exciton binding energies (EBE), and light harvesting efficiencies (LHE), as well as the free energy changes of electron injection ( ) and dye regeneration ( ) were also addressed. The correlation of charge populations and experimental open-circuit voltage (Voc) indicates that more charges populated in acceptor groups correspond to larger Voc. The elongating of conjugate bridge by thiophene units generates the larger oscillator strength, higher LHE, larger absolute value of , and longer relative radiative lifetime, but it induces the decreasing of EBE and . So the extending of conjugate bridge with thiopene units in organic dye is an effective way to increase the harvest of solar light, and it is also favorable for electron injection due to their larger . While the inversely correlated relationship between EBE and LHE implies that the dyes with lower EBE produce more efficient light harvesting.Entities:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23528853 PMCID: PMC3634478 DOI: 10.3390/ijms14035461
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Mol Sci ISSN: 1422-0067 Impact factor: 5.923
The chemical structures of the tetrahydroquinoline dyes.
|
| |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dyes | X= | Y= | Dyes | X= | Y= |
| C1-1 | CH3 |
| C2-1 | CH3 |
|
| C1-2 | CH3 |
| C2-2 | CH3 |
|
| C1-3 | CH3 |
| C2-3 | CH3 |
|
| C1-4 | CH3 |
| C2-4 | CH3 |
|
| C1-5 | CH3 |
| C3-1 | Ph |
|
Experimental absorption maxima, the computed excitation energies λmax (nm/eV) and oscillator strength f of the lowest excited state for the dye C1-1 in ethanol solution, provided by PCM-TDDFT/ 6-31G (d,p).
| PBE0 | CAM-B3LYP | LC-ωPBE | ωB97X | M062X | Experiment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| λmax | 569/2.18 | 472/2.63 | 395/3.14 | 414/2.99 | 474/2.62 | 468/2.65 |
| 1.3604 | 1.4230 | 1.4189 | 1.4148 | 1.3526 | – |
Figure 1The optimized geometrical structures of dyes (a) C1-1, (b) C1-2, (c) C1-3, (d) C1-4, and (e) C1-5. (CAM-B3LYP/6-31G(d,p) in gas phase, the blue colored spheres: N; the red colored spheres: O; the yellow colored spheres: S; the other dark colored spheres: C; the hydrogen atoms have been omitted for clarity.)
Figure 2The optimized geometrical structures of dyes (a) C2-1, (b) C2-2, (c) C2-3, (d) C2-4, and (e) C3-1. (CAM-B3LYP/6-31G(d,p) in gas phase, the blue colored spheres: N; the red colored spheres: O; the yellow colored spheres: S; the other dark colored spheres: C; the hydrogen atoms have been omitted for clarity.)
Figure 3The open-circuit photovoltage (Voc), short-circuit photocurrent density (Jsc), and solar-to-electrical energy conversion efficiencies (η) versus the length of conjugate bridges. (a) C1-n dyes, n = 1–5; (b) C2-m dyes, m = 1–4.
The charge populations of the ground state (S0) for tetrahydroquinoline dyes.
| Dyes | Donating group | π-Conjugated linker | Acceptor group |
|---|---|---|---|
| C1-1 | 0.155 | 0.025 | −0.180 |
| C1-2 | 0.131 | 0.039 | −0.170 |
| C1-3 | 0.115 | 0.047 | −0.162 |
| C1-4 | 0.138 | 0.027 | −0.164 |
| C1-5 | 0.126 | 0.043 | −0.169 |
| C2-1 | 0.202 | −0.015 | −0.187 |
| C2-2 | 0.163 | 0.009 | −0.172 |
| C2-3 | 0.149 | 0.015 | −0.164 |
| C2-4 | 0.171 | −0.005 | −0.165 |
| C3-1 | 0.151 | 0.029 | −0.180 |
Figure 4The open-circuit voltage Vocversus the charges of acceptor groups in tetrahydroquinoline dyes.
Figure 5The calculated frontier molecular orbital energies of tetrahydroquinoline dyes (CAM-B3LYP/6-31G(d,p)).
The experimental and calculated electronic absorption λmax (nm/eV), as well as the λmax errors (nm/eV) between the experiment and the calculation of tetrahydroquinoline dyes.
| Dyes | Experimental λmax | Calculated λmax | error |
|---|---|---|---|
| C1-1 | 468/2.65 | 472/2.63 | 6/0.02 |
| C1-2 | 472/2.63 | 483/2.55 | 11/0.08 |
| C1-3 | 475/2.61 | 476/2.61 | 1/0.00 |
| C1-4 | 467/2.65 | 470/2.64 | 3/0.01 |
| C1-5 | 492/2.52 | 499/2.48 | 7/0.04 |
| C2-1 | 441/2.81 | 434/2.86 | 7/0.05 |
| C2-2 | 462/2.68 | 457/2.71 | 5/0.03 |
| C2-3 | 455/2.72 | 460/2.69 | 5/0.03 |
| C2-4 | 444/2.79 | 441/2.81 | 3/0.02 |
| C2-5 | 470/2.64 | 465/2.67 | 5/0.03 |
The calculated excitation energies (eV/nm), electronic transition configurations and oscillator strengths (f) for tetrahydroquinoline dyes in solution (CAM-B3LYP/6-31G(d,p)).
| Dyes | State | Configurations composition with |coeff.| > 0.2 (transition oribitals) | Excitation energy | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| C1-1 | 1 | 0.6617(H → L) | 2.63/472 | 1.4230 |
| 2 | 0.6370(H − 1 → L) | 3.97/313 | 0.1305 | |
|
| ||||
| C1-2 | 1 | 0.6080(H → L); -0.2892(H − 1 → L) | 2.55/483 | 1.7838 |
| 2 | 0.5426(H − 1 → L); −0.3226(H → L + 2); −0.2109(H − 3 → L) | 3.60/344 | 0.0022 | |
| 3 | 0.5499(H → L + 1); 0.2860(H → L); 0.2298(H − 1 → L) | 3.90/318 | 0.3394 | |
|
| ||||
| C1-3 | 1 | 0.5272(H → L); −0.3657(H − 1 → L); −0.2453(H → L + 1) | 2.61/476 | 2.0586 |
| 2 | 0.4624(H → L + 1); −0.4117(H − 1 → L); 0.2571(H − 2 → L) | 3.37/367 | 0.2063 | |
| 3 | 0.4336(H → L); 0.3773(H → L + 1); 0.2856(H − 1 → L) | 3.70/335 | 0.3175 | |
|
| ||||
| C1-4 | 1 | 0.6138(H → L); −0.2753(H − 1 → L) | 2.64/470 | 1.8212 |
| 2 | 0.5204(H − 1 → L); −0.3108(H → L + 1); 0.2258(H − 2 → L) | 3.65/340 | 0.1647 | |
| 3 | 0.6496(H − 2 → L) | 3.83/324 | 0.1734 | |
| 4 | 0.5542(H → L + 1);0.2836(H → L); 0.2423(H − 1 → L) | 3.98/312 | 0.3454 | |
|
| ||||
| C1-5 | 1 | 0.5885(H → L); −0.3119(H − 1 → L) | 2.48/499 | 1.9599 |
| 2 | 0.5146(H − 1 → L); 0.3505(H → L + 1); 0.2427(H − 2 → L) | 3.43/361 | 0.0147 | |
| 3 | 0.5168(H → L + 1); −0.3192(H → L); −0.2396(H − 1 → L) | 3.74/331 | 0.3021 | |
|
| ||||
| C2-1 | 1 | 0.6732(H → L); −0.1707(H − 1 → L) | 2.86/434 | 1.1582 |
|
| ||||
| C2-2 | 1 | 0.6210(H → L); −0.2866(H − 1 → L) | 2.71/457 | 1.4695 |
| 2 | 0.5942(H − 1 → L); 0.2351(H → L) | 3.80/326 | 0.0264 | |
|
| ||||
| C2-3 | 1 | 0.5470(H → L); −0.3771(H − 1 → L) | 2.69/460 | 1.7513 |
| 2 | 0.4771(H − 1 → L); 0.3489(H → L + 1); 0.26105(H − 2 → L); 0.2354(H → L) | 3.57/347 | 0.0684 | |
| 3 | 0.4921(H → L + 1); −0.3547(H → L + 1); −0.20695(H − 1 → L) | 3.89/319 | 0.3308 | |
|
| ||||
| C2-4 | 1 | 0.6227(H → L); −0.2849(H − 1 → L) | 2.81/441 | 1.5097 |
| 2 | 0.5318(H − 2 → L); −0.3719(H − 1 → L) | 3.80/327 | 0.0072 | |
| 3 | 0.4731(H − 1 → L);0.4340(H − 2 → L) | 3.93/316 | 0.2227 | |
|
| ||||
| C3-1 | 1 | 0.6618(H → L) | 2.67/465 | 1.4440 |
| 2 | 0.6327(H − 1 → L) | 4.00/310 | 0.1103 | |
Isodensity plots (isodensity contour = 0.02 a.u.) of the frontier molecular orbitals of the tetrahydroquinoline dyes.
| Dyes | HOMO − 1 | HOMO | LUMO | LUMO + 1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Figure 6The calculated light harvesting efficiencies (LHE) and the exciton binding energies (EBE, in eV) of tetrahydroquinoline dyes.
Fluorescence maxima (λ in nm/eV), oscillator strength (f in a.u.) and relative radiative lifetimes ( τrel ) of tetrahydroquinoline dyes in solution with respect to the experimental results. The corresponding Stokes shifts (SS, in eV) are also reported.
| Dyes | Computed | Experimental | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||
| λ | SS | λ | SS | |||
| C1-1 | 549/2.26 | 1.6166 | 1.00 | 0.37 | 647/1.92 | 0.73 |
| C1-2 | 640/1.94 | 2.1251 | 1.03 | 0.61 | 670/1.85 | 0.78 |
| C1-3 | 701/1.77 | 2.3572 | 1.12 | 0.84 | 615/2.02 | 0.59 |
| C1-4 | 618/2.01 | 2.1758 | 0.94 | 0.63 | 643/1.93 | 0.72 |
| C1-5 | 687/1.80 | 2.3787 | 1.07 | 0.68 | 656/1.89 | 0.63 |
| C2-1 | 488/2.54 | 1.2562 | 1.02 | 0.32 | 594/2.09 | 0.72 |
| C2-2 | 583/2.13 | 1.7457 | 1.04 | 0.58 | 652/1.90 | 0.78 |
| C2-3 | 662/1.87 | 2.1131 | 1.18 | 0.82 | 652/1.90 | 0.82 |
| C2-4 | 558/2.22 | 1.7799 | 0.94 | 0.59 | 612/2.03 | 0.76 |
| C3-1 | 551/2.25 | 1.6510 | 0.99 | 0.42 | 635/1.95 | 0.69 |
the experimental results were reported in [47].
The calculated redox potential (in eV), ΔG (in eV), and (in eV) for the tetrahydroquinoline dyes in the solution.
| Dye |
|
| Δ |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| C1-1 | 6.09 | 3.46 | −0.54 | 1.24 |
| C1-2 | 5.97 | 3.42 | −0.58 | 1.12 |
| C1-3 | 5.96 | 3.35 | −0.65 | 1.11 |
| C1-4 | 6.00 | 3.36 | −0.64 | 1.15 |
| C1-5 | 5.92 | 3.44 | −0.56 | 1.07 |
| C2-1 | 6.25 | 3.39 | −0.61 | 1.40 |
| C2-2 | 6.12 | 3.41 | −0.59 | 1.27 |
| C2-3 | 6.05 | 3.36 | −0.64 | 1.20 |
| C2-4 | 6.17 | 3.36 | −0.64 | 1.32 |
| C3-1 | 6.17 | 3.50 | −0.50 | 1.32 |